Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Thornton Building

I have a question- umm, when it says [in the real GTA IV wikipedia page] that some missions will take course over several days, that means GTA IV days, not real world days, right? Just a quick question. Where was the "Thornton Building" mentioned as the name for the Flatiron Building. I don't recall seeing this anywhere. .:Alex:. 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone just pull a fact like that out of their arse? i think i remember seeing it in an early artice though i couldnt find it. 202.156.66.110 (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 12:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You would be amazed. But if you could actually find that source, that would be real convenient. Thanks. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fresh new details for the plucking

Asif over at GTA Gaming got his hands on the April issue of EGM. The cover story is filled to the gills with new information that should be added to the article ASAP. I've wade through it but I figure a few more sets of eyes will help the article out. You can get the scans here. - Throw (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there should be mention of the comedy clubs that will be in the game as mentioned in Edge's review with Sam Houser April 2008. There is no particular details on how they will be implemented but anyone think it's worth mentioning anyway as it's known content? Kurushi (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added it myself Kurushi (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

new radio stations

two new confirmed radio stations in gta iv

IF99 and Vladivostok FM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.65.143 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources... 'nuff said. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, I thought you were a GTA fan. If you were a GTA fan.. ugh, this is pointless. Please, stop with this source whoring. Goddammit, don't you even check Rockstar's official website for GTA IV information? Or GTA4.net? Or do you PLAY GTA'S at all? Also, cue WP:CIVIL. --nlitement ^[talk] 00:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources...'nuff said (thought apparently not). ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.rockstargames.com/IV/#?page=music - I would assume this is more applicable on the Grand Theft Auto IV soundtrack page though. EDIT: Which I see has already been updated. :P203.211.122.79 (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nlitement, perhaps you should be more civil, Klptyzm is simply following the policies, if you can't work with these policies then maybe this isn't the right project for you. This article is not meant to be a gta fansite, but part of an encyclopedia, so everything must be verifiable. John Hayes^talk 09:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Features

The features section doesn't seem to make sense as a lot of the notes underneath the environment heading are not related to the environment. If they don't fit under the other headers they should probably go under something named 'miscellaneous' or something that achieves a clearer categorisation.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

360 DLC details, need another source

http://www.thebitbag.com/2008/02/21/microsoft-blogger-breakfast-bullets/ Claims the following things about the episodic content for the 360 version of GTAIV

• When MS says exclusive, they mean that no other system can have DLC content for GTAIV

• It will be bigger than a lot of people think. GTA3 Vice City and San Andreas were basically expansions of GTA3. Think of the DLC that way. We are talking major expansion for GTAIV
• No price has been discussed yet. It’s up to Rockstar on whether or not they will charge for it
• If successful, DLC may be the new way to deliver GTA expansions

However I can't find another site that doesn't use bitbag as a source, one site claiming something this important and no one else makes me suspicious, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeith (talk • contribs) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

They say in the same article that San Andreas and Vice city were just expansions and then say that R* will possibly deliver expansions in this way in the future. If you think they will release GTA: Crime Alley or whatever comes next online only then you're nuts.

My guess, its bulldink.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It was. He posted a "clarification" that clarified nothing and actually contradicted himself on several occasions (sometimes in the very next sentence). Then I posted a blog concerning this on N4G.com to which he responded that he was at the "Blogger breakfast" (I had raised my doubts of him being present there). He really tried to spin what he first said, sounding desperate for someone to believe him. Basically put, Brian Crecente (someone else he claimed was there) was basically hearing two different answers to the same question at the same time, because in the "clarification" he said that MS provided an answer of "PS3 won't be receiving any additional GTA4 content" (to which in the very next sentence in that he contradicts that), and then in his response to my blog, said the Crecente never got a clear answer. The poster (Torrence Davis, who is also Bitbag's Editor In Chief) also kept saying that he was misquoted. The poster of the bullet points for GTA4 wasn't right on the letter, but the actual bullet points that was in the N4G article was word for word accurate. This was all said in a way that told me he was annoyed that someone was calling him on something he posted (The Bitbag has been involved in more than one controversial article besides this one that is unrelated to the GTA4 issue). I've been calling his site "The Bluffbag" as a result. No one else had this info because no one was stupid enough to believe a word on it. Everyone that decides they had a point to prove about what MS actually got brings this thing up, as if they are TRYING to make it known. It's not reliable, as we have heard things from Rockstar that suggests the exact opposite of what was said. Darkpower (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To enlighten this a little more, let me share with you the response Davis made to my blog in full (which should seal the deal about the validity, or lack thereof) about this):

