Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Daddy Yankee

Under notable Dj's here it does not mention Daddy Yankee who is the DJ of San Juan Sounds and quite popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.105.44 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is silly - people can come along and say that so-and-so is notable. Well, im sure they all are. R* chose these people for a reason - probably cause they're "quite popular" ... What im getting is, that either we list all the artists cause somehow somewhere they're popular... or we don't list them at all. --$Vylen$ 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vylen (talk • contribs)

Past protagonists

On the characters section where its said that all the old protagonists names have been writen on the wall and there is "R.I.P." and other texts right next to them. After it it says that "they died by the events of the GTA IV". Shouldn't it say that "they died before the events of GTA IV" as now it implicates that they died during the events of GTA IV. At least that how I would understand the sentence. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"How I would understand the sentence" = original thought, that is, unverifiable opinions. It may not even need to be added, but that's just my viewpoint. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. Are you suggesting he needs a source that says the sentence is unclear? I agree with the anon, that sentence is ambiguous and should be changed, or probably removed altogether. Mad031683 (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It was already fixed by Neil couble days ago. So thanks to him. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How many were sold?

It has been awhile since has been launched, does anyone know how much it has made? it only says things about where it is best selling game ever, not its full sales, does anyone know, if you do, please say how many have been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Roughly about 70 million copies of the game have been sold to date , (date 4th May 2008) which is a pretty huge amount in terms of it not even being a week old at that point.

Reference : http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/article3861186.ece

Signed Cmalpass1

That figure of 70 million refers to the previous 8 games in the Grand Theft Auto. --Pixelface (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV: 926,000 copies sold in five days -> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/gta-iv-926-000-copies-sold-in-five-days is this a sufficient/notable source for numbers to put up now? --Vylen (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would cite that (and replace the 609,000 figure currently in the article for the first day with 631,000), but some numbers in that source don't add up. It says 926,000 copies were sold in five days and then says 514,000 for the Xbox 360 and 413,000 for the PS3, but that adds up to 927,000. --Pixelface (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that's a rounding issue (as in 513,500 and 412,500 which rounded to the nearest 1000 gives those figures). John Hayes^talk 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Should we replace 609,000 with 631,000 in the article, add the figure 926,000 to the article, and just give the percentages 55% and 45% for the Xbox 360/PS3 versions? --Pixelface (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mis-Pronunciation

Maybe this is just me but isn't "Bellic" pronounced "Bel-Lich" because I know certain Central and Eastern European name ending in "c" have a "ch" sound. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 10:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the game it's pronounced to rhyme with "relic". Neıl ☎ 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC) He is from Russia, over there they don't pronounce the "c" in a name as a "ch", they do that in bosnia, so it would be the same as the way they say it in the game!

So dumb, in french, the C isn't an s sound. Languages don't have a rule that each letter had just one way of pronouncing it.

In the game, Its it Bellic like relic not relish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.86.112 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

i think in some places like croatia or something c is c and in others around there c is ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, plus I didn't actually say "all languages have the same sound for each letter", I said that certain names have the "ch" sound. Besides, I've probably answered the question by myself now because I think it's only when the Ć accent appears that the "ch" sound is used. Sorry about that and btw 208.96.86.112, try and keep within WP:CIVIL, calling others dumb isn't really the Wiki way. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I live in southeast europe and our last names that are spelled ending with -ic are actually spelled with an -ić, where ć is pronounced something like tj (something like a softer ch).it should definately not be pronounced as a k as in relic.but if that is what the developers made it like,it's ok with me,I haven't even played the game yet.--Sloba (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the main character is Serbian, that "C" letter in his last name should actually be written as "Ć" and pronounced like soft version of "Ch", but most of the foreigners do not know how to actually pronounce that "Ć" letter in a correct way so they pronounce it as an "Ch" like in "Chair". "Languages don't have a rule that each letter had just one way of pronouncing it." - Actually, the most important rule of the Serbian language is "Write it as you say it and read it as it is written!". In other words, each letter of the Serbian alphabet [or "Azbuka (pronounce: a-z-boo-ka)"] has one sign and one voice. Example: In an English word "Chair" the first two letters are pronounced as one voice. In Serbian the same voice has only one letter ("Č"). That's all form me! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grole85 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess if we could find some hardcopy refs on this, could we mention this in the article? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In reality if you don't find hardcopy refs or it is seen writen with "Č" in the game its not correct. You can argue about how it should be writen but if the game makers write it with normal "C" then its writen that way. Also its really irrelevant if its writen in Serbia like that. We should not compare game that runs in totally different world than ours to our own world. How can you really say it should be writen like that when you don't really even know if the Serbian language is spoken the same way in the game as in our world. Also didn't someone state that the language they speak in the game is more like sum of many eastern european languages not just Serbian? --80.221.239.213 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion almost totally comprises of WP:OR. I think a tiny bit of WP:FORUM might need to be considered too. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed wing aircraft

