Jump to content

Talk:Grand Theft Auto V

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.162.190.150 (talk) at 17:24, 19 October 2013 (→PC Announcement Hoax). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


PC Announcement Hoax

"On September 15th, 2013, A website claiming to be from Rockstar was published reportedly having a big announcement coming up. The website had a countdown and a pc logo In the background. The website was later referred to as a hoax. The website stirred up forum board and gaming news sites.http://news.en.softonic.com/gta-v-rockstar-announcement-site-is-a-fake http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GTA-5-PC-Release-Date-Website-Fake-59115.html http://www.cinemablend.com/games/GTA-5-PC-Release-Date-Website-Fake-59115.html http://segmentnext.com/2013/09/16/gta-5-pc-release-date-fake/ This was highly popular among millions of GTA Fans, I believe this is worthy enough to add to the article knowing it has strong sources and it's something almost every GTA fan can remember. http://www.rockstarannouncement.com

4

Can you play it on PlayStation 4? Pass a Method talk 10:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The game is currently available for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. It has currently not been announced for any other platforms. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding DJ Pooh to GTA V side bar as Creative Consultant

.

I wanted to add DJ Pooh as a creative consultant to GTA V. He appears in the manual credits. This is significant, as Pooh was a writer and creator of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, and I'd like to list him on the GTA V side bar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas, http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/51371/the-free-gtav-ifruit-and-game-manual-companion-apps.html

--Tommylandav (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Sorry it took so long to respond to this. Please could you provide a reliable source showing that Pooh did this specifically for GTA V. A Wikipedia article cannot serve as a source, and the rockstargames.com page appears not to mention Pooh at all. If you have a source, you can reply here and change "answered=yes" above to "answered=no". Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the "Main characters" section?

I removed this section from the article but it's been put back again. Hitherto, this section has been a placeholder in the absence of a proper "Plot" section. Given that we now have a characters page and a proper "Plot" section, isn't this section just additional cruft details about the characters that we'd do better without? CR4ZE (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source confirmation for development section

"Grand Theft Auto V was envisioned to exceed the core mechanics of the Grand Theft Auto series by giving the player three lead protagonists to switch between while playing the game. Vice president Dan Houser opined that the primary motivations to include three protagonists were for Grand Theft Auto V to innovate open world storytelling, and to prevent the series from feeling stale by not evolving the core structure of the gameplay. "We didn't want to do the same thing over again", he explained."[33] (Development, second paragraph) What is the source for the first part? Is it the same as source 33? (Should be quoted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CobaltHex (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request September 9, 2013

"IGN's Keza MacDonald praised the development of the lead protagonists, as it helped pace the story better and eliminate inconsistencies she[who?] felt the story of Grand Theft Auto IV had. She[who?] also praised the scope of the game world, and opined that the open world gameplay resulted in San Andreas feeling like a 'living world'.[78]" (under the reception section)

I think it's pretty obvious that the "she" is Keza MacDonald. Can the "[who?]'s" be removed please? --69.126.210.25 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actors in GTA V are more than Voice Actors

I am new to this forum and thought I would submit this to the talk page so someone else could update the site. The actors are referred to as voice actors, but they are mo cap actors at minimum, if not real actors. Below is from an interview with Dan Hauser from 9/13 in the Guardian:

And this is about full performance capture these days?

We gave up the phrase voice actor in 2008 and we haven't used it since. We don't have voice actors anymore, because they're the same as the mo-cap actors.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/sep/13/grand-theft-auto-5-dan-houser

Michael J Pemulis (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Michael J Pemulis[reply]

