Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 4

message: Here's a link to the GamesTM article, incase anyone wants to verify my contribs
http://www.destructoid.com/new-gta-iv-details-and-scans-34686.phtml Henrysugar 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GamesTM Article

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)
replies: text: Based on common sense, it will get an ESRB Rating of M for Mature, just like the last few. —cmsJustin <;;font size="1">(talk|contribs)</font> 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Justin ^ but we can't change it in the article till we get it from the official source. -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:OR John Hayestalk 11:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: Has anyone confirmed if they're going to release it on PC? Because I think that they will - but have they confirmed it? - User:Jbeckwith
: Not yet. They have been no single confirmation from rockstar. --SkyWalker 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussing the subject not the article. Delete? John Hayes 13:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if someone has here information on the platforms then it will be added to the article. --14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but he was asking about the game itself, rather than asking about the article John Hayes 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets argue about whether or not this is an argument. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;-) John Hayes 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No! As soon as someone finds out the article will be updated. ^_^ --70.142.42.81
Will it be out for PC also? I think it worth a mention, if not. Not to say if yes! :) - Bl
If it's not mentioned yet, I think it's worth mentioning that it most likely will come out on PC, but that R* hasn't officially announced it. Economically, it's a smart move, so it seems likely -- but until they say so it can't be cited and proved. At the least, a sentence mentioning something like "R* has not yet said if IV will be included on the PC or if it will remain console-exclusive," seems appropriate to me. 12.107.247.226 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, either way, it can't be mentioned until Rockstar announces it.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 01:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless or whether or not it's smart or inevitable (don't get me wrong; I do agree with both of you), we can't add it into the article yet until a source comes out.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you not read any of this. This requires a source. Any discussion of this at the moment is pointless John Hayes 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PC

message: This bit has been in the introductory section for a while now, and it still looks horribly awkward (in bold):
:According to Janco Partners analyst Mike Mickey, a financial consultant for Take-Two Interactive Software, around 150 game developers are working on Grand Theft Auto IV. This is more than Grand Theft Auto: Vice City which debuted in 2002, and which had about 130 people listed in the credits (not including voice actors and motion-capture actors).
Is there any reason whatsoever that this sentence is still in the article? Correct me if it's already been discussed. Pele Merengue 09:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's true, and tells us that even more work went into GTAIV than VC? I have no idea. The phrasing used to be worse until someone changed it. --70.143.63.172 09:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone who is good at writing should re-word it. 218.186.9.1 12:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't it obvious that more work is going into IV than Vice City, though? And just because it's true, is it really an important bit of information? It's just such an awkward observation: "This game in the series has 150 people working on it, which is more than one of the games earlier in the series." It just doesn't need to be there. I'm taking it out for now, if anyone wants to put it back, please discuss it here.Pele Merengue 22:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be added; I'm practically parroting WP:OR when I say that. In the end, that's rather irrelevant info and needs to be removed if it hasn't been done so.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why was it there in the first place? I wasn't defending its inclusion, just trying to answer the guy's question. --70.143.63.172 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant sentence in opening?

message: this seems relevant enough to be included in the article 218.186.9.1 12:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And even a darts tournament is spoofing the GTA IV countdown. This all really needs to be included in the article. .:Alex:. 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would the section be called? References in Popular Culture? -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. 218.186.9.1 09:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Pop culture references" is fine.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A "pop culture references" is somewhat unnecessary anyway. These types of trivia sections grow to unnecessary sizes anyways. A discussion over this predicament can be found here, at the GTA Task Force talk page.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''the Simpsons'' parody 

message: It has been confirmed in a recent interview with Dan Houser that Phillip Glass has been hired to work on some music for GTA IV. Should this info be included? .:Alex:. 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with that.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phillip Glass 

message: ...but I can't fix it. Under "Gameplay". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.44.19 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you couldn't change it - maybe your IP is blocked?, but thanks for bringing it up. I'll change it right away -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is semi-protected which is why this user could not change it. .:Alex:. 19:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration is spelled wrong 

