Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 2

message: I've archived the page as it was getting long and the discussions going on were getting hostile and not productive to the article. --BillPP (talk|contribs) 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! --70.128.115.70 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for catching those! --BillPP (talk|contribs) 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived Page

message: Someone has edited the date, taking the European and American release dates as being the same when they're NOT. I'm reverting it back.
--Jiei 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you add a source for that? The official site only mentions the 16th. Rafert 14:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DATE

message: http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/13027/Take-Two-Strikes-Back-Sues-Jack-Thompson/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.92.202 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take 2 sues Jack Thompson 

message: R* did not conform this it was a source that conformed this but not R* or R* North so its not a fact also R* and Peter Moore both stated that it was EXCLUSIVE for the XBOX 360 and is avalible after a month on Xbox Live market so the info about the PS3 is false untill R* SAYS SO not some magizine--Butterrum 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PS3 with episode??

message: There is no section for fansites. There are a lot of them out there but here are some that i know about
www.gta4.net
www.gta4.tv
www.gta-ireland.com
www.gtagaming.com
ect
I would also like to say that the above poster doesn't know what he is talking about. The Source that the magazine cited was from someone within  Rockstar North... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.158.249 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Wikipedia guideline on links (WP:NOT#LINK), articles really should just limit the links to fansites to the most important/notable one(s). Also as the game isn't out yet all the fansites will be adding to the article is the same information there is here and some un-sourced speculation. I think we can wait until the game is out for when fansites provide information and the higher level of detail that's not put in Wikipedia before adding one. That's my opinion on the section. --BillPP (talk|contribs) 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he saidYeanold Viskersenn 17:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should read a dictionary definition of what "ditto" means before you try to throw an insult. Moving on, like Bill said, only very notable fansites of extreme merit will be added, if any exist, not just some plain fansites that, by the way, are not from Rockstar.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope you're not accusing me of being a sockpuppet because that's pretty insulting. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a long while now, I've started a wikiproject, received a barnstar award and added some high resolution free images. If you are suggesting I'm just a sockpuppet despite my contributions then you really need to read up on these policies WP:DICK, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. I'm pleased with what I've contributed to Wikipedia and implying that I'm a puppet is to imply that I'm not the person who made these contributions. Please think before you make a comment like that, because even saying I could be a sockpuppet is insulting to me. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an attempt to return to the subject, I still second the vote to only add notable fan sites, if any appear; all "run of the mill" sites will be removed.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTA 4 Fansites? 

message: The page is semi-protected. --70.142.47.196 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ooooh, ok. Well, you didn't use a question mark so I was confused. I guess IP vandalism got out of hand. I haven't been paying close enough attention lately.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. --64.149.37.117 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: Anyone else seen the ad on FX. It shows the countdown, and it's actually counting down. Perhaps, someone could find more info about it and put it on the page? 71.75.161.147 06:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FX

message: I think calling it "Controversy" overplays it- this section should just be retitled "Jack Thompson" or some such to indicate that it's just him who is making any noise about GTA IV at this moment. If some other prominent organization or politician jumps on the GTA IV-bashing bandwagon, then it can be more renamed and more accurately called a "controversy". -albrozdude 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree; "Jack Thompson controversy" or something to that effect will suffice more, as of right now at least.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: All the previous GTAs (III and Vice City) contain a "Controversy" heading. Although Jack Thompson is the only one involved in the current discussion regarding this installment, it is unlikely that no other individuals or organizations will voice their opinion regarding either the content or distribution. IdoAlphaOmega 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section should be renamed 

message: I think it should maybe be added to the trailer section that at 22:00 UTC the trailer was not shown as the website crashed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.124.29 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website crashed 

