Talk:Grand Theft Auto V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Grand Theft Auto V is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Xbox task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Rockstar task force.

Plot length[edit]

Yesterday I snipped the plot section down from 745 words to 592 words to be in line with WP:VG's guideline that places 700 words as the ideal maximum. However, this action was reverted by Mansmokingacigar. I have reverted the changes back and think the plot is much easier to navigate how it is now. Any thoughts to the contrary? CR4ZE (tc) 03:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes section[edit]

What's up with this notes section? This seems non-standard to me. Either the information is relevant in which case it should be inline in the article body or else it is trivia and should be removed. Is there a WP guideline on this ? --Cornellier (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's common for footnotes to provide explanatory information that would be important for those curious but not vital to the point of the main paragraph czar  16:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
To reiterate my points:
  • you say it's common but I've rarely since this, not sure how to quantify
  • why not just put the info in the article body? e.g. the first about which Rockstar studios did work should just be in Development of Grand Theft Auto V. In this case the footnote refers to a reference which only refers to other WP articles. --Cornellier (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It's codified in the Manual of Style at WP:FNNR. It's more common in featured-quality articles than in random Wikipedia articles. If you want to discuss any specific footnote, go for it, but I'm just answering your first question that it's fine and standard to have a Notes section. For the first footnote, that's a compromise from standing consensus to not list all contributing developers in the infobox. It's information that someone might expect to see in that infobox location (but not everyone). czar  06:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
To answer some of what you wrote above: "more common in featured-quality articles than in random Wikipedia articles". Maybe, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Where are footnotes used on the web outside of WP? "footnotes ... provide explanatory information that would be important for those curious but not vital to the point". We already have a better solution to that in the form of articles, sections, and "sub" articles.
The underlying information design problem is how to organise info according to its level of detail / importance. There's already a good solution to that in the form of hierarchies of article: Grand Theft Auto V > Section on Development > Development of Grand Theft Auto V. This is a convention people are used to using, and not just on WP. I just moved a note about dev sites from the infobox to Development of Grand Theft Auto V. Imagine if someone did the reverse of that. What argument could there be for taking info out of Development of Grand Theft Auto V and putting in a footnote of an infobox where it is harder to use on a PC and very difficult to use on a mobile device?--Cornellier (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how summary style resolves a need for footnotes. Some concepts are only peripherally important: sufficiently important to include somewhere but not in the main text. Also, the dev note can exist both in the prose and as a footnote—it's about making the experience easiest for the reader. Footnotes are a mainstay of literature and almost every work of length and merit that I can recall uses them. But if you are against explanatory footnotes in general, the best forum for that would be the aforementioned guideline's talk page and not this article's talk page. czar  17:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the footnotes that were taken out, but I didn't remove the information from the Development sub-article. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Both the additional development studios and Japanese release date have relevancy to both articles, and I can't see a more appropriate way for the article to have this information than in a notes list per WP:FNNR. I'd say that footnotes are there to provide additional information that is likely relevant or helpful to some readers without weighing the main prose down with facts that feel like asides. Not to mention that I have also seen plenty of FA's featuring them. As Czar suggested, I would say it's best to take it to the guideline's page if you feel strongly enough against them. CR4ZE (tc) 02:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

First person image deletion[edit]

I have nominated File:GTA V 1st person.jpg, which is being used in the Enhanced re-release section, for speedy deletion as I don't think the usage is minimal and the rationale does not convey why the image cannot be replaced by text. CR4ZE (tc) 02:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if it had a side-by-side comparison like File:Grand Theft Auto V PS3 PS4 comparison.jpg does. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We already have File:Grand Theft Auto V combat.jpg conveying that the game has a third-person camera. The difference is that the first-person image doesn't convey other important elements like the HUD, the crosshair or the open world. It also doesn't do wonders showing the high-res improvements because of all the grey textures depicted. It's a shot of a corridor that I don't think serves enough of a purpose. CR4ZE (tc) 08:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I figured I'd look at replacing the image myself, because the first-person view looks like a big deal, and so it's probably a good idea to have a screenshot. I narrowed it down to three options from the first-person trailer: Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3. Can I get some input? CR4ZE (tc) 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of the three, I say the third. The first is too dark and the second looks more like a cutscene without the HUD czar  05:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting—that was the one I was leaning towards the least. The first option would be the only shot in the article that displays nighttime and a wanted level. It also demonstrates the particle/lighting effects discussed in the last paragraph (look at those sexy reflections on the rain-slicked road). The second option shows the detail that's gone into the helicopter cockpit, and would be the only shot to really show off the wide vistas and mountain ranges in the open world. The third option doesn't stray too close to the Gameplay image to you? CR4ZE (tc) 05:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that rationale would be sound if those details were to be visible in the thumbnails. I'm not completely sold that a first-person illustration is necessary. A diagram or comparison shot that depicts the difference between first- and third-person in the frame would be more informative for those who might actually be served by an illustration. I'm not necessarily opposed to any of the above three options—just my 2¢ based on how I think they'll look at low res czar  06:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Any other thoughts? Rhain1999, X201, SNUGGUMS, TheDeviantPro, Masem? CR4ZE (tc) 08:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I favour an image like No. 3, but with a side-by-side third person version of the same scene as well, to bring home the fact it can be played in either mode. - X201 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the first image, mainly because of the reasons that CR4ZE brought up, though czar also brings up a good point about the lighting. My second choice would be the third image. I also like the suggestions from Snuggums and X201 about a side-by-side comparison of both first-person and third-person view. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

GTA VI?[edit]

I read on a website that GTA 6 is in development at the moment. They said there was probably gonna be a female lead this time, only if the setting is suitable for that, and it will go back to Vice City again. Probably too early for a article mention, but I read it on a website, and I'll give you a link:

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Its just a collection of rumour and speculation dressed up to look like a story. - X201 (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-release reception chart?[edit]

The critics' reviews about the PS4 and Xbox One version are coming in. Should we be creating a disparate chart of reviews? We'd also have to consider the same for when it's released on PC next year. Blee395 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be worth splitting the PS4/Xbox One reviews off into their own section with a table, yes. I'd suggest we hold off from that until the reviews have finished rolling out. A lot of publications won't be giving their final verdicts until later this week because they didn't receive review copies. CR4ZE (tc) 02:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I had actually been considering this earlier, as I did something similar with Grand Theft Auto IV '​s Reception section, but didn't have the time nor effort to actually do it with this page. I agree that we should wait a few days before going ahead. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 04:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-release page split[edit]

I created a draft of a possible page split for the enhanced re-release of the game. All of the required material and I think the re-release has enough notability on its own. Figured this would be an ideal to keep prose length down on the main article. If there are no concerns, I'll split it off within the next few days. CR4ZE (tc) 14:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, and I don't think it's been done before (complete remasters like Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary notwithstanding). Despite that, I can agree with the split. I like what's been done on the draft! -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 23:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Definitely a good idea to split, and there's certainly enough coverage to be notable on its own. This article will become bloated otherwise. Do I sense another GAN? Ring me up if there is. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


The infobox gives Rockstar North as the developer, which is largely true. However, should it be noted that the PC version of the game was developed by Rockstar Leeds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The footnote that follows the developer in the infobox lists all of the studios that worked on the game. Furthermore, a quick Google search only returns results stating that Rockstar Leeds was hiring for a PC port, hinting (not specifically stating) that it was for the PC version of Grand Theft Auto V. Unless you can find a reliable source, then I don't think it belongs in the infobox (until the PC version is released, which will likely confirm or deny Rockstar Leeds' involvement). -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)