message: After the "66% complete" part in the first paragraph, it says "citation needed". But it says: "According to Official Xbox Magazine magazine," before. Isn’t this a sufficient citation? Also, if bridges are going to limit Niko's access to other boroughs, then isn't that saying that Niko can't swim? ∆ Algonquin 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be enough, but the best kind of reference would be using the  template, with Issue, publisher, date, author, article title, etc. all included. As for the swimming thing, I've not read anything that says he can't swim. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 03:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll assume good faith and that that was about whether we should mention swimming in the article. As Bill says there is no source, but bridges limiting access doesn't stop the ability to swim, for example in San Andreas bridges limited access, but you could still swim John Hayes 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah i realised that after posting the comment. and what was that about asuming good faith? what reason would you have for not asuming good faith? ∆ Algonquin 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was assuming that you were acting in good faith, in that you had mentioned it so that it could be included in the article, rather than you were just talking about the game. If I had replied without that comment, it might have appeared that I was discussing the game, rather than the article, which isn't allowed. John Hayes 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation Needed" 

message: Now that there is information from a few magazines in the article, I think it's important for each piece to have it's source indicated. My proposal is that this is done multiple times using the ref tags for each claim. E.g. <ref name=gameinformer/>, where the first reference has the  template. Using this method will also make it easier to spot information that's been made up, original research, etc.. It's already like that for a couple of times the Official Playstation UK Magazine is cited so it just needs to be expanded. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. The last thing we need is a clutter of unsourced BS.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Speculation always makes a mess of articles and especially the ones of games that have yet to be released. The easier we can all make this, the better. - .:Alex:. 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to get worried about this as I don't have access to all the magazine articles and new information is constantly being added. All the information is getting jumbled up and mixed together and I think it would be very easy to put false information into the article. I suggest that  is put next to each claim of information and left for a certain amount of time. Then whenever somebody who has the magazine the information is from edits the page, they can cite the appropriate one using: <ref name=magazineName><ref>. If the information is not cited with a certain period of time, it should be moved to the talk page where it can be re-entered if verified. What's the consensus about this move? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indicate source 

message: Done
A new image has been added to article, of the train on the tracks. It looks to me like this doesn't meet the fair use policy. remove? John Hayes 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image should not be removed because it is simply an example of gameplay and graphics in the game.   GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image shouldn't be removed, but a new one with a lower resolution should be uploaded in it's place with a fair use rationale. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image should not be removed. And in my opinion, it is already a low resolution image. ChrisJP 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that this picture's just copied from the NYT website as it's exactly the same size and has the same compression. The Fair Use rationale guideline says that the image should be a reduced resolution copy of the original. At the moment it's an exact copy of the image used on the NYT webpage. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine it has already been resized from a high definition (1280x720) original image output from the game, can't be certain though. ChrisJP 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it hasn't been resized from the NYT source image, that's the one that matters. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well at least the copyright info has been added, which was my main concern, though I agree with Bill, it should be reuploaded as a lower res image John Hayes 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How much lower exactly, what resolution? ChrisJP 11:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say 60 to 70% of the original would be a reasonable size. The idea is to make sure the reader doesn't have a reason not to go to the source to view the image. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The image is the same, it's had a border removed which accounts for the slight difference. If you compare the 2 there are no visible differences. The image uploaded here is the same as the image from the GTA4.net website as it has the same MD5 hash, that image has been reduced by a few pixels and then resaved. 4pixels is not enough difference from the original and it should be resized. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is crazy, you are talking about removing an image because it is too good! 218.186.9.1 12:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No no, certainly not removed. It just needs to be resized with a fair use rationale added. The other image needs the same actually. It's Wikipedia policy. It'll still look the same in the article in the end. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My use of remove might have been taken in the wrong context, I meant this version of the image, rather than the image itself. Sorry for the confusion John Hayes 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and replaced the images with lower resolution ones and I've added fair use rationale's for each per Wikipedia policy. There's no noticable difference on the article page. The image pages link to locations where the full size images can be seen. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: Many of the characters will not make the returning (although it is unknown is Claude Speed or Toni Cipriani will make a cameo appearance). As for Donald Love, he'll make an appearance in order to design the new Liberty Tree. Professional Gamer 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Joey Leone? The mob families are shown to return in the magazine, With new Mafia families! So far only the Russian Mafia has been confirmed!--Manny Ribera 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Mafia has been confirmed - "The Mafia will put in an appearance around Liberty City, but they won't be assigned leading roles"  -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the top Manny. "This is not a forum for general discussion of plots, platform releases, characters, locations or anything that cannot be verified."John Hayes 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What's your source Professional Gamer? John Hayes 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't have much of the source, I do know that few of the characters from the 2001 game Grand Theft Auto III, especially Donald Love, since he made the Liberty Tree. It's important that Donald Love must make the new Liberty Tree from Grand Theft Auto IV. As for Claude Speed, he may or may not be featured in this city, since he is still silent. Professional Gamer 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it totally impossible that someone else can make it? If you didn't get this info from a source, then it's very possible a totally new character could make the Liberty Tree.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said Donald will be gone Klyptzm?!--Manny Ribera 14:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said he would be there???  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one but who said he whould not??? I think we should just wait and see.--Manny Ribera 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manny, the point he is trying to make is that without a source this is speculation, and this talk page isn't the place to speculate what is or isn't going to be in the game. This page (as it says at the top) is for discussing the article. If someone has a source which says Donald Love is or isn't in the game then it is worth discussing. Otherwise this topic should not continue. John Hayes 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Donald Love didn't make the Liberty Tree, and there wasn't ever a real source that he acquired it in the first place (although it was suggested).  He isn't needed for the paper to exist in the game.  Donal Love vanished without a trace in GTA III....and more then likely he'll stay that way. 71.75.109.20 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did I just say above about not discussing this without a source? John Hayes 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters from GTA III 