message: In the last shot showing what appears to be the Brooklyn Bridge, what looks like the Empire State Building looks like it is only a few blocks away.  In real life, the bridge is almost at the south end of the island, and the building is at 35th, which would mean that if Liberty City were an approximate scale map of NYC, 40 odd blocks would be compressed into 2 or 3, which would make the entire island not very big.  Thoughts?  (maybe they havent let on to the fact that you can play the entire country...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.123.231.53 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberty City is not an approximate scale map of NYC (whatever that means), just like Vice City and Los Santos they are just imaginative representations of RL cities. Los Santos includes well-known buildings from other cities besides Los Angeles. But yeah, I'm doubting that after San Andreas the next big GTA is going to now limit you to just one city. I expect the next trailers to show other areas. --64.149.33.224 02:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Map 

message: You can freely add my video upload, I think I was the first one to upload it on YouTube, or at least the one that people have started linking to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlF6fbIFiCM Also, don't forget that there's gametrailers.com etc.. so, please, give some links to the readers. --88.193.241.224 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube link 

message: LA Noire is a completely different game set in the 40's in LA, whoever put that it's GTA IV obviously hasnt seen the real trailer which is set in New York —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KAZAAM (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA Noire 

message: Is it worth mentioning that seagulls are visible several times throughout the trailer? Granted there were birds in San Andreas ( buzzards in the Bone County area ), but these appear to be far different. No interaction is shown, but they do make noise, and seem to have more complicated flight-patterns and such, not to mention actual animation, whereas I don't believe any animation was given to any animals in GTA before this.
:Not really, that's verging on original research. If information comes about that there's a significant difference with the animals then whatever sourced information available should go in, but at the moment it's just speculation n I think it doesn't belong. In my opinion this is just an advance of the technology making the game seem more realistic rather than anything notable. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first time animals to that detail have been put in the GTA series, we can expect dogs and cats I would think. And rats. That is original speculation, but in a description of the trailer, mentioning birds seems fair enough JayKeaton 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals 

message: Alright, there's already some discussion on this. But is there some specific reason why the "IV" Logo was deleted/is unavailable? It was on the countdown website, it was on Rockstar's television advertisements, it was in the trailer. All signs point to it being the game's official logo at the moment. The article infobox is begging for an image and I can't think of a better graphic than the game's logo. Pele Merengue 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oot, there it is. Nevermind then. Pele Merengue 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "IV" Logo 

