Talk:Grand Theft Auto clone

Additional research

Just flagging a few articles that talk about GTA-style games and make observations about them:

i. 2006-07-28. "PALGN - Saint's Row Preview". PALGN. Retrieved 2008-07-24. {{cite web}}: |author= has numeric name (help)
ii. Steven Hopper (2005-01-25). "Mercenaries Review". Game Zone. Retrieved 2008-07-24.
iii. Alex Navarro (2003-09-15). "Review - Simpsons Hit and Run". GameSpot. Retrieved 2008-07-24.
iv. John Gaudiosi (2006-05-12). "'Parallel Lines': Put It in Drive". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-07-24.

Don't want to lose these, just in case. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

spot check

Are there any glaring omissions or inaccuracies in this article? Everything is pretty well sourced, so I'm pretty sure it's accurate. And I've had a hard time tracking down other sources. But perhaps bigger fans of the genre have some thoughts. Backing everything up with research is tough. Randomran (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a good read and I don't see anything missing or wrong. Everything I could think of that should be noted is in there. Excellent work. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also read this article (twice)and everything that needs to be put in the article is in there and nothing is incorrect or incoharent, so good work. HairyPerry 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a relief. Thanks a lot for checking in, guys. Randomran (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Its no problem, if you need me to spot check anything else for you, I will be happy to assist in anyway possible. See ya around and Happy Editing, HairyPerry 13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Theft Auto clone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fail: This article is not even reasonably well written. The prose is confusing and there are many grammatical errors. The article's definition of what is a "Grand Theft Auto clone" is confusing. A better definition might be: "A Grand Theft Auto clone is a video game featuring gameplay similar to that made famous by Grand Theft Auto III." There is a history section yet the "Genre name" section also covers history. The article goes off-topic. It goes from talking about what a GTA clone is to talking about a genre of video game in the "Gameplay" section. The "Origin" section is especially confusing: "Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto III is often credited with pioneering a game genre in 2001."—that is how that section starts. And the "Recent history" section talks about the development of the GTA series. I even dispute whether or not "Grand Theft Auto clone" is even a true video game term.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a fair review, particularly where you suggest that this isn't even a real term. If you read the references, you'll see that "grand theft auto clone" is used pervasively. Have you taken the time to see that the article is verified? My understanding was that a good article review was supposed to offer constructive criticism that would help resolve small grammatical and wording issues. I'm not sure how the "genre name" covers history, except to the extent that it has to explain how the term originated. I'm also unclear on how you are supposed to talk about what a GTA clone is without talking about what kind of gameplay the genre offers. Perhaps you can clarify, or offer more constructive feedback that would allow editors to resolve the issues you perceive. Randomran (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This review was not conducted properly - and I think with an external links section and a more elaborate reviewer, we could get this article past GA. Note to the Reviewer - A very easy way to review would be to divide the review into sections (of the article) and leave bullet points noting points which need fixing in each said section. --haha169 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

moving forward

Apparently there are some issues with the prose and organization. There are grammatical errors, off-topic statements, and otherwise confusing statements. I'm hoping that other editors can check in and help identify these issues, so we can improve this article further. Randomran (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Having read (#1) Grand Theft Auto clone, (#2) Grand Theft Auto and (#3) Wikia's GTA Clone. With that I have the following suggestions:

• I would lead the opening to follow #3, as they go down the path of "a game that emulates, or has gameplay elements similar to the Grand Theft Auto series... ...Specifically, a GTA clone is typically an action sandbox video game that usually contains a large free-roaming map that can be explored on foot or in a vehicle, with mission and side-missions displayed on a mini-map for the player."

I can not seem to find any credible, reliable sources to support the claim of a genre.

• The intro is very unstable, darting off on several topics. There is not a consistent tone or flow. Topics do not seem to lead into one and other.

"The genre also draws upon open world level design concepts from 1980s games such as Metroid." this is just out of the blue (I see its referencing the later paragraph that will expand on this, but maybe that is where it belongs).

There are no citations or references in the intro. When you are trying to establish the article's notability, we need to see RS.

• The gameplay section... "Grand Theft Auto clones are a type of 3D action-adventure game, where players are given the ability to drive any vehicle or fire any weapon as they explore an open world. These games often incorporate violent and criminal themes, although games such as The Simpsons Hit & Run are considered more tame." is sourced, but lacks the flow. We are at the first section of the article and I feel like things have been repeated.

When you say "These games are often incorporate violent and criminal themes..." and then go on to say "...although games such as The Simpsons Hit & Run are considered more tame." arent we talking about the same type of games? Are they the same genre or not?

• The more I read the more unfocused the article becomes. We quickly get into "some do this and some do that" all throughout paragraphs.
• "Grand Theft Auto clones allow players to freely explore the game world,[3] which is typically on the scale of an entire city.[12]" These generalities are just that, not facts just general things the writer has decided. This fueled me to check out the source to see if it had done some study or research to prove that this "is typically on the scale of an entire city.". When I followed the link it lead me to a 404 :(
• I would very much agree that "The citation scheme is, shall we say... unique.", but that is your choice.