message: Hi. I had this image of a magazine page on my computer saved from some GTA IV site two weeks ago. I reinstalled Windows on my computer a few days ago, so I don't have the history link of the source. Because of this, I don't know what liscense applies to the image although I believe the image should be added to article because like the other images on this article, this one also would provide more detail, represents an example of the game's appearance and accompanies other information in the article.
Image Link: http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7103/streetzg7.jpg
The one thing that is certain that this image is taken from an Xbox 360 debug unit, but are not representative of the final quality  of the graphics. In the coming months, the game will only look better.
-- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have that image in one of my many magazine articles that i have saved over the last couple of months, i can scan it on if that would help at all. ∆ Algonquin 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niko Bellic Magazine Image 

message: Probably should mention something on this:  John Hayes 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I should probably read the article first ;) John Hayes 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! I already wrote about the Special Edition on the article before you posted this section on the discussion page. Think before you leap next time. :P -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  22:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He just said that... -_- --64.149.36.171 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... John Hayes 10:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Edition 

message: Is the new gta4 image the new official one? ∆ Algonquin 09:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the new official GTA IV logo that features the "IV" bigger than previous logo images.  Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  18:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. Looks slightly strange but oh well. I might resize it as it's quite big and it has come out a bit strange. - .:Alex:. 11:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTAIV image 

message: "The map is smaller than Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, but more detailed, and will in fact be larger than any previous individual cities in the GTA series"
So, if it's smaller than SA, how can it be larger than any of the previous ones? McKay 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that sentence. It was actually referring to the city size but failed to mention it after talking about the map size. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: SA was made up of three individual cities and a lot of country and mountains in between. JayKeaton 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Should there not be a separate section for the characters revealed so far and for any future ones?  I mean it seems like a while but October is only 4 months away so the reveals are gonna come fairly fast soon and we already have some details on Roman and Niko.Darkwarriorblake 21:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there already? 12.107.246.208 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean something as such: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Characters, then I think it's worth starting a new section. Similarly, the section could possibly have a link to its main article, List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV. -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters

message: Just read the fucking magazines, seriously. It seems that some people just come in randomly busting citation notes onto a random article if they don't see every sentence or word cited. --88.193.241.224 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are there because the magazines aren't available in all regions and the game's not out for people to verify the information themselves. At this point any information could be slipped into the article and it's not easy to spot. If each piece of information is sourced then it will be easier to spot false information. Just because you missed the point you shouldn't post here assuming bad faith and attacking editors. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove those citation notes 

message: the oct 16 launch date could get delayed manchurian candidate 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this again for various reasons. Firstly it doesn't say that, it says that the standard edition may be delayed, but the special edition will come out on the 16th October, so the release date hasn't changed. Secondly while the article is from a usually reliable source, the source that is based on is a forum post by an analyst unrelated to Rockstar. If you want to have a section based on that source you would have to rewrite to say that an analyst has suggested that the standard edition may be delayed by two weeks. I'm not sure whether this is relevant enough to the article. I leave it up to you to come up with something better. John Hayes 09:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and added Rockstar's response using information in that link. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 12:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added release date confusion 

message: http://files.gtanet.com/images/3371_grand_theft_auto_iv_white_logo.jpg
Here's a cleaner version that fits the white background. --88.193.241.224 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: A recent interview with a rockstar employee has revealed that niko belic will not be the only playable character. There will be four playable characters, some working with niko and others against him. Interview —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloMyNameIsn'tCharlie (talk • contribs) 
:Your link to the interview is broken... -- Longhair\talk 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have heard about the multiple character thing somewhere, though when i searched "www.rockstargamesinfo.com" it seems that that website doesn't exist... strange.∆ Algonquin 14:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup, it's not wkring for me either :S  Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs  01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Details 