GAN

Isn't it a bit early to nominate the article for GA status given that the game was just released last week? At the moment editors appear to still be adding content to the article. I would recommend the nominator, Boaxy, to withdraw the GAN, wait for the edits to level off and let the article settle down for a week or two before re-nominating it for the GA status. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is far too early and the reception section is far too out of shape to be a GAN. The table needs to be cut down to about 5-6 reviews + aggregates, while each review listed used within the reception section (along with those to be removed) --MASEM (t) 01:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who nominated the article hasn't contributed to the article, but could have opened up a discussion about the GAN here, which they didn't either. Another editor also ranked this article as "B-class" without going through the correct process. The article is presently about C-class and nowhere near ready for a GAN, not without a decent Reception section and not while the article is very unstable given the game was only released last week. I'm going to demote the article back to Start class and it will have to stay that way. I'm also going to request the editor withdraws the GAN. CR4ZE (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC Release

It seems that GTA V will be released for PC according to Amazon on November 22, 2013. Please confirm. 190.118.3.104 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Please can someone add my review to the external links? The link is http://ghoststorm.co.uk/grand-theft-auto-v-review/

Thanks Nutronic (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:VG/S. CR4ZE (t) 14:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

The Marketing for Grand Theft Auto V article has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is here (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marketing_for_Grand_Theft_Auto_V). - X201 (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove second release date

The 22 November release date simply hasn't been confirmed by credible source, especially since the removal of Windows from the platform - if that isn't trusted, why should a non-major retailer showing that as the release date still count as being credible? RDXL (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 1 October 2013

This page is about the KKK and not GTA5

178.250.114.250 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article back to normal. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 12:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advocating torture?

It says in the article that Trevor states torture is useful for getting information but in the game and in the source linked for that quote it shows he says the exact opposite. "You torture for the good times - we should admit that. It's useless as a means of getting information!" and the quote in the article is from a few seconds before "[The media and the government would have us believe that torture is some necessary thing.] We need it to get information, to assert ourselves. [Did we get any information out of you?]" The parts in brackets are truncated out of the quote. He is talking about what the media and government believe, then four sentences later he explains its useless for getting information, what he believes. Even if you want to say that is an interpretation in some way, we cant ignore "useless as a means of getting information" and push the out of context "we need it to get information" I think it has it both ways in the article but not in the controversy section which is just confusing. In game you end up assassinating a man for smoking left handed while having a beard based on torture gathered information. Its made clear by the other characters that this is bad intel and they could have killed an innocent person. And its locked so I cant edit it even if I wanted, but usually these things get reverted anyway for no apparent reason. Revswim (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An easy fix. In the context of the whole monologue, Trevor is pointing out that torture is useless but it's abused anyway by authoritative figures. The direct quote in the article is misleading, because he's beginning to make a point which flows into the next (un-quoted) sentence. I simply removed "to get information"; should be clearer now. CR4ZE (t)

Perhaps something about "spoilers present" at the top?

I know, it should be obvious, but a spoiler warning is just "good netiquette". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shornby (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Good netiquette" isn't a reason to have a spoiler warning; there is no spoiler template, and I've never seen an article which has a warning at the top. I'm not sure I understand why you think the article would need one. CR4ZE (t)
I know that the GTA Wiki has spoiler tags, but Wikipedia does not. Besides, the only section of this article that has full-on spoilers is "Plot", and it's a given that you don't read that if you don't want to spoil the plot for yourself. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPOILER - we used to have them but decided that what is and isn't a spoiler is controversal and the aspect that a reader may encounter spoilers is under our content disclaimers. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:NDA. CR4ZE (t)

3.3 "Music" section was in terrible shape. Please review my changes before rolling anything back

3.3 had unrelated content, adverts for the band related to the talk-radio voice actors (??), poor spelling, poor punctuation, confusing run-on sentences, near-duplicate content in two sentences, and so on.

