Talk:GTA III Era - Revision history

A-Dust at 19:19, 9 September 2010

2010-09-09T19:19:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:19, 9 September 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:
	I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era. [[User:Carl "CJ" Johnson\|CJ]] 16:21, 9 April 2007 (BST)		I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era. [[User:Carl "CJ" Johnson\|CJ]] 16:21, 9 April 2007 (BST)

	:It makes sense to put [[GTA Advance]] in the GTA III Era because of the time it was released, but the rest of the games in the GTA III Era are so similar to each other and so different from GTA Advance. GTA III, GTAVC, GTASA, GTALCS and GTAVCS are all along the same lines - they look the same, they have interlinking stories and recurring characters - GTA Advance doesn't fall into that as much (although it does link in a bit). Bear in mind that GTA Advance was developed by different studios too, it doesn't fit into the GTA III Trilogy (III, VC, SA) or the GTA III Saga (III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). I'm going to keep it in the Era because it does overlap slightly with Liberty City and 8-ball. The discussion continues. [[User:Xenon\|Xenon]] ([[Sysop\|Admin]]) [[User talk:Xenon\|talk]] 16:47, 9 April 2007 (BST)		:It makes sense to put [[Grand Theft Auto Advance\|GTA Advance]] in the GTA III Era because of the time it was released, but the rest of the games in the GTA III Era are so similar to each other and so different from GTA Advance. GTA III, GTAVC, GTASA, GTALCS and GTAVCS are all along the same lines - they look the same, they have interlinking stories and recurring characters - GTA Advance doesn't fall into that as much (although it does link in a bit). Bear in mind that GTA Advance was developed by different studios too, it doesn't fit into the GTA III Trilogy (III, VC, SA) or the GTA III Saga (III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). I'm going to keep it in the Era because it does overlap slightly with Liberty City and 8-ball. The discussion continues. [[User:Xenon\|Xenon]] ([[Sysop\|Admin]]) [[User talk:Xenon\|talk]] 16:47, 9 April 2007 (BST)

	I agree with CJ. Also, the game is in fact a direct prequel to GTA III. The events in the game take place a year before GTA III started - you could argue for this reason it should go in another era, but IMO it sets up the rest of the series. So for that reason I think it should be kept in the GTA3 era.		I agree with CJ. Also, the game is in fact a direct prequel to GTA III. The events in the game take place a year before GTA III started - you could argue for this reason it should go in another era, but IMO it sets up the rest of the series. So for that reason I think it should be kept in the GTA3 era.
Line 9:		Line 9:
	It should stay, it was made in the GTA III Era, and the storyline even connects on the events of GTA III. [[User:George\|George]] 09:34, 23 April 2007 (BST)		It should stay, it was made in the GTA III Era, and the storyline even connects on the events of GTA III. [[User:George\|George]] 09:34, 23 April 2007 (BST)

	I'm thinking this should stay in the [[GTA III era Timeline]] because it is a prequel to [[GTA III]]. Although, it is a ''very'' badly done prequel which I'm not surprised that some people have rejected it as canon.		I'm thinking this should stay in the [[GTA III era Timeline]] because it is a prequel to [[Grand Theft Auto III\|GTA III]]. Although, it is a ''very'' badly done prequel which I'm not surprised that some people have rejected it as canon.

gtw>MoNK at 12:24, 17 July 2008

2008-07-17T12:24:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 17 July 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:

	It should stay, it was made in the GTA III Era, and the storyline even connects on the events of GTA III. [[User:George\|George]] 09:34, 23 April 2007 (BST)		It should stay, it was made in the GTA III Era, and the storyline even connects on the events of GTA III. [[User:George\|George]] 09:34, 23 April 2007 (BST)

			I'm thinking this should stay in the [[GTA III era Timeline]] because it is a prequel to [[GTA III]]. Although, it is a ''very'' badly done prequel which I'm not surprised that some people have rejected it as canon.

gtw>GTW-George: /* GTA Advance */

2007-04-23T08:34:58Z

GTA Advance

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 23 April 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:
	I agree with CJ. Also, the game is in fact a direct prequel to GTA III. The events in the game take place a year before GTA III started - you could argue for this reason it should go in another era, but IMO it sets up the rest of the series. So for that reason I think it should be kept in the GTA3 era.		I agree with CJ. Also, the game is in fact a direct prequel to GTA III. The events in the game take place a year before GTA III started - you could argue for this reason it should go in another era, but IMO it sets up the rest of the series. So for that reason I think it should be kept in the GTA3 era.
	So, although it is a very different game, it is directly related. --[[User:Chris\|Chris]] 16:58, 9 April 2007 (BST)		So, although it is a very different game, it is directly related. --[[User:Chris\|Chris]] 16:58, 9 April 2007 (BST)

			It should stay, it was made in the GTA III Era, and the storyline even connects on the events of GTA III. [[User:George\|George]] 09:34, 23 April 2007 (BST)

ChrisJP at 15:58, 9 April 2007

2007-04-09T15:58:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 9 April 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:

	:It makes sense to put [[GTA Advance]] in the GTA III Era because of the time it was released, but the rest of the games in the GTA III Era are so similar to each other and so different from GTA Advance. GTA III, GTAVC, GTASA, GTALCS and GTAVCS are all along the same lines - they look the same, they have interlinking stories and recurring characters - GTA Advance doesn't fall into that as much (although it does link in a bit). Bear in mind that GTA Advance was developed by different studios too, it doesn't fit into the GTA III Trilogy (III, VC, SA) or the GTA III Saga (III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). I'm going to keep it in the Era because it does overlap slightly with Liberty City and 8-ball. The discussion continues. [[User:Xenon\|Xenon]] ([[Sysop\|Admin]]) [[User talk:Xenon\|talk]] 16:47, 9 April 2007 (BST)		:It makes sense to put [[GTA Advance]] in the GTA III Era because of the time it was released, but the rest of the games in the GTA III Era are so similar to each other and so different from GTA Advance. GTA III, GTAVC, GTASA, GTALCS and GTAVCS are all along the same lines - they look the same, they have interlinking stories and recurring characters - GTA Advance doesn't fall into that as much (although it does link in a bit). Bear in mind that GTA Advance was developed by different studios too, it doesn't fit into the GTA III Trilogy (III, VC, SA) or the GTA III Saga (III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). I'm going to keep it in the Era because it does overlap slightly with Liberty City and 8-ball. The discussion continues. [[User:Xenon\|Xenon]] ([[Sysop\|Admin]]) [[User talk:Xenon\|talk]] 16:47, 9 April 2007 (BST)

			I agree with CJ. Also, the game is in fact a direct prequel to GTA III. The events in the game take place a year before GTA III started - you could argue for this reason it should go in another era, but IMO it sets up the rest of the series. So for that reason I think it should be kept in the GTA3 era.
			So, although it is a very different game, it is directly related. --[[User:Chris\|Chris]] 16:58, 9 April 2007 (BST)

Gboyers at 15:50, 9 April 2007

2007-04-09T15:50:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:50, 9 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==GTA ~~III Era~~==		==GTA Advance==
	I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era. [[User:Carl "CJ" Johnson\|CJ]] 16:21, 9 April 2007 (BST)		I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era. [[User:Carl "CJ" Johnson\|CJ]] 16:21, 9 April 2007 (BST)

	:It makes sense to put it in the [[GTA III Era]] because of the time it was released, but the rest of the games in the GTA III Era are so similar to each other and so different from GTA Advance. GTA III, GTAVC, GTASA, GTALCS and GTAVCS are all along the same lines - they look the same, they have interlinking stories and recurring characters - GTA Advance doesn't fall into that as much (although it does link in a bit). Bear in mind that GTA Advance was developed by different studios too, it doesn't fit into the GTA III Trilogy (III, VC, SA) or the GTA III Saga (III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). I'm going to keep it in the Era because it does overlap slightly with Liberty City and 8-ball. The discussion continues. [[User:Xenon\|Xenon]] ([[Sysop\|Admin]]) [[User talk:Xenon\|talk]] 16:47, 9 April 2007 (BST)		:It makes sense to put [[GTA Advance]] in the GTA III Era because of the time it was released, but the rest of the games in the GTA III Era are so similar to each other and so different from GTA Advance. GTA III, GTAVC, GTASA, GTALCS and GTAVCS are all along the same lines - they look the same, they have interlinking stories and recurring characters - GTA Advance doesn't fall into that as much (although it does link in a bit). Bear in mind that GTA Advance was developed by different studios too, it doesn't fit into the GTA III Trilogy (III, VC, SA) or the GTA III Saga (III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). I'm going to keep it in the Era because it does overlap slightly with Liberty City and 8-ball. The discussion continues. [[User:Xenon\|Xenon]] ([[Sysop\|Admin]]) [[User talk:Xenon\|talk]] 16:47, 9 April 2007 (BST)

Gboyers: Talk:Grand Theft Auto Advance moved to Talk:GTA III Era

2007-04-09T15:48:57Z

Talk:Grand Theft Auto Advance moved to Talk:GTA III Era

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:48, 9 April 2007
(No difference)

Gboyers at 15:47, 9 April 2007

2007-04-09T15:47:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 9 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era.		==GTA III Era==
			I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era. [[User:Carl "CJ" Johnson\|CJ]] 16:21, 9 April 2007 (BST)

	[[User:~~Carl "CJ" Johnson~~\|CJ]] 16:21, 9 April 2007 (BST)		:It makes sense to put it in the [[GTA III Era]] because of the time it was released, but the rest of the games in the GTA III Era are so similar to each other and so different from GTA Advance. GTA III, GTAVC, GTASA, GTALCS and GTAVCS are all along the same lines - they look the same, they have interlinking stories and recurring characters - GTA Advance doesn't fall into that as much (although it does link in a bit). Bear in mind that GTA Advance was developed by different studios too, it doesn't fit into the GTA III Trilogy (III, VC, SA) or the GTA III Saga (III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). I'm going to keep it in the Era because it does overlap slightly with Liberty City and 8-ball. The discussion continues. [[User:Xenon\|Xenon]] ([[Sysop\|Admin]]) [[User talk:Xenon\|talk]] 16:47, 9 April 2007 (BST)

Carl "CJ" Johnson at 15:21, 9 April 2007

2007-04-09T15:21:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 9 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era.		I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era.

			[[User:Carl "CJ" Johnson\|CJ]] 16:21, 9 April 2007 (BST)

Carl "CJ" Johnson: New page: I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in ...

2007-04-09T15:20:55Z

New page: I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in ...

New page

I think it should remain in the GTA III Era; makes more sense to keep it there, as it would be confusing to see a game from 2004 (I.E. San Andreas) in the GTA III Era, then see Advance in the GTA I / GTA II Era.