Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

GTA IV Information Leaked From Game Informer 106

Posted by Zonk from the everybody-can-stop-talking-about-this-for-a-while-now dept.
The next issue of Game Informer magazine has been scanned and submitted to the legions of eager GTA fans out there. Right there on the cover is the mook from the GTA IV trailer, and the British Gaming Blog has a synopsis of the information passed around in the scans. "The game will only take place in a single city, so Rockstar has taken out aircraft to give the city a more realistic feel. Motorbikes however, are firmly engraved in the Grand Theft Auto formula, and will be present in IV. With the 2007, present day time scale, the radio station will have a lot in common with GTA 3 or Saints Row; not so much bands and songs you know well, but with modern music conventions that give an air of authenticity. Also like THQ's Saints Row, the game will load when you power up the game, and then never again; even breaks from internal to external locations are gone." Though I'm sure it's less interesting to you than the Game Informer information, GameDaily has comments from Take-Two as the company tries to shake off its recent problems. The money phrase from new chairman Strauss Zelnick: 'GTA is Our James Bond'.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GTA IV Information Leaked From Game Informer More

GTA IV Information Leaked From Game Informer

Comments Filter:

  • The thing about NYC (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fistfullast33l ( 819270 ) on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @02:00PM (#18693165) Homepage Journal
    is the scale - so many people don't realize how huge NYC really is when you include all 5 boroughs. If the idea of other cities is dropped for Staten Island (difficult because you can't really get there directly from Manhattan by car) and even outer Brooklyn/Queens and the Bronx, you'll have a ton of real estate to cover. Almost to the point where I doubt they'll be able to do even close to 1:1 scale. I would venture that the game would have to be about the size of Oblivion (possibly a little smaller) to achieve that. The thing that gives Oblivion a truly large feel is the fact that you don't have a fast car, you have a moderately fast horse or slow walking, so it seems bigger than it really is.
    • is the scale - so many people don't realize how huge NYC really is when you include all 5 boroughs.

      NYC is physically smaller than Los Angeles, which Los Santos in San Andreas was based on. So you can't take the size of the real city as indicative of anything whatsoever. It will no doubt be much smaller than the real NYC, and I believe they even say it's smaller than the world in San Andreas.

      btw, since when is an outright magazine article "leaked" information? This information was put there intentionally

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by \\ ( 118555 )
        My understanding is that a copy of the magazine itself was scanned and leaked before it's normal publication date, but the /. post isn't really too clear.
    • Almost forgot - another thing to note about NYC is the ethnicity lines in certain neighborhoods. NYC has always been known for its ethnic diversity, and it's always segregated somehow. The use of Russians, for instance, is interesting because most Russian populations today live in the Brighton Beach and Coney Island area of Brooklyn and also in distant Queens as well. To my knowledge, there isn't a distinctly Russian neighborhood in Manhattan (someone can correct me). So they almost have to commit to th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

        most Russian populations today live in the Brighton Beach and Coney Island area of Brooklyn

        You saying they soldiered into the Warriors' turf?!? Without parlay?!?!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kelbear ( 870538 )
      True Crime: Streets of NYC may have tried to mimic NYC's streets like True Crime: Streets of LA.

      However, GTAIV is not set in NYC, it's set in Liberty City, an imaginary city that's just taking thematic inspirations from existing cities.

  • Jack Thompson wins (Score:4, Insightful)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @02:06PM (#18693229) Homepage
    Rockstar has taken out aircraft to give the city a more realistic feel.

    and not at all because they're worried some press wanker will call it a "terrorism simulator".

    If you remember, aircraft were cut from GTAIII (also set in "new york") for a similar reason, since the game came out pretty soon after 9/11.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by iabervon ( 1971 )
      Except, of course, that GTAIII had aircraft. Actually taking off and flying the Dodo was somewhat impractical, but possible. While you could actually fly it into a building, it didn't damage the building (since nothing damaged buildings in GTAIII), and if it blew up, the explosion wasn't any more significant than a car blowing up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by User 956 ( 568564 )
        Except, of course, that GTAIII had aircraft. Actually taking off and flying the Dodo was somewhat impractical, but possible.