Sorry to be so speculative, but I heard on the radio this morning that the reason they don't have any flyable fixed wing aircraft in the game is because 9/11 happened in new york and the makers thought it would be too controversial to have gamers flying planes into buildings and all that. Can anyone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.175.21 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed too speculative as there's never been anything concrete as to this. The actual reason is because the game is set in a single city, with only one airport, so there is no where to fly to. xenocidic (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was very dissapointed to hear the game didn't have aircraft, one of the coolest things in SA was to steal the huge jumbo jet and perform some crazy stunts in it, I'm almost too pissed off to consider purchasing the game now. But yeah like I said it was only speculative, probably gossip on the radio station.58.107.175.21 (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One should also note that Grand Theft Auto III was released a mere month after 9/11, and it still had (a) plane, however impossible it is to fly it long term without, A) crashing into the harbor. B) flipping it upside-down somehow. or C) getting too damn pissed off to even try to pilot it, and shoot it with a tank. Alec92 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading in multiple places that the reason the plane sucked in GTAIII is because they clipped the wings after 9/11. There was going to be a normal plane. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Dan Houser interview from 'OPM UK July 2007': "It's more that there's not enough to fly. If you were trying to make it feel like a realistic speed you'd be across the map in three seconds [laughs] and there's only one airport so it would be a bit stupid. There are helicopters, though. . You do see plenty of people flying helicopters, and it feels very New York to have helicopters and much more like part of what we need to have." - kollision (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kollision ^^^ that's why. @58.107.175.21 I was originally ticked at the lack of planes too, but don't let it stop you getting this game. After playing it, I haven't even given it a second though. This game has so much depth! @Alex , I was an expert dodo flyer. I could fly it for hours if I wanted to. @the both of you, and myself, WP:NOT#FORUM ! ;> xenocidic (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So I guess in a way it is because of 9/11 (Once you've spent some time here, you don't really see people flying planes around for obvious reasons). I still maintain that the lack of planes sucks.211.28.54.73 (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This game can run on 1080p

Yup, this game can run on 1080p both on 360 and PS3 versions, so can anyone correct the native res part plz? http://youtube.com/watch?v=5E7ERgDSd7w http://youtube.com/watch?v=oUDRW17Nuwo http://youtube.com/watch?v=kVusaNKPxaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.202.47.42 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not what the term "Native Resolution" means. It means the actual resolution that the game is rendered at before scaling. --8bitJake (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay! Sales! NOW!

The article says that critics have estimated it's number of sales for the first week, Now it's been a week. Can we please know how many copies were sold and If their estimates were right! Alot of us want to know how good it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.86.112 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We have to wait for the NPD sales data report for the month.--8bitJake (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Take 2 press release says they sold "approximately 6 million units globally" in the first week. Brian (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of resolution in infobox

imo, the standard "true HD" resolution should be listed first and the watered down resolution should be listed second. xenocidic (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "true HD"? I don't think there are any games that run in true 1080p, they are all upconverted. The native resolution is what is important. JayKeaton (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

when I said "true HD" I meant a standard HD resolution (720 or 1080) not "true" as in the marketing term (1080p). xenocidic (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be in the same order as in the Platforms field - in alphabetical order of consoles (PS3 first, then Xbox 360). Just to keep it more organised and a bit less POV. Why should the "true HD" resolution (720p) have preference? - kollision (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think a substandard resolution should be first. it gives the wrong impression of the game. xenocidic (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its obvious that you're a 360 fanboy, and your attempts to add POV to the article will be resisted wholeheartedly by the rest of us. Keep everything in the same order (whichever one you want) so that the article remains organized. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