message: One of the most detailed sources of San Andreas *first-hand*/semi-official reports recently started its 'Coverage Center' for GTA IV, with a lot of impressions, R* interview quotes and exclusive tidbits of information that should urgently be filtered into the Article. Since this source was so reliable and detailed for GTA SA and has also set up gta4.kikizo.com as a GTA IV hub, and as it promises "detailed, accurate impressions and information direct from our regular private viewings at Rockstar Games HQ" it should probably be added as a External Link; its first preview that went live at the same time as IGN's, GameSpot's, CVG's, GamesRadar's (the only other privileged  sites to even see the first Broker/Algonquin demo at Rockstar) was significantly more detailed and was praised on influential forums like NeoGaf and GtaForums... the site has even since removed an image (depicting Bellic's changes of clothing for the first time) at the request of Rockstar showing that it's important to see this site's reports quickly in case of useful info leaks. I will now summarise some of the details for consideration to go into the Wikipedia GTA IV article, in the first major preview from the site (url: http://games.kikizo.com/news/200705/101_p1.asp):
* GTA: Europe rumor - there was a credible 2004 report in MCV (UK trade magazine) that GTA IV would be set in Europe and Rockstar has commented on this for the first time and confired it as incorrect: "As soon as we finished San Andreas, we knew where it was going to be." [all quotes that are not kikizo's are from their Rockstar PR rep as quoted].
* Mission/story link and progression - "what I can say is that, for the first time, we're really trying to blur the line between on-[mission] and off-mission. So storyline, and what you do outside, and how those two things influence each other. Obviously the storyline is more complex than before; you're going to be able to engage and embark on relationships with other people to an extent that you haven't been able to do before, to a point that hopefully it will evoke emotion within the person playing the game as well."
* Observations on the sound engine - Cars driving past really sound - and feel - like they're going past you, as the engine rumbles and the car's blaring music fades in and out... The varying volume and intensity of car horns and the constant hum of traffic noise is transfixing to listen to, and the frequent deafening rattle of trains hurtling through the subway honestly make this city sound as real as the ones we live and breathe in - it's something we don't think has been emphasised enough in any previous coverage of this new title... it sounds as dynamic and three-dimensional as it looks. The idea of going anywhere and doing anything, has never been as tantalising. 
* Extent of loadtime-free play - there are no load times, period, according to Brown. "You can basically play the game from beginning to end without a single load screen," he explains. And it won't be affected by your choice of console between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, either: "They will both be the same," says Brown 
* Platform disparity - "We're still trying to solve all the riddles on both platforms; there is no target console... obviously it was in development a little bit longer on Xbox 360, just because people had access to the tools earlier, hence the PS3 [version currently] being slightly behind, but we'll probably be catching up in about a month on that."
* Traffic - in general, the variety in traffic on the road - vehicle type and style - is such that you can see a whole lot more than just the basic make and colour of each car, like you put up with from a last-gen GTA. Traffic looks pretty much like it does in a real city.
* First confirmed track, placeholder TBC - A great piece of funky jazz music (Fela Kuti - Sorrow Tears & Blood) plays on the bassy car stereo too and really adds to the vibe.
* Music in final game - "I think it'll be a huge and broad spectrum of music that will cover decades; just because it's set now, doesn't mean that the music has to be in 2006 and 2007; I'm sure it will be far-reaching in terms of decades, and genres." 
* Staten Island absence - "The only thing we're not doing is Staten Island, just because it was too similar to some of the other areas, so it didn't really bring anything to the mix that was new and fresh."
The site also has a rough schedule of what its first-hand coverage will entail:
Schedule of GTA IV coverage - subject to change: 
* Announcement & HD Trailer (March 29) 
* Preview 1: Welcome to GTA IV (May 25) 
* Preview 2: Gameplay, PS3 Version & More (June TBC) 
* Preview 3: Online/MP modes - (August TBC) 
* Preview 4 & Beyond: Details and further preview timing TBC
Gamefan inform 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official title is "Grand Theft Auto IV."  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 04:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Grand Theft Auto IV is the beginning of a whole new arc in the series. Every other follow-up will have a subtitle. It's the same thing that happened with Grand Theft Auto III. The follow-ups were GTA: Vice City, GTA: San Andreas, etc. etc. - Throw 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just about to reply here but got an edit conflict. I reverted the "linkspam" revert because all your edits seem fine and constructive to me. Kikizo appears to be a reliable source and I didn't immediately see any reason to think otherwise (e.g. fan submitted content). ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Details/Observations; External Link Suggestion 