message: "similar cinematic sytle to Godfrey Reggio's" sytle should be style —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.160.65.14 (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: While I agree that some of the things edited into the article since the trailer's debut were somewhat speculative and original, I honestly don't see the harm in mentioning cold hard factual things seen in the trailer in a kind of trivia section, such as the Liberty City welcome sign and boat insignia. Pointing out things that are obvious in the trailer and having no speculation about them should be perfectly legal. If this violates some kind of rule, that rule is stupid beyond belief. I can see how a claim like "most of the gameplay will occur around NY's "Brighton Beach" as lots of Russians reside there" should be removed, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with simply stating that the voice-over has some kind of Eastern European/Turkic accent. I mean, come on.
-- Torvik 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are trivial things you noticed while watching the trailer. Saying "This is important enough to mention" is itself an original conclusion. If a fact is truly important, be patient; it will shortly be mentioned in a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what website would you consider to be a reliable source?Neshcom 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A publication with an editorial process. Not someone's blog or fansite or personal site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is claiming that his accent is this or that based on the sound trivial? It sounds like whatever kind of accent, it can be compared to someone in real life with that accent I would imagine rather easily, so what's the problem? -- Torvik 04:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what's there now is appropriate. I thought you were talking about the big bulleted list of things some fansite noticed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, I kinda was. I don't remember any specifics (I could look in the history I guess, but O the laziness) however I thought I saw at least a few points in there that weren't speculative at all, just something pointed out in the trailer that you might not have otherwise noticed. Torvik 04:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fansite material. Things you noticed while watching a trailer is original research, albeit inane original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess you're right, man. Torvik 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: As well as mentioning the cheese crisis and the african markets being down on the wall street news ticker in the trailer, it also on the two lines on the top ticker
"..says TAKE2+69% PAS – 2% DEV + 2% SOME SHARES HA.."
"..HAVE GONE DOWN.."
Rockstar knew people would read this ticker, so what are they trying to say? JayKeaton 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To further that I have gleamed as much original research as I could from the video, here are my findings. Some of it is note worthy for the page, most of it is not. Seeing as people come to this page for information about this game, when there is hardly any information out yet on it, I think this list is justifiable on the talk page for now -
The Bank of Liberty is on the corner of Columbus Av and Calcium St -
The city newspaper is the “Liberty Tree” with the slogan “Yesterdays News Today -
Bean Machine is a coffee shop/chain of coffee shops in LC -
Ticker for the Liberty Tree says “OUR NEW SUV CONSUMES MORE PETROL THAN ANY OF OUR COMPETITORS” “FLASH SOAP MAKES YOU FEEL YOUNGER” “MORE MONEY MAKES YOU HAPPY” “11:34 TIME FOR A BROWN RING BAGEL” (then seconds after it says 11:52 then 12:01), “BUY MORE STUFF AS YOU CAN NEVER HAE ENOUGH” -
The trailer reveals a return of Burger Shot and Cluckin’ Bell. A woman is holding a bag from “SHODI” stores. A girl pedestrian is seen smoking a cigarette. -
The “ME TV THEATRE” is advertising a show called “All about me” -
Ads for the movie “I Slept With My Mom” -
A man is seen walking while reading a book then he drops the book and walks off. Another man is reading a paper as he walks. -
A cable car runs parallel to the suspension bridge. A pedestrian walkway and viewing platform is seen suspended directly under the bridge. -
The roads contain potholes and sheets of metal, meaning more detail even on the roads compared to just generic textures. Very high detail can be noted on the park chairs/benches”. Graphical errors in distant objects overlapping with close ones can be seen when the Russian walks across the bridge. The Statue of Liberty can clearly be seen in this video. JayKeaton 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The news ticker in trailer 

message: So there's 150 developers working on GTAIV compared with 130 "non-voice actors and non-motion capture actors" on Vice City?  What kind of actors were they then?  It's pretty unclear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.147.164.72 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that there were 150 artists, programmers writters and such working on it, not including voice actors and motion capture actors. It is trying to say that a lot of people actually worked ON the game, but it doesn't include the voice actors because the voice actors numbers don't "really" count towards the production of the game JayKeaton 07:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It totally makes sense after he explained it. It's just worded wrong in the article. He's saying that they're not including actors in both counts. Just change the line in the article to "non-actors". --70.142.51.172 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, nevermind. Someone already changed it. :P --70.142.51.172 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTAIV staff vs. Vice City staff 

message: should it be noted that the game seems to be set in liberty, yet the city is clearly portrayed in a far diffrent rendition.
should it be mentiond that it may not take place within the previous GTA cannon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.230.37.208 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know since chances are we'll see some old faces from the previous series. But then it could be like GTA2 to GTA3 with no link between. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.114.119 (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  should it be mentiond? 

message: I've removed the current event tag, as the article had ended up with 3 different notices before the main paragraph even started, and in any case there's already one saying that it's an unreleased video game. I don't think 'current event' is really appropriate for a product in development anyway, is it? Paulfp 11:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current Event"? 

message: This game is after or before the attacks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.12.213 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "attacks" never happened in GTA, so that's irrelevant.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If it wasn't in the trailer or there isn't an official source saying the WTC will be in the game then it cannot be added to the article. Only verifiable information can go into the article, not original research or speculation. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is for discussing improvements to the article only. It is not a forum. Questions should be answered on the assumption that the asker wants to improve the article rather than abusing the talk page. It's assuming good faith. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Trade Center 

