Talk:Era

GTA V... again

Yes, it's this discussion again. GTA V was supposedly separated from the GTA IV era because that would avoid "a lot of problems"... At this point where we already know a lot about GTA V, I'd like to let us consider putting it back into the GTA IV era. I'd also like to use the content of this very article as evidence:

Within a single era, games generally have a lot in common: Artistic style Obviously, yes. Plus the fact that GTA IV and V use the same engine and are part of the same generation.

Overlapping storyline & characters Though we can't be sure about this so far, there hasn't been any contradiction whatsoever.

Many overlapping brands, products, advertisements etc Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. Practically every single car brand, for instance, mentioned in GTA IV is also present in GTA V. I can't wrap my head around the fact that we're supposed to put 2 games that have the absolutely-exactly-same-looking vehicles (no less than 26 of them so far) in two different eras. That alone should make anyone reconsider all this.

Locations (whether accessible or just mentioned) No contradictions either, so far.

Vehicles and weapons See above.

Gameplay mechanics & features (such as Wanted Level) Too early to say.

Now eras are creating problems. The concept of "era" was created to refer to several games that have a lot in common. GTA V has in common with GTA IV just as much as GTA San Andreas has with GTA Vice City, or GTA III. Therefore it seems illogical to make them belong to different eras. I hope you understand.--Loadingue (talk|edits) 18:10, 30 April 2013 (BST)

Hi Loadingue. This has been discussed many times, and we did introduce a change because of it. However, we reached a conclusion and that is final for the forseeable future. This is the status:

• An era is a group of games starting with each new numbered game.

• Era is based entirely on the number of the game. Nothing else.
• Helpfully, this groups games by release date, and all the games in each era (except 1) happen to be very closely related
• For example, a single uniting story arc. There are no story arcs between eras.

• A universe is where the games are canonically considered to exist in parallel in the same world.

• There are only 3 universes (2D, 3D, HD) and all GTA games fit into these.
• Games within the same universe might not be related at all (eg GTA 1 + GTA 2) but still co-exis

We are not saying that two eras cannot be related. In fact, many things appear in multiple eras, like Sprunk, many vehicles and most game features. It is very easy to group eras together, either into a universe or just by saying "the X and Y Eras".

However, if we grouped separate games together into a single era, just because they shared a few vehicles, this would cause many problems. Whilst it might seem simpler for the few things that are shared, the problems appear in the non-shared things. For example, saying Niko Bellic is a character in the GTA IV Era is very straightforward, but saying he appears in only the first half of the "GTA IV and V Era" is much more difficult and less intuitive.

The GTA IV Era has a single uniting storyline, a single location, and almost everything appears either in one game or in all the games. GTA V might be closely related - sharing many vehicles, business and some characters - but this is absolutely fine because they are part of the same universe. You can easily say that the Comet appears in the HD Universe, or give the list of eras, or even a list of games. This gives you a choice and you can pick the most accurate one.

No system is perfect. Each game can change the canon slightly, and there can even be contradictions within the same game. This is considered to be the best-fit solution - it makes everything easy to talk about. However, calling GTA V part of the GTA IV era is wrong.

We have had this discussion thousands of times, and since we introduced Universes as official terminology (alongside Eras) there has been no evidence for any further change.

Yes, there are similarities and overlaps between the IV and V eras. That does not make them in the same era, it makes them part of the same Universe.

Grouping all the HD Universe games into a single era means we have to put TONS of effort to explain which half of the era everything appears in. Because most of it doesn't overlap. We are not "making them belong to different eras" - we are not pretending they have nothing in common - we are listing them in two separate piles but the wiki can easy explain how lots of things appear in both piles. That is easy.

I absolutely respect your opinion, but I don't believe that having two separate Eras damages the wiki in any way, as it is very each to talk about both eras together or the HD universe as a whole. I believe that grouping all existing and future IV and V era games into one package would cause problems. I'm sorry if there's something I'm missing here? gboyers ^talk 00:06, 1 May 2013 (BST)

No, you're not missing anything, but I still disagree. Your favourite argument is saying that "we'd have to put tons of effort to explain why something only appears in a half of an era". What I don't understand is: in the GTA III Era, some characters appear only in San Andreas. Others only in Vice City, or in Liberty City. The GTA III Era has more games than the GTA IV Era + GTA V. And still, we don't go saying "Lance Vance is a character in the Vice City part of the GTA III Era." You just don't make sense here. Just the same, we would say: "Niko Bellic is a character in the GTA IV Era". Why need to say more? This indicates the reader in which games he may have appeared, and in which games he may appear in the future (DLCs). Whether GTA V is part of GTA IV or not, saying he was a character in the GTA IV Era is not completely accurate, since Chinatown Wars is also part of the GTA IV Era, and he's not featured in it at all. Really, I don't get your logic here at all.

Besides, I think basing an Era on the number of the game's title is completely irrelevant. The number was chosen only for commercial purpose. When they came up with GTA V, they weren't trying to tell "Guys, this is gonna be different from GTA IV", they meant "This is gonna be just as big as GTA IV, if not bigger". A title is just a title, we should not use it as irrefutable evidence for the bases of game classification on the wiki, like you do.

One last thing; I've seen a lot of people disagree with you, but with all due respect: I don't think your opinion here matters more than mine, or anyone's because you're the owner. This is a wiki, a small community; we do and discuss things together. That matters on encyclopedic websites more than anywhere else. Just a small, and as friendly as possible, reminder. I may be wrong though, I may have got the wrong impresion.--Loadingue (talk|edits) 01:35, 1 May 2013 (BST)