Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 13#GAN Review

Should it be noted that the PS3 version is #1 while the 360 is #3 on gamerankings?Zabbethx (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:I'd say no, such ranks can change quite often and say nothing about the game but only about GR's list of reviewed games. --SoWhy ^Talk 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are loads of obvious spelling errors with just a brief read through. I was gonna fix them but discovered it was locked.

Ryancb06 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Which are you refering to? Grsz^talk 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dimitri spelled dmitri in several spots. Is what i notice at the moment with out going to in detail cause I gotta head off to work. Yesterday I noticed much more in just skimming the beginning. Ryancb06 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:That might be linguistically correct, determining the language of origin. It's probably best to see how it's spelled in game. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 12:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::It's spelled Dimitri in game. Neıl ☎ 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, that is for certain the correct spelling.Ryancb06 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the SpeedTree website, their software is used in GTA 4.

http://www.speedtree.com/gallery/index.php?Page=95

Perhaps this should be added somehow? James (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more reliable sources. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

: Other than the SpeedTree website itself?.... The wiki entry for SpeedTree even notes GTA IV as a product that uses it - as well as R* owning a Licence to use their products... --Vylen (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

::Self-published sources are not reliable. (Heh, if you want, I could make a website that says my software was used in GTAIV...) And other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources, for obvious reasons. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::That's only true if we're talking about personal websites, such as blogs. The official website of SpeedTree/IDV is a reliable source. GTAIV is being prominently advertised on their front page, so there is no doubt. Not like they'd be lying about it, anyway. /Carson 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

::::The claim on the public website of a company is useful to verify they made that claim but it is borderline when it comes to verying it as factual. More importantly, it may not be noteable for the article on GTA IV, particularly if it's not covered in reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::SpeedTree is a primary source, though. Why can't we assume that their claim is truthful, since they're reputable and we have no way of verifying the code ourselves? Otherwise, what source could be considered more reliable? I agree about its notability though; I don't see a good place in the article to stick this little factoid. /Carson 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

← Thought I don't necessarily agree with the practice, many games list Speed Tree under the engine section as "Foliage: SpeedTree" xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

: How about these for secondary sources? - http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18441 or http://www.thestate.com/214/story/389272.html kollision (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::By Jaysweet's logic, the official GTA IV website is not a reliable source for info either.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Not for info about GTA, without a supporting third party source. John Hayes^talk 08:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Why would a third party be needed to support information provided by a primary source? The official GTA website is authoritative for this topic, and cannot be biased or contentious. /Carson 09:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::It's working on the principle that the third party has read the same information and deemed it reliable. Thus if a reliable third party has published it then the initial claim from the primary source is deemed reliable. - X201 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::WP:PSTS explains it for you. John Hayes^talk 09:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::This could have an easy solution if someone would watch the ending credits of the game and if IDV or Speedtree is listed there then its confirmed as its on the games credit list. I presuming this game has them like in all the other GTA games, but still listing just this company on the profile leaving all the other companies out that also contriputed to the game would be little unfair.--80.221.239.213 (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::No, because as explained in my reply before, we shouldn't be using the game as a source for this sort of thing. John Hayes^talk 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::"Only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source" (from WP:PSTS). Surely then SpeedTree could be included on the page, referencing the website, no interpretation of it, just the facts? John.n-IRL 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, this is largely what I'm getting at. My position is based on how I understand WP:PSTS. Why would a third party be needed to deem the primary source reliable? They're just rehashing a simple statement, and really aren't going beyond "I saw Rockstar and SpeedTree's claims, and I believe them." The game itself is the ultimate primary source; there's no need to have someone else reconfirm/restate bits of info that aren't open to reinterpretation, unless we have reason to distrust these two companies by default. /Carson 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Another good analogy into this thing would be that a particular person dies and no third-party (like any sort of news site) reports it. People like us check the body ourselves and find he's dead but apparently the corpse itself is not a good source for the fact the person is dead. Ok maybe this one is a bit extreme and convoluted but really its all silly. If the game itself claims it in the credits then why cant it be assumed to be true until otherwise proven false? (innocent till guilty sort of thing) --Vylen (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::I do see what you are saying, but we shouldn't be researching things about the subject of an article ourselves, we should be using the research others have done. If someone is dead and no-one has written about it then chances are they aren't notable enough for an article anyway. My main concern with it though is that it's almost impossible for your average reader to confirm, you can only if you own a copy of the game. John Hayes^talk 10:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does the section on cars talk about paying for sex and diffrent kinds of ,um "events". Not only is this untrue but it is in the wrong place, I am going to remove it using my IKnightTemplarI account if nobody can tell me why its there.(58.165.205.15 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

:This is the first grand theft auto game, where you can choose different sexual activities. It is also the first grand theft auto game where you can see them doing it. Seeing people having sex might spark controversy for the game, therefore it is quite important for it to be here. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

::"might spark controversy for the game", sounds like wp:crystal, does it actually warrant inclusion? John.n-IRL 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Okay, how about "Unlike previous GTA games GTA IV allows the player to view the atonganist having sex with a prostitute in a vehicle." The details of which sexual activities occur doesn't warrant inclusion. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

::::On the contrary, it did spark controversy with the censorship of the game in Australia - these sexual acts were removed from the game. Although as a whole the game has sparked greater controversy but i wont get into that here. --Vylen (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1- Don't see the relation to cars.

