![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
What is the price of this game? Y2J RKO 16:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y2J RKO (talk • contribs)
Could we have GTA IV: The Lost and the Damned redirected to this article? Seems obvious enough. 92.11.216.82 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This article seems a little biased to me (perhaps written by a PS3 player who can't play this expansion pack?)... anyone who has played this will tell you the idea that "mid-mission checkpoints" as the biggest new feature is ridiculous... it really makes it sound like the best part of this expansion pack is to fix an existing problem in the first game... And that's just stupid because there are tons of other new things that a player is going to notice long before they notice a mid-mission checkpoint. So maybe this is worth mentioning, but it's hardly the biggest new feature... I mean there is an entirely new storyline and campaign, new weapons, new vehicles, improved bike handling, and a lot of other things that are worth mentioning before something insignificant as a mid-mission checkpoint.
Anyway, this article obviously needs a lot of improvement and will likely get it soon since the game was just finally released... but this first paragraph just seems pretty biased, and using the word "Perhaps" in front hardly takes away the fact that it's 100% opinion about what is the biggest feature, but safe to say most people who played this will notice the mid-mission checkpoints long after they've noticed all the other cool new stuff. There is a much better review at the link below for anyone that wishes to improve the article or find some better info.
http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/954/954427p1.html
Robk6364 (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't actually a new feature either. It was included in the orignal GTA 4 storyline as well. It isn't new to lost and the damned. Want proof? among many levels that have it the last level has it. Actually san andreas also had the same feature. it isnt new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else find the first paragraph a bit odd at the end? Wouldn't it be more proper to say "It was released..." as opposed to "The First.." since we are talking about it at that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.207.114 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is says the sales figures for the game are poor, but how much has it actually sold so far? Be nice if somebody could find that somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comics46007 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone removed the 'Controversy' section claiming "undue weight" - given that this article is hardly in a completed state I do not see how that can be justified. The reception section without it only contains a table of the review scores - once this is expanded upon to include a summary of the reviews, information on sales and downloads etc... the controversy part will be proportionate. Plus, the issue being discussed, the full frontal nudity, is very relevant to the reception of the game given that it is the first mainstream game to feature it, and it has been reported in many tabloids and magazines, thus causing a stir.
-- Kinda funny though about the fact the boring 'ThINK ABOUT tHE CHILDREn!' groups are more worried about some nudity then the fact that at heart, the hero is , well, a raging serial killer lol. GTA rocks. 121.44.230.100 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
In the first paragraph it states that The Lost and Damned is "the twelfth game overall." There is a difference between a game and an add-on. It adds to the game but it is not a game itself and shouldn't be mistaken as one. 75.71.54.246 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Rockstar's not really a reliable source. Of course they want to call it a complete game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.52.154 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Today Rockstar released new patch for PC (version 1.0.0.5) which added The Lost and Damned achivements to Games for Windows Live. Not so exclusive as Rockstar told at the first place. Liars. Link - http://www.gta4.net/news/4371/the-lost-and-damned-for-gta-iv-pc/ There is also new option available for pc users: -uninstallcontent: Uninstall GFWL GTA in-game content. 84.52.7.83 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason given why its not on the PS3? If there is I would expect that reason to be in the article. AJUK Talk!! 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If you do a search for Lost and Damned on the USK site it comes up with two ratings for trailers that according to the title are ment to be shown at Games Convention. It clearly says PC. Should it be mentioned in the article? Mclarenaustralia (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed the game's title has recently been changed to "Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost & Damned" to just "Grand Theft Auto: The Lost & Damned". Shouldn't this reflect on the page title? --70.188.30.4 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we perhaps have a sub-article designed to provide a list of the Characters (Main, Supporting, Minor, Random & Antagonists), for this article? I think it weird there is no such thing for this game connected to GTA IV. I mean, while it involves characters in that game, there are unique ones for this game as well. Anyone agree? GUtt01 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Theft Auto: The Lost and Damned. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)