message: There has been speculation as to whether or not gta IV will have exclusive content for the 360 as well as a seperate set of exclusive content for the PS3, but it has been confirmed now that the 360 will be exclusively getting all the episodic content, the PS3 gets none. Press release here http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=77863
:Yep, additional info available here: http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=120404 Bhavesh.Chauhan 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a Collectors Edition for PS3,but there isn't one for Xbox.Usually Collectors mean... fill in the Blanks. I never trust gamespy
they make good online games sucky with lag.--Hitamaru 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodic content confirmed exclusive for 360 

message: http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1379.html ∆ Algonquin 08:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting news. Do you happen to know which Turkish magazine the information's from? Personally I'm not comfortable using a PlayStation website citing an unnamed Xbox magazine as a source, especially as they're confused by the map size/landmass comment from Rockstar and think it's a contradiction. Incidentally, recently I was told a good way to explain the map size thing to those who're having trouble with it. Think of a pool with 3 inflatable donuts in it, That's San Andreas with its 3 cities. GTA IV is a slightly smaller pool, but it has 1 donut bigger than all three put together. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 12:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the link is broken now, but here is an even better link with more info that works: http://gamers-creed.com/?p=70. As for it being a demo of the game, I interpreted the article to mean that Rockstar had intended to make the game more realistic by removing the HUD. ∆ Algonquin 10:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there is no such magazine in Turkey and that they don't even sell the Xbox in that country. I also don't trust the contradictions of the article (it says that there are no girlfriends when this has been confirmed). I'll check it out myself though. Please don't add any of this info until we have some real proof (ie. scans). - .:Alex:. 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. There is no such magazine in Turkey. Like many other Eastern European countries, consoles just do not sell there, it is not worth anyone's time to produce a magazine for console games. Dozens of gaming sites posted this as fact, confusing thousands of people, this was despite the fact none of them had read or seen scans of the magazine - because of course, the mag is non-existent. And all this stemmed from a GameFAQs poster, who it turned out was known for previous hoaxes. IMO it was poor journalism from the gaming sites who did post, I feel they could have tagged the post as rumour at least. --ChrisJP 15:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No HUD or stats on screen during play, acording to turkish mag 

message: Has no information been released about who's voicing the main character yet? Or any of the people working for R* on the game, apart from the obvious people? 12.107.246.101 07:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, not yet. It's all been quite hush hush. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Niko Bellic's Voice Actor

message: Just a heads up!
http://grandtheftauto.yahoo.com/
Yahoo have announced that they will open a new GTA IV website on towards the release of the second trailer. They will feature exclusive content and sneak previews as well. - .:Alex:. 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Alex. I also noticed on that page that the Xbox 360 Link (http://videogames.yahoo.com/gamemain?cid=1951332566&tab=&page=0&eid=-1) and the PS3 Link (http://videogames.yahoo.com/gamemain?cid=1951332567&tab=&page=0&eid=-1) feature the cover art (old GTA IV logo on black background) but they seem to be just placeholders so I doubt there's a need to change the image in the infobox for the article. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I recieved an email yesterday from Rockstar Games that contained the new GTA IV logo that is currently used on this page, so yes it probably is just a placeholder. - .:Alex:. 09:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New GTA IV site on Yahoo.com 

message: How reliable is http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/? Are the contributers professional journalists or volunteer fans of the game? If it's not professional, is it still a good source to use for this article? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, man, it's just a blog linking to news, not some dude claiming to know things about the game. And Jordan (the site's "manager", so to say) is an IGN employee (GameSpy's a subsidiary of IGN). So, heh, we might say he's a journalist. :) --nlitement [talk] 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the reason I asked is because somebody's cited a news item for analysis of why yahoo's hosting the next trailer. I wanted to know if this was the official reason or just opinion, and if it is just opinion, is it professional opinion. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 19:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case this helps.. When I heard that Yahoo also was releasing the trailer I immediately thought it was most likely because there wouldn't be another crash. After I saw Jordan on the GameSpy site  also beleive it was so there were no server crashes I thought that it would be worth adding that information to the article. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's really just speculation about the reason? As other reasons like part of an advertising deal, or any kind of deal could be the reason why Yahoo's hosting it. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, unfortunately, I agree with you. I didn't think it was notable enough to bring up here, but yes, it's simply speculation. --nlitement [talk] 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns over planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com