2- I live in OZ so for us that was removed, we only get to see the back end of a car going up and down or a rooftop. Also we do not get choices as to what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.205.15 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:The sexual activities take place in a car, although the section it is included in is actually called Vehicles. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::Isn't Niko a protagonist, not an antogonist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't know. You may be right, but you know what a I mean. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Niko's not really an anti-hero either. Sorry. <:( --nlitement ^[talk] 18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Shouldn't be in the vehicle section, as it's hardly focused on the cars themselves. I wouldn't know where it would belong, but DEFINATLEY not there. Ledgo (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I see it belonging in the Vehicle section, is because you can only pick up a prostitute in a vehicle, you cannot do it on foot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.214.253 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shenmue cost approximately $70 million dollars to make. Considering inflation from 1993, when production on Shenmue started, to date Shenmue also cost approximately $100 million dollars in todays terms.

It is completely incorrect to state that GTA4 is as a fact has had the highest production cost for any game ever, the page should state that it is together with Shenmue one of the two most expensive games ever made. Pangbulle (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:No it is the most expensive game ever made, not adjusted for inflation, that is a fact unless you have a source comparing it to Shenmue in terms of cost we shouldn't mention it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::If reliable sources state that it is the most expensive computer game made, then that's fine. Otherwise, it represents original research. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I was tempted to mark this as dubious in the article. Read the source. The headline asks whether GTA4 might be the most expensive game, and the article says it could be IF an estimate is correct. The way it's presented in this article is as if GTA4 being the most expensive is a fact, which I don't believe to be supported by the current source. Oren0 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think it's our job to adjust for inflation. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[http://kotaku.com/385519/the-most-expensive-game-budget-ever Sources?].--SkyWalker (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources claiming that GTA 4 is without a doubt the most expensive game ever probably do so without thinking because it is obviously a high budget game, but also because it is sensational, it is more interesting to have a new number one than to take facts into account. Not to mention, the source in the article even ends with a question mark, "Most expensive game ever developed?". Until someone can show us an objective source that shows it is for a fact the most expensive game ever and not just simply claims it, it should not be considered to be. Considering that the games have been made and released within a 15 year period (a fairly short time), the high inflation of the US Dollar during the same period should be taken into account.

If we were for example talking about the difference in price of cars between the 1920s and 1990s, it is obvious that the biggest difference in number size would be because of inflation. When it comes to two games released within a 15 year period, it is not so obvious. Pangbulle (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:Based on the Kotaku source given, I would suggest saying something along the lines of "Rockstar believes the game may be the most...", since that in itself is probably noteable. John.n-IRL 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i couldn't find an edit page, but it has "organisations" and the American English spelling is "organizations."

--Taylert123 (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

: Yes, but if you look above on this page, the article is written in British English. "organisations" is correct. --Vylen (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The gameplay is open ended, but it has a (not entirely) linear set of missions - and is NOT a sandbox game. It should not be in the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.42.191 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:GTA games fit almost all the definitions of a sandbox game. Like almost every other sandbox game the story is largely linear but has side missions. Otherwise it fits perfectly.Skeith (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Before going into this review, I can see that an awful lot of work has gone into shaping this article, especially in finding content. I hope this review will go some way to improving it even further and reaching Good Article status. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. I'm happy to help resolve any queries you may have in order to further improve this article. I would reccomend that once these issues are addressed that a peer review is held, requesting a full article copyedit, before resubmission.

So, going through each of the points in turn:

• It is well written.
• Infobox - why is the version important for a console game? The release date needs to be cited. Is there a reason why the Sixaxis controller isn't mentioned in input methods?
• Reply - Its a VG Project standard for the infobox. You mention the generic type of controller and not a specific make. Gamepad covers both consoles with one word. - X201 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• You use re-imagined, both in the lead and in Setting. It's jargon and should be either removed or explained at the point where it is first used.
• {{Done}} has been reworded to "redesigned rendition", is that better? kollision (talk)
• Niko being Serbian only needs one source.
• {{Done}}
• Is becoming the highest rated game on Gamerankings notable? Have any third-arty news outlets referenced it? It's better to just describe that it had positive reviews.
• It's unusual to find Development at the start of an article - it's usually found at the bottom, just above reception.
• {{Done}}
• There's mention of the engine development, but little discussion of the art direction (gritty realism), audio development and so on, but there is information on this distributed throughout the article. Gather it up and place it here.
• {{Done}} Added paragraph on audio development. I think there enough about art direction.
• No need to title Overview at the start of Gameplay.
• {{Done}}
• One thing that's common here is saying that it's been reworked or it's different to previous versions, but there's no description of how it works now, making the text a bit impenetrable without reading further. Since we want to be able toread the article in isolatio, it would be better to explain how concepts such as wanted levels, car physics work in GTA4, then compare it with previous versions. Also note that there is a lot of jargon used in the section, such as blindfire, free aim and locked on. These terms should either be removed from the article or defined when they are first used.
• It may be better to merge Finale with the rest of the plot, instead of having it as a section on it's own.
• Setting - where the comparison with San Andreas is used, it may be worth reworking this and placing it into development. Also, you mention that LC is smaller than SA twice in two sentences, which should be reworded to avoid repetition. Again, you've mentioned re-imagined here, which should be explained without the jargon.
• {{Done}}
• Characters, The first sentence uses relative and relatively close to eachother and should be reworded.
• {{Done}}
• community and online features - there's probably too much detail here. Cross-check it with game reviews in order to pick out the key points. A lot of this stuff should be merged into Gameplay (it's online gameplay) or Development (it's development of online features). The downloadable content should be merged with the appropriate section in Development. As an when it brings in new gameplay elemtns, these should be added to Gameplay.
• Merging done, "too much detail" not done.
• Merge Social Club, music downloads and Playstation Home into one section - it breaks up flow if you have a heading followed by a single paragraph of text. Again, it may be appropriate to trim the detail here.
• {{Done}}, Music downloads merged into Soundtrack section
• Soundtrack - the opener sounds a bit peacocky - can these comments be cited or toned down? Again, there's no need to mention each radio station in the article, only that there are a number available, with further ones becoming accessible once the player completes certain objectives.
• {{Done}}
• Marketing - include in development. Having a major heading followed by a two sentence paragraph breaks flow heavily. Also, remove the inline link to Rockstar Games - it's under External Links, which is sufficient
• {{Done}}
• Special Edition - again, place under development. No need to list the content - the image (free use) does that much better.
• {{Done}}
• In reception the approach needs to be overhauled. The current prose lists reviews, who wrote them, who they work for, what they thought of the game and what score they gave it. This makes it more inpenetrable to the average reader - they don't need to know this level of information. Instead, rewrite it so that common things that were liked or disliked are picked out and discussed. This approach should also be used in Sales and Impact. Your refernces will tell people the information they need about the facts you state.
• You state that GTA was the most played title on Xbox Live for w/c 28 April. Who is Major Nelson and why is he important in this case?
• Major Nelson is the Director of Programming for Xbox Live so he is notable. But does anyone else think this information isn't that important, like it's pretty much expected to be the most played and that months or years from now this information will become irrelevant. kollision (talk)
• There are a lot of small paragraphs in this section - consider merging them together.
• Technical issues doesn't warrant a major heading - merge into reception (if it's been picked up on by news sites) or Development.
• Controversy sections are discouraged. Instead, incorporate the information into Reception.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.
• Some of the gameplay sections do not cite any sources. If you're referencing the game manual, cite it. If you're using game reviews to explain gameplay concepts that the reviewer described, cite them.
• Synopsis requires referencing - if reviewers have picked up on plot elements, cite them. If needed, cite the videogame using {{tl|cite video game}}.
• Every score in the scorebox should be sourced and cited.
• The first section of Controversy, after it's merge with Reception, should be sourced.
• Some references either have the publisher in italics or are missing a publisher, date or accessdate. Check and ensure that all the reference information is there.
• Some references do not use the cite template and need to be updated.
• What makes GTAIV.net a reliable source?
• What makes Edmunds inside line (edmunds.com) a reliable source?
• Same for pspsps.tv
• {{Done}}
• Same for flickr.com photos
• Same for kikizo.com
• Kikizo is a reliable source.
• Same for thebitbag.com
• Same for SeekingAlpha.com
• Information cited is from a conference call transcript. Seeking Alpha is the only site on the Internet that contains free transcripts of the conference calls held by publicly-traded companies. Reliable source.
• Same for xbox360fanboy.com
• {{Done}}

• It is broad in its coverage.
• The article covers all the key points, but goes into too much detail at times. The section on being well written covers this as well.

• It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
• There's some minor peacock terms creeping in, but these have been pointed out above.

• It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• It is being updated and improved upon, as you'd expect from a recently released videogame.

• It is illustrated, if possible, by images.
• Image:Liberty City GTAIV.jpg - if possible, use {{tl|Non-free use rationale}}
• {{Done}}
• Image:GTA IV Special Edition copy.png - update the description to include a list of items in the photo. It's mroe relevant to have it here than in the article itself.
• {{Done}}

I'll be watching this page, as well as my talk page. Should you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Keep up the good work!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:Interesting suggestions. For starters, version is relevant as they released a patch for the game (which is mentioned in the article incidently). Controversy has way too much to be merged with reception, hence why it was moved in the first place. I don't really think it can be trimmed down. I'll try to work on some of the other suggestions though. --.:Alex:. 12:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, I think the article is looking much better already. I'm glad to be able to get rid of all those unecessary sections such as the "Playstation Home" and "Music Downloads" ect. The article looks much more streamlined now. .:Alex:. 12:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Note: This just got archived, so I've removed it from the archive back onto the main talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)