Now this is my opinion and I hope you take this as constructive criticism, as I do not wish for you to take any of this personal. I would say, take a step back and try to develop the clear points that distinguish this genre and what denotes its' notability, keeping far away from "some have this and some do that...". Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's definition (first sentence) epitomizes everything that is wrong with this article. 1) You do not use the word "refers" or any other similar-meaning word, such as "describes", when defining the article. Ex: Blue refers to a color. Wrong. Blue is a color. 2) A "Grand Theft Auto clone" is not a "genre". 3) Do not assume that the reader knows what you are talking about. Say "video game", not just "game", and link it like I have done. I hope these three tips will help you to see the faults in this article.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Matthew Yeager. Your comments are much more clear. I appreciate that this article hasn't reached GA status, but the comments from User:Tj terrorible1 were not enough to identify the serious issues that are alleged to exist. I'll get to work on it, either way. Randomran (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't these just called sandbox-style video games? Does this really need its own section? If we can't have a list of GTA Clones because there are no games that are GTA Clones why bother having a wikipage called GTA Clones? 198.53.97.174 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASSESSMENT

• I'd suggest a move in language from the 'usually' and 'often', as well as dubious statements that I doubt are attributable to any source, save for gross violation of WP:SYNTH, to more general statements like 'typically'. The current article uses many vague terms (for example, citation 21 and what is supposedly supported by it), and presents this as something that might or might not be true. Rather, present it as something that is the norm for this kind of game (supported with sources), and give examples of (extreme) deviations. Check the article for terms like 'often', 'usually' and 'some' and try to improve the prose there.
• Last few words of the lead: 'critical' is ambiguous.
• Gameplay needs a much more general introduction first. Currently, it assumes everyone reads and understands what's meant by the general term 'action adventure game' in the lead first, and discusses specifics. Before going into vehicles, you need some kind of 'you're this guy in this world and you need to do this mission' kind of discussion.
• I think something else that's missing is an in-depth discussion of the setting. The "gansta" part of it is actually significant, as is evident from the last paragraph of the article. What's so funny about being a "gangsta"? How do the different settings compare? Are there any peculiar or exceptional games in this sense?
• Second to last sentence of history: don't use the rankings of Game Rankings, only use the aggregate scores for games themselves (not applicable here). This is by long standing consensus in WP:VG that Game Rankings scores are not comparable between games and through time.
• The article has a major lack of actual comparison of games in the genre. As I understand it, there's relatively few well known games here, and I'd like to see more analysis of them.

B-class is appropriate for this article. User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Oh, and get rid of the word famous in the first sentence.

Thanks for the assessment. I agree the article needs improvement, and I appreciate having a bit more guidance as to how to move forward. Randomran (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GTA Clone?

GTA clone? Well there have been plenty of them have'nt there. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Although this article is B-class, there are small neutrality issues pertained within it. I'll run over them and we'll see what needs to be done.

Lead section
Despite the fact that I already mentioned this, it has been ignored. I am talking about the opening line, 'Grand Theft Auto clone is a genre of action adventure video games epitomized by the Grand Theft Auto series'. I think the issue is plain obvious: the is a genre and epitomized by words. This, through original research and opinion, generalises the so-called "genre". A GTA clone is NOT an official term/genre and never will be, it is simply flagged by members of the GTA community and game reviewers. The line should read The term Grand Theft Auto clone generalises a genre of action adventure video game which draw similarities with the Grand Theft Auto series, or something to that effect.

Recent history
Another issue is the last few lines which talk about GTA IV. Quite biased I think, it's really quite amazing nobody bothered to rewrite them. 'Grand Theft Auto IV from 2008 refined the formula from prior games with unprecedented detail'. Refining the formula from prior games? How was the formula refined? GTA IV is still very similar in feel to most sandbox games ie GTA: San Andreas and even if it is the best sandbox game, nothing has been "refined". Saints Row 2 and The Godfather II were released after GTA IV and yet beared little stylistic influences from it. The statement refined the formula [..] with unprecedented detail is redundant and debatable. Sure, GTA IV may have been a good game but consider the fact that Saints Row, Crackdown, The Godfather and Scarface were, in respective order, the first sandbox games in seventh-gen and were the true "refiner-s" of the sandbox genre.

Take my points into considerations and express your thoughts, VG Editor (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

e.g. "We also wanted to limit the list to the best games in the genre" bridies (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article recently passed its GA review. Not to say it's ever perfect. There's room for improvement. But you're ignoring the numerous games that refer to the Grand Theft Auto clone as a genre, and many others that refer to Grand Theft Auto creating/popularizing a genre. That's a non-issue. The praise for GTA IV may be a little sloppy, and I'd be willing to find a better way to sum up why GTA IV was so darn successful. But I'm mostly going on the perfect 10 score given to GTA IV by IGN. [1] I haven't so much as played the game, and I'll admit I wrote this article, so there's no bias on my part. I really am just repeating what reviewers are saying about the game, and game journalists do have a pretty big hard on for this game. Randomran (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGH HOW CAN THE ORIGINAL WRITER ADMIT TO NEVER PLAYING THE GAME, WRITING A STRING OF LIES AND MAKE BELIEVE AND THIS ABSOLUTE TRASH STAYS UP FOR A DECADE?