I was at the breakfast. Look at the pics I posted on thebitbag.com. I'm at the far left next to Chris Paladino. There was only like 3 pics with me in them because I was in front of the camera man across from John Schappert. Check Gamerscores blog at [he gives a website here in which the three pics are of the back of someone's head, no proof as to what the back of his head looks like].

Now again to clear this up, when I wrote those bullets, they were just bullets. I pointed out things that were said during the breakfast and added my own comments. I bulleted my comments too, which made it confusing. This is why it got out of hand and yes, I was misquoted. Someone posted an article on n4g that said "Microsoft says the content will be as big as GTA VC and SA" That is what I said when commenting about the DLC. During the breakfast, Brian Crecente commented on what everyone heard John Schappert say. He said that the DLC is exclusive to the 360 and then, Brian stopped blogging for a minute and asked, "So wait, does this mean that there won't be any DLC on PS3?" He never got a definitive answer, but I took what I heard and posted it as a bullet. I also posted that PS3 may get the content in a year cuz who really knows what this $50mil deal is all about.

I never said the content would be as big as GTA VC/SA but I said it would be like GTA VC/SA in the sense that they will be expansions using the GTAIV engine. They could be smaller towns with new characters and new stories. Again, it's only speculation at this time. The only thing that was actually said by Microsoft was that the DLC was exclusive to the 360.

You mention that no other blogs or major sites posted about it. That's because of all the press that was invited, only a few of them actually commented on the breakfast.

So there you have it! I don't want to spread false news or rumors. I only post rumors if I think there's some credibility to them. I posted an update to my bullets because it was the shot heard round the net and I wanted to make sure people got the truth. I can get away with speculation because that's all it is. I don't want people thinking my speculation was MS fact.

Good day sir!

You can see the blog and that he did respond with this comment (and my response to his response, which I won't post here to keep this short) at http://www.n4g.com/up/28515/BlogPostCom-115130.aspx Darkpower (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy

Oooohhh @ FAC! But hey, if that's going to get anywhere, we'll have to extend the length of the Semi-Protection a bit. :´) Emil Kastberg (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it be, it's not even out yet, it's certainly not stable. John Hayes^talk 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's right. =S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talk • contribs) 20:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Game"

someone please fix all "The Game" in the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.225.219 (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. - X201 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut from article for tidying and checking

The latest issue of PSM Spain has a new article on Grand Theft Auto IV, with 20 new screenshots and the first details on GTA IV's multiplayer system. Here is a list of the new information, which is being updated constantly:

• There are 15 multiplayer game modes in GTA IV. PSM had an opportunity to play 7 of them. The rules of each game are determined by the host.
• Multiplayer supports upto 16 players.
• Your online character is fully customizable. You can alter his race, sex, hair, clothing etc.

Multiplayer Preview Multiplayer Preview PSM Spain has all the first details on GTA IV's multiplayer system.

• The game modes featured are as follows:

1. Hangman's NOOSE 2. Car Jack City 3. Bomb da Base 4. Bomb da Base II 5. Mafia Work 6. Team Mafia Work 7. Deathmatch 8. Team Deathmatch 9. Turf War 10. Cops N Crooks 11. Race 12. GTA Race 13. Deal Breaker 14. Free Mode

