Community talk:Discussions/Eras and Universes

I'll start this discussion off by saying I do not believe that we should get rid of Eras and group everything as Universes instead. This is because Universes are very large, broad groups, and whilst some things will overlap, most things will not. Eras are much more accurate, and games within an Era have much more in common.

For example, Wanted Level in GTA IV Era. That explains how the wanted system all works in the GTA IV, TLAD, TBOGT and CW. Those four games share pretty much the same system, so this grouping is perfect. But now, GTA V is likely to have a different system altogether.

If we got rid of Eras and had a "Wanted Level in HD Universe" page, that would have to be split to explain the two different systems. We'd end up with a mess where we have page titles like "Wanted Level in the HD universe except GTA V" or "Wanted Level in GTA IV, The Lost and Damned, The Ballad of Gay Tony and GTA Chinatown Wars". Pages would have to be renamed every time a new expansion pack or game came out.

Universes may be the official internal grouping for storylines and characters, but they are not the best way to list games or group things within them. I believe Eras are a much simpler, easier and more logical way to group everything. gboyers ^talk 16:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer using both. :-)Angelobrylle24 18:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wanted Level in GTA IV Era's naming already failed because it also makes no reference of GTA Chinatown War's wanted system even though GTACW's timeline is supposed fall under GTA4's "era". That, coupled with the fact its wanted system is significantly different from in GTA4, meant the topic ended up in its own article. - ZS (talk|edits) 21:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten the discussion. I am in favour of the lowest-common-denominator system, where we cover the smallest unit we want to. If a page is best being about 1 game, do that. If a page is best to cover an era, do that. If a page needs to cover a whole universe, do that. The names should then reflect the page (not the other way around). It would be silly to say "WE MUST USE UNIVERSES FOR EVERYTHING" then having to merge pages with completely-different content together. I also don't like the game-list system ("XYZ in GTA III - GTA Vice City Stories") because it's much longer to type and less clear to users. It's silly to me to suggest that we can't group those games any other way! gboyers ^talk 20:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm including this official statement as a reference to further the cause of using "universe" or "definition" instead of "era", since it's basically the "word of god" (even though it's very vague as to who in "Rockstar" this statement came from):

...the "universes" are the worlds interpreted at different definitions, 2d, 3d and high definition, so we felt brands and radio / back ground characters would exist in both, but 3 dimensional characters would not. This is the logic (as far as it could be considered logical) behind it...

- "Rockstar"

As implied, the categorization is based primarily on technical game design: "2d" refers to the early top-down games (GTA1, GTAL, GTA2), "3d" refers to those operating on the 3D Renderware engine (GTA3, GTAVC, GTASA, GTALCS, GTAVCS), and "high definition" refers to those running on HD hardware (GTA4 and DLCs, GTA5). While GTAA and GTACW however do not technically fall into their 3d and HD grouping respectively due to their graphical designs, they can still be associated by canon secondarily. - ZS (talk|edits) 21:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll quote Dan Houser directly from the GameInformer issue:

The five PS2 games are one universe, and this is the high definition universe, so they don't co-exist. You wouldn't ever see CJ or Tommy Vercetti. They would be like mythical characters in this world who never existed.

Dan Houser

I completely acknowledge that the universes are separate, and that universes are the final boundaries over which many things cannot cross (except vehicles/weapons/brands/features). However, I do NOT agree that Universes is the only way of grouping GTA games.

Why do you suppose Grand Theft Auto V is given a number, rather than just being "GTA IV: Los Santos"? Simply for marketing purposes? No, I believe it is because it is a brand new game, with a completely new storyline, brand new features and many many things different to GTA IV, its episodes and CW. To me, it makes perfect sense to group IV+TLAD+BOGT+CW together and to reference them as a group where appropriate. That exact same logic can apply to GTA III+VC+SA+A+LCS+VCS, and also to 1+L69+L61. That is a completely logical way of grouping the games. Not only is it logical, it's also official - as pointed out by the new number Rockstar gives to these new games. The fact that they are sometimes in the same universe does not stop this system from working. Yes the name 'era' is artificial, but that's the only real problem with it.

I completely disagree that GTA Chinatown Wars is not "technically" in the HD Universe - that is a ridiculous suggestion which shows that the term is ambiguous! We need to use clear, unambiguous terms, not things that users need to have an academic discussion about to be able to understand fully. I've never had anyone ask me what an era is, yet I can expect people complaining "but GTA advance isn't 3D" "but Chinatown Wars isnt HD"

You are right to say that rockstar use universes to separate their cannon. That is the official terminology. However, that does not mean that we should adopt the universe terminology for everything on this wiki. Yes, for plot, story lines, or even characters, it may be the best way to group information, but for the vast majority of content, the era would be the most accurate and useful distinction to make.

Abandoning eras altogether in favour of game lists or universes presents so many problems that it is not a viable alternative for me. gboyers ^talk 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)