Talk:Content Changes: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Content Changes (view source)

Revision as of 14:49, 21 September 2014

10,722 bytes added , 21 September 2014

no edit summary

VisualWikitext

A-Dust

Wiki Administrator, Check Users, smwadministrator, Administrators, Trusted Users

68,823

edits

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 Prelease makes it sound like a trailer or something like that, beta releases sound better in my opinion. [[User:Jackass2010|Jackass2010]] 08:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
+:Perhaps, but "beta releases" makes it sound like an official beta version that was released. These things could be planned features that were never made, or things seen in trailers that changed before final release. Perhaps "beta content" or "unused content" would be best? [[User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
+::Ok, I support the name "Cut Content" so that pages with "Beta *" can be changed to "Cut *".--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
+Cut Content is not really an accurate name for the article. Not all changes to the GTA Games were cuts. There were also some character and naming tweaks, like Tommy Vercetti's Hawaiian shirt.--[[User:MrLanceVanceDance|MrLanceVanceDance]] 01:27, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+<div style="float:right">Suggestions so far:
+{|class=wikitable
+!First word
+!Second word
+|-
+|
+*Altered
+*Amended
+*Beta
+*Changed
+*Cut
+*Game
+*Modified
+*Pre-release
+*Removed
+|
+*Alterations
+*Changes
+*Code
+*Content
+*Components
+*Corrections
+*Features
+*Modifications
+|}</div>
+:I agree. Whilst 'cut content' is a succinct way of putting it, "cut" only covers removed content, like the plane-crash mission. There are many different types of pre-release game alterations - some cuts, some alterations, some improvements, some bugfixes. Either we split them up, or we use a title that encompasses them all. I think "Beta" covers them all but again is not technically accurate (as they aren't all from public beta versions), whilst "pre-release" is a bit awkward to type (although beta will redirect). I think "[beta/pre-release] [changes/alternations]" suits that best. But on top of this, there are post-release changes - things that were one way in the first version but changed in a later version (such as [[Hot Coffee]] removal and [[PC]] versions), so maybe we should include these from an all-encompassing "game alterations" or "changed content" page? These are all similar changes made by the devs to the game, the only difference is whereabouts on the release timeline the change is made (pre-dev, pre-beta, pre-release, post-release, pre-different-console-release). We could easily have a table with a column indicating what type of alteration it is. I think "Changed Content" is the closest one we have so far. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 01:48, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+My proposal is that we rename the page to "Prerelease Content". That title covers everything and basically sums up the article in two words.--[[User:MrLanceVanceDance|MrLanceVanceDance]] 02:32, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+:But as I mentioned, pre-release doesn't cover changes made after release, such as removing [[Hot Coffee]] or changes between PS2/PC versions of games, both which I think logically fit with the other things in this article. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 02:37, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+I propose that we split this article into two seperate articles. One talks about cut content while one article talks about game alterations. One will be called "Changed Content" while the other will be called "Cut Content". That will avoid any confusion between correct names for this article. Thoughts?--[[User:MrLanceVanceDance|MrLanceVanceDance]] 02:43, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+:"Changed Content" ''does'' include both cut+altered content for pre+post release - that would avoid all confusion. Also, splitting the articles into what ''happened'' to the content isn't really logical, why would someone want to read one page and not the other? Readers are more likely to be looking at what the content is than how it was changed. The only logical split would be the time (pre-release changes vs post-release changes), but I still think that's just making things complicated. This article should cover: ''"All content that was altered or removed before or after the game's release"'', which I think only "Changed Content" does. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 02:56, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+What I mean with my proposal is that one article covers content that was cut from the final product while the other one discusses non-cut changes to the final product like name changes and new additions.--[[User:MrLanceVanceDance|MrLanceVanceDance]] 03:17, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+:Yes I understand, but I don't think that would be a good way to split the article. Why would someone only care about content that was completely removed, and not care about content that was altered/replaced? Surely people reading this article would be interested in any content that (for whatever reason) isn't in the copy of the game they have, so they'd have to read both pages anyway. I still think [[Changed Content]] covers everything and makes a sensible page. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 03:30, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+Yeah I agree. I reckon that Changed Content will make a good title for this article.--[[User:MrLanceVanceDance|MrLanceVanceDance]] 03:42, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+:"This article should cover: 'All content that was altered or removed before or after the game's release'"