None of this was related to British English vs. American English - it was simply "bad english" after all the edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shornby (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to sound harsh, but you created a couple more issues in your edits. You didn't italicise "GTA" (which should simply be "Grand Theft Auto" to keep consistency with the article) and you split off a couple of sentences to make a one-and-a-half line paragraph, both of which are MoS violations. CR4ZE (t)

Understood, and you're not being harsh. I appreciate the feedback. Trying to repair this section (and leave as much relevant content intact as possible) results in more errors than creating something clean. Apologies for my errors, and I would be happy if someone could change this - I can't address any changes for at least a day or so (assuming my changes weren't rolled back - I can't check until later.) Stephen Hornby 19:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shornby (talk • contribs)

Just looked at paragraph - can someone please fix the "shared between 15 radio stations" phrase? Content isn't shared between radio stations - that would be dead air space! Thanks, S Stephen Hornby 19:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shornby (talk • contribs)

I still don't understand how "shared between fifteen radio stations" is poor syntax. Can you explain? CR4ZE (t)


The game intro credits some of the music to Tangerine Dream, not Edgar Froese. Even though Froese IS Tangerine Dream, in my opinion the right thing to do is to give credit to the band as the game does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.36.185 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the opening credits and if you're right, the article should change to reflect this. CR4ZE (t) 14:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing section grammatical error

The last sentence in the marketing section reads thusly: "Rockstar hired Shelby Welinder, an English model and actress who was portrait as a blonde beach babe on a promotional artwork for Grand Theft Auto V". The word "portrait" should be changed to "portrayed" or the sentence reworded. I'm only a casual wiki'er so I can't edit it or anything. Just a minor gripe that I noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.65.79 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GTA Online

What about something for GTA Online in this article, or better yet, as a separate article entry?

Why I say that GTA Online should have a separate article entirely is because although it is set within the GTA V continuity, it is going to expand beyond the GTA V world as time goes on [1]. To put it bluntly, GTA Online is not going to just be tied with GTA V, it is its own entity.

58.170.237.163 (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present GTA Online is the online component of GTA V. If and when it expands beyond that then it can be split off into its own article. At present, it doesn't warrant it. - X201 (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GTA Online section/article

Given the numerous disastrous problems with the online multiplayer for GTA V (which I can provide a multitude of sources if necessary), I think it's time we added a section or perhaps an article on GTA Online. This was hyped as being essentially the key tenant of the release of this game, and with the many problems surrounding its release two weeks after the main game (including many being stuck on the tutorial mission, cloud servers being overloaded and deleting characters, money being lost, etc.) it seems like it at least warrants some mention in here. - Sausboss (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. GTA Online is it's own game and should have it's own article. There was so much controversy and notable mishaps that are not even mentioned in the article. Not only that but GTA Online also changed the evolution of gaming forever as noted by many critics. CloudKade11 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need its own article per se, but I am working on a section which will go here. CR4ZE (t) 01:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll see if I can add on anything when you're done. - Sausboss (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a summary of the technical issues. If you want to expand it a little bit, go for it. CR4ZE (t) 22:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current Sales

vgchartz.com lists sales of over 20 million for GTA V. Wow. Analysts: 'GTA V to sell 25 million copies in a year.' Well, it's done close to that in less than a month.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Grand+Theft+Auto+V&publisher=1412&platform=&genre=&minSales=0&results=200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.146.184 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VGChartz is not a reliable source. I'm sure we'll have better sales numbers to reflect first month performance soon. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson paragraph in Controversy

I don't really see how this paragraph pertains to the controversy surrounding the game. It reads more like a calculated attack on Thompson, and doesn't prove anything about the game being controversial. Just that Thompson is a cretin. Should it go? CR4ZE (t) 11:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources just show Thompson's hatred toward GTA (I doubt very much that really is Jack Thompson on GameZone) and I agree with you that it makes him look like a cretin. I think it should go. Ultra Violet Light 20:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the paragraph out. If anybody has a case for its inclusion I'd still like to hear it. CR4ZE (t) 01:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure... Thing is, I don't think any major news outlet cares for the man anymore, let alone a video game-based one. But it does offer some fair information about one man's opinion. Could we maybe change the wording around, not mention the last bit? --Soetermans. T / C 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second thought: would that be censoring for the sake of "fairness"? --Soetermans. T / C 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The point isn't that we're censoring information; we should welcome all controversies pertaining to the game to help balance the article. That's why I developed the controversy section as it is -- the article didn't mention the accusations of misogyny until I backed it up with a number of reliable sources. That's the difference here; the paragraph on the exchange between Thompson and Liebl was backed up by Liebl's own blog, with no third-party sources mediating on the exchange. Also, as I explained above, the exchange between them doesn't particularly pertain to controversies surrounding GTA V, let alone around a specific controversy within the GTA series at all. Thompson's just making the claim that video games kill people, not people, and only uses GTA V as a general case in point. This information would be better under a large umbrella article, like the controversies section over at the series page, or on Thompson's own wiki page. CR4ZE (t) 14:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three lead actors