        Yeah, it was possible, but difficult to fly the airplane with no wings. They clipped the wings for the aforementioned reason (9/11 paranoia), and removed the mission(s) that were slated to have used the plane in its full form.

        That's completely different from the range of civilian/military aircraft available in later games, especially San Andreas. There's no reason they couldn't
        • So, no police/army helicopters chasing you?

          In any case, I hope GTA4 has parachutes for base-jumping.
          • So, no police/army helicopters chasing you?

            If they do include those in GTA4, they probably won't be flyable. It'll be like GTA3.

            Obviously, the ultimate would be to have the Hunter (Apache) chopper from VC.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by robson ( 60067 )

          Except, of course, that GTAIII had aircraft. Actually taking off and flying the Dodo was somewhat impractical, but possible.

          Yeah, it was possible, but difficult to fly the airplane with no wings. They clipped the wings for the aforementioned reason (9/11 paranoia), and removed the mission(s) that were slated to have used the plane in its full form.

          Do you have a source on this claim? IIRC, GTA 3 hit stores on October 31, which means Rockstar North would've had a very short period of time to make this change, submit a new version to Rockstar, get it passed, submit to Sony for approval, get it passed, send to the manufacturers for duplication, and distribute copies to stores.

          In short, it doesn't seem like they'd have enough response time to have actually made any changes as a reaction to 9/11.

    • "If you remember, aircraft were cut from GTAIII (also set in "new york") for a similar reason, since the game came out pretty soon after 9/11."

      The Dodo in pre-911 screenshots had the short wingspan. I'm not an authority on this, but I don't remember promises of flying planes around in that game. I also remember that it was BFD that the Vice City engine actually supported flight.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XO ( 250276 )
        You could definitely get in the Dodo and fly it around. I've seen people do it. Never got that far in the first GTA3 game, though, I always got lost once the second island opened up :(
    • Well, for me in San Andreas at least, once I got aircraft the world certainly shrunk quite a bit, and shattered the illusion of scale they had so carefully created. Also, they flew just terrible, not the least bit realistic and were no fun at all -- missions involving them were usually simply frustrating. So, I am glad there will be no aircraft, and agree with their stated reason -- consider they also stated the world would be smaller than San Andreas.

  • the radio station will have a lot in common with GTA 3 or Saints Row; not so much bands and songs you know well, but with modern music conventions that give an air of authenticity.

    I like this. While nobody can debate the necessity of the 80s-fest in "Vice City," I missed the subtle humor and commentary of the obscure and made-to-order music in the pre-"Vice City" GTA games.

    And to anyone besides me who remembers "The Ballad of Chap-Lips Calhoun," congratulations on getting it stuck in your head again after

    • I found a new music genre... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LanMan04 ( 790429 ) on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @02:40PM (#18693757)
      GTA3's "K-Jah" radio station introduced me to both Dub [wikipedia.org] and Scientist [wikipedia.org], and I have been a huge fan of both the artist and the genre ever since. Heck, I would sit around just listening to that station on the game while not even playing it. Then I figured out who Scientist is and started getting real albums...

      On a related note, WipeOut XL [wikipedia.org] (Wipeout 2097 for you non-Americans) introduced me to and got me hooked on techno (more specifically Big Beat) back in 1996, which eventually turned into a love-affair with all kinds of electronic music.

      I love it when games change my life.

    • Well, so long as they don't follow the musical lead of San Andreas, I'll be happy. It might have been a great game in every other respect, but it had the worst soundtrack of the series.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jcorno ( 889560 )
      I agree that it's a good thing, but it's really surprising, especially considering Take Two's money problems. It seems like there would be a lot of money involved in getting a song on a short playlist for a big game like this. I can't imagine why they would pass it up.
      • That's exactly why. They care enough about their work that they don't want it to just go to the highest bidder (read RIAA-pushed top-40 selection). Because if they did, the game would sound 'old' within 5-6 months of release. Or even sooner if the song came out before the game.

        Just like RockStar keeps ignoring the ratings board and those that want to censor them. They care about what they produce.

