Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 15

No longer number 1.

Gamerankings shows that Zelda has reclaimed the number 1 spot. Somebody should change the article.Zabbethx (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussed not long ago, besides I fixed it some weeks ago, someone have apparently (incorrectly) inserted it into the article again. --Svip^pong 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All the article needs to say is that it was #1 on Game Rankings upon release. We don't need to keep updating it's current rank overall on the site, which is bound to change. --Pixelface (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How about not mentioning at all, you know, like previous GameRanking/MetaCritic champs? All of those games I've mentioned in the edit comment were at the top at one point but slipped behind Ocarina of Time. GTAIV is not different, gives the impression that the game is still number one just by the way the sentence is worded, is not until the end of the sentence that it's stated that it was at one point. (short after release). --HeaveTheClay (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to clarify. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Any news on the PC version?

While I have a personal interest in the answer :-), the article could do with a mention of this, even if it's just "Rockstar has made no reference to a PC version being forthcoming". --Jcmo (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a source stating they have made no reference to it? John Hayes^talk 14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Patience is the answer. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Xbox360 Freezing Issues

The Xbox360 version still has not been patched to resolve freezing issues. There is a rather large (63+ page) thread on the official Xbox forums regarding this: http://forums.xbox.com/63/20524533/ShowPost.aspx#20524533

The thread is still quit active. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.151.254 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

360 DLC

In the article it says August 08 for the first one. Kotaku says according to Take-Two CEO Ben Feder, it will be Q1, 2009. [1]. Is this a good enough source for this, or is a direct quote from Take-Two/Rockstar needed? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it before I read your message. I've used a different source but Kotaku is a generally reliable source. WP:VG/S has a list of which Video Game sources are considered reliable. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Onion article

Is this worth including in the article? If not, take a read anyway, it's pretty good. Neıl 龱 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Maybe if there is a "GTA in popular culture" article, but not the main article imo. xenocidic (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Updates on 10/10 scores

Is it worth mentionng thatwhilst, initially, the games was given very high scores and many 10/10's, current views seem to rate it much lower? Should the article discus the 'hype' factor? 86.3.17.25 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Current views by who exaclly? If its off forums, they aren't credible. Unless reviewers have re-rated this game lower (which they haven't from what I've seen) what are you implying? Stabby Joe (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How about the fact that it's no longer the "highest rated game of all time"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.6.91 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats because new reviews came in... happens with many highly praised games. Happened to Super Mario Galaxy, The Orange Box, BioShock, Resident Evil 4 etc etc... It has nothing to do with critics "changing their minds" which it appears you are implying. Seriously, if Zelda: OoT had the same amount of reviews has most games do now, thing would be different. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

I think you should add X-Play's score which was a 5/5 for both systems! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.139.240 (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PC Version Release

Are there are any sources for this release? I know it's confirmed, but if it's there there should be source. Gaara the Fifth Kazekage (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's confirmed? Oo --SoWhy ^Talk 16:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh I didn't express myself right. Anyways, at least now it's gone and things are clearer. Gaara the Fifth Kazekage (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't even refer to a possible PC version. That's just wrong. http://news.softpedia.com/news/GTA-IV-for-PC-Release-Date-Leaked-84459.shtml Nikos (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Its factually accurate. A PC version of GTA IV has not been announced. A shop website taking pre-orders with a mocked up case just doesn't cut the mustard as regards being a reliable source. If Wikipedia relied on shop release dates with mocked up covers than then Duke Nukem Forever would have been released 11 years ago. - X201 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Region Free?

I just wanted to ask if the USA version of this game is region-free for the PS3. 216.166.78.9 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All PlayStation 3 games are region free. (p.s. this is not a forum) --Vylen (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

just to let you know gta is 1080p for the ps3 640p is not even real

I'm not even gonna bother explaining this properly to you - look through the archives, it was heavily discussed wrt the NATIVE resolution of the game... --Vylen (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that 'heavily'. The validity of the claims that the rendered resolution is 640p were never backed up. It's just naturally accepted as fact because a news article on a so called 'reliable' site was posted. Lets ignore the fact it never backed up its 'sources' and was quoting directly from a forum post as reference. That just screams volumes of how reliable the news site really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.69.128 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got an update on the 360 version

I turned on the game this morning and downloaded an update from XBL, but I can't find any news about it.Skeith (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Same for me but for the PS3. v1.02, I also can't find any news about it.--24.222.149.142 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's on Rockstar's site. --Svip^pong 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PC port

Is this enough to cite their being rumors of a PC port? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, considering that was all the way from January 25 and it stated that no one had confirmed it. It's nothing new. 67.41.162.59 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Indirect proof or scam?

189.137.99.34 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC) i found this link to a (chzec?) online game store. It might be a scam, i wouldnt be surprized, but if the website is legit, it could be the proof of a pc release http://www.citydisc.ch/games/detail.cfm?lang=d&section=pc&art_nr=9483014

furthermore, if it turned out to be a scam, and rockstar found out about it, we would probably get an official statement from them in order to kill the scam

It's complete nonsense - they're using "boxart" from a German website that initially reported the rumours (you'll notice the PAL written in the top right corner, which is complete nonsense for a PC game). --Vylen (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Mission choices

I believe the following statement in the intro to "Gameplay" is incorrect: "The game has two different endings, which are determined by decisions made by the player throughout and at the end of the game. Each choice affects the final missions the player can partake, and the fate of some characters." Yes, the game has 2 possible endings, but the decisions a player makes throughout the game do not affect the final mission one receives. The only choice that affects the final ending is the last choice the player makes (given by Bell), choosing to either chase down or help Dimitri. Every walkthrough for GTA: IV can confirm this. The other decisions in the game do not affect the ending, only the ability to "reveal" extra side missions. I think it should be re-written to: "The game has two different endings, which the player determines during the final decision. The other decisions during the game affects the fate of some characters and the possibility of playing extra side missions." Nitroblu (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A better choise of words would be, "The decisions as to the games ending are only made in the mission prior to the final mission" Because yours is way too vage.(58.166.87.142 (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

GTA IV for PC

I would sure like to know if this will be out for pc ever, I was planning to buy it as soon as it was released and then they only made it for console.. I will never buy it for console as I am a pure PC gamer. Consoles to me are a waste of time and space. If they do not release it for PC then no big deal, I guess it's their loss since PC gamers won't be sending them money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.208.13 (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been no official news wrt the release of GTA IV on PC. For future reference, please consult the rockstar website and not ask questions here as this place is NOT a forum. --Vylen (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why won't they get money from PC gamers lolol I'm a PC gamer but believe GTA is best suited to console, it just feels so much better. I would happily buy a console just to play any GTA. Celtic96 (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

not everyone has money to waste on a console for just one game, and even if they did, one would hope they wouldn't be that stupid with their money. Either way, this is for discussion of the article, not the subject of the article. And Rockstar has not announced a PC release so anything about it is pure speculation at this point. Nar Matteru (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pc is ok but they can crash, and have crippling antipiracy measures that affect the people who buy the game, not the pirates, who can circumvent and bypass all the restrictions. with a severly bored 15 year old and a computer and a copy of the game, a crack will form. consoles have no need for this, due to the fact that if u are found, your waranty is voided and you get banned from the online gameplay.Link ganon zelda (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And your point is?. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Antipiracy sucks. And Rockstar could care less about piracy because they have profited more than enough to consider themselves a success. And given with the right knowledge and materials, a person could bypass antipiracy measures imposed on consoles and they can even play competitively against legitimate gamers. Console companies can only block consoles who are using popular methods of bypassing antipiracy measures, but not secret or hidden methods unknown to them. Now Rockstar should focus on bringing this game to more platformsTriadwarfare (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been a confirmation of a PC version of the game, I believe. See here The Chronic 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are doubts about how reliable that mag is Xep (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. We all know about straplines on the front of magazines saying one thing and then when you read the inside of the magazine it says something totally different. We need a reliable source for information like this. - X201 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Point is rather that the UK PC Gamer does not know it as well. So it could be true or it could be rumors. We should try to find someone active in Malaysia who is interested in PC Games to have a look at this magazine and if it is true to cite the magazine rather than a picture of it's cover. I think PC Gamer UK and others will soon confirm it anyway if it's true. So#Why 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The PC relase is OFFICALLY confirmed and its october 2008!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bledzerget (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have a reliable source for that have you? No? I didn't think so...

On a side note, the aforementioned PC Gamer cover is not a confirmation for the PC version according to Game On Game. New source for rumor is the ESRB according to that source (which I can't confirm on the ESRB website). So#Why 16:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this.... http://www.gamegrep.com/news/11965-its_official_gta4_on_pc/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bledzerget (talk • contribs) 11:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Untrue rumor. Try the search yourself. Most likely someone at ESRB messed up and they have corrected it by now. Not at all reliable enough for Wikipedia. So#Why 11:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a true rumor. I have seen it myself, and thousands of others on many GTA websites reported it. Here is an IGN source: [2]. Also from Gamespy: [3] I think it deserves to be mentioned on the main article.(Medfreak (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC))

It is true but i don't think it should be mentioned but there is no harm in adding. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ESRB has already rated the game and it was up on their site (i and lots of other persons have seen it). ESRB has had this problem before (showing game rating before game official announcement). Also if you know how ESRB works, then you know that rating is given only to the product that has been finished (read more from ESRB). PC version was also up in Take2 website back in january if i remember correctly (which was also removed after some time). But as we all know, Wiki is not about the truth, it's about the source.. does this mean if reliable source confirms some bullshit, then it should be up in wiki? Then it don't get the point of wiki, is users can't find truth rather than only some stuff that has been confirmed by some sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaurikk (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If the "bullshit" you mention is confirmed by a reliable source, then yes, that will most likely happen. WP:V states it, as you say it: WP is an encyclopedia and thus does not judge about whether something is true or not - it reflects that other people have said something is true or not. So#Why ^{review me!} 13:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I linked to two reliable sources : IGN and Gamespy, both reporting the fact that ESRB did list "Windows PC" platform as one of the GTA IV platforms temporarily [4][5]. Both are some of the most reliable game reporting outlets in the gaming industry. I think the fact that ESRB showed that is now proven. Further denials on your part constitutes to nothing but trolling at this stage. Now the issue of whether or not this actually CONFIRMS a GTA IV PC version is a different discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medfreak (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Relax, will you? I never denied that the ESRB had such listings, I just told the user that we value verification over truth as this is an encyclopedia. So yes, you are, as Skywalker said, welcome to write in the article that the ESRB had such listing online, if you think that is needed in the article. I just advise you to remember that the sources just confirm the ESRB listing and not the PC version itself. So#Why ^{review me!} 17:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It does look like GTA4 is confirmed for PC. Straight from Rockstar themselves - [6], as well as on other reliable websites.[7][8][9]NeonFire (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales

How many copies has it sold now? More than a month has passed since the last amount sold that it shows on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eattwell (talk • contribs) 05:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sales and Impact

Should it be noted that GTA4 sold a lot less than expected and didn't have any impact on console sales? According to this month's NPD it's not even in the top 10 in the US. I think it should be made note of given that many analyst predicted it would have a big impact on sales for consoles and it didn't atleast for the US for either platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.233.100 (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But it distroyed record's and sold well, give a link to these predictions and I guess they can be put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.111.79 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/grand-theft-auto-iv-didnt-boost-console-sales/ “The continued success of GTA IV is not translating into big hardware sales for the PS3 or the 360,” a NPD analyst Anita Frazier said. “But there may yet be a lift in June due to gift-giving for Father’s Day and graduations.”

