Talk:Content Changes

From Grand Theft Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Changed Content)
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this article only for things that we know about? like the police cars, bus shelters etc. Or is it just for anything that doesn't appear in the final game? I was just wondering, because I've looked through GTA III's '.gxt' files and found some pretty interesting lines of text, which don't appear in the final version of the game - I don't know if they would be worth adding or not... Hardrock182 03:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

This article is about anything that was'nt added in the final version of a GTA game and it would be usefull if you put those lines in the article.-User:BloodyGTA
Okay, thanks - I'll add the info just now. - Hardrock182 03:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
But please add references. If the reference is within the file, name the file or its entry in the file. Video links and photo links are welcomed.--spaceeinstein 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


I heard somewhere that if you hex edit the data files of GTA 4 for PC, you can use the fingerless gloves. Carlosvc92

AT-400 In GTA 4

hey guys somewhere i read that the AT-400 does appear in GTA IV as the jet at francais int. airport, i don't have GTA 4 anymore for PC so i can't check the files but it could be. User:Grandtheftautodude Monday 09 November 2009 17:42

No, it doesn't appear in the game. The jets that appear in the airport are objects, not vehicles.--Spaceeinstein 23:10, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

GTA SA

GTA 3 was more changed than GTA SA, because of how much different Liberty City was going to be, and deleted missions

Yes, but the 9/11 attack change a lot of things in GTA III. GTAJJJ 19:46, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Spliting

I suggest this page (which is overloaded with information) being split into smaller pages, such as "Beta Characters", "Beta Map", etc. This page also shares the exact same information than "Beta Weapons", "Beta Vehicles" and "Deleted Missions".--Loadingue 15:23, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

We could also remove the "vehicle", "missions" section and stuffs only the beta feature remain. I mean, there's already a page of betas.--Blaff 60 13:54, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Beta GTA IV Map

Where can we find the beta map of Liberty City-GTA IV in the game ?

On a blue telephone directory in Niko's safehouse in Bohan. You should easily spot it. The picture in the article is extracted from the game's files though. Don't forget to sign your post with four tildes too.--Loadingue 11:15, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank's i'll check it GTAJJJ 12:37, July 8, 2010 (UTC) GTAJJJ

Beta map and district

How have you discover beta district in Liberty City IV era ? And where can we find the alpha map of Chinatown Wars ? (sorry for my english, i'm french) GTAJJJ 18:29, July 8, 2010 (UTC) GTAJJJ

GTA Vice City

It says that tommy was going to wear a blue hawaiian shirt that's not a beta that got changed, tommy does and has always worn a blue hawaiian shirt.Andrew nicholson 16:41, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

In the beta, the hawaiian shirt was dark blue, not in the final version where it's light blue.GTAJJJ 16:59, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Bikes in GTA3

were bikes a beta release in Grand Theft Auto 3?

if so why were they removed? or were they removed because of the 9/11 attacks? -- PK2PK2 00:44, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

No, as far as we know, bikes were likely not in the GTA III beta. It's possible they might have thought of the idea, but then decided to wait to include them in the next game, as I doubt 9/11 would have anything to do with the removal of motorcycles or bikes.Claude94 15:00, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Bikes weren't include in the game because R* didn't know how programing bike handling, they learn it after the realase of the game ( i read it in an interview) GTAJJJ 13:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Chinatown Wars "Beta Video"

Even though I deleted this, I figure someone put this up as spam. If you did, I kindly ask you, please stop spamming. But if the person put it up as serious material, the video is gameplay footage of Driver 2, NOT Chinatown Wars. 88FanNASCAR August 17, 2010, 14:00 (UTC)

Page renaming

Do you think "prerelease" is more accurate than "beta release"?--spaceeinstein 17:36, 19 October 2010 (BST)

They both mean pretty much the same thing. Sgt. S.S. 16:17, 25 October 2010 (BST)
Not really. Beta refers to when the developers have created a working product that fulfills their main wishes but isn't ready for public release. Changes that happen between Beta and the retail version are usually pretty minor, e.g. the removal of Darkel and Niko's fingerless gloves. Some of the changes here, for example the original map for III with the aiport in Staunton, would have happened way before the Beta stage. However, I don't think "Prerelease" on its own is a very good title; how about "Prerelease Changes", "Prerelease Features" or "Changes Made Before Final Release"? Alright, that last one wasn't very good. --Bluesboyjr 18:16, 25 October 2010 (BST)