• In Race and GTA Race, the host gets to decide which vehicles are involved, and the number of laps to be played. You can shoot and throw molotovs from the window, and even steal your rivals' car.
• In Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch, the host gets to decide the number of pedestrians, the amount of traffic, the intervention of police (or not), and the type of weapons.
• In Cops N Crooks, one team play as cops and the other play as criminals. The cops must stop the criminals from escaping. They can monitor the locations of the criminals on their GPS systems, while the criminals don't know where the cops are.
• In Mafia Work and Team Mafia Work, you play as one of Kenny Petrovic's mafia henchmen. You must complete hits ordered by the boss (via the cellphone) before your rivals are able to do so.
• The map used in multiplayer is the same map that is used for single player.
• A single-player mission called "Hangman's NOOSE" features co-op. You and your friends will be able to escort a mobster, while being pursused by a SWAT team.

ref address = [1]

I don't see why so many editors are insistent on adding every little detail relating to the game into the article (stressing that Wikipedia is not a game guide). Perhaps this gameplay-specific information would be better suited to a dedicated GTA wiki. Sillygostly (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We definitely need to include a brief overview of this, multiplayer is a new and much talked about feature in GTAIV.Skeith (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see the need to mention every multiplayer mode. John Hayes^talk 11:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to group them for example there is 1 co op mode 3 death match type games and 4 race games (these arnt the correct numbers this is just an example) plus it means that people can still be suprised when they get the game as if they wish to know about the feature in its entirety they can find the source.Kobol (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

People go to the article for information, and this is the sort of thing they want to read 203.129.40.43 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations

'Rockstar aficionados noted that the game lacked the character's signature hand design, which many of them described as the "deformed lobster claw."' Erm, surely that's gonna need a citation?... Unless there's some website I haven't heard of that call themselves the 'Rockstar Aficionados' :) (163.1.231.196 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Indeed. John Hayes^talk 11:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing needed.

In the artical it states;

An Xbox 360 preview of Grand Theft Auto IV published in the May 2007 issue of Game Informer reveals that the storyline begins with Bellic standing inside the taxi depot (which Roman operates in the borough of Broker in a converted industrial garage), working at a cluttered desk in a shabby environment. Bellic walks to a brownstone house in Broker, where he pushes open the door and pulls out his pistol—the living room, however, is not occupied.

He pushes his way through the back door and smashes the window of a red four-door car using his elbow. The broken glass falls onto the street and the seat of the car, as Bellic unlocks it from the inside. He hot-wires the car and sets off to his next destination. The camera angle behind the car is closer to the vehicle than in previous GTA titles, which enables more detail on the car to be seen. After selecting a radio station, Bellic navigates to a section of the BOABO arriving at a dockside. Pigeons and waves can be heard in the distance.

Bellic then pulls out his phone, which has options for phone book, messages, organiser and camera on its LCD screen. He selects phone book, and he is then presented with another set of options: City Contact, Docks Friend, and Cab Contact. After a brief conversation, he informs the receiver to meet him at the docks.

This is inaccurate. It was never said or suggested this was part of the story, much less the start of it, it was merely a relativily early tech demo. I can't think of how to edit it. The actions are a decent example of gameplay, but the suggestion it is the start of the story is simply inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLichLord (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

While I too doubt that it is the very beginning of the game, I believe many sources have confirmed that Roman's Taxi place is where Niko will find himself very early in the game. Perhaps replace "reveals that the storyline begins with Bellic" with "reveals that early on in the storyline Bellic is" or something to that effect.203.211.122.23 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PlayStation or 360 first?

Several edits/reverts have been occurring to the order in which the article puts the consoles. Should this be alphabetical or should it follow Rockstars press-release order? john.n-irl (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be alphabetical order. There's no indication that the order it is written in the press release means anything significant, especially as it uses the phrase "simultaneously available". Alphabetical is the best way to avoid point of view issues. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