THIS IS WRONG. THE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. NOTHING CHANGED.

GTA CLONE IS NOT A GENRE. JOURNALISTS KNOW ZERO ABOUT GAMES. THEY GAVE CYBERPUNK 2077 AN ALMOST PERFECT SCORE. IT WAS SO BADLY CODED, TO THE POINT OF BEING UNPLAYABLE, EVERYONE WAS OFFERED A REFUND. YOU NEVER GET REFUNDS ON GAMES. THE SAME GAME WAS SOMEHOW NOMINATED FOR A GAME OF THE YEAR AWARD! ONE OF THE WORST CODED AND RELEASED GAMES EVER. THE STUDIO IS FACING A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND ALMOST WENT BANKRUPT ALREADY. BUT JOURNALISTS GAVE IT 10/10

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS DELETING. I TRIED TO EDIT IT TO GIVE BALANCE, BUT IT KEEPS GETTING PUT BACK TO THE SAME TRASH AND VERY SPECIAL PEOPLE LEAVING COMMENTS ON MY PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.246.219 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Life Before 3D?

I notice this article seems to ignore the entire universe before 1998. I threw in a few mentions (where there were refs) for some much older 3D stuff consistent with the genre as defined in the articles, but one thing that isn't well established is the extent to which 3D is a defining trait. It's assumed throughout the article that 2D is irrelevant, even going as far as to exclude Grand Theft Auto 1&2 from the genre, referring to them as "influences" only.

What's the basis for this? I don't understand how this is established in the article. There are no refs at all in the intro. Conceptually the article seems problematic, and there's a really pronounced American bias and console bias as well. Am I missing something? This just went under GA review so I assume there must be something I'm overlooking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.113.35 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A-class assessment

Leaning towards support, but there's one thing sticking out to me. In the references, such as #36 and #37, there are a few that are just raw links. Really this is the only qualm I have with the article. Other than that, is it possible to put any further information into the Game Informer reference at #42?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't support. The complete lack of any citation in the intro really should have disqualified this from even reaching GA, and it's still a bit myopic in terms of how it frames and applies definitions. Also, the history part was really weak. Despite a bit of work to soften the heavy American bias, I still think it needs a lot of work. Until recently it really acted like the games just came from a vacuum. Frogacuda (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I dunno where Randomran has got to, but I fixed the bare citations, which were added by someone else after the GA review. I don't really know what the Game Informer citation is actually saying, although I'm guessing "138" is the issue no. and "73" is the page no. No idea what the bold "1" is. Perhaps we should just remove it. bridies (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I support (I have only been involved in minor copy-editing). I disagree there is or was any US bias and if anything Frogacuda's additions of "Scottish-developed", "English-developed" place undue weight on that aspect. In what way is it "myopic" and "really weak" exactly? Also note that citations are not necessarily required in the lead (see WP:LEAD). bridies (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it's really an extension of an overwhelmingly British genre that existed for 10 years before GTA1 came out. All these vehicular sandbox action adventure games like Mercenary, Starglider 2, Midwindter 1 and 2, Damocles, Hunter... all British games, all 3D, featuring most of the defining characteristics like commandeering vehicles, free-form mission, shooting, etc, but without the crime theme. Then Driver and GTA (also British games) blew up big in America and marked this major turning point for American developers embracing this style of design (when traditionally they didn't, apart from Terminator, and maybe Privateer, both made by European directors who relocated to American companies). The only truly American game I can think of that was really embracing sandbox game design was Echelon, and that was pretty much an Elite clone.

So I don't think the weight is undue. I think the weight reflects a factual reality of how the genre emerged that was being oddly avoided before. I'm an American, so this has nothing to do with my personal biases or experiences, it's just a reality of game history that these games were overwhelmingly British until after GTA3's commercial breakthrough.