I agree this is a bit ambiguous. Beta does not accurately reflect features or content which was created but removed before release. A beta can be early in the development cycle, or late with only minor changes - but a beta release is always an actual release or prototype (whether internal, private or public). These vary from just-before-release tweaks to early plans and mockups. "Prerelease Content" would be the most accurate, but maybe a bit long? Perhaps "Removed Content", or we just go with the long name and rely on redirects? Gboyers 20:27, 25 October 2010 (BST)

I support renaming to "prerelease changes". "Prerelease content" won't cover stuff that were drawn on paper before it was implemented in the game (like 8-Ball's name). "Removed content" won't cover the stuff that wasn't removed in the final version but just hidden and can still be accessed with simple techniques (like the Brickade).--spaceeinstein 20:35, 25 October 2010 (BST)

Well "Prerelease Content" covers anything written for, or used in, any pre-release version of the game - whether an unused character or removed feature. "Changes" implies that something was made and working, but then later removed/disabled, which would exclude any designed-but-unused content. Perhaps we should agree the point of this page before we try and decide on a name? Gboyers 20:43, 25 October 2010 (BST)

"Prerelease Content" sounds okay, but maybe we should keep "Beta Releases" as a redirect? Sgt. S.S. 21:08, 25 October 2010 (BST)

Of course all redirects will work, and this page will be redirected. I just meant people could casually link to Beta instead of having to type the full title every time. Gboyers 21:45, 25 October 2010 (BST)


Prelease makes it sound like a trailer or something like that, beta releases sound better in my opinion. Jackass2010 08:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but "beta releases" makes it sound like an official beta version that was released. These things could be planned features that were never made, or things seen in trailers that changed before final release. Perhaps "beta content" or "unused content" would be best? Gboyers 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I support the name "Cut Content" so that pages with "Beta *" can be changed to "Cut *".--spaceeinstein 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut Content is not really an accurate name for the article. Not all changes to the GTA Games were cuts. There were also some character and naming tweaks, like Tommy Vercetti's Hawaiian shirt.--MrLanceVanceDance 01:27, 28 September 2011 (BST)

Suggestions so far:
First word Second word
  • Altered
  • Amended
  • Beta
  • Changed
  • Cut
  • Game
  • Modified
  • Pre-release
  • Removed
  • Alterations
  • Changes
  • Code
  • Content
  • Components
  • Corrections
  • Features
  • Modifications
I agree. Whilst 'cut content' is a succinct way of putting it, "cut" only covers removed content, like the plane-crash mission. There are many different types of pre-release game alterations - some cuts, some alterations, some improvements, some bugfixes. Either we split them up, or we use a title that encompasses them all. I think "Beta" covers them all but again is not technically accurate (as they aren't all from public beta versions), whilst "pre-release" is a bit awkward to type (although beta will redirect). I think "[beta/pre-release] [changes/alternations]" suits that best. But on top of this, there are post-release changes - things that were one way in the first version but changed in a later version (such as Hot Coffee removal and PC versions), so maybe we should include these from an all-encompassing "game alterations" or "changed content" page? These are all similar changes made by the devs to the game, the only difference is whereabouts on the release timeline the change is made (pre-dev, pre-beta, pre-release, post-release, pre-different-console-release). We could easily have a table with a column indicating what type of alteration it is. I think "Changed Content" is the closest one we have so far. gboyers talk 01:48, 28 September 2011 (BST)

My proposal is that we rename the page to "Prerelease Content". That title covers everything and basically sums up the article in two words.--MrLanceVanceDance 02:32, 28 September 2011 (BST)

But as I mentioned, pre-release doesn't cover changes made after release, such as removing Hot Coffee or changes between PS2/PC versions of games, both which I think logically fit with the other things in this article. gboyers talk 02:37, 28 September 2011 (BST)

I propose that we split this article into two seperate articles. One talks about cut content while one article talks about game alterations. One will be called "Changed Content" while the other will be called "Cut Content". That will avoid any confusion between correct names for this article. Thoughts?--MrLanceVanceDance 02:43, 28 September 2011 (BST)

"Changed Content" does include both cut+altered content for pre+post release - that would avoid all confusion. Also, splitting the articles into what happened to the content isn't really logical, why would someone want to read one page and not the other? Readers are more likely to be looking at what the content is than how it was changed. The only logical split would be the time (pre-release changes vs post-release changes), but I still think that's just making things complicated. This article should cover: "All content that was altered or removed before or after the game's release", which I think only "Changed Content" does. gboyers talk 02:56, 28 September 2011 (BST)

