Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV

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)

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 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)

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. [1] —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)

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[2] brings up this[3] 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 GTA games 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 GTA Games. 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)

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 Pentium 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)

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)

You have a google search, I have the game. You are wrong I am right.

A google page means nothing. (124.179.20.97 (talk) 09:45, 24 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)

-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)

Merge

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)

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)