The other issue is that there's really too much about the GTA series and not enough about the growth of the genre as a whole, including innovations and developments outside of the series. The lack of any acknowledgment of 2D games and the exclusion of the first two GTAs from serious discussion except as an "influence" is, as far as I can tell, without real justification... I know it's a hard subject and a moderately young genre as far as recognition and discussion/analysis goes, but this isn't an A article yet.Frogacuda (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We go with what the sources say and I disagree that the secondary research shares your concern about giving UK developers their due. This is reflected in the article's sourcing which in my opinion reflects the overall balance of secondary research. I don't see why it's so necessary to discern between UK or European developers and US one's; for example they cater to gamers with the same predilictions. It's not like the West vs. Japan which is a divide in which the gaming press is much more interested. The prominence the article gives to the GTA series (particularly after the third instalment) again reflects the weight of available secondary sources. So many of the sources state that the series gave rise to the whole genre, whether or not the actually call it "GTA clone" and it is by far and away the most successful. Comparitively few sources attempt to trace it back to Terminator, or Hunter, or even the original GTA. bridies (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see why it's so necessary to discern between UK or European developers and US one's; for example they cater to gamers with the same predilictions." This is just pure crazy talk. How can you even make that claim? European game design in the 80s (and ESPECIALLY 3D game design) is very different from American game design, which I would attribute largely to the much higher popularity of computer platforms across the continent than in the US. Euro games often had novels packed with them and hundred page manuals and were much more complex, involved experiences, which was generally more acceptable on computers than on consoles. I think you could easily argue that Euro and NA gaming was as different or more different than NA and Japanese game design in the 80s and early '90s. In fact, since Japanese consoles were very popular here (while dominant Euro platforms like Amiga, Spectrum, and Amstrad were not so popular here), American games at the time were often imitating Japanese genres. Sit down and read some old European magazines from the '80s like CV+G or Zzap, and you'll realize just how deep the divide is. Granted in 2009, the East/West gap is more meaningful, but back then all three regions were very different.

"Comparitively few sources attempt to trace it back to Terminator, or Hunter, or even the original GTA." Comparitively few sources even address the concept of the genre having an origin, but that doesn't mean the consensus is that it materialized from thin air. Since GTA3 was the mainstream commercial breakthrough, a lot of media is going to start the discussion there, but if you think that's an excuse to ignore history, you're nuts. Mentions of those games ARE sourced, and articles that ignore the very notion of influences on these games don't contradict that, they're just written from a place of ignorance. I think the Eurogamer article that is sourced is very good and guess what? It mentions a dozen or so games all from the UK.

You're hiding behind the notion of consensus here in a way that distorts the intention of Wiki's standards. Wiki does not condone the perpetuation of myths just because they are popular. I can find 100 sources that say Super Mario Bros is the first scrolling platformer, or that the founders of Treasure worked on Castlevania, but these things aren't true. Willful parroting of obvious misconceptions (and the notion that ANY game existed without influence is a misconception) in light of verifiable research to the contrary isn't going to help an article improve. Frogacuda (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, what you "would attribute" or what you "think you could easily argue" is moot. There is zero point in making these claims unless you can directly back them up with sources. Yes, if earlier games in the (proto-)genre can be sourced then they may warrant a mention, but still it is inarguable that there is far greater third party discussion on the GTA series and thus the article should reflect this per WP:UNDUE. Finally, your last paragraph is just wrong: like it or not, Wikipedia's policy is explicitly "verifiability, not truth". bridies (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The claims are sourced and verifiable, but my issue here is that you seem to be claiming that because the number of articles on the subject (origins of open-world 3D action adventures) is limited that somehow the "consensus" is that they don't exist. If I'm doing an article on a football player and I have 100 articles on his career and only 5 on his childhood, it does not mean that the consensus is that he didn't have a childhood. If the popular consensus contradicted these claims, it'd be another matter, but that's simply not the case. Frogacuda (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming they don't exist, simply that their coverage pales in comparison to that of the GTA series and therefore the article should reflect that. If you are claiming that Game X is an important GTA clone/crime action game/driving-shooting game/whatever and is not represented in the article at all, then again it is pointless to make that claim unless you can back it up. Your childhood analogy is crap: there's a difference between the biological life of a person and subjective criticism. However, let's have a look at an FA on a football player shall we? There's 2 or 3 paragraphs on his early life and 11 on his career (13 if you count the "style of play" section). More than half of those, at 6 paragraphs, cover his career at Manchester United, where he spent the longest and was most successful. Do you see what I'm getting at here? bridies (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is arguing that these earlier games should get more discussion than the later ones, but if you're going to discuss the "childhood" of this genre, you should actually look at articles that address that issue and reflect what they say rather than finding articles that ignore it completely and putting it under a heading called "Origins." The issue here isn't really that there's controversy due to "subjective analysis." It's that articles either talk about it or they don't.

I mean really, it's already an article based on a rapidly declining term (GTA Clone) that probably wouldn't exist if the "Sandbox game" article wasn't deleted. The extent to which any genre of "clones" can really be discussed productively is limited, and use of the term is fading fast. If this article is going to be stable and last, it's going to need to actually treat it like a real genre and discuss influences and mechanics. And even then, it's questionable.Frogacuda (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. bridies (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How would any of that qualify as OR? A moment ago you wanted to make it an A article and now you're claiming sourced claims on mainstream sites are OR because "not many people talk about them?" But then defining the genre as 3D despite NO SOURCING to that effect isn't OR? Whatever, dude, I don't think you really read these things you link to.