that never happened according to the last NPD, atleast in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.233.100 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

Can some one please add a part with the easter eggs in the game like the beating heart in the statue of happiness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.196.144 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

NOT A GAME GUIDE!(124.176.111.79 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

I suggest you go to http://gta.wikia.com/. They have most of the ingame content there. Since Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia, nothing more, that information isn't and shouldn't be included because not all people who read this article are looking for such content (some are only interested in new features, sales, plot summary, etc) because they will only unnecessarily increase length of the page and loading times. Please understand Triadwarfare (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not put a link in for Easter Eggs that way the information will not be directly in the article, this is a site with all the Eggs found in the game so far

http://www.eeggs.com/tree/11931.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.160.70 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned makes a good point, however, this article should have a link to those types of pages. It has one to strategywiki, but that is not a very good one as far as a game guide goes. Linking to gta.wikia.com I believe would be much more helpful, or linking to wikicheats.com as well. Those are great guides and I'm sure a lot of people searching the internet would love to see those links. (Zpenacho (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC))Zpenacho

Sales

Has Rockstar released any new information of the sales of the game yet? if so, we should update how many copies have been sold up to today, July 25th. Alec92 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Today? Whats so special about today? And whats the purpose of including such a dynamic number. Shouldn't have the edit wiki every time a new sale is made... Nar Matteru (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Downloadable content

What information do we have about the upcoming downloadable content for GTA IV as the information for it on this page has not chnaged since it was posted so many months ago. Is there any confirmation on episodic content as was speculated before IV's release? Will they just be clothing packages in a similar fashion to Saints Row's downloads? The statement that it will provide hours of extra gameplay is ambiguous at best and does not imply in the slightest that new episodes, new content (like, for example, buying properties, new jobs, more vehicles, etc) etc will be included. So what information do we have about the content and can it be posted here?? (121.45.44.161 (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

The only bit of new info was the fact that the date had slipped, other than that I've seen nothing. - X201 (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV for PC confirmed!

http://www.gamereactor.dk/media/gta4til_159627.jpg

there's a article here with the pic but its danish. http://www.gamereactor.dk/nyheder/70293/GTA+IV+til+PC!/?sid=70338e657b40d34a94ed8929b1996fcf

At top it says

"GTA IV for PC! ESRB reveals everything before the developer"

Then

"Rockstar has long said that they don't have plans for releasing Grand Theft Auto IV on PC at first. ESRB has now invalidated this and it's not the first time that they preempt it before a developer.

(Under Pic) ESRB probably reveals a game before the developers themselves.

Last time ESRB, the american organisation for rating of games, revealed a game title before the developer themselves, was in may where we got to know that there was a new Castlevania game for Nintendo DS on its way long before Konami announced it themselves.

GTA IV for PC has thus far no release date, but it's probably not long out in the future, what-so-ever this is of course something that all GTA-fans can be happy about."

Should I/we add the PC version in the article? 87.55.68.228 (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos for asking if it should be added. As the information stands I'd say no. The ESRB info is a graphic that could easily have been faked, the current ESRB site doesn't have PC listed. The article is not in English and will make checking hard for people who don't speak/read the language, and we don't know if the site is a reliable source. - X201 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this has been posted before, see the discussion above. As X201 points out, it could be faked and even if it is real, the only thing it proves is that it once was listed on the ESRB site but that could have been a mistake by the ESRB as well... So#Why ^{review me!} 12:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that the PC version is announced, we can discuss that. No the ESRB typing was not faked, nor was it a mistake. We have linked to official sources before confirming that ESRB temporarily displayed "Windows PC" as one of the listed platforms for GTA IV. Secondly, at time of GTA IV release on the consoles, the ESRB site did not list "Windows PC" platform. So this brings us to the conclusion that sometime between the console release and now, they deliberately changed it adding the windows PC platform to the list. ESRB is well known for early leaks of games, a well known example would be Vice City stories for the PS2. Finally IGN says: "Update: Since this story was published, the ESRB removed the GTA IV listing for PC from its public online database. However, the ESRB has not sent out a retraction letter to subscribers of the ESRB update service." Meaning it was only retracted from the Public database, but remained pretty much on the ESRB listing. [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medfreak (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope the info can not be added. Until Rockstar release information that it is coming for PC then it can be added. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PC version has been announced. official press release.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say but i'm kind a dissapointed about how this all PC stuff was handled. First sign was Take2 homepage, which was ignored as source (back in january), then it was ESRB, which was also ignored. Kaurikk (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we handled it as it should have been handled I think. We had no reliable sources until today and so we did not include it until today. I have been watching this article for a while btw and I don't remember a Take2 homepage source that could have been considered reliably announcing a PC version. So#Why ^{review me!} 16:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup i did see take 2 page but now that PC ver is officially announced i don't see the point in arguing. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just as I predicted =) –xeno (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And here I was, hoping to see you eat your hat...life is sooo cruel :-P So#Why ^{review me!} 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that the news/article i posted was from 26th july, so it was pure fluke that it got confirmed the same day as i posted it here! 87.55.68.116 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PC version multiplayer

I am really curious about how multiplayer will work in PC version. Maybe the game will include a serial key? or not? What exactly means "expanded" multiplayer for PC only? I am very interested in that part of the game, because I like GTAs, but in +100 hours of playing you just leave the game alone --NeHoMaR (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GTA 4 will be using GFWL for multiplayer. Ofcourse it will include a serial key that is the best defense against pirates when it comes to playing multiplayer. No one exactly what "expanded" multplayer mean. Just be patience Rockstar will explain more about it in due time.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I really hope they do make it in such with serial keys. If Rockstar actually works on the Multiplayer version of the game, it could pretty much boost their sales against those that will pirate the game. This would be a unique opportunity in comparison to their previous single player installments. (Medfreak (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Rockstar knows what they are doing. They know what PC users wants. Except iam looking forward for official mod support more than multiplayer. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree there. The quality of their previous PC ports have much to be desired. Although they usually get the controls working well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medfreak (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree good online play help a lot in selling legit copies of games, indeed, is the only thing making me actually buy a game when I can just .. you know. --NeHoMaR (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PC requirements

Any word on the system requirements yet? I looked at the GTAIV website but there's nothing there. JACOPLANE • 2008-08-7 07:13

No Sir, If there is no information on the official site then their is nothing . I assume the sys req would be either same has Gears of War or BioShock. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing official has been announced yet. NeonFire (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ip adding false information

This IP is lately being adding Serbia in GTA 4 article. This information does not have any reliable sources. This is been discussed here often. A suitable action must be taken. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By trying to change "Eastern Europe[an]" to "Serbia[n]", 80.85.96.4 (talk · contribs) has already broken the three-revert rule by reverting the article six times within the last 24 hours. --Silver Edge (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

True. He/She might continue doing this. Maybe we should report it? --SkyWalker (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing so. He/she breached 3RR, was warned about it and did continue. There is little doubt that 3RR should be enforced in this case. So#Why ^{review me!} 11:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should an Admin require it here's a quick link to the very long consensus discussion. - X201 (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the official link say Eastern Europe there is no Serbia written over there.--SkyWalker (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be a little late. But in GTA4, Niko and Roman do infact, speak Serbian. 204.14.12.35 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that even if they speak Serbian doesn't mean they are from Serbia as people do speak other languages than the main language of the nation they are from. You can't really think that everyone who speaks Spanish are from Spain or every one who speaks English are from England. Serbia is a common language in the Balkans and minorities of people who speak Serbian as first language can be found in every western Balkan country. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but other Balkan countries don't admit Serbian as their language. In Croatia its Croatian and in Bosnia its Bosnian. Also e-mails from Niko's mother are in Serbia. There are some differences between Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and from what i saw Niko and his cousin speak Serbian (not Croatian or Bosnian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.18.48.132 (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The language doesn't need to be official language to people to use it in the country. Every Balkan nation has minorities that speak Serbian as their first language but they usually can also speak the official language of the country too. They usually use their first language when they speak with the family members not the official language as in the game Niko's mother does. Thing that people would know if they would have even met someone else who doesn't speak their language as their first language. Even in USA some people speak Spanish as their first language and its not an official language of that country so by your logic that is not possible. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that some people don't speak the official language of a country they live in. I'm just saying that Serbian Croatian and Bosnian are actually one language but there are three names for it, depending on the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.18.48.132 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Croatian is same as Serbian it has a lot different words than Serbian or Bosnian languages. I could say that Bosnian and Serbian languages are more like than Croatian to either of them. Still they are separated to different languages and are quite frankly evolving to their own directions. You could say they are languages that are now shaping to their own languages like all the other languages have once diverted from some other language. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well they aren't completely the same but there are more than 90% of the same words and grammar is the same. Btw are you from Balkans since you know so much about these languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovcha91 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not anywhere near the balkan region, but still European. I only know those things by investigating the subject there is for example nice page on this site that shows how the Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian languages differiate from eachother. Also the grammar is for one reason the same as the stardard was invented by one group and then teached to all of them when they were all part of the same country. Languages evolve quite fast now a days so for example those languages might not be so much alike when like hundred years have gone by. Still I'm not stating they aren't anyway the same but they are still languages and you could categorized them as dialegs of the same language as the differences aren't so big, but to the individual people who speak them the difference is so big that it defines them as of different people. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "calvert" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/grandtheftauto4/review.html |title=Grand Theft Auto IV for Xbox 360 Review |accessdate=2008-04-29 |author=Justin Calvert |date=2008-04-29 |publisher=[[GameSpot]] |pages=2}}
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/grandtheftauto4/review.html |title=Grand Theft Auto IV for Xbox 360 Review |accessdate=2008-04-29 |author=Justin Calvert |date=2008-04-29 |publisher= |pages=2}}
• "oxmuk" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/14/first-grand-theft-auto-iv-review-perfect-10/| title=First Grand Theft Auto IV review, perfect 10| work=[[Joystiq]]|accessdate=2008-04-14|date=2008-04-14}}
  • {{cite web |url = http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=3993 |title = Xbox Review: Grand Theft Auto IV |accessdate = 2008-05-24 |author = Hicks, Jon |date = 2008-04-28 |publisher = ''[[Official Xbox Magazine#UK Edition|Xbox 360: The Official Magazine]]'' }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok bot. I shall check them. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.--SkyWalker (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's taken out?

Would it be okay if we mention what was taken out of the censored version which are:

• Being able to see Niko have sex with prostitutes.
• A cut-scene where Niko forces a baseball bat up someones rear end.

I think this info would important so people would now what to look forward or really now what's not in the censored version. --VitasV (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I say it's okay if reliable sources can be found to back it up. SoWhy 11:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A search[11] brings up this[12] and more. And I quote: "It also looks like prostitution got through unscathed, with the OFLC stating "when picking up a prostitute, the player is depicted in a car where he parks and honks the horn. The woman enters the car and the camera angle switches to the view of the number plate. While the car is visibly moving up and down, only audio cues are heard". NeonFire (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The prostitution addition looks OK but the baseball bat section seems a little awkward to me. the Kotaku link seems to point towards the scene not being present in any version of GTA IV, therefore making it not notable for the Aussie cuts. WP dosen't list plot elements that end up on the cutting room floor for movies and I think the same applies in the case of the baseball bat. - X201 (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Preceded by San Andreas?