What I mean with my proposal is that one article covers content that was cut from the final product while the other one discusses non-cut changes to the final product like name changes and new additions.--MrLanceVanceDance 03:17, 28 September 2011 (BST)

Yes I understand, but I don't think that would be a good way to split the article. Why would someone only care about content that was completely removed, and not care about content that was altered/replaced? Surely people reading this article would be interested in any content that (for whatever reason) isn't in the copy of the game they have, so they'd have to read both pages anyway. I still think Changed Content covers everything and makes a sensible page. gboyers talk 03:30, 28 September 2011 (BST)

Yeah I agree. I reckon that Changed Content will make a good title for this article.--MrLanceVanceDance 03:42, 28 September 2011 (BST)

"This article should cover: 'All content that was altered or removed before or after the game's release'"
No, this article mainly covers pre-release content. Only one article so far deals with the change between console and PC version exists (it's somewhere). Post-release changes should be separate from this.--spaceeinstein 15:28, 28 September 2011 (BST)
I agree with Spaceeinstein. While I agree entirely that cut content and altered content are related and should share an article, there is a difference between content that was never seen (or at least never seen as originally intended), and content that was different between two versions of the game. JFletcherTalk (formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (BST)


I agree that is where the split should be made (if we make one), but I just want to be sure about whether we really need a whole new set of pages about post-release changes. I personally think most people who want to read about one would be interested in the other, and would be happy to see them on the same page. I think this page is good for both of those things. Are they so different that have to be separated? I think sub-pages like Changed Content in GTA San Andreas could easily cover (by different sub-headings perhaps) things planned (that were never implemented), changed from beta to release, and changed after v1 release (Hot Coffee etc). Or do you think we would be better having both a Changed Content in GTA San Andreas and a Version Differences in GTA San Andreas article?
There are two main categories to post-release changes: patches and port differences. This article is already large as it is right now. Adding them will bloat this, unless it's split like the vehicles/cheats articles. A "See also" section is good enough if you want people to see additional information.--spaceeinstein 06:24, 29 September 2011 (BST)

Agreed. If we're talking about splitting this into subpages for each game, then each page could talk about pre-release and post-release changes under appropriate headings. But if we're keeping this page (with all of the content), then I think that they should be separate. JFletcherTalk (formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever) 08:10, 29 September 2011 (BST)

I think this should be split per-game, which would allow us to have more information and pictures, and generally make a better article of each page. This central page would obviously have a definition and link to them all (like Missions), but could also have some major/important examples. gboyers talk 13:34, 29 September 2011 (BST)


You know guys, I have been thinking, would "Content Changes" be a better name? It seems to be more accurate.--MrLanceVanceDance 08:28, 12 October 2011 (BST)

I like that, actually. gboyers talk 06:21, 14 October 2011 (BST)

K9 dog in IV

Im just wondering is there any proof of the K9 dog for the LCPD?

Content getting re-added in updates/Beta stuff in updates

What should we do if something that was originally cut from a game gets added back in a update? For instance, the Dodo Seaplane was going to be in GTA V, was cut and is now going to be in the PC/NG versions. There's also the Rhapsody, which had handling lines in the original game, but was only added recently. The Rhapsody hasn't been added to Vehicle Changes, but should it be? And should the Skimmer be removed from there, or should there be a new section for the NG/PC release?

In the last update there is images of a Flare Gun and some kind of bomb - but there's been this kind of stuff before in previous updates and it almost always gets added in the next update. So is this relevant info, or should it be ignored as it's just an update and most likely will be added anyway? Then there's the Vulkan/Hydra that looks like it was going to be added in an update (after being cut from the original game) and could be added back in a different update - so that's kinda relevant to all the previous questions. --SonofUgly (talk|edits) 02:44, 21 September 2014 (BST)

If it was originally cut from the game then it should be listed in the article with a note mentioning if it was later added to the game. The same goes for the new versions of GTA V. Articles should be written with the original GTA V (PS3/Xbox 360) in mind with the DLCs and the newer versions treated more like new games. So with the Rhapsody, it has been added to the original game and so should be listed on that article.
As for the GTA Forums beta information, if there is a pattern of it being added then I see no harm with it being in the article. It should, however, be noted that it is not confirmed by Rockstar Games. As for the Vulkan/Hydra issue, if there is evidence (such as game files) that suggest it was cut from the original game and may be added via an update, it should also be added. A-Dust 15:49, 21 September 2014 (BST)