Talk:GTA V Era

From Grand Theft Wiki
Revision as of 16:43, 6 November 2011 by Master Sima Yi (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this article needed at this point? Because to me, it simply looks like GTA V will be set in the same canon as GTA IV and its spin-offs. The term "era" is used for a generation of games, right? GTA III to GTA: Vice City Stories used the same form of engine and gameplay, and the story lines were intertwined. From what can be gathered from the trailer, GTA V again uses the RAGE engine (pay close attention to the car animations in the background, and the animations of pedestrians walking normally), and there's nothing to hint that the storyline will start off fresh like GTA IV's did. Plus, the GTA III era started and ended on the PS2/Xbox, and GTA IV began on the PS3/Xbox 360; GTA V looks to continue on the PS3/Xbox 360 too. I say that at this point, while we do not know GTA V will indeed mark the beginning of a new "generation" (which, I think, is also quite soon, considering the GTA III era spanned five real-world years), that this article should not exist. If it indeed starts a new era, it could be re-created or revived later on, but I think at this point it is speculation. -- Master Sima Yi (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2011 (GMT)

I dislike the term "era" (see also discussion). The "era" term is used for convenience sake but GTA V might break that up if it continues GTA IV's universe. Correction to what you said, games within an "era" do not necessarily have matching engine and gameplay. Advance is a drastic example, and the Stories games were built on R*'s custom engine. Games within an "era" are mainly within the same canon/universe. I'll have this redirect to GTA V for now.--spaceeinstein 19:02, 5 November 2011 (GMT)
I understand that they do not necessarily have to have a matching engine and gameplay, but it is worth nothing that the GTA III era and GTA IV era are notably different on those two areas. And yes, I'm not quite fond of the term "era" either, nor any name that is conjecture, but it serves its purpose to indicate the different universes. -- Master Sima Yi (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2011 (GMT)

So far there is NOTHING to suggest that GTA V will be in the GTA IV Era, except for speculation that it will include characters from the III and IV era. Until there is evidence for that, we consider GTA V to be the first game in the GTA V Era - just like every other numbered game previously. Yes, it might be based on the same engine, but so are other Rockstar games - that doesn't automatically put them in the GTA IV era. Yes some vehicles might largely be copied too. People might not see much difference between the 1+2 eras, but we still count them separately. Space has it right that the main difference between eras is the canon of the storyline - all III era games are in the same universe, with interconnecting storylines and (virtually) no rewrites or contradictions - the technical improvements over the course of the era don't split it up. Don't forget that GTA IV came out in 2008, so 2012 is 4 years later. The GTA III Era only spanned 5 years (2001-2006).

So (until a decision is made about Eras, or we KNOW for a FACT that this game DIRECTLY continues the GTA IV storyline) - the GTA V Era does exist, and it IS our official terminology to contrast GTA V to the previous generations of games. However, since there is only 1 game so far, it is fine for us to say "In GTA V" rather than "In GTA V Era" - except where that would break consistency. So for example, you can say that "XYZ is an X in GTA V", or you can say "XYZ is an X that appears in the the GTA IV Era and the GTA V Era". Both are fine. Just remember that, assuming we get more games or DLC for GTA V, we might have to rename a lot of things to be "GTA V Era" not just "GTA V'. --gboyers talk 20:12, 5 November 2011 (GMT)

I don't think you quite got my point. I pointed out that GTA V might just as much be in the GTA IV era, and doesn't necessarily have to start a new era. Until a conclusion to that is drawn, I say don't make a separate era called GTA V, as it is speculation at this point. -- Master Sima Yi (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2011 (GMT)

Disagree - it's the other way around. Every new-number game starts a new era. The possibility of GTA V doing something different (such as continuing IV era) is just speculation. There are many things in the trailer that back-up the new era, such as no recurring characters (ignore speculation) and 99% of brands in the game being new. It's a new era. --gboyers talk 21:44, 5 November 2011 (GMT)