Way to ignore Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories, both of which were canonical to the series. GTA IV was not preceded by San Andreas, but by Vice City Stories. Someone fix this. 99.242.218.89 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The numbering system in Grand Theft Auto is not a direct lineage. If it were, why is GTA IV called GTA IV? Its not the fourth game in the series. If it were a straight numbering system, GTA IV should actually be titled GTA XI - X201 (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought when I read the title, someone would suggest that GTAIV wasn't preceded at all by any of the former GTAs, as it is a completely new and different story in the series. --Svip^pong 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure San Andreas does proceed it because if you think about it, I guess Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories could be considered to be another portion of the series, similar to that of the Sims 2 Stories series, and also because GTA IV is the first instalment in the fourth generation of Grand Theft Auto. JayJ47 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They were full games, bigger than the first so they arn't side games. Numerically GTA IV is 4th, but really it isn't.(Ralon silver (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

They are full games, it's true, but that that doesn't mean they're not side game. They're extensions of the story around GTAIII and Vice city. The characters and world are very similar, if not the same, and so they should be considered sub-catagories of these games. --WORM | MЯOW 08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronologically, GTA3 is set in 2001, LCS in 1998, Vice City in 1986, VCS in 1984? and San Andreas in 1992, so personally I think it should be preceded by Grand Theft Auto III...But I wouldn't try and enforce that opinion on others. --WORM | MЯOW 08:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LCS and VCS are just "expanding" III and VC respectively, even if they are full games by their own right. In contrast VC and SA are maybe part of the GTAIII-complex, but are completely stand-alone. Also, neither LCS nor VCS were released on the PS3 but made primarly for the PSP. As JayJ47 points out above really. As for the rationale, that GTA III is preceding GTA IV because it is set in 2001, well, that's not how we do it. We judge by the release of the game, not by the era it is set in. Otherwise Anno 1602 would be the successor of Anno 1503. ;-) SoWhy 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I still think it'd be more accurate, but you're right - it's not how we do it primararily because it comes a little to close to WP:OR--WORM | MЯOW 14:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

System requirements

What are the system requirements of PC for the Grand Theft Auto IV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal2009 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been announced yet but when it appears on a reliable website or magazine it will appear in the article. - X201 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Internet Cafe/Internet

In the game, I believe the Internet Cafes are called TW@T (vagina), not TW@, as stated in the last word in the 2nd paragraph under the 'Communication' section in the article. I'm not able to edit as it's locked.. SubliminaL5 (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)SubliminaL5

It's TW@. Play the game. Ellomate (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You pronounce the @ as "at" so it's the same thing.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good thing it is locked, do a little more checking before editing.(124.179.20.97 (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

@ 124.179.20.97: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gta4+tw%40t&btnG=Google+Search Thank you for your input, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.201.35 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now compare it to the results without the t. Hmmm? --Svip^pong 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The 0 at the end of "Playstation 3" in the infobox should be an ). 76.105.20.199 (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, It is fixed. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Although smaller than San Andreas, Liberty City is comparable to it in terms of scope when "the level of verticality of the city, the number of buildings you can go into, and the level of detail in those buildings" are taken into account."

You mean the complete map of GTASA (consisting of 3 cities and a desert, one of which is called San Andreas) and not the city itself. The city itself was f­ucking tiny. Fix this in any way you consider appropriate to avoid confusion.

None of the cities in San Andreas is named as such. Cities in San Andreas are Los Santos, San Fierro and Las Venturas; all of them and surrounding landscape including smaller villages composes San Andreas. Pvj (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No either who wrote the post you are responding to but to be clear, San Andreas is the culmination of Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Venturas, and the countryside / desert. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

-Dick S. Everywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.6.135 (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Xbox Fanboyisim

On the native resolution someone has put 640p for ps3 please change it back to 1080p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.254.219 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I need a source for this to correct such. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I've done some research and found that the native resolution for the PS3 is 720p as well. The PlayStation 3, however, can upscale the game to 1080p. So the native resolution is not 1080p nor 640p, but 720p. I doubt this was Fanboyism however, though it does seem questionable... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Further correction, it is true. The Native Resolution is 640p. There is no Xbox Fanboyism, that's just the simple fact. This is why research is necessary :) ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for this. All articles either make the claim with no sources, or reference this article[13] about someone who posted on a forum based on a screenshot given to him (as the examiner had no PS3 himself; even the authenticity of the screenshot provided to him is in question). There has been no second examination, simply one report on one forum that got mentioned on 50 gaming sites. When Halo 3 on the 360 was suspected of rendering at a lower resolution, this was confirmed true by the developers, and there was also a hardware reason for doing so (the XBox 360 specific "predicated tiling" feature, which could not hold an anti aliased buffer any larger than this). For this rumour, however, there has been no developer confirmation, and no followup of any kind. It is a widespread rumour, but that doesn't mean it's true. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PC World magazine said in an article that it is "confirmed".[14]. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this considered reliable? The only "confirmation" it offers is the "counting pixels" article (which I linked above[15]), which is the same source the rumour stems from in the first place. "Confirmed" should mean that more than one source has verified it, which is not the case here. This rumour is not verifiable. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty weak as it offers no details about the conformation itself. It is referring to the counting pixel article as the report, and says it is confirmed. The consensus in the original discussion was basically that if a publication that is considered reliable says that it is confirmed, then that's good enough to satisfy WP:V. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does satisfy WP:V. I don't see anything there that suggests that this article should be considered a reliable source, and it definitely fails: "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". The only support it offers is citing the Beyond3D forum post, which is in no way a reliable source. - Rainwarrior (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest bringing this up on the GTA Taskforce to see if consensus has changed. As PC World is a reliable publication, then it was accepted that when they say that it's confirmed then they have done some fact checking. However as they don't show their own proof (I don't think they're citing the forum post as proof), then I think you make a good argument. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Disagree with the merge. -- SkyWalker (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The martketing article is absolutely ridiculously pointless. One video game doesn't need an entire article devoted just to its marketing. I suggest this either be merged into the actual GTAIV article or be moved to Marketing for Grand Theft Auto and include marketing details on its predecessors. VG Editor (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with a merge. Much like Halo 3, the marketing for GTA IV was on a much larger scale than the average game. The trailer countdown website, the massive box art reveal, the wanted posters and radio phone in messages were all something different to normal marketing methods, and they all got media attention. While some things wouldn't be harmed by reducing the detail, I think we'd be losing sourced info if all the content was merged into GTA IV. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Also disagree - this article is too big already. We split off the Marketing and the Characters and still have 84kb. –xeno (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree too. GTA 4 Marketing was huge and whatever information about marketing must go there. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also disagree. Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV was on a large scale beyond that of many games, comparable only to Halo 3. Not just the Viral Advertising and Public Events in addition to the countdown and reveals, but also: the Limited Edition Consoles, the Special Edition, Soundtrack, and even the massive promotion given by other media outlets. The Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV deserves it's own article and as per such, they should be kept separate. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also disagree. Marketing for GTA IV was on a much larger scale when compared to other video games, and as such, deserves its own page. MOOOOOPS (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think that this needs to be moved to Marketing for Grand Theft Auto and split off into sections for marketing for each game, from GTAII to San Andreas etc. It is a bit unnecessary to have an entire article devoted to one game's marketing, have it for the series as a whole. 60.242.127.62 (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GTA 4 is well knows for it marketing. I don't think it necessary to have Marketing for Grand Theft Auto for now. I don't think other Grand Theft Auto such has San Anderes had huge marketing. For now let GTA 4 marketing have its own page. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We can's speak about marketing for GTA IV, only thing we can talk is about marketing for console versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaurikk (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why Release date has changed?

I heard PC release date in US has changed to December 2 and its indicated in the infobox but not in the article. The date should be put there along with why this change happened, does anyone know why it was delayed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.43.168 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no official confirmation regarding the release date change. If you or anyone can get official press release stating the date change please add. Adding IGN, GameSpot and Amazon and so on are considered unreliable sources which it comes to release dates. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Skywalker, I'm confused. I definitely remember this conversation with you where you had the entire opposite viewpoint. (to be fair, so did I) Nar Matteru (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha, Well Bully indeed came for PC. :). Nat but this is a different from that conversation. Gaming sites such has IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy and also Amazon and such sites guess release dates without any confirmation. Take 2 has not confirmed any delays. Why would they hide the delays when the game is announced for November release?.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I figured it would, but that was still without take 2 announcement. I really, really hope they are wrong on this and that itll still come out in November, but Considering how many times R* has delayed games/ports in the past I fear they are right. As for not announcing a delay, thats not somethign theyd be very loud about, imo. We'll see if they do or not. (I'm guessing a subtle change on the websites where date is listed or some such) Nar Matteru (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well my point was that if there was one date in the infobox and another one in the article, the infobox should be reverted to the previous date if there is no official statement, right? --98.110.43.168 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It already has been changed back as someone did not like my sources, which in the hopes of optimism that my sources are wrong, is fine by me. However yes, I was originally in error buy not changing it within the article as well, but now its a moot point. Nar Matteru (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The delay is confirmed now. Though iam not sure about Europe release date. :)--SkyWalker (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:(( Nar Matteru (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if you check the Games for Windows site it says that it will be released at 4th of December not the 2nd. Either its wrong or it might be the European release date or the real date don't know. It would be also nice to know where IGN got the information of it being delayed as I don't find it on Rockstar or GTA IV site. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IGN got the information from Rockstar. They even got the official system reqs and plus they were able to play PC version.--SkyWalker (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the US Games for Windows site that says 4th of December. GB version still says 21st of November. Maybe it's just the US release that's delayed? 91.152.193.8 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Some say it's going to be worldwide (but R* or Take2 has not confirmed any delay yet - meaning only rumor). By the way, on Games For Windows site, there are 3 different dates: 18.11.2008. 02.12.2008 and 04.12.2008. So i suggest to remove all release dates that differ from official Take2 press release (http://ir.take2games.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=326627) because there is no official word from T2 or R*. Kaurikk (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2 December official international release date, huh? If IGN was considered a reliable source, why didn't we put that in 6 days ago? Amisnaru (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Duh... 6 days ago. There were no official confirmation. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? The story that's linked as a source was published October 30th. Amisnaru (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Story?. Which?, What?, How?, When?, Where?--SkyWalker (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

http://pc.ign.com/articles/925/925515p1.html that. Someone edited the PC release date and put that as a source. 1. It's not official - 2. It doesn't say that's the international release date. --Amisnaru (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Iam the one who added it. It is official. Yes it does not say International release date neither it says US or EU. How is it possible that US is delayed to Dec 2nd and EU is for Nov 21?. That is not even possible. When i removed EU someone readded it back. So it was best to say that Dec 2nd is worldwide release. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just not used to game companies making announcements this important through IGN. Amisnaru (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not just IGN, There is GameSpot, GameSpy, EuroGamer, 1UP, GamesRadar, ComputerandVideo Games and many others. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but I still wish Rockstar or Take2 would come forward with an announcement themselves. Silly of them 'cause the game is such a big deal. 137.163.18.99 (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Emm.. i checked all these sites you mentioned SkyWalker and there is one funny thing.. EuroGamers still has 21 november as release date and no mention about delay, GameSpy refers to IGN article to possible delay, on 1UP and GamesRadar there is still 18 november and on ComputerAndVideoGames they say "Rockstar seems to have confirmed rumours in the US that Grand Theft Auto IV on PC has slipped a few weeks" but they are not sure. And Gamespot are referring to some retailers. So actually there is only IGN who is claiming that R* told them. If you check some biggest European online retailers (Gameplay.co.uk, game.co.uk etc) you will see 21 november as release date. It reminds me the time when PC version was not officially confirmed by R* but there where some rumors about release date and everytime they were but up into wiki they where removed and said that source is not reliable (and if i remember correctly, it was you SkyWalker who told that) and now you but up information that is not officially confirmed.Kaurikk (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, IGN site, that told us about the delay, it has these release dates for PC version: US: December 2, 2008, Europe: November 21, 2008, Australia: December 2, 2008. I changed PC release dates back to official because if IGN can't get their own site correct then how can we believe them? Kaurikk (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, The reason why i have removed GTA 4 PC before was it was just rumors and speculation. Rumors and Speculation should not be entered in Wikipedia. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been no offical announcement from R* in the form of a press release, so i dont think its right to say that the international release date is the 2nd of december when there is no proof, infact if you look at all european retailers they still show 21st like the press release states —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.92.2 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Heck, How many TIMES should i tell you there is no need for official announcement. Can't you people read in this link (http://pc.ign.com/articles/925/925515p1.html) that the delay is officially announced by Rockstar THROUGH IGN. The delay neither says if Dec 2nd is only for US only or if it is international and certainly says NOTHING about Europe. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then what you have said yourself is ambiguous and shouldnt be used, its not fact.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.92.2 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WHERE does it say quote: "that the delay is officially announced by Rockstar"? The only thing they claim to be official in that article is the system requirements. Also, it still doesn't make sense that they would ONLY announce the delay via IGN. And you dare to act like we're the ignorant ones here. Buh gawd. Amisnaru (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

