Talk:Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition

How much plot info to include

I first added a brief summary of each three games plot's from each game's lead section [1] which was subsequently expanded by General Clanker [2] to a short paragraph for each title, but has been subsequently removed by Rhain [3]. Thoughts? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, remastered collections typically omit a Plot section—at least among GAs (BioShock, Mass Effect, Metroid, Silent Hills, Sonic). I don't think it's necessary. – Rhain ☔ 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay perhaps a dedicated plot section is too much for a collection (intially I was thinking of something like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, but that is a standalone remaster. A few sentences I think is warranted in the contents section simliar to the Silent Hills collection example.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay I have boldly added [4], a small paragraph of plot in the contents section. Thoughts?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd considered adding this in my previous edit, so I think it's appropriate. I've added references. – Rhain ☔ 23:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough thanks for that. Is it worth mentioning the year GTA III is set (assuming we have a source for that)?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe GTA III is set in "present day" (a.k.a. 2001), but I don't believe any sources discuss it as it's fairly unimportant overall. – Rhain ☔ 14:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see I suppose it is famliar to GTA V in that sense (in that it is rare to find secondary sources that report the year, it is fairly obvious like WP:SKYBLUE). Though I would not be opposed to having it if we do find one.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Will be the PS3 versions (PS2 Classics) of VC and III also removed?

I know it sounds stupid but Imma asking that question haha. Diegoesquivel2004 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Compilation - genre

compilation was recently removed from the infobox genre section with the summary "Compilation is indeed not a genre". I am not sure if the summary is supposed to mean 1) "compilation" in general is not considered a genre (but then why do we have at articles like Rare Replay), or 2) "compilation" is not a genre for The Definitive Edition.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A "compilation" is a form of release. It does not describe how the game is designed or played. I don't know why Rare Replay uses "compilation" as a genre; potentially because the games are very different from each other, in which case it should use "Various" or no genre at all. Other examples, like Namcot Collection, do the same, while some like Halo: The Master Chief Collection do not. If at all, this should be discussed at a higher level. IceWelder [✉] 10:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the term elsewhere as well. IceWelder [✉] 15:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I do understand your arguments put forward, and am currently ambivalent on the issue but I think there should be a central discussion at WP:VG first before changing it IMHO.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is much of a controversial change as it fits the documentation:

genre – The gameplay genre or genres (such as first-person shooter, adventure, etc) the game is categorized in by its developers and publishers, or by reliable sources.

Of course, I will always be open for a discussion if one comes up. IceWelder [✉] 15:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

For anyone who did not see this was brought to the attention of WP:VG here with the consensus seeming to remove "compilation" from the infobox in the genre parameter. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception - Critical Response

Reads a little like two editors subtly trying to argue one another? 92.23.237.159 (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate. – Rhain ☔ 14:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Trilogy The Definitive edition source code from Mobile

The developer released years ago these games on mobile https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Grove_Street_Games

The same touch screen used in those old ports are found in the remaster, proving it is a mobile remaster https://www.gamebyte.com/rockstar-forgot-to-remove-mobile-controls-in-gta-definitive-trilogy/Ensiasoft (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ensiasoft: Of the three sources you have provided, Dexerto is considered unreliable and GameByte has not been discussed at WP:VG/RS. TheGamer is fine, but the original source of the information is a YouTuber (which is not fine per WP:RSPYT). There are several reasons the mobile menu could be included in the game code—it's coming to mobile in a few months, after all—and this information is unverified. Furthermore, the phrasing of your edit—"Rockstar announced the would bring the Trilogy Definitive Edition to mobile, however it was later discovered..."—directly violates WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion". There's no reason to mention the upcoming mobile release there, as it is implying something not mentioned in the source. Please do not add the information again, and do not demand other editors not to revert; per WP:BRD, you have been bold in adding the information, but you have been reverted, so now you need to discuss the worthiness of its inclusion and gain consensus before reinserting. – Rhain ☔ 14:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhain

there are several reasons the mobile menu could be included in the game code—it's coming to mobile in a few months, after all—and this information is unverified

• • I don't think you have read the articles and/or verified the information but the mobile menu is from the 2012 ports.Ensiasoft (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The articles state that a YouTuber posted on Twitter that they found a widget in San Andreas also found in the 2013 mobile port of that game, as well as the 2014 console ports. Said user speculates that this means that these ports were used as the basis for this product. While it is possible, or even plausible, that Grove Street Games built The Definitive Edition from their prior work, a single widget is no proof in that regard, nor does the one situationally reliable source you added, TheGamer, paint it this way. As Rhain noted, the package is supposed to come to mobile, so this kind of widget is not unexpected. Your addition presents the foregone speculation as a fact in spite of what the source says. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

at the very least it's a strong indication the source material comes from their previous mobile ports. The UI mobile screen controls are from that material, released between 2011 and 2014Ensiasoft (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of videos from people actually playing it and reporting (non paid and non-sponsored) are also proof the game's code comes from Developer previous mobile ports as seen here Here ahd here Ensiasoft (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.167 (talk)