Do it right or don't do it, I say. It took me 5 minutes on google to find some info on the genre's origins and redo that section, and I'm sure you could find 10 times more if you googled the right names or leafed through some old magazines. I'm done trying to help. Have fun patting yourself on the back for more lazy, half-finished articles. Frogacuda (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So where are these sources? In the article? Then what's the problem? Otherwise, I'm referring to your constant "Oh, this genre is clearly an extension of Game XYZ, produced by a company in Inverness in 1984, and I bet if you took some old Zzap magazines and made enough original conjecture and synthesis, you could totally make an argument that this is the case. No, I'm not going to back this up at all, but popular consensus dictates that this is the case, you're suppressing the truth and propagating a myth grrr. Its outrageous that the article does not mention this game and therefore the article is indefinably myopic and fails to elucidate historical definitions and frame the mechanics and whatsits am I being verbose enough..." I think you haven't read them (hey, care to address that whole "verifiability, not truth" thing?) If you had looked up how to write out a citation this article wouldn't have had any objections from anyone else ;) Yeah I'm sure those sources are out there. Just like the ones you insisted could be insterted into the third-person shooter article and which never materialised. bridies (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, dude, I have a job, I can't do everything myself. I got hit with a moved deadline when I was working on the TPS thing. Why don't you google "Elite" or "Mercenary" and "open-world game" and see what you find for me. Oh and check the cover story for Retro Gamer issue 47, because I remember that mentioning it as an ancestor to sandbox games explicitly, I just can't find my issue right now. Take a little pride in adding info and not just deleting. Even secondary research takes some real legwork, and I think that might be what you're struggling with.Frogacuda (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I have 10 GAs, cause I struggle with research and just delete stuff. I'm not running around chasing up your theories, the burden of proof is on you to back them up. I already stated I support the article in its current state. Also not this article is "GTA clone" and "open-world game" redirects to Nonlinear gameplay. bridies (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you want a gold star (GA) or do you actually want to write a good article and educate people about game history? It's on you, I'm done. I personally don't understand why you would waste your time on this if you didn't think game history is important, but I guess I'm wrong. I understand the need to verify things, and I have verified what I've added to the article, and I barely started. Anyway, I can't fight with someone who doesn't take pride in their work. Have fun, enjoy your gold star. I have an article of my own to finish.Frogacuda (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Grand Theft Auto clones

I just removed this section and I can see that it has been removed and re-added quite frequently. There is no way a section like this could be justified. For one, there was not one single reference. Also, listing a game as a clone is very bold and could stir up controversy as there is no "formula" for a GTA clone. VG Editor (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fine as a separate list article, following the format we have for other genre articles/lists. In order to "list" a game as a "GTA clone" one must have a reliable source stating that it is a "GTA clone". I agree it shouldn't be in this article though, per WP:EMBED and given the lack of references, WP:V. bridies (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I just came here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_video_games#By_genre clicking on the list of GTA clones link, and was kind of disappointed to see that it has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.50.216 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Mafia really a GTA clone?

The only basic ideas it shares are driving around in an open city, the structure of the game is nearly totally different as it follows a linear story driven path and is designed more around purpose built levels as set pieces rather than generic missions set in the overworld, then given it's release it likely began development at least a year before Grand Theft Auto 3 came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.182.57 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent, since Mafia was never meant to be a GTA clone and it was never influenced by GTA. I wouldn't call it a "Grand Theft Auto" clone. Do you need any references?

Check this out! --->

June 15, 2000 (Interview with Daniel Vavra, the writer and director of Mafia) -- http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/article_28016

Sep 12, 2000 (Mafia Details) -- http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/mafia/news.html?sid=2627418&mode=news

(46 screenshots showing open-world environment, third-person camera, cars, racing, shooting, etc. Grand Theft Auto III was released in 2002, Mafia's development started at least one year earlier compared to GTA III)

Jan 3, 2001 (New Mafia Screens) -- http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/mafia/news.html?sid=2670102&mode=news

(it says "Mafia is scheduled for release at the end of April [2001]" and Grand Theft Auto III was released in October 22, 2001, so GTA III was scheduled to be released five months later compared to Mafia)

Sep 12, 2000 (Mafia Developer Diary) -- http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/mafia/news.html?sid=2784078&mode=news

(Mafia was originally planed to be released in fall 2001 same time as GTA III, but it was delayed to 2002 -- The publisher did not provide a reason for the delay)

I tried to remove Mafia from the wiki page, but someone re-edited my thing. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.99.226.215 (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

GamesRadar called it a GTA clone. See the reference in the article. That said, it didn't say anything good about it so I'm not sure it needs a mention here. bridies (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It only says "sorry PC guys, but the console versions sucked". That's NOT a reliable source, it's not trustworthy, it's not credible, it's way too subjective. At least in this case, Mafia hasn't emulated anything from Grand Theft Auto III, and I think that Mafia should be removed from the wiki page.

GamesRadar is a reliable source. bridies (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

GamesRadar is a reliable source, but this article in particular says nothing about this game. That's a fact.