SkyWalker, can't you read what stays on IGN site?? Release dates: US - december 2, EU november 21. Does these dates make sense? No, they don't. And now read what you stated earlier: "Rumors and Speculation should not be entered in Wikipedia".. and what you are doing now? You say some stuff we came up months ago didn't suite to wiki because they were not confirmed by R* and now you say there is no need of confirmation. Bullshit. Kaurikk (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The release dates of "US - December 2, EU November 21" make perfect sense if the US version has to be modified to get a lower ESRB rating. It also makes sense if there is a problem with their US manufacturing or delivery companies. This is a speculation, I know, but you should not discard information because you think that people only do stuff that seems sensible to you. --89.235.199.148 (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The official release dates for the game are December 2nd in North America and December 3rd in Europe. So speculation is for null as its listed on the GTA IV official site. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ok... I guess that settles it then! --98.110.43.168 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

PC System Requirements

someone should write them properly according to games for windows information:

http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/Games/Pages/grandtheftautoiv.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levangvilava (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere on that page shows the requirements, therefore, adding information on such until official information comes out is false. I know you're trying to assume good faith, but the source does not provide the requirements, and any such predictions will be classified as false and deceptive. Ellomate (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to the OP. The page did have the requirements on it yesterday. They have obviously been removed in the interim. - X201 (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV (as Microsoft pronounces it) requirements are "Coming Soon" and if it was removed, it obvious that they are attempting to make the game more playable for Windows users (sorry Mac users, it might not come out for you guys because of RAGE). Ellomate (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This In The Unofficial Prediction Of The Game PC Requirements from http://www.gtaforums.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2162

It's Still Unofficial, even i think it's wrong. (huge PC specs) want to believe it or not, up to you. Dalva24 (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OS: Windows XP SP2

Processor: Dual core processor (Intel Pent:ium D or better)

RAM: 2GB

Hard Drive: 18GB free hard disk space

Video Card: 512MB Direct3D 10 compatible video card or Direct3D 9 card compatible with Shader

Drive: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive

Wait for 1 month and we will get the official PC requirements. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I bet the system requirements for GTAIV will be much like the system reqs of Mercenaries 2: World in Flames: Core 2 Duo 2.6GHz, 7GB Free space, 1GB Memory, Nvidia 6800 or greater. This is just a guess and I don't have a more reliable information to back it up but this will likely be the case because I believe that GTA IV will only be compatible with High-end computers Triadwarfare (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. It will be similar to BioShock. Though RAGE have not been used in any PC games. GTA 4 PC will be first RAGE engine to run on computers. So let us wait and see. Novemeber is just few 1 week away. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV has a gold date for PC users set for Nov. 17. I expect we will see final specifications around up to 2 weeks prior to it's release. Till then, let us not speculate and wait patiently for an official set of specifications. . ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no official word from R* or T2, and i just wonder.. are really NVIDIA 8600GT and ATI 3870 comparaable cards (if you look requirements posted by IGN)?? Kaurikk (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Official word for?. Come one don't except every single info to come directly from companies. If that is the case then there is no need for GameSpy, GameSpot, IGN or any other gaming sites. If you read carefully. This specs are coming directly from Rockstar. IGN have played the real game. So there is no need to question their reliability. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, i don't expect every single info to come from developers but as we have seen so much false/fake info about GTA IV pc version and also lots of true info that was considered as false in Wikipedia until R* or Take" confirmed it, then same line should be followed throughout entire article. I mean, it's funny to see that some info that came some weeks before pc version official announcement was considered as fake (but now we all know it was not) and now we all think it should be true that they tell? Kaurikk (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous: the whole graphics card specs being thrown around are silly, ati x1900 and nvidia 7900 for minimum seem about right, the recomended 3870 seems ok but an 8600? an 8600 is way less powerful than even a 7900GS, the weakest of the 7900 series, and other places say 8500 recomended, thats barely more powerful than an old card like an ati x1600 series. 8800 and 3870 is what the recomended should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.202.197 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows version

The section needs to be updated. Yesterday GameSpot, GamesRader and IGN has given more details about the game. It is best if it is updated.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you update it yourself? You seem to know a lot about the game and read all the articles about the PC version. 137.163.18.99 (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me because I'm unregistered? 137.163.18.99 (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chill man nobody replies to every single post --98.110.43.168 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And, you took 11 days to reply to his. So... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

gta iv 1.04

hey wiki guys and girls ive just added that ps3 is now 1.04 i see no problem with the first section that says ps3 1.04 xbox360 1.01 it just that you may wanna improve my section under updates either for presentation and additional information giving on just what this patch does —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.96.244 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GTA 4 being understood as "Satire"

I motion to have this article identify GTA4 as more than a game, but also a satire. Understanding gaming as a reasonable and relevant form of artistic expression is worthy of being expressed in a Wikipedia article. I have read, and am willing to produce, evidence that states "Liberty City" was seen as the main character during the development process. Liberty city, and the million dollars that went into bringing it to life - was done with the intent to satire American culture in a post 9/11 society. This is reflected by nearly every recording of dialogue, verbs and in-game media. Understanding GTA4 as merely a "game" would be similar to proposing that Jonathan Swift's modest proposal was primarily a proposal. In reality - they are both well developed and socially relevant satires. Furthermore; if we fail to express this point - we face the persistent threat that the forms of media we all enjoy will continue being seen as childish and insignificant. This also undermines us as a society and the attempts of the developers who created GTA4. I do not motion to make this an amendment to all video-game articles. I feel, however, that GTA4 is in dire need of this addition simply because of its unique and influential nature. I guarantee you, in the history books, GTA4 will be best understood as both a video-game and an intelligent satire of inexplicable depth and importance. Please take into account my motion to amend the introduction to note that GTA4 is also primarily a "satire." --Schleife (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. GTA IV is primarily a game. Admittedly, the ingame world is a satire of post-9/11 in addition to being a necessity for the game. 62.106.48.6 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Right or wrong, we do not care about "The Truth". If you have reliable sources to verify such conclusions, we can add them. But we cannot add this based on your thinking, that would be original research and we cannot include such things here. Regards SoWhy 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We already have a review source describing the game as a "thoroughly compelling work of cultural satire disguised as fun", but I think it'd make for unhelpfully undue weight to have this in the very first sentence of the lead (as per Schleife's original edit of "Grand Theft Auto IV is a sandbox-style action-adventure video game and satire developed by Rockstar North"). I don't see a problem with reintroducing it further in the lead, though. --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If there are more sources saying so, why not? As you point out, the problem is WP:UNDUE - if only one reviewer thinks so, it can't be represented as a basic attribute of the game. Regards SoWhy 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Schleife - I will seek out these sources.

Ragdoll Physics?

In the Vehicles section of the main article, it states, "The physics engine will turn the player into a rag doll after a crash, instead of using a predefined animation, resulting in more realistic collisions."

Is this right? I thought that it used the Euphoria engine, which is quite a bit different from ragdoll physics.

Gamer 2k4 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you understood the sentence wrong. It explains that player is not using any animation when he flies trough the windshield like other games would use and is more like a ragdoll like normal person would be when he might fly trough a windshield. This just means that it doesn't require any preset animation when it does that but really crates the animation on the spot and its effected by everything that happens at that time when it happens. To me its not trying to say it uses just ragdoll physics but almost all the flying when you are dead is just ragdoll as you can't control a dead body. Still it could be worded better as it gives the chance to be mistaken. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well 80.221.239.213 why can't you reword it so it make sense?. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well because first I can't edit the page at the moment only view the source text. Secondly I would rather let someone else who is more fluent with english to do it as if I would do it there would be mistakes that someone else would have to fix later. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A predefined animation is recorded with the use of mocap and can't be changed when initiated. With the Euphoria engine however it can be changed. The characters are ragdolls being controlled in real time by "behaviors". So the movements of the characters are created on the spot and can be changed. And this is exactly what happens when Niko flies through the windshield.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have missed Gamer 2k4s point. He/she is arguing that the game doesn't use ragdoll phsyics because it uses the Euphoria engine which doesn't use ragdolls. This is supported by Euphoria (software) but without a gret ref or a clear explaination of what the difference is beyond the claim 'it's better'. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Euphoria (software) supports the argument. While the wikipedia page for Euphoria says that it doesn't use ragdoll physics, the article that is used as a supporting reference does not mention ragdoll physics, it only talks about the Euphoria engine itself. --24.180.97.191 (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

GTA IV will be released on Steam

I think this is a reliable source that GTA IV:PC vill be available via Steam:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/12210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.183.165 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lost and Damned

Out of interest, will we be creating a seperate article for this episodic pack in similar vein to other DLC episode/expansion packs? It also appears that TLAD will be adding some new gameplay as well as a new plot, and the article is already vastly extensive and adding such content to the article would make it quite convoluted. --.:Alex:. 17:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I expect we will be able to create a separate article considering how much coverage it's likely to get. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It will be included in the same article. There is no need to have a separate article --SkyWalker (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not right now there's not, but I expect there will be many articles and interviews on the development of TLAD, obviously detail on plot and there'll be reception details to come too. Considering this article is 89kB already, if the expansion does get that much coverage then it'll be ripe for spinning out. We'll just have to wait and see. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it's now time to at least start such an article. There's a lot of information coming out on the episode itself, and I'm sure we'll see more information on stuff like development and such soon (seeing as a bit of that has trickled out already and that was during the embargo). --.:Alex:. 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

false information

"The game has two different endings, which are determined by decisions made by the player throughout and at the end of the game. Each choice affects the final missions the player can partake, and the fate of some characters." This is simply not true.The final ending is determined by what mission you choose at the end of the game not by various choices throughout the game.All the moral choices really do is change what dialog you get in some conversations,giving you some sort of perk,or give you some kind of side mission with a character you let survive.I am not sure how this stayed on wiki for so long.I would change it but any time i change something like that it gets changed back.I will give it a shot.Derelix (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Two disks