imo it should go by the order of the press release, as it indicates which platform the producer feels is more important to the IP, in this case, it is the Xbox 360 by all accounts. furthermore, alphabetically speaking Microsoft Xbox 360 is before Sony PlayStation 3. xenocidic (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The order of the consoles on a press release doesn't indicate which platform the developers think are more "important". The console is called the XBOX 360, not the Microsoft XBOX 360 so alphabetically speaking, the PlayStation 3 should be listed first. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's 2 press releases. The Release Date one and the Investor Relations one. The first says Xbox then playstation, then the second says Playstation then Xbox. Neither of them say anything about importance of the platforms. As the manufacturer's names are not written in the infobox then the Playstation would come first alphabetically. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the press release that serves as a citation for the section in question. xenocidic (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical. John Hayes^talk 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical would be my own choice, and is the format most info boxes appear to follow. And whether or not the game is leading on one console or not, it shouldn't really effect its order in a sentence, unless that sentence is about which format is the lead development platform.john.n-irl (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's Sake. Alphabetical by the full name of the Wikipedia article on the game systems. --8bitJake (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I only made this to try prevent the constant reverting, relax. john.n-irl (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No company, anywhere, ever would give one console importance over another unless they wanted to kill their audience on the other.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

eh, like releasing exclusive episodes for the one platform? nah, they'd never do that. xenocidic (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats a feature. That doesn't say its better at all as noone knows what the content entails or if it will be stellar. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

... xenocidic (talk)

Grow up xeno, having one piece of content on one console over another isn't R* or T2 saying its a better platform, its saying it ponied up more dough. Stop being a console baby.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA xenocidic (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"i'm drowing in ps3fanboy tears" - Xenocidic. Mine was nothing as personal as yours. Nice try there though.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

'Twas just an edit summary. xenocidic (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, so it was just a broad attack instead of personal. I understand. ;) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

lol ;> xenocidic (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, what you have to do is choke all these damn pedantic anti-alphabetics to death and just ignore them, and keep reverting their edits. Seriously, guys, get a life. I looked at the entry myself once and wondered "hmm.. who decides the order?" then I figured out after 3 seconds "oh, it's alphabetical, but of course" and then I gave the editors an e-applause by lightly tapping my keyboard with my fingers for using logic. --nlitement ^[talk] 07:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL. Best, xenocidic (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes..but then you get into an edit war, which is kind of unwanted and not very productive. Also, this should be discussed on the WikiProject Talk page(see below). john.n-irl (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads up everyone, I've a section on this topic to WP:VG talk. Fin©™ 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

someone must take out the box of unreleased gmae

the game is alredy in markets --200.118.32.224 (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it, and die. =) Emil Kastberg (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we going for FA status upon the games release?

I think we should. what are your thoughts? Chegis (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It might take a while after the release to be able to create a stable and comprehensive reception/critical reaction section. Also I'd be worried about the stability of the article. I think we should go for it a while after the release, after things have settled down. This is just an example of how long it could take (not a definite idea of how long it will take), but Halo 3 came out in September and it was a couple of months after that when it was nominated to be a featured article. That's just an example and it could take more or less time than that. My main concern is allowing enough time after release to be able to build a good reaction section. So I wouldn't say nominate upon the game's release, but a while after if the article is still of good quality. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I say keep the Semi-Protection and we may be able to work it out without having to wait too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection isn't there to keep the article stable, it's there if it has been vandalised by (many) IP users. An article shouldn't be protected in case it might be vandalised. John Hayes^talk 12:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The George Bush article is. And I know this may not be as bad, but that's not to say that protection wouldn't help a lot, and judging from all vandilism we had before February 22 and after the protection has been removed now, I'd say it's justified compared to the "anyone-can-edit-it" thing.

I may not practically know what it takes to make an FA, but from what I've read on the nomination page, I can't see what's going to take months, from what I can see the biggest problem may be the citings. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. Emil Kastberg (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better off getting Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to FA now. It's already a GA. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-21 23:22

Now that's a much more sensible idea. John Hayes^talk 12:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't take long after release, Rockstar has been very generous with information about IV. We have most of the information here already, we just need a more comprehensive plot and some prosing on the features and we'll be well on are way.Skeith (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, most certainly not. It will not be stable or complete (as Bill mentioned) for quite a few months after release. Also it would be a much better use of everyone's time to get the article to GA first, as until it meets that, there is no chance of it meeting FA criteria. John Hayes^talk 12:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

why does everyone seem to care so much about FA? 203.129.40.43 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles are the best of Wikipedia, why wouldn't editors want to be involved with that? Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well i just think people get too into writing for glory instead of just for the satisfaction, though i can see your point 121.127.192.228 (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