message: :Rockstar have referred to the game as simply "IV" for a while now, and the trailer seems to back this up - making no mention of the GTA part. Is the title officially changed? I have created redirects from IV (game) etc for the time being. Yeanold Viskersenn 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible that it'll be known as "IV", but I don't think the title's changed personally. I can't find any sources that say the title's officially changed. on the xbox.com page it shows what could be the full logo/name. It's trademarked. That's the first time I've seen the new IV with the words by it. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk about the article. Not the game.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official title

message: i knew it was gonna be in Liberty City anyway whats the guy called i wanna know? dose anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butterrum (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAO 

message: I thought Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories would mark the end of the GTA III era, so GTA IV is like the GTA III era never existed. But I saw Cluckin' Bell, Burger Shot, MeTV, Heavy Weapons, Kronos, Sprunk, Liberty Tree... had somebody thoughts that GTA IV is just the working title and the final name will be released later so the GTA III era isn't gone yet? ProSieben 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does GTA IV mark the end of the GTA III era? It's just the continuation. The GTA III certainly is allowed to have existed. Torvik 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. What you said about the GTA III series ending is speculation, at this point.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What's it matter either way? If it's the end of the GTAIII era it doesn't mean that its cannon and setting isn't part of GTAIV. --70.142.51.172 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 02:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTA III -> GTA IV 

message: does any know ANYTHING about the games cannoncy?
is it within the previouse timline, or are they "starting again"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.230.37.208 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody knows anything about the game apparently. --70.142.51.172 00:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cannoncy 

message: The footage has not been confirmed to be running on either console, contrary to what the article states. I read the source, and the material clearly states that "THE CONSOLE ON WHICH THE FOOTAGE WAS CAPTURED HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED". Someone who can edit please fix this.
EDIT- thanks
-UD (72.47.111.44 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not confirmed for the 360 

message: The article should notify readers that Time Square will not be called "Times Square" in the game. Since all GTA- worlds are copies of real citys/states. 217.211.211.182 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment the article says they resemble Times Square and other landmarks. This should be fine to indicate they're not exact replicas. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Square 

message: It says in the caption under the photo of that guy, that he's the main character. Should it really say that? I mean, it's pretty obvious he's the main character, but it isn't 100% and should be considered incorrect until R* gives some proof he's the main character (e.g., a second trailer in which the character introduces himself ).
:That's a good point, I've altered the text ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably absolutely correct, but as it's not specifically said then it's best to just say character featured in the trailer and stuff like that when referring to him. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Character 

message: i don't know if it is just my comp but in the section about the trailor the pic on the left overlaps the text. 121.127.194.46 01:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me useing Mozilla Firefox. AxG ۝۝۝҈ ►talk►guests 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture overlap 

message: Please see Talk:Rockstar_Advanced_Game_Engine and help support this to be unprotected. Also take a look at the last good version —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel it should come down when more info is known about it, but until then, leaving it alone seems sufficient.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rockstar Advanced Game Engine]] 

message: I think the preview isn't really notable enough to be mentioned on the page (at least in it's own section) until it's actually published and has some information when it can be used as a source. Saying that magazines will have a feature on something soon doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. What do other editors think? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that while information on the game is scarce and that people who come to the page will be looking for more information on the game, then the encyclopedia will be doing its job, and be most useful if the upcoming feature in the magazine is included. I've noticed Wikipedia being increasingly affected with red tape and pedanticity with regards to the rules. I believe an article should contain whatever factual information we think would be relevant and useful to a person reading the article. At the end of the day, that's what people read Wikipedia for. Yeanold Viskersenn 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine preview 

