|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Grand Theft Auto
|
This Video games related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Regarding Missionality[edit]
I think this article is clearly on mission (and despite the Missionality box clearly discouraging drive-by missionality edits, this is exactly that). Regarding the claim in general: The brilliant GTA series have constantly been the subject of various pseudoscientific investigations that purport to link them and their gameplay to causing mayhem in society and youth crime sprees. It's a favorite punching bag of the christian right. As a side note for us non-Conservapedians, it also features among the best social parody ever. I mean, anyone who's spent a second in the pseudoscience/new age/woo section of RW will laugh so hard they shart from Chakra Attack. And for those who prefer the conspiracy/denialist sections of RW, there's the Blaine County Radio Community Hour. I claim major missionality. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the -section- it was put in, as nobody said the article itself was not missional. Try again. Also, GTA 5 radio is hardly the best social parody ever. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I seem to have. That is one tiny summary old timer! And if you were to unsmudge your window pane thick glasses, you'd probably be able to make out what the template actually says: "An editor believes that this article may not further our mission statements". It's hardly my fault that whoever placed that template there was giddy and malicious enough to not place it as intended. I don't agree with the above statement that this article is off mission, as was stated by whoever placed that template there on how the entire article is off mission. I don't agree that the entire article is, Paravant. And I never, once called it the best social parody, just among the best, purposefully vaguely. Yet you had to go and get your ol' blood sugar up to a comedic pitch... Take it down a few notches will ya buddy boy? And f.y.i. - I don't care if you dislike Dr. Ray DeAngelo Harris, I will still teach your son about him. Best regards, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing funny about Lazlow, he's a hack and has been for the better part of a decade. And It's not his fault the template says article, nobody here is arguing the article does not belong, so there you go, making a lot of noise about nothing.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- What a random insertion by you that you did right there - I never even mentioned Lazlow once. Though you are right on the money - he is a completely washed up hack. You'll discover, once you play your first GTA game (I recommend starting with GTA III), that the entire satire surrounding that man is based on this exact fact! Hilarious that you'd bring that up by accident, as you did. Anyways, that mission template was added in the worst possible manner. As you yourself point out, if it was meant to communicate what the actual template actually says it wouldn't have been placed in the improper section, as it was! I should've just cleared out that obviously wrongfully inserted template. My bad. Never mind that it was also inserted without a talking point being added to the talkpage - constituting a textbook drive-by edit. Facepalm. Anyways, per your final sentence - if I'm right, then why are we pretend-arguing? Thanks for being a part of the solution to this, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lazlow Jones, whom writes much of the GTA script for Radio, is a hack. His character is a bad form of unfunny comedy, and the man should be fired from his job. Now stop being pointlessly difficult, you know better. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take you up on that offer, and I suggest you do the same! I'd attempt a handshake, but... the Internet. (For the record - in case you haven't watched Fame or Shame yet, it's mostly about everyone pissing on Lazlow. I, for one, enjoy that greatly.) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lazlow Jones, whom writes much of the GTA script for Radio, is a hack. His character is a bad form of unfunny comedy, and the man should be fired from his job. Now stop being pointlessly difficult, you know better. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- What a random insertion by you that you did right there - I never even mentioned Lazlow once. Though you are right on the money - he is a completely washed up hack. You'll discover, once you play your first GTA game (I recommend starting with GTA III), that the entire satire surrounding that man is based on this exact fact! Hilarious that you'd bring that up by accident, as you did. Anyways, that mission template was added in the worst possible manner. As you yourself point out, if it was meant to communicate what the actual template actually says it wouldn't have been placed in the improper section, as it was! I should've just cleared out that obviously wrongfully inserted template. My bad. Never mind that it was also inserted without a talking point being added to the talkpage - constituting a textbook drive-by edit. Facepalm. Anyways, per your final sentence - if I'm right, then why are we pretend-arguing? Thanks for being a part of the solution to this, anyways. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing funny about Lazlow, he's a hack and has been for the better part of a decade. And It's not his fault the template says article, nobody here is arguing the article does not belong, so there you go, making a lot of noise about nothing.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I seem to have. That is one tiny summary old timer! And if you were to unsmudge your window pane thick glasses, you'd probably be able to make out what the template actually says: "An editor believes that this article may not further our mission statements". It's hardly my fault that whoever placed that template there was giddy and malicious enough to not place it as intended. I don't agree with the above statement that this article is off mission, as was stated by whoever placed that template there on how the entire article is off mission. I don't agree that the entire article is, Paravant. And I never, once called it the best social parody, just among the best, purposefully vaguely. Yet you had to go and get your ol' blood sugar up to a comedic pitch... Take it down a few notches will ya buddy boy? And f.y.i. - I don't care if you dislike Dr. Ray DeAngelo Harris, I will still teach your son about him. Best regards, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Joe Biden[edit]
No mention about his and Hillary's hate for GTA III? When I met Joe Biden one summer over a decade ago, I almost brought GTA up and how according to him, he should be scared because I might have played it. CorruptUser (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Grand_Theft_Auto#Was_Rockstar_Games_incompetent_in_removing_the_mini-game.3F[edit]
Reads weird, aye? And how accurate? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- The first paragraph mentions that it is presumptive, a possible explanation why the content wasn't deleted - This article from a game developer has a similar take on the issue.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- is this section even needed? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's rambling & unnecessarily technical. What it says in three paragraphs could be summarised in a few words: that once a feature is written into a game's code to a significant degree, removing it would cause the game to malfunction. This is still only a partial explanation of why Hot Coffee was left in the code as there are clearly things Rockstar could have done if they had made a greater effort to make this sequence inaccessible and/or more appropriate. It can't have been a total surprise to them that some of their consumers would look under the hood & find stuff that's hidden in the source code. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- After reading through the article again, it is definitely the weakest part of it. I've looked around and found two articles(link 1, link 2) which partially uncover the motives of Rockstar. I'll rewrite it later. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 08:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's rambling & unnecessarily technical. What it says in three paragraphs could be summarised in a few words: that once a feature is written into a game's code to a significant degree, removing it would cause the game to malfunction. This is still only a partial explanation of why Hot Coffee was left in the code as there are clearly things Rockstar could have done if they had made a greater effort to make this sequence inaccessible and/or more appropriate. It can't have been a total surprise to them that some of their consumers would look under the hood & find stuff that's hidden in the source code. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- is this section even needed? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
re3/reVC lawsuit[edit]
Should we include this and other episodes of Take-Two's dictatorial crackdown on fan content as of late? 136.158.82.211 (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)