The PC version is evidentally two DL disks. If we could get a source for this it might be worth mentioning it in the article. It's one of the first games I've seen with two dual layer DVDs Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Source?. I have two one is get the game and the other is this Disc 1 and Disc 2 --SkyWalker (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the 2 dual-layer theory is correct. I am still waiting for my copy to ship but I was curious how fast this game would be pirated, so I did a quick search and found out that illegal copies of the game circulate at 14GB. That means that each disk would have around 7 GB of data, too much for a single-layer DVD. But even if so and even when I get my copy, we still need a reliable source that says that this fact is somewhat notable. Regards SoWhy 09:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

HAS ANYONE HERE ACTUALLY BOUGHT THE DVD??? If anyone has, please tell me what the exact sizes of the dvds are. Reply here or on my talk page. Thanks! Karunyan (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It has 2 dual layer disk each 7 GB. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My PC woudn't stand up to its reqs. anyway. Don't you think it's kinda bloated? I mean GTA is a masterpiece of PC gaming but GTA4 isn't that much better than San Andreas from what i've seen. 14 GB? What did they put in there??? Karunyan (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

you haven't seen any screens on high quality yet, SA looks horrible in comparison. not so much in textures, but the models (tho at least they had fingers)

San anderes has few animation, movies, textures and so on. The reason why PC release is larger due to highest quality textures, animation, models and various. So no i don't think it bloated. Better in terms of Graphics, features or gameplay?. GTA 4 is far superior in terms of gameplay and graphics for features GTA: SA has far more features that GTA 4. Between in coming days games size will exceed. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Updating critical reception

Now the PC version hit stores, I think the critical reception section should be updated soon to reflect newly-created criticism to the game. German PC game magazines already cover stories that the PC version has problems with ATI video adapters, that people are not buying because of the restrictive SecuROM and the bundle of software you have to install and of glitches and problems. But there is also praise for new modes, graphics and suchlikes with the PC version. My point is, all sources I found that cover the first part of what I said, the problems, are German. I am not native to an English-speaking country so I do not know, what PC gamer magazines exist there. If someone does, I think we can find some sources to update the section with critical reception specifically of the PC version. Regards SoWhy 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the install process can take up to 3 hours due to the problems with the PC version and that's assuming you know what you're doing. Plus, the only xbox360 controller supported issue should receive more attention. I'm amazed the other controller manufactures aren't suing Microsoft for this clear Monopolistic behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.243.122 (talk • contribs)

Well, that's my point. Amazon.com is full of complaints by users and this game has a rating there below 2 stars at the moment, so I think reliable sources are expected to pick this up soon and then we should add this to the article. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the pc version is really terrible. I can run Fallout 3 and Crysis in the highest possible settings, but not GTA 4. You'd be lucky to get a decent fps in medium settings. The game is too CPU intensive game even for today's mid-high/high-end gaming pcs. --210.4.37.23 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a further section that details the fan reaction to the game. It's become clear that players of the game are not nearly as receptive to it as the critics were, as you can see for yourself here: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/grandtheftauto4

It seems that the initial awe has worn off and people are desperate for something a little more lasting. How this can be articulated into a Wiki entry, I don't know, but it's certainly a significant issue to cover. This will only be proven as time goes on and memories of GTA4 grow less and less fond—something not yet represented by the current Reception article. 99.225.42.150 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The reception section should only be reserved for professional reviews, there's no place for "fan reception", because the fans are just random people who played the game.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, to say the reception (**it's called "CRITICAL reception", ie. reception to Critics) section should be reserved for professional reviews is to say that the opinion of the entire consumer market doesn't matter, despite that opinion being the one that makes or breaks the game's future. Second, don't put their opinion in "Critical" reception, then. Create a "fan reception" section. The fact is if fans don't like a game, they stop playing. It's widely cited ["by who?" (-screw off)] in blogs and gaming forums that people are unhappy with the direction R* took. Third, if you'll notice, fan reception and cult status are frequently mentioned in Film articles—but that doesn't deserve to be mentioned here because why, exactly? ...its fan reception isn't higher than its' critical reception, thus being accepted as "cult"? If one aspect is valid, then surely, an equally inverse one must be, too. And fourth, you've thrown up a particularly bad case of argumentum ad verecundiam.99.225.42.150 (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How can i download

In the media section "Download" is also written if it is true then how can i download it Bilal2009 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) December 4 2008

Via Valve's Steam system. We only put download rather than the specific name of the service because otherwise we would (and have) ended up with long lists of download websites where games are available on more than one download service. - X201 (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently it is available only on STEAM and Direct 2 Drive. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

PC Performance Issues

Do you think it would be relevant to add into the Windows Version section the details of the performance of this version? I think the incredibly poor coding by Rockstar is worth mentioning. I honestly have never played such a badly optimised game in my life. It runs at a similar frame rate to Crysis while looking vastly inferior, like an 2 year old game not a recent release... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.237.206 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

See my section about updating the critical reception above. I read many such reports, mainly on Amazon and on forums. Unfortunately neither are reliable sources that we can use on Wikipedia. If you read such criticism on the homepage of a well-known gaming site or gamers magazine, we can and should add something about this criticism to the article. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally would like to see a mention about things like no anti-aliasing at all (in a new PC game that is ridiculous), ugly looking shadows on PC version, the lack of advanced graphics settings and maybe underline more in the article the issues with code optimization regarding the graphic performance. If someone knows official sources for any or some of these, it would make it even better. -- LiesInc (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly positive reviews?

"Overwhelmingly positive" is a bit of an oxymoron. How about universally positive reviews? Naur (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

GTA 5/6

Er, didn't know whether to put this on the Grand Theft Auto page or not so decided to put it on both, I heard ages ago (can't remeber from where) but they have finished the GTA5 script and are beginning 6's is this true? or am I insane? answer both. --The Ninjalemming 20:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have no proof we can't add it.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Severe vandalism

This article incurs severe vandalism from IP addresses. Such as the previous 4 days where people put unsourced information and continously changing the PS3 reso to 1080p. I'm a PS3 owner, not a 360 owner. So I know. So we need a lock from IPs editting the article. It's different people everytime. Not one IP. And it's getting to the stage where there is way too much clutter and useless information on the article. Ffgamera (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You should go to WP:RFP if you want to make such a request.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

 Administrator note Currently it's quite calm actually, nothing more than the usual. I doubt a request for protection would work. I got this on my watchlist anyway and I will protect it if really needed. Regards SoWhy 12:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You call 40 edits in the last three days "calm"? Ffgamera (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is continously heavily edited to the extent where readers will find something different every 2 hours! It's absolute chaos! Ffgamera (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the large amount of edits, but I have refurbished and summarised the article so it is once again, less than 100KB. Please everyone, when listing examples, don't list everything! I'll give an example: Final Fantasy, eg. FF1, FF2, FF3, FF4, FF5, FF6, FF7, FF8, FF9, FF10, FF11, FF12, FF13. And try avoiding adding unnecessary detail to everything. And don't say "this is new to the Grand Theft Auto", because pretty much everything in GTA4 is "new to the Grand Theft Auto". And try writing in a formal tone, rather than colloquial. Also try to keep the article under 100KB. Thanks for all your efforts to making the article a large one. Thanks, Ffgamera (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Country of Origin confirmed from in game dialog

Ch.8 of the assassination missions contains non-digetic dialog in which Niko confirms his country of birth being Serbia, however also states that his allegiances were not always "...where they should have been...." (Said in passing).

cannot be bothered to log in, but wh3n18becomes2zer0s is my username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.152.119 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been a clear point by Dan Houser, head-writer of the plot, that Niko has no specific country of origin. In an interview, Dan Houser states, "in GTAIII we had a man without a name, in GTAIV we have a man without a country." Besides, if you would provide us with the specific dialogue in question, it would be appreciated. If you are correct, than that is a continuity error in the dialogue writing, especially considering how careful the writers were to avoid naming a specific country, and in addition to that... he could be lying. --Svip^pong 01:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

-Yeah but GTAIII's man's name was Claud. 76.69.170.229 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not during the game, it was only revealed two games later, and it is not entirely confirmed, it is just the assumed position. And also it was "Claude". Even with or without the name, he was still very unspecified in GTAIII. --Svip^pong 06:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

He was obviously Claude Speed from GTA 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.93.129 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm near the end of the game and "Serbian" has been explicitly mentioned 4 times until now. And I may even have missed some. Playboy X to Niko at the end of Photo Shoot. Kidapper to Roman during Hostile Negotiations. Bernie to Niko at the end of Buoys Ahead. Pegorino to Niko at the beginning of Flatline. So, he is/was clearly intended to be a Serbian. Dan Houser is just acting like they never had settled for a country. Can't give you quotes because I use german subtitles.

I have yet to hear "Serbian" in the game, but are you sure you're not confusing Slavic for Serbian? --Svip^pong 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

pretty much at the begining of the game Roman said to Niko that his serbian is not that good anymore, and that they should use english

From an inteview with Dan Houser: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/eric2_0/2009/02/rockstars-dan-houser-speaks-part-1.html

"we wanted him coming from war-torn Europe and we wanted him coming from somewhere in war-torn Europe, that meant he was about that age and that put it on the Balkans but now you could put it somewhere else, but what we didn’t want was to focus on the details of that conflict.

It’s not important, the fact he was fighting on this side or that side, so we know he speaks Serbian but we don’t know on which side he was fighting"

This seems pretty clear that the country of origin cannot be known. He speaks Serbian, but he could be from Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, or Montenegro in addition to Serbia. http://www.flw.com/languages/serbian.htm

But, since Yugoslavia did not dissolve until 1991, he had to have been born there in order be an adult at the time of the game.

65.30.180.228 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Resolution

On the right panel you can see 640p resolution on the ps3: it's wrong. The screen resolution is 720p in both story and multiplayer (can be upscaled to 1080p). Please, correct this info. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.26.121 (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you type "720p" into the archive search box above you will see previous discussions on the subject. - X201 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proof of Niko Bellics nationality

Here is the 1st proof of Nico Bellics nationality. Ingame picture taken by me

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9105/cimg2041ds4.jpg

This (INGAME PIC) should be the best proof of his nationality! It is the first scene when Niko talks with Roman in serbian and Roman said "Better than my serbian!"

NO ONE in eastern europe would say i speak serbian when he is not an serb!

2nd Ingame picture taken by me -> Email from his mother with explaination

The Word "srecan" is a specific serbian word (means in english happy)

Here the Proof:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/716/cimg2037qs0.jpg

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2478/nikoserbianrp6.jpg

And what he is not:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6682/nikonotcroatianzq6.jpg

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1672/nikonotrussiannw6.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8937/nikonotbulgarianvw9.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7629/nikonotromaniankl9.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2263/nikonotslovenianud1.jpg

IMPORTANT: It is true that the serbian language is spoken in many countries, but only from people with serb nationality. But in the game the serbian is ekavian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yat) that is only or primary spoken in Serbia an nowhere else!!

I hope this is enough proof to correct the main text! There are 3-4 more mentiones that very clearly say that he is serbian in serbian language but at this time i have the save games no more to proof that too....

Sorry for my poor english! :-) My serbian ist much better!