message: Hi, recently I was browsing through some GTA forums and hundreds of users are angry towards Yahoo not posting the exclusive content as they promised to do on the 25th of May. As a result, many people have decided to create new accounts on Yahoo to spam on their message boards: http://messages.yahoo.com/Games/Computer_%26_Video_Games/forumview?bn=4781811
I feel like it's worthy to be added to the article. 
Obviously this was a misconception by the fans - they mistook "coverage" as "exclusive content". Yahoo were meant to provide COVERAGE from the 25th. "Special content including an interview with the creators ... and exclusive screenshots" is throughtout this week. Yahoo never specifically stated which date they were providing these things though. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like WP:OR from you there, is it notable, and do you have a source? John Hayestalk 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you need a source for "angry fans" or the "misconception"? -Bhavesh.Chauhan 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a source for the whole thing. You said you were browsing the GTA forums. That is WP:OR. You need to at least provide an article from a reliable source stating that this happened. Either way, it's not really important to an article on GTA, far more so on an article about Yahoo. John Hayestalk 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTA IV fans angry at Yahoo! 

message: As the second trailer is out I removed a lot of the info about who was going to release it where, as this was no longer important, along with the info about Yahoo, as this isn't really relevant to this section. John Hayestalk 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rockstar included a press release in the trailer's press kit that confirmed euphoria is indeed used, see GTA4.net. --88.72.33.134 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Trailer 

message: I've noticed there were typos in the first sentence of this GTA 4 article.  Please delete this when the error is resolved. :) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.185.39 (talk) 22:49, 30 June, 2007 (UTC)
:Which ones, and no need to delete, archive when done. John Hayestalk 00:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is written in British English. --AxG @ ►talk 21:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Either spelling is acceptable, but it is a wikipedia policy to stick to a consistent form of English. John Hayestalk 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if the article is majority British english, then it should be that way. If a majority can't be determined, then the article should be written in whichever English is used first, for teh sake of consistency.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a case, from the subject matter, for it being en_US, or en_GB, it is produced in both countries, by British staff headquartered in the US. As Klyptyzm suggests it should use whatever the majority of the article is written in (or default to the original), and I would suggest the majority is in en_GB. John Hayestalk 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Is it anywhere noted,why is the game called GTA IV,since the actual fourth installment of the series is Vice City,and GTA IV is the sixth installment?
:If you are refering to the article, no it doesn't mention it. If you are just asking, this isn't a forum, so while I know the answer, I won't discuss it here. John Hayestalk 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's actually the eleventh, not the sixth game in the series, see the first line of the article. John Hayestalk 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite simple. 4th Generation of the game, GTA 1 series, GTA 2 series, GTA 3 series, now GTA 4. John Hayestalk 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably yes. I'll do that. John Hayestalk 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure everyone who knows GTA is smart enough to figure out why it's GTA IV.. maybe because the GTA 3 series ended? YES! --nlitement [talk] 14:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't writing for people who know GTA though, we have to assume the reader knows nothing about the subject matter. John Hayestalk 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The games title 

message: I noticed in the section for the first trailer, the last line reads:
"Rockstar has stated that all the trailer's footage is in high-definition 720p, generated real-time by the game's RAGE engine, running on an Xbox 360."
I looked at the cited source and it didn't say which console, in fact it said they don't know which console it was from.
Quoted from the cited aricle:
"When we asked Rockstar Games for a clarification, a spokesman told TeamXbox: "We would like to let the trailer speak for itself. However, we can confirm that all footage in the trailer "Things Will Be Different" was captured directly from 720p gameplay running real-time in our RAGE engine on a next-gen gaming console." "
So unless I'm missing something, perhaps this should be changed back to "a next-gen gaming console". 203.211.121.36 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha yeah, I see what you mean, they should stop referring to Xbox360/Ps3/Wii as next-gen. Still doesn't help the article though... can anyone change this or point out where it says the footage is from Xbox 360? Thanks.202.74.204.223 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --nlitement [talk] 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says 360 again, even though the cited source still doesn't have more specific information on which system it runs on. Someone obviously has an interest in misrepresenting his guess as being a fact. 217.235.107.186 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to seventh gen console. John Hayestalk 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been changed back, and sourced this time, but with a youtube source. I reverted this, but then re-reverted back, as while we shouldn't use youtube sources, I think in this case it might be acceptable, we just need to find another source to back it up. John Hayestalk 07:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the other reference relevant any longer, now we know it's Xbox360 do we need the link to the site that says "it's running on a console but we don't know which one" anymore? I mean is this one still neccessary: http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/13134/And-Grand-Theft-Auto-IV-Takes-Place-In-UPDATE-/203.211.122.16 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer footage 