How can you claim that Mafia has emulated something, when that "reliable" source says nothing about this game. There isn't anything like that in the internet.

So now, I've mentioned a significant number of "reliable" sources [above] and I think that's fair enough to not call this game a Grand Theft Auto clone, especially because that doesn't seem quite possible given the development period and the gameplay structure of both games.

You guys, really should remove this game from the wiki page because this is the right thing to do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.99.227.70 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It says that it is part of the "genre" of "Grand Theft Auto clones". The sources you provided don't say that it is not a GTA clones, so that is moot. bridies (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I never really heard people call Mafia a GTA clone. Anyone who's actually played Mafia knows that the two aren't that similar at all. The only thing they share is driving in a city. That's where all similarities cease to exist. The actual design is vastly different. Mafia is a wholly linear game in which the city is only there for immersion/atmosphere purposes. It is an empty shell devoid of any activity other then the linear story progression. Mafia is also a much more realistic game whereas Grand Theft Auto leans much more on the arcade side. "Clone" is a strong word when you're talking about games like these. GTA is mindless fun whereas Mafia is far more cohesive and much more meaningful.

I really think the reason you do this is because it has the "criminal sandbox game" thing. Besides people like to make it seem that GTA games are the best ever so anything that remotely compares to it must be a clone. Besides it's just ridiculous that GamesRadar put Mafia on its list of GTA clones, but this website claims that Mafia II is not a GTA clone -- http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/mafia-ii/preview/mafia-ii-updated-impressions/a-2009100111493956084/g-2007082111555365089 (it says "First off, this isn’t a GTA clone. It may have a crime theme, and have a limited amount of free-roaming, but it’s first and foremost a linear, story-driven experience.)"

Then again, you guys, really should remove this game from the wiki page because this is the right thing to do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.99.229.179 (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it per the second GamesRadar article. bridies (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mafia has been compared to GTA III, does that necessarily make it a GTA clone? The game was well received by critics and gamers upon release as a more realistic and serious Grand Theft Auto-styled game. Such was the realism that unless a mission was timed, many found that actually obeying the road rules proved to be preferable to speeding, as the latter would more likely result in accidents and injuries. Mafia contains a much bigger city to explore than most video games of the time, with multiple forms of available transport in addition to an expansive countryside. IGN gave the game a rating of 9.2/10 while GameSpot described the PC version as "one of the best games of the year". and rated it at 9.3/10. Game Informer compared it favorably to Grand Theft Auto III, and said, "From the living city in which you reside, to the incredibly realistic vehicles, this title has the heart and soul of a blockbuster".

References

Just awful

The article looks like written by fanboys who are completely in denial with the definition of "genre". "GTA Clone" is certainly not a genre. "3rd person open world action game" would at least be less "full of shit".

There is no article on "Doom Clone", gee, I wonder why. Surely every game featuring guns, blood, and rooms must be a Doom clone by this article's logic.

Your spelling is just awful. bridies (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not the issue here.

i completely agree with this. A: so what is the genre of GTA 5 again? B: it's gta clone. -- Making it as an official genre name :is just too sad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.165.254 (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article here? utterly useless, biased. etc. 220.244.249.91 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article points out that "other efforts to name and define the genre have been rare and inconsistent" - if that's incorrect, is there a better name for the genre? Or are people suggesting that the "walk and drive around an open world shooting people" genre doesn't exist in any meaningfully recognised sense, and it's unreasonable to group games together like this? --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That sentence seems to be a WP:SYNTH violation should probably be removed, but going by the secondary research is pretty much correct. There are loads of terms for this genre but GTA clone is the only one with any real consistency. bridies (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would just go by the genre sandbox or open world game --Roman3 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

4 years, and this embarrassment of an article is still here? It reads like an advertisement from the title onwards. And it is the ONLY page linked under the sub-genres of the action video game series on Wikipedia to reference a genre as "clone", sticking out like a sore thumb. RainbowDashite (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a term used by the industry. Blame the industry for not coming up with something better to replace it. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

'Graphics Whore' is also a term used by the industry, so why is there no article on that?, on your logic, there should be. This ignorant article should be removed. 121.216.131.3 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What sources talk about "Graphic Whores" are minimial in terms of being reliable sources. As such, that would be classified as a neologism and thus improper. "Grand Theft Auto clone" is well-sourced to reliable sources and thus appropriate. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Urban Chaos clone

Urban Chaos has all the elements that compose a "3d-free-roaming-3th-person-carjacking-shooter" and it was launched in 1999, two years before GTA3. All the games who are said to be cloning GTA are in reality cloning Urban Chaos and GTA3 was itself a Urban Chaos clone too, thus I argue that for the sake of accuracy and objectivity this page should be renamed Urban Chaos clone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.30.15 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