--Laessig123 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But Dan Houser is still pretty specific in several interviews (which, we by the way have news outlet sources of) that Niko is not supposed to have a known nationality. I am sure your clues here are obvious misinformed mistakes on Houser's part. Given how it is partly him who writes the plot. So while Niko may actually be Serbian, it is not important at all, cause one of the important things of the plot is that he has no specific nationality.

I am not saying this to discredit your evidence, if anything, to discredit Dan Houser, but still, it's his game, it's his plot, so decides what it is. At which he have picked Eastern European over Serbian. And Serbia, by name, isn't mentioned in the plot (only "the old country"). As for the Serbian spoken in the game, I think it is translated by someone who knows Serbian, but not so much Serbia, and made this casual mistakes, which would mislead the plot. --Svip^pong 10:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I dont know what you mean with Dan Houser's statement. He is a good director but I dont think that knows anything about the things he says. If he wanted to make Nico as a man with unknown nationality why are they using the words "serbian" in the game. That has no sense in my oppinion. By the way, the english Wikipedia is the only source that says he is a eastern european. All other wikipedias say he is serb. Also all of the game magazines. I can give you proofs also in that but i think every person which can use google will see that in 3 sekonds by typing his name in the search box. And in the game have not the translators made a mistake because it is clean ekavian serbian language in the game in subtitles and audio. The only mistake i can hear is the actor of nico or the one who is his voice had no clue of the serbian pronunciation. After all my arguments it is ridicilous to say he is an eastern european. I know that you know that and can not understand why insist on that?!? Why is wrong better than correct? This ist wikipedia and it should unify worlds knowledge and not an unlogical statement from one man, who knows when he says the truth that maybe other eastern europeans wouldn't buy the game. Know i have croatian acquaintances they sold the game after hearing the first serbian sentence after 2 mins in the game. And thats also true. Sorry if I made again 100 spelling mistakes :-) with kind regards. --Laessig123 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I may speak German but this does not necessarily make me German by nationality. N.B. I don't really speak German –xeno (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is correct. I for one speak (or at least write) pretty good English (at least I think so) but that does not make me American, does it? I am Italian by heritage, I grew up in Germany and I write pretty good English - so who could guess that by reading my English, I have Italian heritage (and an Italian name)? Noone, that's who. As said above, to infer from the language spoken that the nationality is Serbian, is not only original research but also incorrect. Regards SoWhy 14:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You both do not have a clou about the eastern europe as I can see when I read your posts. And more worse is that you pervert the facts and the whole meaning of my post with no really arguments. You (SoWhy) said your heritage is italian. Excample: When your grandmother from Italy writes you, would she write in italian, nigerian oder brasilian? Don't be so bullish! The second proof is that everyone who knows a little bit from eastern europe that the people from all nations are patriots and no one would say i speaks serbian when he is not an serb!! As I can see you both know nothing about it and nothing about the game. In one of the mails of his mother she sais she will write in english and not in the native language because of his cousin Roman. But OK the really one who had relatively good argument is Svip and I understand him. Because of his and my facts i should at least be said in brackets or as an addition: "(most likely a Serbian)" or "(most likely from Serbia)". I can live with that and it would also guard against future edit wars and reflect all other sources where it says that he is from Serbia. I am using arguments and want to hear real arguments why NOT? The whole diskussion archive is only one argument for eastern europe against 100 for serbia! Your arguments have also not a clou about the facts. Why should he speak with Roman if it is not their native language. There is a part in the game where he also speaks longer den 5 mins only in serbian with english subtitles. Please think about it and dont react so abrasive a want a peaceful and fair discussion! kind regards --Laessig123 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Tthis issue has been rehashed time and again. The most compelling source has lead us to write "Eastern European". –xeno (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the only thing that stops me from completing the game in "deal" (I did revenge ending already) is a weird camera bug on the helicopter. So yes, I do know the game and I did play it. And you will notice, that nowhere in the game ANYONE says Niko is Serbian. Your argument basically consists of "he speaks Serbian" => "he is Serbian". By that logic, so goes my argument above, I'd be German because I speak German (okay, legally I am but point is, I am not by heritage). We don't want to discourage you or insult Serbia or any other country, we just pointed out that flaw in your logic.

What svip said and what I said is essentially the same, just using different words. We got strict policies here and reliable sources say that he is intentionally not Serbian but Eastern European. So changing that you would need to prove that Dan Hauser, the inventor of the character(!), is wrong (which is pretty impossible) or that all sources are not reliable. You presented a lot of clues and logic, but it's all forbidden original research which cannot be used in the article. Even adding "most likely from Serbia" is speculation against the sources we have and thus not allowed. Regards SoWhy 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that you label my facts as theories. They have nothing to do with forbidden original research! You dont even refer to my other arguments like 1) Short (rest above): People in eastern europe are patriots and would never say they speak another language 2) That no one would speak in a in this case USA an language that has nothing to do with him. He only speaks english with others and serbian and english with his family 3) The fact that some words in the emails are only using Serbs in Serbia. I know that because I am from eastern europe and know how i it goes there. The people are using everything to seperate them from other nations. He would never speak so when he was born or has lived in croatia, bosnia, slovenia, romania, bulgaria, mazedonia, montenegro, hungary .... these are facts and the proof example is above in my first post: the word "Srecan" is only used in in serbian theritory. Not even the serbs in bosnia use this, because they use iekavian serbian language and Niko is using ekavian serbian language only used in Serbia. 4) What is a better proof and source as these selfmade pictures from the game which demonstrate exactly these facts!? Sorry but I can not unterstand your arguments and why you minimize the importance of my facts. Why should I try my best here and why I'm discussing with you when you say I am lying. When I wouldn't have proofs I would like all others make a silly endles edit war. But I do it not and will not do it because i know that I'm right. If you do not accept my knowledge it is poor for wiki not for me. It seems like own knowledge does not count in wikipedia, only copy pasting from other sources. kind regards --Laessig123 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is still original research. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that we use verifiablity, not truth before a statement is included (or as a reason for removing a statement). As this conclusion can only be reached by assumptions and claims, and not by a direct source, then it is original research. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You got it: Own knowledge does indeed not count, because that is what we call original research. All knowledge must be verifiable. Let's see your "proofs": 1.) Claim, not backed up by a source, 2.) Another claim not sourced, 3.) Another claim without source, 4.) The pictures only proof that he speaks Serbian - we know that already. You see, you might think these things to be common knowledge but in fact saying "he wouldn't" is not a proof at all, merely an assumption that he acts like those people you refer to. But that is not sourced and thus we cannot include it. SoWhy 15:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No that are not assumptions. 1) They are even written in this wiki -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yat. Everythink is there explained what you say it is a claim, but I can not learn you Serbian to understand. 2) Yes of course its a assumption. He speaks serbian with his family because he is chinese. Sorry for my sarkasm but you are not better with your ignorance! 3) That is explained here, but the english source is not so good explained as the german -> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekavisch#Serbokroatische_Dialekte:_Ekavisch.2C_Ijekavisch.2C_Ikavisch 4 and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serben#Sprache) Thats not only the proof that he speaks serbian because when you read the articles above you would and this one http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbische_Sprache (sorry english wiki artikle is poor) you will read: Ekavisch die im Großteil Serbiens vorherrscht. That means ekavian that in bigger parts of serbia exists. And only in serbia (read it) and with the facts from above that means he is a Serb. (Proof: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs#Language" there is an very interesting thing in the first sentense that is for you an assumption). Im excited what you will now simulate. regards --Laessig123 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I'll come back tomorrow.

Please read both points I'm making here. The first covers original research and the second point is about things included in the article being verifiable. Firstly, You don't have any solid proof that he is Serbian. Just because he speaks Serbian and it's unlikely anyone else would speak it in that way does not provide a reliable reason to say that he is Serbian in the article. You are coming to the conclusion that he is Serbian based on this evidence you're finding. This is original research (I suggest you read the link). We need a direct source saying that he Serbian because it is disputed that it is obvious enough from the game itself. People here aren't ignorant. I expect that some people agree that Niko is Serbian. Saying the statement must be excluded because of the lack of sources is not ignorance because they are following our policies on verifiability. Truth does not automatically mean that the statement can be inserted into the article, verifiability is what is needed. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(Damn edit conflicts) That is still original research. The only reliable sources we can use of his nationality are from the game itself or mentioned by a developer at Rockstar Games. Everything else is merely assumptions and claims to reach conclusions, and therefore not reliable information and cannot be used. The one reliable source we do have says that Niko is simply Eastern European, and that is the only loose form of nationality that will remain in the article for the foreseeable future. This argument really needs to be dropped once and for all. --.:Alex:. 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am here the only one who knows whats he talking about and who is reading the links that posted in here. My links here are in ignored and therefore you are ignorants. I stay by it. If somebody sais I know that the theory of relativity isn't correct you would also say give us a link from Einstein where he sais "I made a mistake". Absolutely crackbrained is this! I'm leaving this charade called en.wikipedia.org and i'm sure you will not miss me. I see people who are using their brains are not welcome here. Regards --Laessig123 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If we wrote about the The Truth!™ rather than what could be verified we would just spend all day arguing about what really is true. This isn't to say that I haven't been frustrated by this policy in the past myself but we have to all work together somehow. –xeno (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, without the Verifiability and Original Research rules we'd all be coming here with our own research, evidence and links claiming we all have the Truth. WP:V gives us a (mostly) objective method of including information in the article. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you just note the fact that there is substantial - but not officially proven - evidence ingame that he might be Serbian, within brackets if that matters? How could it possibly damage the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.96.90 (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on people, give the guy a break here. Niko Bellic is obviously of Serbian ethnicity -- there is *no* other reason why he would refer to the language he shares with his cousin "Serbian". This is explicitly stated in the game on at least two places, one of them during the introduction. The sentences spoken in Nico's native language are clearly meant to be Serbian, even though they're voiced by a non-Serbian actor. His country of birth is probably the communist Yugoslavia, and his country of residence immediately prior arriving to the US isn't really important, which is why Dan Houser dodged it. I am Croatian, not Serbian, so this isn't some matter pride for me -- it is simply quite clear from the game's contents that Nico is Serbian. 94.253.143.197 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If the creators wanted Nico to be from Serbia, somebody would mention it in the game. Rockstar sure did not want to invent a language just to be safe. So they went with Serbian. Sure, the war torn European country can only be (Ex-)Yugoslavia and sure, the most likely country of origin would be Serbia. Doesn't matter. Captain Picard was supposed to be French although he spoke English with a thick British Accent. He still was French - BECAUSE THE CREATORS SAID SO!

If you use the logic "But he says a Serbian word!", you can also spin that logic further and claim that he speaks with a NON-NATIVE ACCENT (voice actor Michael Hollick) and thus he is probably not a Serb, but moved there when he was a teenager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.141.26 (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I know for a fact he was born and raised in Milton Keynes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.145.253 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet cafe

I stopped playing the game for a while... I could have sworn the last time I played it the internet cafe was called TW@T... did an auto update on XBOX Live change it to simply "TW@"? --63.241.174.129 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, it has been "Tw@" since GTAIII. Since @ is pronounced "at". So the extra T would be redundant. --Svip^pong 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

and a one time online activation is required in order to play the game

This is not true, there is also a way to activate offline with the file OfflineActivation.exe 85.223.108.141 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan reception?

Theres currently a section on fan reception IE Metacritic score... now many game articles in the past have rejected fan reception, considering it unrealiable due to strong bias for and against... so why do we have one here? Stabby Joe (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being to lazy to look for it, but where exactly is this fan reception written?--Megaman en m (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias against Japan?