message: Isn't the opening of the article a bit too long? A lot of it is related to development of the game so could it perhaps be moved to a new section near the top called Development or something, as it's a bit hard to read if you know what I mean. - .:Alex:. 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I totally agree. John Hayestalk 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: There is a new teaser site for one of the talk radio stations in the game, WKTT Radio, which seems to be a right-wing station. However, a number is given on the site and Rockstar wants people to call in and talk about what is wrong with Liberty City, Liberals, America, etc, and if it's good enough, they will use it in the game on the station.
http://www.wkttradio.com/
It should be mentioned somewhere in the article but I'm not sure where. 69.121.66.69 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaser site with a twist 

message: in the second trailer the are two children/teenagers beating each other up and i thought it was worth mentioning as the have never been children in gta games before for obvious reasons
No. --nlitement [talk] 15:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those weren't kids. They were just regular people.--Swellman 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: R* children 

message: I removed the sentence claiming rumors about a Wii version, because the article that was cited on that claim makes no mention of the wii whatsoever. Yankeefan1087 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that cite was the source for the previous sentence, someone must have added in the Wii specualation later. In removing that you removed the cite for 6 other locations as well, so I added it again. John Hayestalk 09:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wii Version 

message: the gta iv is now at 92, and cumin to all b the wii the ps3 gta iv will h  dc in 2008 said some man at e3 ?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky the sky the sky (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 July, 2007 (UTC)
:Dat iz gr8 m8.  Lt uz no wen it iz at 93 and cumin to all inkludn da wii.Darkwarriorblake 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? - Bhavesh.Chauhan 00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You should never change the spelling of talk page comments, so I have reverted that, in fact Darkwarriorblake was making fun of the spelling, so your change would have entirely lost the context. John Hayestalk 11:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please direct this discussion to something important.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I was wondering whether this could be deleted under WP:FORUM but I decided to leave it in case a source does appear. John Hayestalk 15:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I sgree. And yes the whole thing is speculation, so the whole section could, and should be deleted. John Hayestalk 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gta iv development is now at 92, 

message: Since the game is going to be coming in a mere 89 days. I was wondering how the whole article is going to change? For one, I realise the "future tense" will become the "past tense".. How else is the article going to change because it seems like  lot of work is going to be needed to be done during that week? - Bhavesh.Chauhan 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for one I don't think the trailers will need such a large section. They should be mentioned, but most of the information in them will not be relevant at that point anymore. Generally this sort of pre-release information will become redundant. John Hayestalk 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually most of the "future tense" will become "present tense". - .:Alex:. 15:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright fine, present tense even.. but will anything else change/removed? Perhaps we should look at GTA:SA as an example? - Bhavesh.Chauhan 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The strategy guide will be released 10 days earlier, heed this warning.. --nlitement [talk] 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how will the article change on the release date? 

message: And other details: . I haven't got time to work this into the article at the moment. John Hayestalk 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that specific info is in it, but there is a lot more detail that isn't. I have added a ref with name "games radar" for this already. John Hayestalk 12:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wanted Level escape method 

message: The Gameplay section really needs to be cleaned up, it's only got a few sources, and it's rapidly becoming a long list of "It has been confirmed"s. I suggest maybe subdividing it into subsections. John Hayestalk 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameplay Section 

message: It states GTAIV is not an MMORPG, but features online play. GTA is not an RPG so that would be impossible.User:Trent12345409
:Umm... what are you getting at? You didn't clarify what would be impossible.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 01:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was pointing at that a game has to be an RPG to begin with in order to be an MMORPG. So, to correct the statement, it should say GTAIV is not an MMOG, but features online play. So if GTAIV were to be an MMO game, it would be an MMOG (massively multiplayer online game), and not an MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game). Take care. 72.49.194.69 08:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess there isn't a general agreement that a game must be an RPG in order to be an MMORPG, as no one has actually responded, Trent. 72.49.194.69 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured someone would have removed the "RPG" statements from the article. If it hasn't been done, do so, someone.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 14:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MMORPG?