message: I think we should put back the Controversy section and add this ->  Chegis 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: The narrator's accent is clearly Middle Eastern, not Russian. IGN's editors need to get a freakin clue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.172.93 (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that there should not be any speculation on the accent of the narrator, because no one can accurately say where the accent is from. 203.129.56.237 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Let's just wait for more information to come out to clarify his accent.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 06:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a listen to how he says 'complicated' and 'smuggling'. Definitely East-European (maybe not Russian, I don't go to Eastern Europe too often :) (81.153.74.118 12:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should probably just say "foreign" (as in foreign to the USA) until it's established where he's from. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Eastern Europe consists of a lot of former Soviet countries (ie they were one part of Russia) that have similar sounding accents to unaccustomed ears - hence the uncertainty as to the character's exact country of origin. I think "foreign" is slightly POV too, sort of an "us and them" mentality, but I suppose it will do until something better is written. Yeanold Viskersenn 14:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I say Eastern European. And he probably won't say "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad". If he did, New York City would become New Baghdad City. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added the "foreign" part to try and remove any speculation about eastern European or Russian accents, it wasn't great and the foreign part was about how the accent is not from America yet it is set in America. I've changed it to "non-American", which is definitely correct yet vague, but I believe this information is notable enough to be included despite the difficulty in describing it without speculating. Hopefully the Game Informer article coming soon will give us more information that can be sourced. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Who said "Jidah"? --70.143.52.3 12:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lulz butterrum, he was saying that unless the character was saying "Jihad" (fix'd btw) etc, then he would most likely not be shown as an Arab. tytyty repeating his point Wanka 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Although what they said was about as dumb, that's not exactly what they said. (and remember this is a GTA game so it will be full of stereotypes) --70.142.52.56 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that he's from the Caucasus region, which used to be part of the Soviet Union... possibly an Armenian. -- Davo88 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. We try. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again you tell me. Nobody said Jidah. --70.142.52.56 02:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to be betting that R* would rather be technically accurate than copy a characature(sic) of Russians seen "in the movies". --70.142.52.56 02:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that he's an Arab. I have some knowledge of Arabic, and the language doesn't have the letter "th" in it. If you pay attention to the trailer, you'd notice that he's unable to pronounce the word "things". Instead, he says "tings". If he was an Arab, he wouldn't have trouble. I don't know about Russian, but the Armenian language doesn't have the letter "th"... if you guys get what I'm saying... -- Davo88 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just LOVIN' the unsourcable discussion, guys. Please continue.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 03:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just take a look at the Wikipedia articles about those languages. -- Davo88 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, regardless of whether it's true or not, if it's unsourcable, then it's still original research. I realize that sounds stupid; crap, it probably sounds very stupid, but "them's the rules," as Yeanold put it. If you don't have any source from Rockstar on the subject, then discussing it ain't gonna help.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, this is speculation, if anything. -- Davo88 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which doesn't belong on this talk page, unfortunately.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it doesn't have to use Rockstar as the source, depending on what the information is and how it's worded. The article doesn't have to only talk about what's actually in the game, but what's known/assumed/claimed by others. That's what the "unreleased game" template is for at the top of the page. That doesn't mean we should be arguing over unsourced speculation, but I think IGN is a reliable source for a videogame. (forgive me for not having read the entire guide on reliable sources) --70.142.52.56 08:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "I think that there should not be any speculation on the accent of the narrator, because no one can accurately say where the accent is from." -203.129.56.237. that about sums it up 121.127.192.121 11:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think adding something like "IGN speculates that his accent is Russian," and other opinion's expressed in their article is actually adding anything worthwhile. At the moment every gaming website and most people here are trying to decide on what accent it is. Eurogamer says "the main character appears to be of eastern European origin, Russian perhaps." By the time all the notable views on where the accent is from are added to the article there'd be a whole section on it, and as soon as Rockstar reveal where it's from the section would be deleted. Adding speculation by qualified sources, yet sources that don't have any hard evidence would not improve the article for someone who wants to know facts about GTA IV. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 11:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well whether the information is worthwhile is certainly debatable here. What sources we choose to use is at our discretion too. I doubt the section would grow huge with people adding extra quotes, since there are really only two options. I agree though that it's dumb arguing about the guy's accent here. --64.149.47.0 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually I'm for using any source that's reliable (as Wikipedia policy says), but in this case as most sources are speculating then in my opinion there's more of a need to use a source much closer to the subject matter. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, we shouldnt trust movie accents on this. And by the way, why dont we just ask a Russian or Arab native speaker? And what do the Russian pages actually say on this matter? ( I cant verify, I dont speak Russian. All I can say he is definitely notDutch. ;)). - Redmess 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Russian Wikipedia says Eastern European, but you can't use Wikipedia as a source and it's unsourced there too. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 16:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Who said that?  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I guess you'll get people to argue about anything on Wikipedia. The article used to say he had a foreign accent and I'm the one who complained that it should be changed to non-American. --70.128.121.136 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Gregg, the rationale for it being called "non-American" is explained above, "foreign" was also considered and even in the article for a while. Like I said, read up a bit to see why it was changed to "non-American". ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooooh, that's who said that. Dang...I forgot.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely this cannot be "non-American" either, how do you define an American accent? An American of white European background? An American of Native American background? Is not someone from an Arab background (for the sake of argument) who has American nationality American? I don't believe the accent can be defined at all. John Hayes 10:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Russian Accent! 