GTA is not a genre

The entire article has only 3 citations that argue that the GTA series established a new genre of video games and 2 of them are to extremally informal and unreliable video games news websites and the other one is to an BBC article about piracy whose statements do not match the view of this article and in fact doesn't even mention anything related to a supposed "GTA Clone" genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.97.194.223 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The term is well established as a genre - there just aren't many direct sources that track how it became called such. But there's no denying that there exists the genre of "GTA Clone" used by reliable sources to discuss games that follow the GTA pattern. (And spot checking the references, they are all reliable sources determined by the video game project. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the article does presently point out that GTA didn't "create" the genre (Blood Money and other games had features like this), but that with GTA3, the genre was formally popularized by how GTA3 did it. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A 'clone' is not a genre

Grand Theft Auto Clone' is not a genre, and it should not be considered one, it is an ignorant term that game critics use so they don't have to give other open world games which contain vehicles, weapons and cities a higher score. The logic of this page means we should have pages such as 'Doom Clones' and 'Mario Clones', both Grand Theft Auto and other open world sandbox games which contain driving and combat belong in the open world genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.131.3 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is clear that while GTA and variants are "sandbox games" which are a genre, the specific elements that these games all take up (the criminal aspect, driving, etc.) make it too far from what sandbox games are. Doom clones were once called "doom clones" but since are now "FPS"; Mario clones are now platform games. There is no equivalent genre otherwise for GTA clones. "GTA Clone" is an industry supported term.

Also please note: you cannot keep replacing the PROD tag. If you think this should be deleted, the only next allowable step is to nominate this for deletion at AFD. Replacing the tag will get you blocked for edit warring. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling a video game, i.e. a creative work, a clone of some other game, is most likely meant as an insult. User:ScotXW^t@lk 11:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not really. Remember that early FPS's were often called "Doom clones" before a more reasonable genre term came out for it. For GTA Clones, there hasn't yet been an established term (open-world sandbox only captures half the concepts). --MASEM (t) 13:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Open world or Sandbox game

Terms like xy-clone or xy-like are frequently used in video game magazines by editorial journalist, i.e. people who have played a lot of games in their time. But I don't think this legitimates an own article. Many games have influenced many other games, and it's ok to write that, but an own article is misleading. In fact, this whole article is written like an advert. Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven is not just NOT a mere clumsy clone of GTA 3, its development also seems to have started earlier. And who is to say, whether developer of game C was not rather influenced by Mafia then by GTA3? I think open world game or sandbox game hits the nail on the head, as a term for a genre/sub-genre. User:ScotXW^t@lk 11:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, open world/sandbox captures a large world that has no set structure, but this also groups things like Minecraft with that. The crime/mission structure is the other half of the question that needs to be defined and that's what the majority of VG sources consider as GTA clones. We have to follow the sources, we cannot make up our own language. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh, oh "I think" and "I don't think". bridies (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs (2011)

Sleeping Dogs (2011) also was often compared with GTA. So i would even mention it, in some points it´s very close to GTA. In others completly different. I wanna hear your opinion guys. Is it a clone or just a good open World Gangster Story Based Shooter? I´ve btw never played GTA Chinatown. So i can´t compare them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldie100 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grand Theft Auto clone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071007103939/http://www.360-gamer.com/preview.asp?id=547 to http://www.360-gamer.com/preview.asp?id=547

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Grand Theft Auto clone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=158948
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/scrapland/review.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=3&cId=3182648
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223211049/http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/130508_GTA_IV_break_record.aspx to http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/130508_GTA_IV_break_record.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Theft Auto clone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201141421/http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403367p1.html to http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403367p1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.australiangamer.com/preview/134/saints_row.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kotaku.com/gaming/feature/we-visit-volition-to-talk-saints-row-196953.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928200628/http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1893/Saints-Row-2/p1/ to http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1893/Saints-Row-2/p1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Theft Auto clone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923065928/http://wham.canoe.ca/ps2/reviews/2005/01/23/908787-sun.html to http://wham.canoe.ca/ps2/reviews/2005/01/23/908787-sun.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Bullpoo

This article is absolute trash. There is no such thing as a GTA clone and this is not Urban dictionary, this article has zero merit for existing and the references are non supporting. There are no references to which games are supposedly 'GTA Clones' saints row is the only game I can think of. GTA took its ideas from other games and came years after other games achieved actual breakthroughs, super.mario.galaxy 64 was released 7 years before GTA3, legend of Zelda was released 2 years before GTA3. Randomly generated item locations, interactive NPC, open world third person games all existed in the decades before GTA 3. This fan boy page needs removing immediately. 109.76.246.219 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Lies and Propaganda

This page is actively monitored by Rockstar, the creator of GTA and it is used as marketing propaganda. GTA is not a genre of game. GTA copied everything from other games, this information is undeniable and is actually included in this topic, hidden away in the history tab. The article intro is simply lies. And for years it has remained up. People have tried to edit it, people have complained it is lies. But it is still here, protected by proponents of propaganda. 109.76.246.219 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We have numerous reliable sources that identify the genre of open world games that typically involve crime-related activities as "GTA clones". --Masem (t) 17:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Because a journalist refers to a game as a 'GTA Clone' does not make open world, third person games 'GTA Clones'. The point is 'GTA Clone' is not a genre of game at all, it is not even a subgenre of game.

