68,823
edits
Community talk:Eras: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Reply) |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Take [[Wanted Level in GTA III Era]]; an alternative could be to use "Wanted Level (GTA III - GTA Vice City Stories)", with redirects created for respectable games that lead to that article (Wanted Level in GTA III, Wanted Level in GTA Vice City..., Wanted Level in GTA Vice City Stories), something that would be straight to the point to your average reader. So a reader wouldn't want to type "Wanted Level (GTA III - GTA Vice City Stories)", but does that matter when they could search using a redirect's name? | Take [[Wanted Level in GTA III Era]]; an alternative could be to use "Wanted Level (GTA III - GTA Vice City Stories)", with redirects created for respectable games that lead to that article (Wanted Level in GTA III, Wanted Level in GTA Vice City..., Wanted Level in GTA Vice City Stories), something that would be straight to the point to your average reader. So a reader wouldn't want to type "Wanted Level (GTA III - GTA Vice City Stories)", but does that matter when they could search using a redirect's name? | ||
Yes, we'll need to overhaul a shitton of articles, but that's the price we have to pay for being so rigid with how we named and wrote articles. I have ideas on how to go about it, even with the [[GTA 1 Era]], [[GTA 2 Era]], [[GTA III Era]] and [[GTA IV Era]] articles. | Yes, we'll need to overhaul a shitton of articles, but that's the price we have to pay for being so rigid with how we named and wrote articles. I have ideas on how to go about it, even with the [[GTA 1 Era]], [[Grand Theft Auto 2|GTA 2 Era]], [[GTA III Era]] and [[GTA IV Era]] articles. | ||
'''''Without eras, every page would need to have a huge awkward list of every game that it refers to, instead of simply "XYZ appears in the GTA III Era".''''' | '''''Without eras, every page would need to have a huge awkward list of every game that it refers to, instead of simply "XYZ appears in the GTA III Era".''''' | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
:*GTA V does raise some points in terms of how different eras are. For the first time, we ''might'' see crossovers of characters, the same engine, and even copied vehicles. However, it is far too early to tell. Worst case scenario is that the IV and V eras get paired up. | :*GTA V does raise some points in terms of how different eras are. For the first time, we ''might'' see crossovers of characters, the same engine, and even copied vehicles. However, it is far too early to tell. Worst case scenario is that the IV and V eras get paired up. | ||
:*In terms of the specific wording, as there is no official term, we're free to use whatever we like. I understand that an 'Era' in geological terms is millions of years, but it's often used in this context of an age-based non-overlapping grouping, and is the simplest term here. Generation perhaps makes more sense as it shows how each era is a technological advancement and improvement on the previous - each a new generation. Canon is more a technical term, and I understand it as an adjective (whether something is canonical) rather than a noun (a new canon). | :*In terms of the specific wording, as there is no official term, we're free to use whatever we like. I understand that an 'Era' in geological terms is millions of years, but it's often used in this context of an age-based non-overlapping grouping, and is the simplest term here. Generation perhaps makes more sense as it shows how each era is a technological advancement and improvement on the previous - each a new generation. Canon is more a technical term, and I understand it as an adjective (whether something is canonical) rather than a noun (a new canon). | ||
:*I don't get what the huge problem with the word Era is - yes it's not official, it's the one thing we invent which makes our lives MUCH easier. Other things we invent include the name [[GTA 1]] and all our types of [[Vehicles]] - they just make sense. | :*I don't get what the huge problem with the word Era is - yes it's not official, it's the one thing we invent which makes our lives MUCH easier. Other things we invent include the name [[Grand Theft Auto 1|GTA 1]] and all our types of [[Vehicles]] - they just make sense. | ||
:So as you can tell, I'm in favour of keeping the Era terminology as it is simple, straightforward, easy to understand and incredibly useful. If we changed to X-to-Y terminology, that would make things much more complicated and much harder to quickly understand for new and experienced users alike. I'm happy to look a bit more carefully about how frequently we use the term. Let me know what you think, and I hope other users will join in! --[[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 04:22, 4 November 2011 (GMT) | :So as you can tell, I'm in favour of keeping the Era terminology as it is simple, straightforward, easy to understand and incredibly useful. If we changed to X-to-Y terminology, that would make things much more complicated and much harder to quickly understand for new and experienced users alike. I'm happy to look a bit more carefully about how frequently we use the term. Let me know what you think, and I hope other users will join in! --[[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 04:22, 4 November 2011 (GMT) | ||