message: will there be a wii version of GTA IV?
has it been confirmed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.171.227 (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LoL it was an 1st aprill yoke Chegis 09:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This game has likely taken millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to fit the PS3 and 360 architecture, porting it to the Wii would be a mammoth undertaking. It's not as easy as porting it to PC, unfortunately. If it was a simple task, no doubt they would do it. But no, I would bet a million bucks that you wont be seeing this version of GTAIV on the Wii. It may, however, get another version of it or maybe a rerelease of some old GTA games, anything is possible. Except GTAIV being ported to Wii JayKeaton 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wii isn't powerful enough to run even GTA III. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But the Wii is more powerful than the PS2, so I don't know how you figure that. Heck, even the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2. But that's not the point JayKeaton 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is off topic and should be discussed here, which I am more than happy to do. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wii version? 

message: I have just noticed some information you may have missed in the trailer. On the orange writing on the LCD screen thing it says: 1.Something about a cheese crisis 2.That the dutch markets are down  and 3. That energy prices continue to rise. Could someone who has the hi-def trailer please verify this and maybe include it in the article? padddy5 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted, but I dont think it's notable enough to be included in the article. It's just background stuff of no (known) significance. The energy prices part might be an indication of the date the game is set, eg. present day, or in the 70s there was a large energy price rise iirc. (the vehicles, clothing, technology all suggest present day) But at the moment without any sources of info from Rockstar about it, it's not notable enough to be included imo. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also mentions something about Take-2s stock. I have listed as much as I can in a post above JayKeaton 07:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Trivia 

message: Who gave it the name "Things Will Be Different"? Is this an official name? Perhaps it should just be called "Official Trailer". Also, there should be a better link to the tailor itself, such as the tailor on the MTV website. 203.129.39.86 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Things will be different" is both the tagline attached to the GTA IV mailing list before the trailer's release, and it is what Rockstar have referred to the trailer as when answering questions about it. Yeanold Viskersenn 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as the link goes, the first thing you see on the Rockstar website is the trailer (other than verifying your age once). Also, on the other link to Gamespy the trailer is included there. Another link isn't really needed. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Things Will Be Different" 

message: The ferry terminal is disused and rundown. As anyone who played GTA:LCS will tell you, the ferry terminal was closed down and by 2001 was replaced by the porter tunnel. 159.134.48.148 10:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence it takes place in 2007, or for anything else that you have said there. Also in regards to the original point a ferry terminal being in both cities is not evidence that it is the same city.John Hayes 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberty City- definitely 