← WP:NPA, thanks. I'm just trying to display the information in a logical form. xenocidic (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's more logical to display the information in a consistent order. It has nothing to do with the "impression of the game," but instead has everything to do with not inserting fanboy POV into the article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

and if it wasn't for the PS3 fans disguising their POV-pushing for alphabetism, then the 360 platform would still be listed first anyway. Do as you wish. xenocidic (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant, please assume good faith, a term such as fanboy has no place here. Xenocidic has been a useful contributor to this article for quite a while, and I believe that if he is suggesting such a change it is because he wants to improve the article not because of some loyalty to a console. (I'm a PS3 owner by the way). John Hayes^talk 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that's the case, but his comments about the "impression of the game" also have no place in the discussion. We have no obligation to anyone but to providing an NPOV, objective description of the game's specs, and the best way to do that is to provide them in a consistent way based on some other criteria (like alphabetical order). -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

how about a consistent criteria such as standard HD resolution followed by substandard non-HD resolution ? xenocidic (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No I mean something that can be used all throughout the infobox. Pick one to go first, then the other, and stick with it up and down the infobox. I honestly don't care which one goes first, but use it consistently, sorry for not making that as clear. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

←Fair enough. I don't want to get back into the whole which-console-comes-first-in-the-platform-section argument so if you really think it's that much of an issue, fix the resolution order to match. It's just a shame... xenocidic (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting in a resolution that is not the native resolution gives the wrong impression of the game. JayKeaton (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I still have doubts that the PS3 is at 640p just because of the fact that it uses Blu-Ray Disc?why wouldnt they be able to use 720p in PS3?is sounds kind of foolish to me and i wont believe until some official source comes out

Xbox 360 using a regular DVD that carries only 8GB's is able to have 720p which uses more bandwith and data while a Blu-Ray disc with almost 50GB of space holds only 640p Native Resolution!EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has to do with the size of the disc, but the robustness of the GPU. xenocidic (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter why. Just what it is. 86.129.222.236 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But didnt the PS3 come out a year later?shouldn't it have a better GPU...well i dont really know much about the specs of these consoles so i matter of not argue about it!EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think which console has the better GPU has anything to do with this article. 86.129.222.236 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS3 has a higher GPU and as result it features more vehicles and pedestrians on the streets (Xbox 360 would lag too much), although even sometimes I can sense a slight lagage on the PS3. The Vandal Warrior

(talk) 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the PS3 is widely known for having an inferior performing GPU, graphics memory and display scaling architecture to the Xbox 360. What the PS3 does have is lot of raw CPU power - which unfortunately cant always overcome it's GPU limitations. Hence this game only running at 640p native resolution on the PS3 but full HD 720p on the Xbox 360. 80.229.70.92 (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys...wiki ain't a forum. John.n-IRL 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph - online details

Not true. GTA IV is not the first console GTA game to have online modes. The first one was LCS.

Better replace it with next-gen console or home console. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.37.54 (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, though I'm not a fan of calling handheld's "consoles", I made the change to disambiguate. xenocidic (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA LCS was in room Ad-Hoc only and could not be played over the internet. Given the fact that the Nitendo DS and PSP have outsold the PS3 and Xbox 360 I would not be quick to brush of handhelds off as "Consoles". --8bitJake (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a semantical concern jake. Even wiktionary entry for console states

“ A video game console, especially as opposed to a handheld. ”

. (but Wikipedia is considers them "handheld consoles"). Great point about the ad-hoc though, this remains the first console version to feature online multiplayer. xenocidic (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the PS3 and Xbox 360 are not "Next gen" consoles. They are current generation consoles. I would avoid the term "Next Gen" since it dates so quickly. --8bitJake (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

...and PSP is considered (next/current/7th) gen as well anyways. moot point, per above. xenocidic (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Navigation Template

I think it should not be nested. Can someone please fix this. I tried and failed miserably. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberty City & Alderny