I noticed that the actors who play the three protagonists are not mentioned by name in the article. I added the actor names, in brackets, after the listing of the character names in the body of the text, like this: "played through three player-controlled protagonists: Michael (Ned Luke), Trevor (Steven Ogg), and Franklin (Shawn Fonteno)".

User:Soetermans reverted these edits (not unreasonably) with the explanation "Reverted good faith edits by OldakQuill (talk): Protagonists are portrayed by non-notable actors, not necessary to mention then. (TW)". I'm raising this here to determine what other editors of this article think about the inclusion of the names of these actors in this article.

If this were a film, there would be no question about including the names of the actors playing the lead roles. Obviously, video games are different, with voice actors in the past receiving little recognition. In this game, the actors didn't just provide voice acting, but were rendered using motion capture (think Andy Serkis in Lord of the Rings). As such, the likenesses of the actors are captured in the video game much in the way that the likeness of an actor is captured in a film. Even if we disregard the significance of motion capture here, these are lead actors in a video game widely covered in the press, and which has broken video game sales records.

Soetermans makes the point that these were non-notable actors. But I contend that they are notable actors due to their performance in this particular video game (every major film actor was non-notable before their break-through role). I am not suggesting we create articles for each of these actors, just that we find space to mention them, by name, in this several thousand word long article.

Could we get some feedback on whether the actor names should or should not be included? --Oldak Quill 16:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per item 10 of WP:GAMECRUFT, a list of the voice actors for a game is only appropriate when the actors have notability for work outside of the game itself. Neither Ned Luke, Steven Ogg or Shawn Fonteno have their own articles, probably because their work outside of the game hasn't been significant enough in the field. CR4ZE (t) 01:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this rule is wrong in this case, for the reasons mentioned above. I am not suggesting we include a cast list, but these three actors have had articles written about them in both specialist game publications, and in newspapers (see the Google News results for "Steven Ogg", for instance, which returns articles in the Toronto Sun and Calgary Herald about Steven Ogg). --Oldak Quill 05:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your point of view, V has an enormous impact, both critically and financially, and the three protoganists and their respective actors have a huge role in the game. It is not that because these actors are redlinked right now, it's just that besides portraying these characters in the game there is no word on their part of the production or reception of their work, which in my opinion would merit a reason to have their names mentioned. For instance, well-established voice actors like Troy Baker in BioShock Infinite and The Last of Us and Nolan North in the Uncharted games are notable for portraying those characters and have a significant role in the proces. I'm not saying that these three actors didn't have that role, it's just that right now, we can't say for sure. Armin Shimerman portrayed BioShock's Andrew Ryan and his portrayal was critically acclaimed, IGN thought feels that in Batman: Arkham City "[T]he voice acting (...) stands out". The link you, OldakQuill, provided is a first step in getting the notability up, but I wouldn't just have the actor's name in brackets, I would prefer a subsection on the voice acting. --Soetermans. T / C 10:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I understand what your position is, and I agree with it. I'll try to write up a paragraph about the voice acting/motion capture in this game later. A user in the discussion above posted an interview by Dan Houser which discusses the use of motion capture in the game (this is the interview). This can be one source. Many thanks for your feedback. --Oldak Quill 11:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to write about the acting of the lead characters, it should go under Development not Gameplay -- I'd suggest creating a new paragraph under the third "central theme" paragraph. IGN have just done a couple of feature with Steven Ogg about his role in the game 1 2. CR4ZE (t) 01:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