message: I dont think "Response" is a good name for the section with JT and the NYC people. "Response" will be good once there's sales figures, reviews etc., but at the moment the article's suggesting that the only response is the ones of Jack Thompson and NYC officials. There has been plenty of responses from fans, magazines, critics and other people that know of the up coming game and the title of this section implies that they should be in there too. Perhaps the section should be renamed back to "Controversy" and then possibly renamed, or in addition to a response section later when there's more of a wide range of items to put in the article in that section. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just change it back to "Controversy." I feel that's most at the current point in time.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes I thought the person who named it was implying that responses from fans and critics were also to be placed in that section, and they just didn't bother to add anything else, hoping another editor would. --70.142.52.56 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, I created the response section assuming that it will be the one that is going to grow most rapidly until next word from Rockstar. I'll change it to "controversy" for the time being. Yeanold Viskersenn 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, never mind, someone beat me to it. Yeanold Viskersenn 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 1up.com did a special on the response to the trailer, with editors from major magazines gaming writing what they thought of it. One of the editors noted that he felt it was a little odd that this game was so hyped, that they actually wrote up a special feature on the response to the trailer alone JayKeaton 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Response" 

message: In the german Wiki they say that the guy from the trailer looks like "Jerkov", the leader of the russian mafia in gta 2. there is a comparison: (click at fatos on the left) (and they trade in body parts) --89.56.57.215 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  maybe the guy is claude 203.129.58.171 02:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all unsourcable speculation, outside of the fact that this character and Claude look completely different. Discussions like this don't help anything, which is asserted by the template at the very top of the page.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  who are you to say that him and claude look different? 203.129.40.156 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, because I have eyes??? Just look at them, man. They clearly look different: one obvious one is the hairstyle and the beard, which is different from Claude's; Claude has smaller eyes that this guy and has had a consistent clothing style in both of his game appearances, which is a black jacket and beige cargo-like pants, which is, once again, different from this character. One that could be seen as obvious is the fact that this character, more than likely, can talk, and with the support of storyline consistency, we can make an educated assumption that Claude still can't, or won't, talk. Either way, this is all speculation and needs to discontinue.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But he really looks like Jerkov from GTA2 look at this  --89.61.181.123 22:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, this is still speculation.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This speculative research could lead onto sourcable information which would be helpful tot his article. I am not familier with GTA2 though, so I can't say if it is possible or not JayKeaton 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation may result in a source if it gives someone the idea to hunt down a source, but this is pure speculation. Looking at GTA to see if they look similar cannot result in a source that way. At the moment, because of all the speculation from gamers, forums and even some magazines, the sources for content should either be Rockstar directly or a magazine with information direct from Rockstar (e.g. Game Informer's may edition). You don't need to be familiar with GTA2 to be able to add the information if it's true and sourced, because the source will contain all the information you need. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 10:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the second anonymous user wasn't really speculating. He was obviously screwing with you guys with a stupid comment to get a stupid response. --64.149.33.216 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have no trouble believing that he could have possibly been being serious, considering some of the stupid crap I've found on Wikipedia. With some of the stuff I've seen, that guy could still have been making a serious statement.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please bring up sourcable information, or this discussion is subject to removal.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't being mean or pushy; you also should be worried more about being not getting blocked...if you know what I mean, and I'm sure you do.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  oh yeah klyptyzm you really are an old hand teach me your wise wisdom - all hail king klyptzm, defender of the weak, making sure that no one says anything "unsourcable".  203.129.59.20 10:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh, I like that title; I always did fashion myself a defender from unsourcabilicality.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Guy 

message: Slightly off-topic but does anyone know the date that the GTA IV feature issue will be released? Sorry for cluttering the thread. Yeanold Viskersenn 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this pdf (page 16), we'll get our next source of info on the 18th of April. On the forum I found that I have heard that some people in certain jobs (media I assume) get the magazine early so scans will end available on the web. I don't know if they can be included in the article as a source though because it's not exactly easy to verify if the magazine's not for sale yet. Hmmm, That's going to be a problem if scans do turn up before the date it goes on sale, because people will start adding information to the article which will be true, yet unsourcable for a few days. We should probably decide on whether including information from an unreleased magazine. According to WP:V, sources must be "already published". An off topic question ended up very much on topic! ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Informer

