Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 2

Archived Page

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)

Yay! --70.128.115.70 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied a few unanswered comments from that archive page back to here, as they might still be relevant for discussion. --70.128.115.70 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those! --BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DATE

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)

Could you add a source for that? The official site only mentions the 16th. Rafert 14:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Take 2 sues Jack Thompson

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).

thnis might get him off R* lol--Butterrum 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

PS3 with episode??

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)

GTA 4 Fansites?

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).

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)

What he saidYeanold Viskersenn 17:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ok this is not pokemon hes right those are links to real deals from R* north yeah R* north is in Ireland for all i know GTA IV chould be Scottish *gasp* lol well i dont know that for shure lol but i was thinking sceance Manhunt was a ticket to what stuff was gonna be in GTASA is Manhunt 2 gonna be a ticket i hope so Manhunts a good way to know whats up--Butterrum 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

i know what it means im not listening to you ok for all i mknow Bill chould be your puppet--Butterrum 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

whbat are you talking about i get insulted all the time and i dont care how many awards you won you chould be him --Butterrum 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

The page is semi-protected. --70.142.47.196 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking why. There is no mention of it. :) --70.142.47.196 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ok. --64.149.37.117 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

• I know this has gone through all the correct procedures and deleted, and this isn't the right place to discuss it - but it seems so, so petty. There is no free alternative to the image, it accurately depicted the subject in question (the announcement of GTA IV episodic content on the 360) and was correctly sourced. I can't believe, in any scope of my wildest imagination that either Microsoft OR Rockstar would have ANY problem with such a blatant publicity-oriented photograph being placed in such a high profile position on the net. Would they really cause a pointless PR disaster for themselves by suing a famous non-profit organisation in order to REDUCE their own publicity? It's absolute nonsense - but them's the rules, even though the rules are, for want of a better word, silly. I find that pedantic destructive editing like this, targetting blatantly good faith edits and removing countless hours of honest work for the sake of red tape is extremely offputting for me as an editor and I'm sure it has been the cause of the loss of a good few editors in the past. But them's the rules... Yeanold Viskersenn 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would have chosen to keep the image. I also believe that it wouldn't be breaking the Wikipedia fair use policies by keeping it too. I didnt see the fair use rantionale on the actual image, but here's what I would have used:

The only other concern to me would be whether or not the image (and the event it describes) is notable enough to include in the article. I believe it is as it's a unique announcement of the first next-gen GTA game. But like you said, it's all happened now and there's not much that can be done. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, the fact that the site specifically says no other use is kind of off putting though. I don't know where fair use comes into that kind of situation. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowlegde of the processes of uploading images and whatnot, but I also feel that would, and probably should, have been more successful in asserting the necessity of using the image for the article since, apparently, the rationale that was used didn't suffice. But that's just my 2 cents. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted by consensus and YES it's unfree out of context and blantant publicity. if youre a Microsoft Fanboy and loves Peter Moore arms, Wikipedia isn't the right place to show your proudness. --Ciao 90 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That last sentence was unnecessary and inflammatory. Nobody here said anything that seemed to qualify them as a "fanboy". We were just discussing the fair use rationale. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that Bill's rationale suggestion would have possibly asserted the image's existence; to tell you the truth, I'm pretty impartial to whether it stayed or not, but it wasn't hurting anything, was it? And, if you're just a blatant dick, then Wikipedia isn't the place to be unnecessarily mean, if it's not too bold to say. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be closed; I have a bad feeling more people are going to come and spark unnecessary conflict. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and even though not much can be done at this point, at least 3 editors have gone on record to just say how they disagree with the decision. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A question for those ignorant a**holes who edit this.

a have a few issues about the correctness of this article and I would like to discuss them...

first: how do you know that THE "IV" logo is "Official" ? from where do you know that? few weeks ago everybody thougt that the old "Grand Theft Auto" logo was "Official". so how do you know that? the fact that its posted on some count down site does not mean sh*t.

second: the flag notifications are not tolerant against Canada because USA is not the only country in north america and since there is no united north american flag there should not be any flags.

third: the "Media" should be "unknown" because for PS3 the media will be only the blu-ray and DVD will not be equal thats why the logic conclusion is that HD-DVD will be the media for the xbox 360 release

so if you are from R* and know these facts please write everthing properly and if you dont know DONT EDIT THIS ARTICLE I know that people will delete this what i just wrote but still... think-it-through OK? ---Chegis 20:34 march 23, 2007 (UTC)

I recently reverted back to the 4 Logo so I'll answer about that. It's official because it's taken from the official rockstar website. That doesn't mean it will definitely be used on the game cover, it just means that it's not unofficial, it was made/commissioned by the owners of GTA4. Also, try not to call other editors ignorant assholes, assume good faith that editors are only trying to make the article better. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an editor too and by posting this i have made myself a asshole wich i am. but you are not better than i am. ok that answered my question about the logo. but how about the media and thoes flags? ---Chegis 20:55 march 23, 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments:

• The "IV" logo has been up for a while, and its the logo on the official site, so it can be considered official until something new comes along (like from the trailer next Thursday)
• Put a canada flag along with the US flag if you want
• All PS3 games are on Blu-Ray, all Xbox 360 games are on DVD. Xbox 360 does not support HD-DVD games

Also take a look at WP:NPA and WP:AGF —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

actualy it does/could support HD-DVD games. [[1]] ---Chegis 21:09, march 23 2007 (UTC)

It could possibly, but from your link: The drive is able to play HD DVD movies, but all Xbox 360 games will continue to use DVD-9 media. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FX

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)

PC Version?

Does anyone want to put a note on the main article regarding a PC version? Given past history of the franchise, it's likely that sometime in 2008 they'll port it to PC. May be worth mentioning.

If you don't have any proof of Rockstar making a port, it shouldn't be added until said proof shows up. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS2 Version

How about a PS2 version? GTA San Andreas was the bestselling game in the PS2 console. Surely, Rock Star doesn't want to just throw away the profits by releasing this exclusively on the PS3 and Xbox 360? Moonwalkerwiz 07:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PS2 is for poor people i have an xbox 360 and i will enjoy better graphics nad textures. its just ignorant to think that a new game will come out on a old console. --- Chegis 17:25, march 28 2007 (UTC)

You hate poor people? And why are you so obsessed with "nad textures"? :P ---70.128.115.49 18:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar is not likely to release this on the PS2, or the original Xbox. That's just how the industry works. Would you expect GTA III to come out on PSone also? —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just asking why he hates poor people. Of course it's dumb to think GTAIV will come out on PS2. BTW the trailer will be released in just over 3 hours. :) --70.128.115.49 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" section should be renamed

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)