In the article it says that it is set in Liberty City, but on the Liberty City Area Street Map it says "Beyond Liberty City" as a heading and underneath it says "Alderney". Should they be grouped together or should we use Liberty City to generalise or maybe "Liberty City Area"? The Vandal Warrior (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We could use Liberty City and the surrounding area. John Hayes^talk 10:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to use "surrounding", because it makes it seem as though it's all the way around the outside of Liberty City, but Alderney is only to the west. I prefer Liberty City Area, because GTA IV uses it as the title for the map ("Liberty City Area Street Map") that comes with the game. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial archive

Page was getting long and a few people have requested an archive. I have done this up to discussions that I believed were old (more than three days with no new posts). If there is anything you wish to discuss again, please bring it up again, and please read through some recent archive pages before creating new discussions here. JayKeaton (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think the page was getting pretty long but it looks like you've archived discussions that were newer than three days old (I count ten threads you archived with comments from 6 May). We could configure a bot to do the archiving. --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a phobia of bots :S But a bot would be the better choice by far, I have no idea how they work though. I think it is probably safe to say that this articles talk page will continue to be fairly high traffic so something needs to be done. I did try to count down the last post from each thread and I thought they were all fairly old or resolved, but I could have been wrong because I was mainly thinking about just archiving the talk, while still keeping it in the original structure/order. JayKeaton (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some expirience with Miszabot so I'll set it up if no-one objects. John Hayes^talk 10:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What timing have you set the "Archive after x days" to John? - X201 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

3 days. Feel free to change it. (it's at the top of this page). John Hayes^talk 11:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

← Is the bot working? Numerous threads (this one included until I replied to it), have remained longer than three days. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 4 sales top $500 million. Add this in intro paragraph

1st Link: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hI6IgymmkdgTVxvK9YJVGRjNqiRw

2nd link: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1586971/20080507/id_0.jhtml

3rd link: http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSWNAS233520080507

Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've cited the MTV ref in the intro and the Reuters ref in the Sales and impact section. --Pixelface (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the bit that talks about revenue needs correcting - gross sales doesn't equal revenue (unless they are selling direct to the public).

"GTA IV sold 6 million copies globally in its first week, generating over $500 million in revenue" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.165.185 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Little-to-no continuity? I don't think so

There's no source for that, and coming from someone who actually has the game, there's a strong continuity with past titles. Several things from GTA III, VC, and SA are mentioned. Most notable is Chatterbox. WKTT directly states that Chatterbox existed in 2001. Then there are other mentions such as the Maibatsu Monstrosity, and other returning vehicles, brands, and references to locations such as Vinewood. I think that comment about the "redesigned universe" should not be re-inserted into the article because it's just ridiuclous at this point. --Duder5k (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Have any major characters in the past series of games been mentioned? What about major plot happenstances? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are references to previous games, but otherwise it really does have little-to-no continuity with previous games. The story and characters are completely new and no previous actual events are ever mentioned. .:Alex:. 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't even need to own the game to know of the continued names and brands, it has been common knowledge since the early trailers were released. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If it does have a little continuity with the other games, why then does it say "little-to-no continuity"? It has a little continuity, how can we get away with saying it has "no continuity" when it clearly has a little? JayKeaton (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How about saying that this game is a "spiritual" sequel to the third generation games? Daniel Blackwell (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Although the entire sentence about the continuity seems to have disappeared... --.:Alex:. 09:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just played a lot more and unlocked Algonquin, and now Integrity 2.0, Lazlows new show, is also unlocked. It specifically mentions how Chatterbox went off the air sometime after 2001 and the events in GTA III. One of the "guests" on the show also mentions Reed Tucker, who was a guest on Chatterbox in GTA III. There are also references to other events in Lazlows past such as Love Fist. If you want to be technical, Lazlow is a returning character and that creates a very strong continuity. Duder5k (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lazlow isn't really a character anyway. He (Lazlow Jones) plays himself. Cavenba^{me parlez} 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. :P 67.130.11.13 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading other articles, such as Kane & Lynch mentioning the link to Freedom Fighters (even though I dont see the Russians in America and a plumber), I think calling this game a spiritual successor would be a good thing. Not only do we have lazlow mentioning his history in the GTA world, we have the mention of places (Vice City, Las Venturas, Vinewood), vehicle names, various products return or carry the same premise, and serveral gameplay mechanics. 77.97.129.241 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "set in the same universe", and leave it at that? Neıl ☎ 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there are references to the previous games (name brands, the other cities, etc.) but anyone with a brain knows that the connections between IV and the previous three games are minimal compared to the connections between the previous three themselves. Like people have said, there is almost no mention of any characters or events from the previous games. There's no Kent Paul to interact with, no mention of the Forellis. In fact, I know I've read a producer interview that discusses how little they connected this game to the previous ones because they wanted to start new on the next gen.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening passage