An article on a unreleased or recently released game usually won't pass either GA or FA nominations due to it not meeting the stability or broad in coverage criteria. Nominating it would be a waste of time, consider submitting it for a Peer review in the meantime instead. I wouldn't nominate it for GA or FA until at least a month after the game's release. - kollision (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New multiplayer information

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=319080

A few more details about Niko and the multiplayer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeith (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"GTA IV will be the first game game in the GTA series to include online multiplayer" this comment is inacurate. GTA 2 also had multiplayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.125.151 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rating

I know for a fact that this game will be rated M. X-Play said it themselves. On there gaming update on the 20th of March. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone ever expected anything less, but until we have a citable source, it can't be included. (WP:VER). xenocidic (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The rating is included in ESRB's online database. Although I can't cite ESRB's search results, if you check the website it's there (as I always check ratings before I add them). Good day. :) Sillygostly (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Video games developed in the United Kingdom

Can someone add this category to the article please. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. xenocidic (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Detailed map revealed

http://www.gtagaming.com/ has pictures of the official map that comes with the game. Street names, buildings, rivers, subway, etc. It has everything. So you can probaly get some helpful info for this here 'article'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks plausible, but since it's a fansite, we can't use it as a source. Emil Kastberg (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a leak. Think about it.. --nlitement ^[talk] 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As it's not in general circulation it cannot be used as a source. Rockstar seems to be getting sites to remove it now too. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are still up, though. :D Emil Kastberg (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

it's been taken down from gtagaming.com and i can't find it anywhere. does anyone know where it is? 121.127.203.19 (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

wait scratch that, i found it http://www.shacknews.com/screenshots.x?gallery=9477&game_id=4241 121.127.203.19 (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Thompson Controversy: Any news?

Any news of Rockstar giving in to Jack Thompson's demands to remove his parody from the game? You'd think there would be at least some mention of the subject with the release only being in a month.... Chronus Valtiel (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question, mainly because the fact that it was even asked. I feel like it would be closely kept up with. I'll try do a bit of reading up on it if no one beats me to it. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm doing a bit of looking on my end, too. If I find anything that hasn't been found, I'll speak up. Chronus Valtiel (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

well there isn't much he can do except have another lawyer represent him. 121.127.203.19 (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have a leg to stand on. He's a public figure (and he made himself one) , so anyone (including Rockstar) is free to parody him. xenocidic (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

While that is very true, it would still be nice if there were some news on this little controversy. Unfortunately I've yet to find any... Chronus Valtiel (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Niko's name

Where did you get "Nikolai" from? It would be "Nikola" in Yugoslavian. I haven't seen any official source say that his name is Nikolai. --nlitement ^[talk] 09:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right nlitement. The Nikolai bit only seems to be on fan sites and the like, official sites and reliable magazines only ever call him Niko. - X201 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Yugoslavian"? :P But yeah, seems like copying speculation. Emil Kastberg (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

0 hits for nikolai site:rockstargames.com. xenocidic (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, flat out remove it and keep it out. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what country is he from? None of the ex-Yugoslavian countries features a double L in any word, including regular surnames. If he were really from Serbia, his name would be Nikon Belić (not Niko and definitely not Bellic, nor Bellić). However, the voice acting in Niko's mother tongue (featured in trailer #3) is so bad that I can make out only the first word (it is definitely one of the ex-Yugoslavian languages) and guess what the other word means. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that when I did a google search for nikolai bellic it suggested "belic". anyhow. fictional universe, take it up with Rockstar ;> xenocidic (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've knocked it out. No doubt the usual "but this site know everything, they talk to Rockstar" claims will arise. But something like a character name should be easily obtainable from a primary source and shouldn't need to rely on fan sites. - X201 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the source used on the Niko entry in the characters page for "Nikolai" Kikizo.com. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Map Leak

Should the map leak be mentioned in the article somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

no, see above. John Hayes^talk 16:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10