Rockstar sequel coming in 2009

^^^

OOHHHH.

This needs some more investigating.

EDIT-this sounds like a whole heap of bs.The entire transcript has not appeared to have surfaced on the net anyways.Different publications are dissecting the call and putting up what they feel is most appropriate for their audience, palgn is not the only site that has singled out potential graphical differences between the two versions.

http://play.tm/wire/click/1789569

Aside from a slightly warmer color pallet on the PS3 version, the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Grand Theft Auto IV should look and run identically, according to Take Two execs

Hey, sounds pretty damn similar to what i just read on palgn, i'd consider a warmer, more realistic color palette a minor bonus on the ps3 version, taking into account the realistic look the game is going for, a warmer palette is the way to go.Granted, it's pretty trivial, it's hardly an advantage worth singling out......out wait palgn didn't do that either-

Palgn-Take-Two also said that both the 360 and PS3 version of the game (were to) be visually almost identical, with the PS3 coming out slightly on top in some areas.

I'd say a warmer color pallete, for this style of game qualifies as a bonus in 'some area'.

Psst.Techdoucheblog.Heh, can't blame a no name site for trying to get some traffic by outing one of the big guys.I love his word power-'the GREAT LIE EXPOSED'.The great lie indeed 'anonymous'.

How can you source a phone call?

Without a transcript, which as i stated before has not surfaced as of yet, according to you no one can source their material.Not even Gamespot who posted the same article can link to or provide a full unedited transcript of the call.

So.....your point is pretty moot.Yeah it is.

Oh look at this, out of curiosity's sake i checked the gamespot artticle and found....

http://au.gamespot.com/news/6187563.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;11

Zelnick responded that the two editions of Grand Theft Auto IV will be identical, except for a "slightly warmer color palette" on the PS3 edition and the exclusive downloadable content set for the Xbox 360 game.

Damn that sounds familiar?Where did i read that.U ever get deja vu.Wow that's creepy.Do you reckon it's creepy.

I do.

So, basically either palgn's article is warranted because it has no source and does not need one as the source is verbal and the transcript is unavailable, OR every single gaming website that has reported on the conference call held by take two is in the wrong, including gamespot, gamasutra etc etc

What's it to be?

Looks to me like it's flying pretty high A atm, i think your(is it yours? If so, cute) article at techdoucheblog should be amended to include gamespot as being in on THE GREAT LIE.That is catchy i'll give you that.

p.s. i am not employed nor affiliated with palgn in any way shape or form, but i do heart this site and will defend it, even against baseless petty barbs like this one.

You know there are alot of potential ways this GREAT LIE could end up being the GREAT TRUTH.

You've already backed down on the front that the ps3 being superior then the 360 in some areas is a lie.Two articles, including the esteemed gamespot have gone on record to say the same thing(not using the same words, but were not arguing semantics here, superior is superior).

Now the argument has morphed into a case of palgn claiming gamasutra said one thing while they did not.

Your claiming that the following (posted by palgn)

According to Gamasutra, executives in a conference call with investors first noted that the studio would be first be working on GTA IV downloadable content - exclusive to the Xbox 360 - available through until 2009. Take-Two also said that both the 360 and PS3 version of the game be visually almost identical, with the PS3 coming out slightly on top in some areas.

indicates gamasutra said

Take-Two also said that both the 360 and PS3 version of the game be visually almost identical, with the PS3 coming out slightly on top in some areas.

while there is no reference to this in gamasutra's article.You see this is where the fun is.

I, on the otherhand read it at face value.

Palgn-According to Gamasutra, executives in a conference call with investors first noted that the studio would be first be working on GTA IV downloadable content - exclusive to the Xbox 360 - available through until 2009.

Is a direct reference to

Asked where Rockstar might be headed now that production of Grand Theft Auto IV was winding down, company execs said that in addition to the Xbox 360 downloadable content expected in both Q4 of this year and in 2009, the company would

which is found word for word unedited on the gamasutra link.No arguments so far?Good.