  • Missing the open environments (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @02:07PM (#18693247) Homepage Journal

    I think that the lack of the open environments is going to get tired quickly. Driving around at high speeds is one of my favorite things to do. The other is fly around cities in the helicopters, which is also going away. I guess I don't need to run out and buy an Xbox 360, I can wait for this one to hit PC.

    • Where'd you see that helicopters are going away? There's nothing that says this in the linked article.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nimey ( 114278 )
        It said aircraft are going away. It didn't say "airplanes". Helicopters are a member of class Aircraft.
        • That's a rather myopic interpretation. Consider previous installments of the game - GTA3 and VC. Both took place in a single city, a relatively small area, and both had helicopters.

          San Andreas was much larger, and offered significantly more flight options - including "real" planes. Saying that, due to the smaller size of the game aircraft were removed, strongly says (to me) that just "real" planes were removed.

          Call me optimistic or whatever, but I'll be stunned if all modes of flight are removed from the p

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Nimey ( 114278 )
            You never even played GTA3, did you? I can tell you my copy had no helicopters. It had something called a Dodo that was a Cessna 150 with clipped wings, so it could glide for short hops.

            Talking with authority about something you don't understand makes you look like a jackass.
            • Only on the PC. Maybe your version didn't have helicopters, but I *strongly* doubt it.

              Here's some proof:

              http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/GTA3 boxcover.jpg [wikimedia.org]
              There's a helicopter on the cover of the game.

              http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_102.jpg [gouranga.com]
              Helicopter in-game.

              http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_199.jpg [gouranga.com]
              Another shot of in-game helicopters.

              http://www.gta3.com/index.php?zone=review1 [gta3.com]
              "Ok then, now, the other ways to travel: boat, plane, train, subway, and on foot. It is scarce that you u

              • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

                by Nimey ( 114278 )
                Those were non-flyable police helicopters, you idiot. You have never played GTA3.

                • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

                  by Nimey ( 114278 )
                  Jesus, god forbid I point out that someone's a moron. Do I have to say it about Bush to not get modded down?

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by Lightwarrior ( 73124 )
                    You're acting like a troll and you got what you deserve.

                    Original quote:
                    "The game will only take place in a single city, so Rockstar has taken out aircraft to give the city a more realistic feel."

                    The uber-parent said (paraphrased):
                    "One of my favorite things to do in GTA games is to fly around cities in the helicopters, which is going away."

                    I asked him where it said they were removing helicopters - which I thought was quite reasonable - and you embarked on this literal crusade. Helicopters have been in the G

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Nimey ( 114278 )
                      No. You were whining about not being able to fly around in GTA IV. So the conversation was about flyable vehicles. Don't get your panties in a wad because your comprehension skills suck.
                  • He isn't a moron. You said that there were no helicopters in GTA3. He simply pointed out that there was. If you meant that there were no helicopters that were usable by the player, then you should have been more specific.
                  • It's strange. In the past few days, I've seen a few of my fairly mild posts get modded down. "Troll" and "flamebait" don't mean "you're not nice."

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by CFTM ( 513264 )
              My copy sure had helicopters in it; first there were the Helicopters that would come after me when I raised a major ruckus....then towards the end of the game it was possible to steal a military helicopter if you did things properly though I never did it nor did I see anyone do it so it may have just been Internet lore...

              And that dodo thing sucked ass :)

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dave562 ( 969951 )
                I did it. You could fly the Apache around. It had rockets to blow things up with.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Nimey ( 114278 )
                  If you could actually fly the Apache/Hunter in GTA3's ending sequence (*not* Vice City) why can't I find anything on Google about that?

                  Methinks I'm being trolled.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by dave562 ( 969951 )
                    Maybe it was Vice City. They all sort of run together after a while. Now that you mention it, it definitely was Vice City that I flew the helo in.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ShawnMcCool42 ( 557138 )
      And of course you're ignoring anything else new that this game may offer.

      • And of course you're ignoring anything else new that this game may offer.

        Most of the new stuff that was offered in GTA3 was a complete gimmick, such as the in-game arcade machines. While neat, it did not advance gameplay.