Doom defined first person shooters, far more than GTA open world third person action violence games. Gears of War, Call of Duty and Fortnite are not Doom clones or in the Doom subgenre. If GTA Clone was a sub genre of game, it would be possible to apply it to other genres of games, it is not, because it is in a genre and sub genre already.

It would appear that you are having difficulty with the concept of a genre. Or a paid liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.246.219 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We actually have documentation that after Doom was released, the first wave of FPS games like Doom were called "Doom clones", and it was only up to about 2000 that the term FPS was used. See video game genre for that analysis. --Masem (t) 21:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

YOU WROTE THE ARTICLE YOU ARE REFERENCING and it makes zero sense. You can't reference your self hahaha.

Look you made a mistake, humans make mistakes. I see you have been having the same argument with EVERYBODY for a decade. You are wrong. Everyone else is right. YOU ARE WRONG.

Also You must have meant, FPS was used AFTER 2000 instead of 'Doom Clone', 17 years after Doom was released. It has been nearly 25 years since GTA was released and 20 for GTA3. It is time to stop calling Open World, third person games GTA clones. Everyone has pointed out why. It is JUST YOUR OPINION YOU ARE CLINGING ON TO SINCE THE 80s. And your opinion is not just wrong, it is outdated by decades. Sad.

GTA IS NOT A GENRE, IT NEVER WAS. IT NEVER WILL BE.

GTA CLONE needs removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.246.219 (talk • contribs)

And what references do you have to state that it should be named something else? --Masem (t) 02:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. Let's start with the DEVELOPER OF THE GAME. Rockstar calls it's GTA games open world action adventure games.

GTA IS A OPEN WORLD ACTION ADVENTURE GAME

That's what everyone thinks. You have not warmed up to the idea in a decade. Arguing with everyone for years to accept your opinion. But it is just a fact that you can't call other games that share no code with GTA a clone of GTA. Doom clones were clones, the code was borrowed.

Prove me wrong. And prove the game developer wrong too. While you are at it, go on to every open world action adventure game on wiki and slap a GTA CLONE link in the summary. They won't accept it, because GTA is not a genre. Third person Open world action adventure games are.

You have to change M. The 90s were a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.246.219 (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We're not saying they're wrong - the first sentence says this is a subgenre of action-adventure games, with open world gameplay. The key is that they all also tend to be focused on crime or similar rebelous activity. I would also point out that we treat these as a derogatory label and do not use it to label any games (Saints Row is "action-adventure" but it is still considered one of the most common "GTA clones" for that reason). --Masem (t) 02:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This article meets some of Wikipedia's highest standards. A quick look at the sources reveals high quality gaming sources such as Gamasutra, IGN, Eurogamer, PC World, Kotaku, GamePro, GameSpot, CNET, and Wired. (To say nothing of sources like NBC, BBC, and the Washington Post.) The critics who say "this isn't a real thing" have... what exactly?

I'm sympathetic to this being an odd choice of terminology. If it were up to me, I would gladly rename this article "driving-and-shooting games". But that would be original research, which is against one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. The most common term in the sources is "Grand Theft Auto clone", for better or for worse. If there's a problem at all, it's within gaming journalism at large. They have never had a healthy enough distance from the people who send them demo copies, and it would be nice to see them take a more critical eye to the business that they profit from. That critical eye should even extend to a game series that they widely consider one of the greatest of all time.

But that's beyond Wikipedia's scope, and it reveals one of Wikipedia's central limitations: we can only really report what reliable sources say. What's also a limit on Wikipedia is WP:CIVILITY and assuming WP:GOODFAITH. So if we can't abide by those rules, this discussion is going to wrap up very poorly. For one of us, anyway. 2605:8D80:680:D60E:51C2:EC6E:81E4:DEB9 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The developer of the game calls them action adventure games.

The inventor and publisher of the genre calls them action adventure games.

Everyone human (apart from you) calls them action adventure games.

All the people for the last ten years have been telling you GTA Clone, is not a genre. But your links are still up.

All journalists agree the genre is action adventure.

In your own biased references https://www.gamesradar.com/battle-of-the-gta-clones/ DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR OPINION. It clearly states the genre is open world Action Adventure and ONLY refers to "GTA Clone" in quotation marks humourously.

AND THE FIRST REFERENCE IS TO A PAID FOR CLICK FARM WRITTEN BY A POOR UNEDUCATED FOOL TEN YEARS AGO.

A link you have been protecting.

A game name is not a genre.

YOU GOT AWAY WITH LINKING YOUR OWN PAID ARTICLES FOR TEN YEARS. THAT IS NOW OVER.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN REPORTED AND SO HAVE YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.175.80 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)