The next part of palgn's article, which is clearly a separate sentence thanks to our friend 'Mr Period' (----> . <----) it goes onto say

Take-Two also said that both the 360 and PS3 version of the game be visually almost identical, with the PS3 coming out slightly on top in some areas.

Palgn never once said that gamasutra said the above.Palgn clearly stated that Take Two stated the above.It's clearly at the start of the sentence and any reference to gamasutra is no longer implied thanks to........that's right, our
friend 'Mr Period' (----> . <----).

As mentioned before, no reference can be made to Take Two's actual call as the transcript is not available yet, not that this has stopped any other website.

Juvenile you scream, infantile?Nitpicking?

Maybe.......but you(is it you anonymous, who upped the blog?) and techspyblog started it with your playground attack on palgn, claiming them to be in on the conspiracy known only to a select few in the Reichstag(palgn headquarters located in Bayswater).It's air tight, and whats even more funny is it's probably not even the real explanation, but one of many, all of which still fail to implicate palgn as being in on THE GREAT LIE.

Oh, and i'd be more inclined to believe the most recent article, especially when we are talking about a game that has yet to be released.

*checks ign's article date, checks palgn's, gamespot etc etc'

I win.

EDIT-ooohh you are a sneaky one with that edit button aren't you 'A'?I've saved at least 90% of your original rants, for posterities sake, but mainly to keep my rant in context.You slippery devil, now we all need to wait for that sly edit on techspyblog.

Never fear Luke, for your eyes only(i've said alot to you lately, down by the old boathouse, that tyre swing by the bubbly brook.....ahhh....)

BEHOLD, THE GREAT LIE!







Oh wait, maybe 'A' didn't want me to post that.



'Oops'

That's the nitpicky point i was getting at.You see that first sentence as implying the whole article is referenced to Gamasutra's article, while i claim you must read it as printed.The according to gamasutra sentence only makes mention of

According to Gamasutra, executives in a conference call with investors first noted that the studio would be first be working on GTA IV downloadable content - exclusive to the Xbox 360 - available through until 2009.

Which is true.The next sentence, starting straight after '...until 2009.' (which is another sentence as the former ended with a period), finishes all references to gamasutra, and their article, giving palgn the journalistic integrity to post it's own findings about the conference call, which can't be sourced, as their is no transcript, which no other website has been able to surface either.

You see the point?It's not that tricky.Re-read the original post.

That's gamespot, and i can't believe this needs to be proven but it is another Brendan.Check the staff page.

http://palgn.com.au/staff.php

Brendan Fitzgerald (Australia)=/=Brendan Sinclair.

I must say, you have an uphill battle to prove the article at techspyblog was not yours.Two Brendan's working at two game sites is a coincidence, your attitude towards the whole affair completely changing, coinciding with the withdrawal of the blog, which was posted by you.......not so coincidental methinks.

You fail to see the point.Do i simply need to keep copy+pasting my original post?

Palgn only said gamasutra said take two would be working on downloadable content.

Palgn then went onto say that take two said, not gamasutra, that the ps3 version has a slightly warmer colour palette.

Palgn need not reference the article/call/transcript of where they got this second bit of info as the call/article/transcript does not exist atm, and this has not stopped any other website for that matter.

I can't make it much more simple then that, and this is the most outlandish excuse on palgn's behalf and it still absolves them.A simple 'oops referenced wrong site' edit would do the same job.

I have no idea.We are venturing outside the box in terms of what the original hoo-ha was.You'll have to internet sleuth your way to almost all sites and check the timestamp on their articles to see which one posted the news first.Gamespot is a big site so it's not out of the question for them to potentially be the first.

My index finger hurts.Too much typing and not enough showering make Jibbs a dull boy.

You carried yourself maturely, i won't.Though if that was your article A, i'd be mighty careful next time....

Au Revoir.