        I have no doubt that GTA4 will be the same. So far the only new mechanic announced has been the use of the cellphone that you can use to call people, instead of it being receive-only as in GTA3. While I'm sure it's even older, the first time I encountered a feature like this was in the ga

    • Driving around at high speeds is one of my favorite things to do.
      Then you need the other game whose name starts with "Gran[d] T" and ends with "o".

      • Then you need the other game whose name starts with "Gran[d] T" and ends with "o".

        In fact, I have all four Gran Turismo titles.

        However, the experience is not remotely the same. If I want to play a serious racing simulation, with all the frustration that entails (and sometimes that's what I want) then I play Gran Turismo. (No idea what game I'll play next since I'm boycotting Sony for the foreseeable future.)

        But if I want to drive around the highways running cars over and blowing them up with a motherfuck

  • ...is will we PC gamers have to wait a year longer to play it? Anybody know?

    On topic: One city is plenty fine, especially given what I've seen so far. I'd be interested to see how much of the interior spaces are accessible. Anybody have info on that?

    I hope they at least keep helicopters, and especially a gunship. I gotta have SOMETHING to strafe interstates with.
    • On topic: One city is plenty fine, especially given what I've seen so far. I'd be interested to see how much of the interior spaces are accessible. Anybody have info on that?

      I hear you can actually take the hookers into a hotel room, which is a bit more classy than the backseat of a stolen car. You can even beat them over the head with a lamp from the nightstand and take your money back, rather than having to resort to an old baseball bat.
    • So, no PC version, no airplanes/skydiving, no multiplayer.... How on earth is this going to be more fun than San Andreas? Especially for those of us who are PC only and won't even get to play it at all? Rockstar seems to have let congress not just remove their balls, but their brains simultaneously.

      rhY
  • The first three games in the series didn't really have a main character at all; Vice City had some wanna-be gangster gweedo (of course, the 80s had no redeeming qualities in real life either), and San Andreas had some low level gangbanger. At least San Andreas really brought a lot back to the series, which made the lacking III and Vice City all-to-unentertaining. I'm curious to see what the multiplayer will be like though, as GTA2's deathmatch made for a great diversion at LAN parties.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by spxero ( 782496 )
      Actually, I think you're a little off base there. Obviously this is an opinion, but San Andreas was the worst of the series. Vice City was the peak, and GTA3 was extremely innovative for the time. Too much time in SA was spent on nonsensical tasks (working out? in a video game?) instead of missions and weapons. Yeah, the map was bigger, but the gameplay sucked. SA took the fun out of the series.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XO ( 250276 )
        Once you had everything pretty well pumped up, though (literally), and the training missions in (I still haven't passed flight training, I had to download someone's saved game to get past that.. although I did do ALL the other flight missions.. flying through those damn circles is just impossible for me.. also makes playing the MTA Race impossible for me, because I seem to be the only person who plays it that can't fly worth a damn), and got the hell out of the shit jobs at the beginning, the game got a LOT
      • I mostly agree, GTA is an generally curve and for the most part SA is as good as VC with the obvious adition of the fact that the protagonist can swim (I think SA was the first to allow that, how annoying was falling out of the boat) and has more content (which is good if you enjoy playing the game) but the chores (eating, working out) and the whole dancing thing almost spoilt the experience. It just shows that trying to add roleplaying elements can take away "the fun".

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by morari ( 1080535 )
        Myself, I found 3 to be boring and almost a complete letdown from the fun I had in 2. It was fun enough for short periods of time, but far too repetitive for long gaming sessions. It was almost nothing but fetch missions. San Andreas had a very nice variety to its missions. And I might be one of the few, but I enjoyed the exercising angle, but I like roleplaying games. The large map really has little to do with my overall enjoyment. It certainly made the world feel more realistic, but a small area can be ut
  • I read somewhere else (I believe Kotaku), that the lack of planes lead people to believe that there would be no countryside area, which is kind of disappointing (but obviously not a confirmation). One of my favorite parts of San Andreas was cruising around a mountain on a hog listening to the country station. It actually felt like I was there...
    • I HATED the countryside in San Andreas, it's the reason I stoped playing the game. In particular having missions that frequently involved driving across 2/3 of the map really started to annoy me.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by misleb ( 129952 )
        A fast motorcycle could cover the distances pretty quickly. You can't say you didn't like the offroad car races though. Come on. The countryside MADE that game, IMO.