I agree with Gboyers, as every other game in the franchise with a new number begins a new era, we should assume the same pattern continues with future GTA games unless anything changes. It would be quite confusing if Rockstar classed GTA V as a title existing in the GTA IV era, and then release a totally new era later on, also named GTA V. They cannot just name the new era GTA VI, as that would lose the chronology of era numbers, 1,2,3,4,6. Does this make sense to anyone? Or is the point I am trying to put across unclear.--Montario (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2011 (GMT)
My opinion (which isn't really needed): it's the same era than GTA IV. You say that 99% of the brands are new, but even if that's 99%, it's the only the 99% from the trailer. And don't forget all the vehicle brands, we have 12 of them from GTA IV that are confirmed to be in GTA V. Also, Rockstar wouldn't show us dozens of characters from IV in their trailer, otherwise it would be so much cannon that it would be non-cannon, if you know what I mean. So I say: GTA V should be considered as part of the GTA IV era, as long as it's not proven it's not. From my point of view, we have many clues that indicate both games are in the same era, and nothing to indicate they're not.--Loadingue (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (GMT)
Montario, Rockstar don't "release eras", it's what the fanbase calls the game universes. They are not official names. And Gboyers: assuming that GTA V will start a new era, is just as much speculation. At this point, there is no confirmation that GTA V will be in the GTA IV era or a new GTA V era, so I'd say just don't make a mention of it until confirmation on this. On a side note, about the new brands: Obviously the game will introduce new brands, characters and vehicles etc. That's the whole point of it being a new game; GTA: Vice City also introduced new brands, characters, vehicles, weapons etc, yet it was in the same canon. I do not think that is a valid point. -- Master Sima Yi (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2011 (GMT)
Master Sima Yi, I do not think you understood anything I had just said in my last paragraph, by saying "releasing eras" I was reffering to the new numbered GTA games Rockstar release which we class as an era, I knew people would not be clear on that, as I stated. Also, the new GTA game is going to be known as GTA V, who said it was going to develop into a GTA V era yet? No article on this wiki has 'GTA V era' on it. They have 'GTA V' instead, exactly what Rockstar say the game is going to be called. If there is confirmation of it being in the GTA IV era, we can rename all articles to XYZ in th IV era. Though right now we stick to what we know, in my opinion, at the moment it should be XYZ in the GTA V, which it is. Does that make sense?--Montario (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2011 (GMT)

Calm down guys. We all know the facts, they are not in dispute. But I'm afraid I still disagree with your statement that GTA V is part of (or assumed to be) the GTA IV Era. Some brands still appear through multiple eras (like Sprunk), some vehicle brands are in multiple eras (Maibatsu) and and many vehicles appear in multiple eras (Perennial). That isn't what makes an era separate. Eras are not complete, total, re-imaginings of GTA where everything is completely remade. Eras are groupings of games which naturally go completely together - like a trilogy of books. All GTA games have a lot in common, many things cross different eras, but we need to draw the lines somewhere, and new-numbered games are how Rockstar differentiate between groups of GTA games, so that's how we do it too. GTA V is a new era for many different reasons - there is nothing to suggest it is a direct sequel to GTA IV. The only thing that would stop us putting GTA V in a new era is if it was all about a major character from GTA IV. Brands, vehicles, hints and references to/from previous games aren't enough to join them up. gboyers talk 00:04, 6 November 2011 (GMT)

I'm fairly sure Rockstar knows how the fan-made era system works by now. I would not find it hard to believe if they have actually adapted to it. What if, for example, GTA V contained Tommy Vercetti, Claude and CJ? Does that make it part of the III ear? Technically, it does, but it would be very confusing to put it in that timeline. Personally, I believe that this is part of the new V era, as GTA IV was part of the IV era. We've generally adapted the numberd games into new eras (GTA I era, GTA II era, GTA III era, GTA IV era, GTA V era) and while it may have many similarities to previous eras, I still believe it should be a part of the new V era. But of course, we'll see when the game comes out. Personally, I believe it would be a good decision to keep it in the V era for now as not to confuse people. Chimpso (Talk) 00:12, 6 November 2011 (GMT)
About your example with the brands and cars that are in GTA III and IV eras, I would like to say that it goes the same with Liberty City, Vice City etc. However, the details about those, change between eras. The design of the cars for instance. Look at Vehicles in GTA V: several vehicles are the exact same than in GTA IV. Besides, I have a strong feeling we'll be seeing a major character from GTA IV in GTA V. Just a hunch.--Loadingue (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2011 (GMT)
"Just a hunch" is not anything to base this wiki's organisation on. I'm happy to discuss this, but a decision needs to be made here. Until we have concrete, permanent, undeniable proof otherwise, GTA V is to be treated as a new era on GTW. Even if there are many similarities, crossovers and even minor characters, it can still be a new era. It would need to be a DIRECT sequel of IV for us to reconsider. gboyers talk 00:55, 6 November 2011 (GMT)
Have to disagree with Gboyers: there were several returning brands in the game: eCola, Burger Shot, Pißwasser, etc.. And for each of them, their logos stayed exactly the same as in IV. Compare the III Era and IV Era logos of companies like Gruppe Sechs and Sprunk, they were revamped for the IV Era. Plus, there were several cars (eg. Premier, Landstalker) that appeared to be carried over from IV completely unaltered - all cars from the III Era were changed for IV. As for the recurring characters, remember that if it wasn't for IV's police database, GTA Chinatown Wars would have had no connection to IV's trinity bar its location. The "Era" system only exists because Rockstar felt that the new generation of consoles needed a fresh start character-wise. It all gets hazy before GTA III too: GTA 2 is completely isolated from GTA 1, but so is GTA London. Should they be counted as two different eras, or three? In my opinion, GTA V is called GTA V simply because GTA Los Santos isn't as catchy - GTA V would sell more copies. --Bluesboyjr (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2011 (GMT)
I would also like to add: how was, for instance, GTA San Andreas in the same era as GTA III? If it wasn't for Claude and Catalina, it would have been a whole new era?--Loadingue (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2011 (GMT)