message: i wanted to know more about GTA 4 so i checked everywhere and found onr site that showed detail on whats in the trailer and stuff its this link it details everything seen and pics  http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=90&game=11--69.205.61.185 06:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer treats

message: Seeing how I added this only to see it arbitrarily removed ten minutes later, I figured that I'd mention it here rather than add it back in and see it arbitrarily removed again. There has been a lot of speculation since the trailer was released that the character shown is based off of Vladimir Mashkov's character in 2001's Behind Enemy Lines. The first publication to comment on this was PSX Extreme, and Kotaku in turn mentioned it.
See  here - I think that this is more than worthy of a mention somewhere in the existing format of the article. --Warrior-Poet 06:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nothing but speculation from both the sites (PSX Etreme and Kotaku). Both are just saying how they've noticed similarities and neither have any hard evidence. Including it in the article would add nothing to it. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't have any credible, official sources, then please don't try to make such claims.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 05:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It probably is Jerkov but since there is no source to prove it then like BishopTutu said we can't add anything about it to the article yet. --70.128.121.136 07:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You didn't make me mad. I'm just telling you.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you've been misunderstanding. Nobody is making fun of you. (although I can only speak for myself) We only want you to correct your behavior so we can work together more easily. --70.142.41.76 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: True, and other editors can respond accordingly; if you don't type like a normal human being, they you won't be helped like one.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main character's resemblance 

message: What happened to the high-res pics that used to be linked from the smaller pictures on the article? Now the "Times Square" screenshot says "No higher resolution available." I think it's pretty obvious in an article on a "next-gen" game like this (which runs in 720p) that high resolution screen grabs are important. --70.128.121.136 07:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes high resolution shots would be good, but the problem is with fair use. If an image is too large then it will fail the fair use criteria that Wikipedia policy requires we adhere to. The images are still available on the web and the trailer's available on the links so not is all lost for the reader. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-Resolution pictures 

message: I've noticed that on the Amazon UK search results page for GTA 4, it says that the PEGI Rating is 18+, on the product pages it says the BBFC rating is 18. On each of the websites for these companies however they don't list the game details. This could mean that the ratings will be out soon, they've only released the ratings to retailers, or Amazon's making an assumption (I'm not sure if they're allowed to do that). As it's not on the official sites, I don't think it should be in the article yet, but hopefully the ratings will be released officially soon so they can be added. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we should probably keep an eye out for it; I do feel that maybe Amazon got their info from a source, though. I don't think they just made a random assumption with no basis.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it probably is an assumption based on the previous games - as the BBFC etc can't really give a rating to a game that is still in the development stages. Yeanold Viskersenn 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: The section on Thompson reads like a newspaper article; it has far to many details for Wikipedia. I would like to shorten it to the following:
"American anti-obscenity activist Jack Thompson has stated he will take various measures to prevent the sale of the game to minors. Thompson's campaign seems to be solely focused on the Xbox 360 release of Grand Theft Auto 4, making no mention of the PS3 version at all.[12]
On 16 March 2007, Take Two Interactive filed a lawsuit against Thompson in attempt to block him from trying to declare the games a public nuisance.[13]"
Any objections?162.119.232.106 15:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine to me. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool. Fine by me.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I've made the update.Ryanpm4545 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Thompson too long 

message: It's been leaked and information, such as the name, has started to get inserted to the article. I will try and hunt down the policy for using leaked magazine articles as sources. If anyone knows it, please post it here. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the clarification ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah - I think now that it is available to the general public (albeit subscribers), then it can be used as a valid source. There seems to be a hella lot of new info in there too! Yeanold Viskersenn 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Informer leaked scans 

message: Bold textWhere did you hear that the name of the main character of Gta IV will be Niko Bellic???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mammonak (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Game Informer confirmed it: http://www.gta4.net/news/3857/game-informer-reaches-subscribers/ —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niko Bellic???????????