        -matthew
      • I couldn't get the feel of that map, and I suspect that your complaint is related to that problem.

        Was it really about 5 times the size of Vice City (and mostly totally goddamn empty) or is that just my imagination?

        That said, the "rich people" hill (my name for it), which was largely empty, was cool. That mission in the rapper's house up there was fun, and the area was cool; plus, it was nice to have a really high spot with a sharp drop off to screw around on.
      • That was one of my biggest complaints too. It just took to fucking long to get from one city to the next. I'd have friends over, go "Oh, you gotta really see this cool thing", boot up the game, realize I was on the wrong part of the map, and then have to say, "Well, go do something for 20 minutes and by then I should be close to what I want to show you." Not to mention it was just too easy to get lost without having to look at the big map.
        • That is what the jets were for. All the GTA maps are actually pretty small if you measure them out. The largest is the San Andreas map, which is something like 3 or 4 miles on a side. In fact, there were spots where you could be in the air and see LA to one side and SF to the other. Curvy roads, indirect routes, hills, and traffic are all that made it seem as big as it did.
  • the best way to get around in GTA:SA was to hop in a jet fly to where you wanted to go, turn 90 degrees towards space and when the plane starts to stall, jump out. i spent hours rolling around the desert and mountains looking for cool places to base jump. i just hope, they bring it back for GTA4:SomeOtherPlace in a few years...game experiences like that are very rare.

    • I agree. One of the moments in GTA:SA that really got me going was this mission-- I think you were supposed to steal a helicopter-- where you had to get into a heavily-gaurded area. It didn't really give you instructions, as far as I can remember, about how you needed to accomplish this, but I just flew a plane over the area, jumped out, and sky-dove to my target, opening my parachute as late as possible to that I'd be a hard target to hit. The experience was impressive.

      I suspect that the real reason mi

      • I suspect that the real reason might be that the setting, this time, it Liberty City. Being based loosely on NYC, there would probably be a big uproar if they let you fly planes into the skyscrapers.

        A big uproar raised by folks who utterly fail at distinguishing game from reality, you mean.
        Yeah right, like Los Santos, San Fierro, and Las Venturas don't have such things (or other major landmarks)... and how about that large dam (whose name escapes me at present)? To address a point raised elsewhere in thi

        • I'm not saying the distinction is reasonable, but it seems likely that the distinction would be made anyway. For as much carnage as you can create in San Andreas and Vice city, and as much non-airplane-related carnage as you can wreak in Liberty City, people will still be more sensitive to flying aircraft into tall buildings in a NYC-like city.

          Some people will, believe it or not, actually find it shocking and saddening to see a video game that they believe intends to allow players to recreate what is, for

  • And you can't even skydive into the Hole.

    Man, I'd rather be playing Spiderman on the Wii.

    But, at least people will appreciate GTA: Emerald City (aka Seattle) when it comes out.
  • GTA: Baghdad.

    I mean, think about it.
    • What fun would that be? There is no such thing as a wanted level, the city occupants will always be ready to shoot back (or first), travel would be mostly walking because of driving bans and checkpoints, and everything that might be fun to destroy would have already been blown up. Baghdad would be a horrible setting for GTA.
  • Over the past year, there have been a number of sandbox games that have brought a lot to this "genre". Dead Rising did a lot of interesting things regarding variety of weapons, as well as the immersiveness of being in "one place with a lot of zombies". It was very challenging at times, since there was only one place to save, so there was true fear of being at the wrong end of the mall when nighttime came around, and you still haven't saved yet. Saint's Row was pretty much a GTA-clone, but a pretty well poli

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by trouser ( 149900 )
      Verticality!
    • I'm sure there's more then one place to save in Dead Rising (although I may be wrong, I havn't played it in a while). Any toilets could be used as a save point, and I can't imagine a shopping mall with only one set of toilets.

Slashdot Top Deals

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Close