The infobox has no information on release dates and the rating in Japan.--72.19.76.6 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:VG/DATE for an explanation. - X201 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Resolution - Corrected

I think I better make a line about this. Regardless of my position, it was never an issue that concerned me, but I sort of took it for granted that a rumour can reach high level until it enters "real" media and gets accepted as reliable enough for Wikipedia, where after the same media will quote Wikipedia on it and then we are in the reliable source circle. Which is not very reliable.

The sources that claim the PS3 version of Grand Theft Auto IV runs at 640p provides no proof. In fact, there was a lot of bickering about whether it was 630p or 640p early on. And all their sources referred to same original forum post. But Wikipedia policy is clear. We do not trust some random forum! And especially not when whoever made this post could easily just have scaled it down to fit his needs. In addition, the image is no longer available. So in reality, there was no reliable source originally. --Svip^pong 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Svippong Provided by XCosmoX

If I had spotted the fact that vgchartz was being used as the source I would have killed it myself. - X201 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We had the same issue on MGS4 article. This whole Beyond3D / Quaz51 should be ignored on Wikipedia, sice they aren't a reliable sources, and only quoted by weblogs. --PS3 Addict (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Success section

In the commercial section, there is a statement, "The game sold more than 3.6 million copies on its first day of availability (garnering $310 million in sales)". That comes to around $86.11 per unit. Did it real debut at that price? 65.30.180.228 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The two citations provided don't support the $310 figure so I've removed it. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Resolution - Corrected

I think I better make a line about this. Regardless of my position, it was never an issue that concerned me, but I sort of took it for granted that a rumour can reach high level until it enters "real" media and gets accepted as reliable enough for Wikipedia, where after the same media will quote Wikipedia on it and then we are in the reliable source circle. Which is not very reliable.

The sources that claim the PS3 version of Grand Theft Auto IV runs at 640p provides no proof. In fact, there was a lot of bickering about whether it was 630p or 640p early on. And all their sources referred to same original forum post. But Wikipedia policy is clear. We do not trust some random forum! And especially not when whoever made this post could easily just have scaled it down to fit his needs. In addition, the image is no longer available. So in reality, there was no reliable source originally. --Svip^pong 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Svippong Provided by XCosmoX

If I had spotted the fact that vgchartz was being used as the source I would have killed it myself. - X201 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We had the same issue on MGS4 article. This whole Beyond3D / Quaz51 should be ignored on Wikipedia, sice they aren't a reliable sources, and only quoted by weblogs. --PS3 Addict (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Success section

In the commercial section, there is a statement, "The game sold more than 3.6 million copies on its first day of availability (garnering $310 million in sales)". That comes to around $86.11 per unit. Did it real debut at that price? 65.30.180.228 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The two citations provided don't support the $310 figure so I've removed it. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gtaiv multiplayer unreliable not working windows live issues very common critisms

I have had this game since the day it came out for pc. Since it has been out there have been numerous issues about it and cheaters online with windows live doing nothing at all about it. There have been the same people cheating today taht were cheating the week after it came out. They have no been banned and windows live it self has been sufficiently hacked, to the point where reputation points mean nothing. There are hackers in the game that just spawn 50 tugboats and crash the game then move onto the nextgame.

There is no dedicated server and no way yo ban or prevent known cheaters to join the game. There are petitions on this. These are very well known and documented problems that rockstar has just chosen to completely ignore. It is very dishonest to have this article with out mentioning these problems especially since rockstar provides NO support or refund for these problems, and literally will tell you they cannot do anything it is all up to windows live, which just will not respond to you at all.

I cannot reiterate enough that these problems are the same problems they have had since a week after release and regardless of what they say have done absolutely nothing to fix the problem. To date not a single hacker has had there cd key banned. If you think i am being unfair please go spend 50 bucks and buy gtaiv play online and see how long you can play for before someone crashes your game. 5 minutes? maybe 10?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWUzL9vOK1Y

http://forums.gamesforwindows.com/p/3766/30757.aspx#30757

let me just say once more windows live does NOTHING if you report these people the same people with the same accounts have been reported by hundreds of people for almost a year now. To have an article on gtaiv and not mention this is extremely dishonest. You can feel free to look some of these up different people are having the same complaints with no breaks since a week after release.

Please read WP:RS. Forums and youtube videos are not reliable source from which to write an encyclopedia article. The article already mentions the fact that the PC version was criticized. --Leivick (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are emails from rockstar reliable? Or there responces on there forums? Or maybe the responce from the windows live admin? I also do not understand how youtube videos are unreliable they are as verifiable as any video. Furthermore to say that the article mentions that the pc version was critizied by one magizine for its incompatability problems. I am not mentioning that, I am talking about there 1)total lack of support of the game afterwards 2)completely ignoring the problem of hackers and failing to do what they say they will on there own website about them. 3)Unmanaged p2p network game hosting. COD2 servers locked up and went in protest over there publishers not doing anything about cheating. Gtaiv users just stopped playing. around 2 months after it came out you can check xfire usage statistics. It just schemes like this is a fluff piece and doesn't mention the most obvious critisms about the game. If you still do not believe me just buy the game and go play. Join any game with more than 5 people so how long it takes before someone comes in and crashes it. Like i said if you owned the game it is the most obvious criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.2.141 (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Police Response

Hi I expanded the police response section slightly, with how the different law-enforcement agencies which come after the player compared with previous GTAs. Just looking for someone to help me find sources for it, as all the info are from my own experiences with the game. I am certain there are a few sources out there for it, but it might take me some time to find. Also, please no-one delete and come here whining how it's too much detail - if the search radius and ways of regenerating health and loosing the heat are allowed as not too much detail, then the ommission of the Army etc... should definately be included. Please feel free to add sources, but if anyone has any issues with it, please discuss here and give me a post on my page so I get an email and will get back ASAP. TC and remember to eat all your veggies. Pink Princess (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GTA IV has no custom soundtrack support

Ther eis no custom soundtrack support on both the PS3 and Xbox 360. Custom musics cannot be played via XMB or Xbox Guide; only through PC. If someone added the category with custom soundtrack support, then this must be known for PC use only. Not PS3 and Xbox 360. JMBZ-12 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

NOT SET IN NEW YORK !!!!

why when i deleted the Category Video games set in New York City some retardeds keep putting it back ? now for all the retards who think it should be back listen up-the game takes place in liberty city not new york !!!!!! just because liberty city is based on new york does not mean that the game is set in new york you fucking retards !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.207.130 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please dial back the personal attacks. Personally, I reverted you because when you undid the edit to remove the category, you also added back in unsourced nationality for Niko that was reverted alongside your category removal.

On the subject of it being set in New York...it's clearly a parodied New York, I think the category is appropriate. Am willing to listen to rational arguments to the contrary. –xeno^talk 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading information under Police Response

I switched around some information under Police Response. The information regarding stab wounds affecting Niko's armor is incorrect. Being stabbed only hurts your health not armor (unless this is different on the PC version). The changes I made now reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.193.247 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

nice article

I just hope that it was written by rockstar or fans of the franchise, because its way too positive. wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not an advertisement page. this wiki entry however is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.151.37 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Episodes

Episodes from Liberty City needs its own article really - can someone please do thi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.149.12 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The component parts of Episodes have their own articles. A separate article for the compilation would just re-tread the same ground. - X201 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Weapons Section Should be Added

Hello all,

while this article is just fine, it is missing one critical element, a weapons section. I propose that a section be added to this article that lists all of the weapons found in GTA VI as well as when they become available, their prices from various in game vendors, the cost of their ammo, and the capacity of their magazines.

Thanks, Ebmonkey2 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That type of info is unencyclopedic, per WP: GAMECRUFT. It just isn't information Wikipedia wants on its pages. Razr95 (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Influences on the plot

Should it be mentioned that, again, like in GTA-VC or GTA-SA, the story was strongly influenced by movies and TV-series? There are so many elements of e.g. The Wire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.109.122.113 (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Niko's Origins

Alright, I know there has been some odd controversy over where Niko is from.

Based on some in game information, he speaks Serbian and he is in a country bordering the Adriatic Sea. Although Serbia does not border the Adriatic, Croatia does. Nonetheless, he speaks Serbian, which is a language prevalent with a Slavic people living in the Balkans and Central Europe: Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in Croatia.

So, I propose that although we do not specify exactly what country he is from (because we don't know), we can use basic deductive reasoning to make his origins a little bit more specific by mentioning the Balkans or former Yugoslavia as the region where he is from and the fact that he speaks the "mother tongue" Serbian.

Please weigh in on how you would like to construct the sentence. If I don't hear from anyone, I will take this that there is in fact no controversy and I will modify the sentence accordingly.

Best,

Guy Montag (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with 'Eastern European'. --Svip^pong 13:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't specific enough. Eastern Europe covers a lot of area and the character is from a specific region of eastern Europe important to the game story. Guy Montag (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Anthing other than "Eastern European" is Original Research. Even if individual points A,B and C are citable the act of adding them together to come up with D is original research. - X201 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

More properly, it would be WP:SYNTHESIS. And presenting the individual observations seems too much detail for this article - the character's origins are already covered in appropriate detail in the Niko Bellic article. --McGeddon (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This information is in the game, so its not really original research. Just because you can Google something doesn't mean that it is the only source of information available. But you know, I can Google the info so I will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wMbi-0gpME. Guy Montag (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying that YouTube link tells us, but if it comes down to having to use "basic deductive reasoning", it falls foul of WP:SYNTHESIS. We shouldn't be drawing sources together to make our own conclusion about something.

The Niko Bellic article says "It is not specified in the game which country in Eastern Europe Niko is from, although based on his past history as described in the game and other related publications, he is most likely from Serbia or is an ethnic Serb from another country, since he speaks Serbian.", which isn't too bad. But that sentence would be inappropriately long for a plot summary in the GTA4 article. We have a whole article on Niko, we don't need to overanalyse him in this one. --McGeddon (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Or you can simply say, "a war veteran from the former Yugoslavia" instead of eastern Europe. I just don't see why we need to be either very general or extremely specific when a simple alternative is available. Guy Montag (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its better to put former Yugoslavia or Balkan than Eastern Europe. Jovcha91 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't know where he was born and what his nationality is. All of the evidence so far is extrapolation. " He speak this language so he must be...", "He fought in this war so he must be.." Rockstar have never mentioned his nationality or origins so we can't state them, hence the general term "Eastern Europe". - X201 (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He was Polish. The Russians in the game call him "Polska." Also, an issue of the Australian Magazine PC PowerPlay confirmed this. 118.209.146.172 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Friends, I have the conclusive statement: He is Serbian. The person DOING NIKO'S VOICE AND THE ACTOR FOR NIKO SAYS HES SERBIAN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t8OI8hL_FM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrturncoat (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What... the... fuck? That has got to be the stupidest argument I've ever fucking heard. I apologise for the uncivil language. But seriously, are you willing to use the same logic to argue that the U.S. sheriff played by Canadian actor John Candy in Canadian Bacon is actually Canadian? Makes sense? No, because that is the point of fucking acting. Again, I apologise. --Svip^pong 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Protect This Article