This is the same situation where San Andreas HD Remaster for Xbox 360 was found and proven to be a redux and inferior version from the mobile release. Same issue here. Source Ensiasoft (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

The first one of these sources actually says that this is not the mobile version because fixes made in that port are now missing in the new product. The other two are about the same Tweet as mentioned previously. The current state of information is that there is a widget for mobile controls in a game that is supposed to come to mobile. This is somewhat different from the PS3/X360 San Andreas releases as they were found to be identical to the mobile releases. This was quickly pointed out by reliable outlets like here. If there ever is an official statement regarding the basis of the new product, we can surely come back to this discussion. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We sure will come back to discussing this but as you already know this issue doesn't need an "official" announcement. In other words this issue[topic] is not tied to any possible official announcement.Ensiasoft (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

British English

No problem with it, just curious why this article uses British English as opposed to American English, which most Wikipedia article, including the other GTA game articles use? Dilbaggg (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, all articles about Grand Theft Auto games use British English. This article uses the same variant for consistency. IceWelder [✉] 18:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont think so, this is the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City which i followed for years before I started editing here (and played that game since 2005). One of the line says: Jeff Gerstmann named the cast of characters "colorful and memorable". Pretty sure Colorful is American, while colourful is British. I have nothing against it tho, just asked out of curiosity. However if thats indeed the standard for GTA articles, its perfectly fine, no more questions. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Direct quotes like "colorful and memorable" are not edited to fit a particular variant. The Vice City article, like all others in the series, is clearly tagged as "Use British English" at the top and uses British spelling throughout, starting with "instalment" in the second sentence. IceWelder [✉] 19:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh OK, thank you for replying to my query. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

British English (again)

Should we change the English to American English, Because it was developed by a US developer? I know all GTA articles must be written in British English but we must make an exception. 186.148.193.52 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The original games were developed by a British studio, so I think British English makes sense here too. – Rhain ☔ 23:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

nadir

nadir is an extremely uncommon word. it gets just 592 hits on the Corpus of Contemporary American English vs lowest's 18,000+

the stance that "We shouldn’t dumb down our language just because some won’t understand; it’s a fairly common word and easy to understand (or look up)" goes against WP:ONEDOWN and Contested_vocabulary. the revisions i made allow the article to be more approachable vs forcing users to look a word up.

i don't know what purpose it serves to use a technical word in favor of a common one on a non-scientific article. Pdubs.94 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"Nadir" is neither technical nor scientific; it's a standard English word. (I'm also not sure how relevant the corpus is, in this context, but it may be worth noting that the word's relative frequency is doubled in the British National Corpus.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

fair enough on technical/scientific but it is still uncommon. i have provided a solution that meets the intent of MOS:COMMONALITY, keeping nadir will likely result in ongoing revision/reverts by others, similar to the edit warring of "instalment" seen on the GTA6 article. Pdubs.94 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The word has been used in the article for more than two years and was only challenged yesterday. I have faith that readers will understand the meaning of a standard English word, and I believe it is already appropriate per MOS:COMMONALITY. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

this article sees almost zero traffic, so likely why it's just coming up. the length of time a word has been included in an article does not provide weight against improving it.

i am telling you, as a US-based reader, nadir does not meet commonality guidelines to me. Pdubs.94 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed the length of time justified avoiding change—of course it doesn't—just that, based on the article's history, warnings of edit warring seem exaggerated (as does claiming an article with 1,000+ daily pageviews "sees almost zero traffic"). There's no discernable difference between regional varieties of English here, so my point is that MOS:COMMONALITY does not really apply. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, you’re right. I was looking at page views for the talk page, not the article.

Nonetheless, all I am saying is that I feel like we are artificially creating potential for confusion reading this article that simply doesn’t need to occur and could be easily resolved by swapping one word. Perhaps we wait to see if other editors to chime in and we can gain consensus one way or another. Pdubs.94 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Mobile release details

There are some I details surrounding the mobile release that I couldn't find sources for yet, so I'm posting them here before I forget them:

• The games were simultaneously released for Netflix subscribers and as individual paid releases (at least on Google Play).
• According to the Netflix description, the mobile versions were made by Video Games Deluxe.
• Saying that the games were released via the "Netflix mobile application" is a bit misleading; you can find them on Netflix, but selecting "install" just opens the respective store.

IceWelder [✉] 14:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Some parts need sourcing/citation

Some parts about development have no source or citation referred to, like this in the first paragraphs

"The two-year development focused on maintaining the look and feel of the original games; the physics code was copied from the originals, and artificial intelligence was used to automatically upscale textures. The development team studied the distinctive qualities of the original games" Rafaelmonteirocdj (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rafaelmonteirocdj: Thanks for your comment. All of that information is sourced within the article itself. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:CITELEAD. IceWelder [✉] 16:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)