The line, 'The game is set mainly in a redesigned Liberty City'. The word 'redesigned' makes it appear like Liberty City is a modified real city. I know this isn't true if you're familiar with previous games. A lot of people who come to this page will be just interested in the hype and not even gamers or games players. Or whatever they're called. 86.129.222.236 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. It makes it appear like the new LC is redesigned old LC. Which is of course bad, as that implies that there is some similarity between the cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.37.54 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Joystiq.com link about PS3 versions native resolution

The Joystiq.com link about the Native resolution of the PS3 version is wikiworthy for a couple reasons. 1. It is verifiable 2. They are an industry leading professional news publication with multiple employees. Hell they are owned by Time Warner. It is not like they are run out of a server in some dudes closet or a BlogSpot account 3. It has been verified and run on multiple other sites

Look if you want to take it out we will be forced to put in cites to a whole bunch of other sites that collaborate the story. Just because you don't like something does not mean that you can edit it out of Wikipedia. --8bitJake (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with a less contentious link, one that wasn't based on a forum posting. xenocidic (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Give me 5 reasons why we should not put the 500 million mark in the intro

YOU and I both know that many big videogames, movies, etc. give out numbers and what not. Why the hell not put it in GTA 4's paragraph? I mean, it is notable info...Just google 'gta 4 500 million' or gta iv 500 million' and you'll get plenty of results. hell, it talks about it on the most popular news articles on Google right now.

Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean it would take breaking five of wikipedias rules to put you off doing it? JayKeaton (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length, again

Once again, I feel I must propose the article be split according to WP:SPLIT. The article is 81 kB (as of this post) and the software itself is recommending it be split. If it isn't split soon, it'll reach the 100 kB area (where we will need to split it). Also, I do not want to see {{toolong}} being removed without consensus. Cavenba^{me parlez} 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. London is 142,893 bytes :P. It's got so much lag it makes me laugh when I open it up. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When will the tag saying that this is a current video game be removed? The Vandal Warrior (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably when the amount of new edits and vandalism goes down. Cavenba^{me parlez} 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a count of the article's "readable prose" and found that it is only 45kb, which means "May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)." So this article's size is still ok. I'm removing the tag. - kollision (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Year it's set in

Is there a good source to as when this game is set in? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's set in April 2008. Here's the link (it says 2008 at the end of the first paragraph in the section Heroes). The Vandal Warrior (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pathfinder2006 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding Spoiler Content for fans (Request/Suggestion)

Can this be added to the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV? Because any gamers are buying this game, then this should be added, because it may ruin the aspect to this game, causing to reveal a lot of information. 70.45.59.95 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead why don't we just make an automatically hidden section (with a [show] button)? Cavenba^{me parlez} 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

i think if people want look up the characters in the first place they should know that wikipdia most likely will spoil the info on the characters.... i have the game and i got a book to tell me what to do.... how ever the book does not spoil the games characters unless you just read it for the fun of it you will know what happends to them..... in this case i think that people that look that page up, instade of just playing the game to find out about them, they spoil it for them selfs for not waiting to see how the story/or/plot of the characters trun out