message: the last paragraph of the article states this: "However, Jason Della Rocca, executive director of the International Game Developers Association, accused New York City officials of hypocrisy, for criticizing video games but not other forms of entertainment, such as books, films and television shows, which use New York City as the setting.[44]"
The word "hypocicy" is not used correctly.  Can we change this please?
:Changed it yesterday. Changed to "double standards". - X201 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocricy? 

message: On the Wikipedia article it says that gta iv is being released 2nd quarter of 2008. IS THIS TRUE??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseg70 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 August, 2007 (UTC)
:yes its true GTA IV has been delayed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.185.131 (talk) 21:53, 2 August, 2007 (UTC)
::Of course, you could've checked the source that was cited, namely Take 2. It's even reached Slashdot. --nlitement [talk] 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up.--Swellman 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The previous two discussions have links in them. - X201 08:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no release date at all on gta4.com. --nlitement [talk] 15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Amazon UK say 25 April and Amazon US says 30 June. The best thing to do is just wait. Until Take-Two make a public statement about a new release date. Only two entities know the date Rockstar and Take-Two I suggest we wait for an official announcement from them and ignore everyone else's blatant speculation. - X201 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's from Take Two. It's official. That site has just yet to be updated.--Swellman 11:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This or this is too from Take Two and under GTA IV is written "Coming October 2007". So, the 2008 release is either confirmed or true. Yoosq 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: We need to make a new section of and update about the delay of gta 4 realise Chegis 21:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been integrated into "Development". --nlitement [talk] 21:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As nlitement says, it was integrated into development. While it might be important at the moment, by the time the game comes out it really won't be that important to the game as a whole. John Hayestalk 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new section or update needet 

message: At the introduction of the article, it states GTA IV is "announced for release by Rockstar Games in second quarter 2008 for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360." However the side information states the release date as "Q1 2008". Could someone please fix it? The correct release date is Q2 2008, specifically March or April 2008. 72.49.194.69 14:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. .:Alex:. 15:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: March or April = 3rd and 4th months = FIRST quarter. I put it as Q2 at first because that's their fiscal year. This would be misleading. --nlitement [talk] 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... March is Q1, April is Q2. John Hayestalk 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion derives from calendar quarters and fiscal quarters not aligning. Take-Two's fiscal Q2 is Feb-Apr. At the moment the most exact release info is that it will be released in their fiscal Q2 so perhaps it might be clearer to use Feb-Apr as a release but it's the messier option. Provided that the article points out it's a fiscal Q2 that covers Feb to Apr and not a calendar Q2 (Apr-Jun) then IMO Q2 is OK. - X201 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Contradicts itself 

message: This statement could be removed, because I'm guessing that the game is only just over 50% complete now that they've delayed the release. Davnel03 15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The delay does not necessarily change overall progress. We don't even know why they have delayed it, and it could be for any reason. Until a reason is given, the percentage shall remain. .:Alex:. 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. You're actually proposing we guess to "around 50%" and put it in the article when we have nothing to back it up?►Chris Nelson 16:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not proposing it. I think the statement could be removed until the reason is given for the delay. Davnel03 17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have no hard evidence to say the game is less complete.►Chris Nelson 17:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly my point too. I wish I put it as simple as that, but I always happen to make things sound more complicated than they need to be. .:Alex:. 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems a good idea. John Hayestalk 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "86% complete?! 

message: We probably should not list Q2 (or Q1) as the release date. The source says fiscal Q2, but it doesn't say what their fiscal year is, so in theory it could be any time in 2008. nlitement seems to think their Q2 is our Q1, I got the impression their Q2 is our Q3, so you see the potential confusion. Until we get an exact source for the date (in calendar rather than fiscal year), or a source which explains their fiscal year, we should just leave 2008. John Hayestalk 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's neither. As I mentioned in my post above Take-Two's fiscal Q2 is equivalent to Feb-Apr which makes it both calendar Q1 & Q2 The ttpress citation (that has been erased during the date edit war - could someone please restore it as it has broken all other uses of the citation later in the article)  press release had TTs fiscal year end date in it and a quick bit of maths later will give their Q2 dates. Sorry about the tone of this, message it's not aimed at anyone, my boss was standing next to my desk and I wanted to finish post quickly.  - X201 08:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah apologies, I didn't see that when their fiscal year ended. In that case Feb - April is fine. John Hayestalk 13:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q1 / Q2