+:No, this article mainly covers pre-release content. Only one article so far deals with the change between console and PC version exists (it's somewhere). Post-release changes should be separate from this.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 15:28, 28 September 2011 (BST)
+::I agree with Spaceeinstein. While I agree entirely that cut content and altered content are related and should share an article, there ''is'' a difference between content that was never seen  (or at least never seen as originally intended), and content that was different between two versions of the game. '''[[User:JFletcher|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 01:59, 29 September 2011 (BST)
+:::I agree that is where the split should be made (if we make one), but I just want to be sure about whether we really need a whole new set of pages about post-release changes. I personally think most people who want to read about one would be interested in the other, and would be happy to see them on the same page. I think this page is good for both of those things. Are they so different that have to be separated? I think sub-pages like [[Changed Content in GTA San Andreas]] could easily cover (by different sub-headings perhaps) things planned (that were never implemented), changed from beta to release, and changed after v1 release (Hot Coffee etc). Or do you think we would be better having both a [[Changed Content in GTA San Andreas]] and a [[Version Differences in GTA San Andreas]] article?
+::::There are two main categories to post-release changes: patches and port differences. This article is already large as it is right now. Adding them will bloat this, unless it's split like the vehicles/cheats articles. A "See also" section is good enough if you want people to see additional information.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 06:24, 29 September 2011 (BST)
+Agreed. If we're talking about splitting this into subpages for each game, then each page could talk about pre-release and post-release changes under appropriate headings. But if we're keeping ''this'' page (with all of the content), then I think that they should be separate. '''[[User:JFletcher|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 08:10, 29 September 2011 (BST)
+:I think this should be split per-game, which would allow us to have more information and pictures, and generally make a better article of each page. This central page would obviously have a definition and link to them all (like [[Missions]]), but could also have some major/important examples. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 13:34, 29 September 2011 (BST)
+You know guys, I have been thinking, would "'''Content Changes'''" be a better name? It seems to be more accurate.--[[User:MrLanceVanceDance|MrLanceVanceDance]] 08:28, 12 October 2011 (BST)
+:I like that, actually. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 06:21, 14 October 2011 (BST)
+==K9 dog in IV==
+Im just wondering is there any proof of the K9 dog for the LCPD?
+==Content getting re-added in updates/Beta stuff in updates==
+What should we do if something that was originally cut from a game gets added back in a update? For instance, the Dodo Seaplane was going to be in GTA V, was cut and is now [http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/52308/grand-theft-auto-v-release-dates-and-exclusive-content going to be in the PC/NG versions]. There's also the Rhapsody, which had handling lines in the original game, but was [["I'm Not a Hipster" Update|only added recently]]. The Rhapsody hasn't been added to [[Vehicle Changes]], but should it be? And should the Skimmer be removed from there, or should there be a new section for the NG/PC release?
+In the last update there is [http://gtaforums.com/topic/678397-the-gta-v-beta-hunt/page-45#entry1066036076 images] of a Flare Gun and some kind of bomb - but there's been this kind of stuff [http://gtaforums.com/topic/711643-leaked-future-dlc-weapons/ before in previous updates] and it almost always gets added in the next update. So is this relevant info, or should it be ignored as it's just an update and most likely will be added anyway? Then there's the Vulkan/Hydra that looks like it was going to be [http://gtaforums.com/topic/727898-115freemode-tunables-variables/ added in an update] (after being cut from the original game) and could be added back in a different update - so that's kinda relevant to all the previous questions. --[[User:SonofUgly|SonofUgly]] ([[User talk:SonofUgly|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/SonofUgly|edits]]) 02:44, 21 September 2014 (BST)
+:If it was originally cut from the game then it should be listed in the article with a note mentioning if it was later added to the game. The same goes for the new versions of GTA V. Articles should be written with the original GTA V (PS3/Xbox 360) in mind with the DLCs and the newer versions treated more like new games. So with the Rhapsody, it has been added to the original game and so should be listed on that article.
+:As for the GTA Forums beta information, if there is a pattern of it being added then I see no harm with it being in the article. It should, however, be noted that it is not confirmed by Rockstar Games. As for the Vulkan/Hydra issue, if there is evidence (such as game files) that suggest it was cut from the original game and may be added via an update, it should also be added. A-Dust 15:49, 21 September 2014 (BST)