Other than the [[User_talk:Spaceeinstein#.22GTA_Era.22_categorization|previous discussion]], I have little to add. I still prefer "series" over "era." I think it may prevent further [[Talk:GTA V Era|general confusion]] over the usage of the term.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 04:23, 7 November 2011 (GMT) | Other than the [[User_talk:Spaceeinstein#.22GTA_Era.22_categorization|previous discussion]], I have little to add. I still prefer "series" over "era." I think it may prevent further [[Talk:GTA V Era|general confusion]] over the usage of the term.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 04:23, 7 November 2011 (GMT) | ||
:Problem is that we use "series" to refer to the [[ | :Problem is that we use "series" to refer to the [[Grand Theft Auto|entire "GTA Series"]], so that could cause further confusion. Think of a television series, one "series" includes all of the "seasons" (at least in America, it's different here in Australia), which are a grouping of episodes similar to how we use eras. '''[[User:JFletcher|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 04:34, 7 November 2011 (GMT) | ||
::I think series makes it sound too official - as if they are clear separate regular groups, like TV seasons. People would expect that to be marked on the box as "series 3" etc. Truth is that eras are just our groupings based on when Rockstar chooses to increment the number. That's why I like the term era, as it is time based and non-specific (whilst generations implies one is a child game of another). [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> | |||
== "Official stance" from Rockstar == | |||
{{quote|'''SammiiDoogles:''' There are many references to GTAIII characters and brands (El Burro graffiti in LC for example) in GTAIV, but do any characters (other than Lazlow) actually exist within both 'universes'? Is that where Donald Love went? Did he hop dimensions into the GTAIV universe?! Plot twist!! Are the two universes completely separate? I understand it'd make almost no sense having two Liberty City's but is there any way we'll see characters from GTAIII return? GTAIV has some amazing characters, but some of the characters in the III era are just unforgettable. <br/>'''Rockstar:''' El Burro is referenced as he was also referenced in GTA 1, so it felt appropriate that he should cross “universes” – 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 – so no, we don’t believe any GTA3 characters could exist in the GTA4 universe.}} | |||
From the [http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/19861/grand-theft-auto-iii-your-questions-answered-part-one-claude-dar.html GTA III Asked & Answered]. Thoughts? The idea of three different "universes" instead of five "eras" is interesting... --[[User:Bluesboyjr|Bluesboyjr]] ([[User talk:Bluesboyjr|talk]]) 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Separating games based on definition makes sense. From flat sprites, to 3D models, to high-poly 3D models. If this is the case, with GTA V built over the same engine that runs GTA IV, this could imply that GTA V may be in the same universe as GTA IV.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Well found! Exactly the sort of thing we needed from them. There are a few key pieces of information we can use here: | |||
*The universes '''are''' considered separate (but with overlaps) - exactly as we believed | |||
*The separation of universes by 'definition' (2D, 3D, HD) - although this presumably overlooks GTACW and Advance. | |||
*They seem to say 'GTA3 characters' to refer to the characters from the GTA III Era and 3D universe, not just the game | |||
So, how should we proceed? Firstly, Our Era terminology does fit with their definition universe theory, just dividing it up a bit more. I don't think it would be very intuitive for us to say "Liberty City in 3D Universe" - it's not clear whether the 2D GTA Advance fits in, or whether the 3D+HD GTA IV fits in. Also, GTA V might be 3D in the sense of being able to use 3D glasses/displays natively, which could further confuse things. Arbitrarily splitting things up as 'First Era' or 'First Universe' wouldn't help either. | |||
So I think, all in all, our era system is still the best system, and it is completely compatible with Rockstar's interpretation. A universe can span multiple eras, nothing wrong with that, and there should be no clashes. Whilst definition might make sense to us, trying to organise a wiki completely around a single aspect like 2D/3D/HD is going to cause LOADS of exceptions and rules which will make it confusing for the average user. For example, "Liberty City in 3D Era" would include the top-down GTA Advance, but we can't explain that it uses 3D models instead of 2D sprites to every user who wants to understand what an article is about. Saying "Liberty City in GTA III Era" is completely understandable for anyone who knows (or can briefly look at to understand) the rough order/grouping of the GTA games. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 23:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||