There's a small edit war on the credits. Two items are at issue:

1. Director. Per guidelines, that's the "creative director(s), who had an overseeing role in the creative development of the game". Adam Fowler was tech director, he had nothing to do with the creative side, he was overseeing all code development. Dan and Leslie were the creative forces behind the game, so I'd put Dan there (Leslie is already credited as producer and designer immediately afterwards). Dan's title in the game was "VP of creative".

2. Programmer. Guidelines say "This field is often unfilled in modern high budget development due to large team sizes and collaboration... If three or more people are credited as "lead programmer" discuss who is the "main" programmer and list that person or omit this field". There are more than 10 lead programmers credited, and the credits had one random lead listed as the programmer. I'd argue that this should be left empty. (I had initially put Adam Fowler in there, which in retrospect was wrong.) EboMike (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. From wikipedia article, Technical Director is typically responsible for the successful creation and delivery of the company's product.

2. Once again from wikipedia article, a Programmer is a person who writes computer software.

So typically a Techical Director oversees the game's creation and delivery, offically making Adam Fowler a director in the game's development. While Dan Houser would be more a producer than a director as he oversees the whole development not just the creative side of the game (taken from the the wikipedia article). TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The TD is in charge of the code creation. Not art, not script, not animation. He only does code, which is the least creative side from the user's point of view. We had lots of producers, Dan wasn't a producer - he didn't manage timetables or anything, he was the creative guy who wrote the story and had many of the ideas. (FTR, I'm one of the lead programmers.) EboMike (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have to clarify my own comment, that was a bit ambiguous - the TD is in charge of making sure art/script/animation work from a technical point of view (and that largely involves programmers), but not in the creative side of either. As for the visual side, the art director is in charge, but again, that's only the look of the game - not the story or the gameplay. EboMike (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The winner is whoever can back their stance up with reliable sources. Can you find a source online which solidifies your view over whose role is what? That way we can avoid these statements being contested in the future. CR4ZE (t) 14:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I refer to the WP:VG descriptions I quoted above. The key is "creative" for director. Aside from the obvious clue in the title itself that the TD is "technical" (as opposed to creative), the description for technical director on Wikipedia lists typical responsibilities, which clearly are not creative. So the TD simply does not qualify for "director" in the infobox (note that WP:VG also says not to list any other kinds of directors).

As for Dan Houser, he is credited as "VP of creative" as well as writer in the game's credits, he is the also giving interviews about the creative process (for example here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/sep/13/grand-theft-auto-5-dan-houser), and he is also often referred to as the main creative source (google it, here is a random example: http://voices.yahoo.com/grand-theft-auto-v-celebrity-net-worth-dan-houser-12336314.html).

And regarding the second item, it should be no contest that it makes no sense to randomly pick one of the programmers and list him as the only programmer of the game. Again, as per the WP:VG guidelines, the programmer field is typically omitted if there isn't one or two lead programmers. EboMike (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork for Plot section

Over the past week, two different pre-release artworks depicting the three lead characters have been added to the Plot section of the page; File:GTA V Main Characters.jpg and File:Michael, Franklin, Trevor - GTA V.png. These images are non-free content, which can only be used if they fall under the criteria. My primary concern is that the use of both images violates WP:NFCCP#8, which states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I don't see how a pre-release artwork (which is not an actual depiction of the characters) is needed to aid in the reader's understanding of the plot of the game. An actual in-game screenshot, fair use reduced, without watermarks, depicting the three characters on a mission would be appropriate, but not necessary. The artworks in question simply aren't there to enhance the understanding of the plot, but rather are just decorations for the page which is not allowed. CR4ZE (t) 02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V&oldid=577866798"