Okay I'll explain from the beginning:

  • If we didn't group the games, we'd have to have HUGE lists of games in titles and require people to know every game in order to be able to use the wiki properly
  • Instead, we use eras as a made-up way of grouping the games logically.
  • Eras simply define logical groups of GTA games. There is no hard-and-fast rule that says "2 characters from a previous game means its in the same era" or anything.
  • Instead, eras refer to generations of GTA games, to group games together which are released
  • We choose to draw the line between different numbers of games. This means that GTA 1, GTA 2, GTA III, GTA IV and GTA V all start new eras.
  • The reason for this is NOT suggesting that each era is completely 100% different. It is not suggesting every game in each era is 100% the same. It's a logical approximation.
  • Think of it like periods in time - there isn't a specific date that the Paleolithic era ends, it's simply a logical period that evokes an understanding
  • We can all agree that the GTA IV era games (which includes the DLC and CW) are all pretty similar. It makes complete sense to group them together. GTA V doesn't fit into that grouping.
  • Any speculation about characters being the same is PURELY speculation - there is no evidence or suggestion that will happen at all.
    • However, if the rumours of gameplay are true, V will have VERY different features and gameplay to GTA IV, meaning different sets of articles
  • Whilst V might have many similarities to IV, that doesn't matter. We can still put it in a separate era. The worst thing that could happen is that we say XYZ appeared in both the IV and V eras. No hardship.
  • However, if we put them in the SAME era, we'd have a terrible job have to clarify everything in every article - there are so many things that have no place in GTA V

I understand and appreciate the concern of all involved, but I have to make a decision here and say that GTA V is a new era. The point is to make the wiki logical and accessible. Saying that GTA V was part of the IV era (even though it's very different) makes no sense. If you want to pair up the IV and V eras, that's very easy to do - you just say "In the GTA IV and V Eras". Separating them if they were in the same Era would be a much bigger problem. gboyers talk 05:07, 6 November 2011 (GMT)

When I first saw this article (before this discussion started), I had the same reaction. However, I thought about it, and decided that this article is a good chance to explain the justification for considering GTA V as part a new GTA V Era, and also mention that it not definite just yet. Therefore, I think that the redirect should be reverted. I agree that until we know for certain, that the historical significance of numbered GTA games is justification for assuming that the same will be true for GTA V.
As for the rest of the wiki, I don't think we should be using GTA V Era everywhere. When GTA IV was released, we had articles like Liberty City in GTA IV and Wanted Level in GTA IV, and didn't append "Era" to those titles until the release (or at least announcement) of subsequent games. That actually makes things simpler (less to type), and makes more sense for now. JFletcherTalk (formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever) 05:56, 6 November 2011 (GMT)
I agree. We work to the simplest accurate form, which is XYZ in GTA V. Of course there are some occasions when we talk about eras, in which case talking about the GTA V Era is fine. When there are more games in the V era, and we refer to things that are in multiple games in the V era, that's when we need more articles to talk about the V era, not the individual games. gboyers talk 06:15, 6 November 2011 (GMT)
We have too few contents right now that would justify having a page separate from the main GTA V article. Trying to describe a justification would mean going into the realm of speculations. We should wait until more information surface.--spaceeinstein 06:48, 6 November 2011 (GMT)
I'm not sure that's true. An era page isn't there to justify why a game is different enough to earn its own era. It's there simply to describe the games that are in that era. I agree we don't really need a whole page here at the moment, because the era IS just one game (for now). gboyers talk 15:52, 6 November 2011 (GMT)
"I understand and appreciate the concern of all involved, but I have to make a decision here and say that GTA V is a new era." I agree that at one point a decision will have to be made, but at this point - when we don't know anything related to the storyline - any decision that will be made counts as speculation. The decision does not stand on any proper ground; patterns are not a way to justify the decision, as Rockstar can easily decide to disregard that. I see no problems with referring to it as the GTA V era in community-related places, but I reckon it is not a wise move to mention it on canonical articles. -- Master Sima Yi (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (GMT)