There is too many anon IP users vandalizing Grand Theft Auto IV countless times no matter how hard admins can revert their edits. This article has been vandalized too many times, and leaving this page unprotected gives anon IP users a chance to ruin this page (and the revision history says it all). As said in this section, please protect this page to prevent anon IP users from performing ongoing vandalism. JMBZ-12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Why protect it? It's not exactly vitally important that it's accurate. I'm more concerned with the whole Lionel Richie did he or did he not literally dance on the ceiling controversy. 86.143.240.98 (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So if what you're saying is true, you're suggesting that anon IP users can freely vandalize this article with no page protection at all? JMBZ-12 (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't listen to that IP, he has it completely wrong. Wikipedia counts on sourcing for accuracy, thus it DOES matter. If you want to protect the page, WP:RPP is the place to go. ArcAngel (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No good. The request for semi-protection was denied. JMBZ-12 (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame because it should be like the Call of duty: modern warfare article - that's semi protected too. It'd save editors a lot of time so they can actually improve the article rather than clean up vandalism. Chevymontecarlo. 13:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Niko Bellic

An article related to this article, Niko Bellic, has been nominated for deletion. You can comment on it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Version

Am not an admin, so can't change this, but the pc version has been updated to version 1.0.0.5 as of November. See: http://www.gamershell.com/download_52986.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepeganator (talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect description of gameplay

This line is bugging me: "The open, non-linear environment" it is quite obvious that the storyline part is highly scripted and intrusively linear even tough the game in general is open, so I would suggest taking this line out of the article. It's a sandbox game with a themepark storyline basicly, like most modern MMO's (I'm not saying GTA 4 is an MMO.). ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.219.250 (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Updates" section

This section seems fairly WP:RECENTist - a year on, it isn't of much interest to learn that in January 2009 there was a patch that corrected an issue from a patch in December 2008. Is there anything of actual encyclopaedic merit in this section, beyond perhaps "game shipped with a bug that made it unplayable for a small number of players; this was patched a week later" and a general "Rockstar responded to bugs and cheating, rather than ignoring them"? --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

People might find it useful to know what patch is the latest available version. Plus, if there is a list of all the previous patches too, then you can see what has been fixed in each version (as the latest version often only contains fix info for that specific version). Why edit and this stuff out of Wiki, it is very useful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.136.205.99 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 May 2010

There's lots of stuff "people might find useful", like a full map, or a walkthrough - that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to provide it, per WP:IINFO. Presumably the updates are archived in even more detail on a fan site somewhere? --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Overrated

This game is way overrated I got it 3 days ago and I'm very disspointed for a universal 10/10! I'd only give 7-8ish I think consumer ratings should be added to the article. After all, you see people saying this game sucks all over the web. Money is tight (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, users can, and do, rate anything low or high. That's why we only quote the pros. However, while I think it is the greatest game forevahs, here is a helpful link of what happened to you. Hype Backlash padddy5 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From my experience listening to consumers and not "authorities" has always served my well. However I didn't bother to search around for user reviews and blindly believe this game was good due to the professional reviews on wikipedia (it was cheap anyway so I picked it up). But after playing it this was worth half what I paid for. I'm not saying it totally sucks just it's way overrated. Money is tight (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop making the truth section !

60.54.61.110 insists on making the truth section in reception and it doesnt have any source --WikiBahal (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

same guy is doing it with 124.13.216.104 now ! this article needs protection ! --WikiBahal (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Some people don't get it. I reverted it. In case he want to have the 'truth section' in the article then he should supply references. --Shorty23sin (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Awards section

I've recently had it brought to my attention that the Awards section is wrong, stating over and over that GTA4 won the "Action Game of the Year" rather than "Game of the Year" award from multiple magazines. Not only this, but the section has some pretty poor formatting, yet when an IP contributor tried to fix it, they were reverted without any reason given. I've fixed a couple of these with reliable sources, but can't do much more at work. I'm fairly sure that most of the "Action Game of the Year" awards should be "Game of the Year" and would appreciate any help clearing this mess up. Worm 15:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The user in question removed valid references in their first edit, and didn't fill in an edit summary for that or any of the subsequent edits they made. Its a bit difficult assuming Good Faith when all you see in front of you is a user deleting referenced material from the article without any indication as to why. Regarding the Awards if its referenced, see what the link says. If its not, remove it. Any others will need to be a judgement call. Will help in anyway I can. - X201 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, if they did that I don't blame you, I'd have done the same myself. I was looking at the other edits and didn't see a big problem. Anyway, it's probably a good idea that we actually reference the awards section. If they've given the award, I'm sure they'll publish it! And it would be useful for anyone who is trying to look up more information. I am tempted to default to Game of the Year though, as it is much more common that "Action" Game of the year.Worm 07:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Niko Bellic's Nationality

Although Niko Bellic speaks Serbian, that doesn't make him Serbian. Although the dialogue indicates that he and Roman are veterans of the war in Yugoslavia, in which Serbia participated, there is no absolute statement that defines his nationality, as a result I have edited out that statement. It is likely that he is Serbian, but there is no reliable source stating he is. --harbin91 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Hollick

Why is there no mention of Michael Hollick's complaints over his salary? As I recall, the reason The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony don't feature Niko is because Rockstar Games execs were not pleased with Hollick. Quietmartialartist (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like trivia, but could possibly fit into the production bit. Do you happen to have a source? Worm^TT · (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrectness in Soundtrack section

It is stated (not directly, but it's exactly what a reader understands) that while in older GTA's radio stations were single looped audio files, in GTA IV each song is separate [in every radio station stream]. This is not correct. Some radiostations are formed from separate files and some are looped. I haven't checked all resources, but at least Electro-Choc is a single long (44:44 1024kbps 32kHz wav) file. Whoever experienced with editing articles, please revise. Actine (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

'Episodic content' query

"The compilation was released on PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and Windows (via Steam[83]) on 26 October 2010 in North America, and 29 October in Europe.[84]" When it says "...Windows (via Steam)..." I inferred that to mean exclusively to Steam, which is not true, as I bought the physical version of the complete edition from [Game]. It contains four discs, two for GTA4 installation and the other two for EFLC installation. Each has on it 'The Complete Edition Grand Theft Auto IV & Episodes From Liberty City', so it is not just repackaging. Biggles1000 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it was just someone adding it to mean "also available on Steam" rather than inferring any form of exclusive. Have removed it to clarify. - X201 (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Biggles1000 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

the Chelsea Grin song "Lifeles" has a sound clip from this game

In the song "Lifeless" by Chelsea Grin, the ending breakdown has this woman moaning of which the audio was taken from one of the sex scenes from this game. Could it be appropriate to mention this on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.138.254 (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It counts as Trivia. Thanks for seeking clarification though. - X201 (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning this on the article for Chelsea Grin probably wouldn't be valid information by any point past being seen as trivia as well. • GunMetal Angel 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Stellar reception of series

I've never, ever played this game. I've played the older ones. 3 is not that good but was a breakthrough in concept, Vice City has the best atmosphere and density, San Andeas is called "a quintessential piece of software," and this one apparantly is as acclaimed as any, making half a billion in it's first day. So why in the name of profit motive would any clear thinking company stop working on their most successful series to focus on mediocre ones. It makes no sense business-wise. Is there any simple reason for this? Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it's been confrimed now they didn't stop work on the series, but I'm surprised you ever thought they. Bombot (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Niko is a veteran of the Balkan Wars, or as Wikipedia calls them, the Yugoslav Wars. Calling it the Cold War is ridiculously vague and innacurate in this case. Niko is from the Balkans (South-eastern Europe) not Eastern Europe. Various characters refer to him as from the Balkans during the game. Please edit the article accordingly! 79.217.73.86 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Balkans are Eastern Europe, it's the historical heart of Eastern Europe to be more precise. As for ethnicity, he seems to be a Serb (name, ingame slang as well as language dialect is distinctive Serbian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.59.145 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article reflect this? It says not to change without consensus, but I don't see much formal discussion here. Anyone opposed to inserting "..., presumably the Yugoslav or Kosovo Wars,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rail88 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is lots (and I do mean lots) of formal discussion in the archive. Niko is a fictional character. The author of that fictional character is Dan Houser/Rockstar. Niko's nationality has never been divulged by Houser/Rockstar. The name of the war that their fictional character took part in has never been divulged either. Because Niko is their creation, and they have never revealed any of this information, Wikipedia uses the most exact information that they have released. i.e. We don't know his nationality. We only know that the war took place in Eastern Europe. Anything else, such as stating his nationality because he speaks a certain language fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. - X201 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

He is definetly not Russian.Why?There's a mission for Mikhail Faustin in which you have to go along with Dimitri and nearly at the end of mission,when you are introduced to weapon buying,the store guy'll tell Niko he's tired of selling weapons to Ruskies(that's what he calls to Russians)and Niko will answer:"I'm not Russian.".Also,other characters call him either:Serb,Slav(Johnny Klebitz in TLAD)or Mysterious European(Alex as girlfriend(as Russia is half European,half Asian,it could be innaccurate because IF he was Russian he could be Asian as well)).Know-howpt (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

He's not from Iceland either, and that's just as relevant (it's just as necessary to "prove" it) as the fact that he's not Russian. <shrug> Nczempin (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sales

Now up to 25 million plus, according to Game Informer's GTA V preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.136.29 (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"It is widely considered to be one of the best video games of all time and a landmark in modern gaming."

I'm not sure if that's true. In fact, I've never heard from anyone anywhere else that it's considered to be one of the best video games of all time. Just because a game gets good reviews doesn't mean it's one of the best ever. Can anyone verify whether it's widely considered to be one of the best video games of all time, or that it's considered to be a landmark in modern gaming?

If it is true, that's fine, I just want to know one way or the other. It's a pretty bold statement to make without citing a source so it makes me wonder if it's the product of a biased editor who just wanted to talk about how great the game is.

Tp GATE (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It was indeed a little over-the-top; I've removed it. Claims in the lead don't have to be directly sourced if they are sourced later in the article, but I don't think that statement was adequately backed up. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The first half of it is backed up by the Reviews and the Metacritic ratings, the landmark bit would need a source though. - X201 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I had considered that, but the game is only at the top of the Metacritic ratings for PS3 and Xbox360, which is very far from "best of all time". On the PC list, which spans a much longer period of time, it ranks something like #94. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wanted system from "Need for Speed"

The wanted system is very similar to the NFS I played in 2006. I don't follow that title so I don't know when and how they came up with it, but 2006<2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.170.233 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The "wanted level" system from Grand Theft Auto IV was used in 1997 in the first Grand Theft Auto game, and later after that in every subsequent Grand Theft Auto title. With this in mind, it is likely that Rockstar Games may have borrowed the "wanted level" concept from The Need for Speed (1994), however this is only a conspiracy and not an official fact, and should not be included on Wikipedia unless confirmed. Even if Rockstar do confirm that they borrowed the "wanted level" concept from the Need for Speed series, it does not belong on this article anyway, but on the article on the Grand Theft Auto series itself. Rhain1999 (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they meant the concept of a wanted level, rather the way that the level was reduced. It changed significantly from iii to iv. Previously you could pick up stars, aka bribes to reduce the level but if you had more than two there was no way to wait them out, you had to either pick up bribes or get to a pay n spray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Different?

GTA 4 is really a different Liberty City from GTA III. But, there's still many same thing from previous rendition. Like cars name, food and drink, Francis INTL, and view radio host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.36.145 (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is correct, but this should not be included in the article. If anything, this is WP:TRIVIA, which is not accepted on Wikipedia. Good work on noticing the similarities, though! ---- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

gta ordinal not found

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&action=edit&section=new#c

i have install gta 4 and my pc is asking me for gta 4 ordinal not found what should i do to run ta 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.245.85.94 (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)