Al1012 (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia doesn't use spoiler warnings (there was a long discussion about this) 2) a hide/show solution isn't accessible to all users. John Hayes^talk 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But GamesRadar revealed too many information (secrets, jumps, packages, etc.) and ruined everything. My opinion for their unnacceptable hints and cheats just literally ruined everything. And are cheats useful for online? If they do, that means we have to notify R* about the problem and take serious actions to users who are using cheats online. 70.45.59.95 (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear how what GamesRadar does has any effect on Wikipedia? John Hayes^talk 10:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. 74.215.100.112 (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I'm suggesting about the characters list. My point is that the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV should'nt be here. This spoils everything to gamers that just bought this game. It reveals too many information, thus rendering this article unfair to all gamers. May I suggest that this should be removed? We do not want any gamers dissapointed. 70.45.129.216 (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The feelings of gamers are not the concern of Wikipedia. Encyclopedia articles are meant to have information on a topic whether people want to know it or not. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)People who do not want content spoiled should not read the corresponding Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a "preview" site, a "game guide", etc. xenocidic (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is long-standing precedent against including spoiler warnings on Wikipedia, as per WP:SPOILER. Users of Wikipedia should understand that if a section says "Plot," the whole plot will be revealed. And in fact, since I plan on buying GTAIV in the next couple of weeks (my wife says I have to fix the pool gate before I'm allowed to buy it! hahaha), I have meticulously avoided reading the Plot section. There is no need for a spoiler warning. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There actually isn't a "long-standing" precedent, but editors should be aware that if they DO add a spoiler warning to the article, there is one editor who will remove it. --Pixelface (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would support a spoiler warning being displayed for say, 2 weeks after the game's launch, but people really should have the common-sense to realize that an encyclopedia is going to have a full treatment of the subject matter. xenocidic (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really up for debate im afraid. It would blatantly violate wiki policy, no matter how well intentioned it may be. John.n-IRL 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a guideline, not a policy. xenocidic (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, but its a generally accepted guideline which, as far as im aware, is followed throughout the Video Game Project. GTA IV does not strike me as an exception. John.n-IRL 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually talking about supporting a VG Guideline change (not a single change for the present case), as it's clear there's people without the common sense the not read these things, and I'm a staunch anti-spoilerist. xenocidic (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thats not really something you can discuss here. Since including this in the article will obviously lead to several reverts and POSSIBLY an edit war, why not just follow the guideline? John.n-IRL 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

'Twas just an off-the-cuff remark. I'll be following the guideline unless things change. xenocidic (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, more just saying my opinion on the matter. John.n-IRL 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This Article Needs some.. Spoiler Tags.

Read Title, 'nuff said. >_> --217.93.213.234 (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See above discussion at Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV#Adding Spoiler Content for fans (Request/Suggestion), as well as WP:SPOILER. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

okay! WHo removed the sales numbers!

http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=308689

Theres your proof, Read it and someone re add the sales numbers now that theres already two sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.86.112 (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV produced 0.3% of Scotland's annual GDP in its week of sales. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Music comment

SORRY BUT SURELY IN THE PART WHERE IT SAYS NOTABLE MUSIC ARTISTS IN THE MUSIC SECTION IT SHOULD HAVE NAS THERE.. He is one of the biggest rappers/artists in New York and that is where the game is set.. Well you know what i mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.120.9 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody put Nas in notable inclusions to the games soundtrack.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.120.9 (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. xenocidic (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV controversies

As someone else did with the marketing article, I have been bold and moved the Controversy section to its own article, as it was getting lengthy, and this article is getting way too big. So, all the controversy/technical issues/legal stuff can go there. I've written a little summary to take its place on this articl, hopefully that will suffice. Neıl ☎ 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. xenocidic (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --Pixelface (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, although I think we should go the whole shebang and change the article to cover controversy across the entire series. There is some interesting stuff that could go into such an article. .:Alex:. 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the Grand Theft Auto article already has a large section about controversies. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

N.O.O.S.E

In the full name of N.O.O.S.E (under gameplay) it has a small 'o' for the word 'of' even though it makes up a letter of the acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.23.200 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what N.O.O.S.E means. signed by:Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please wonder somewhere else. WP:FORUM. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he's wondering to improve the article? NOOSE = National Office of Security Enforcement. xenocidic (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be relevant to this article though (as it's an in-game detail). I think Klptyzm was quite right to warn them. John Hayes^talk 10:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's relevant or not can be decided after his question was answered. Just saying it's not and assume he just wants to use this page as a forum contradicts WP:GF as xenocidic points out quite correctly. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with this one, This is not a forum for general discussion of plots, platform releases, characters, locations or anything that cannot be verified is pretty clear. Unless they have a source in first place they shouldn't even be asking, as otherwise it can't be added to the article. John Hayes^talk 14:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

oh my gosh! I am sorry for the trouble. I didn't know some problems could be caused. anyway, my question was answered. can we ad this on the article? signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, no. It's rather unnecessary. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of N.O.O.S.E. is covered in the overview. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)