Talk:Grand Theft Auto V/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Release Date

Grand Theft Auto 5's release date was originally to be in May of 2013. But after debate of some questionable features to be taken out of the game. The release date has now been set to September 17 2013. The game will be in stores at midnight in most parts of the world! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockStar Game (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you not see that the release date information is already in the article? STATic message me! 05:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

error in first section

"Lost" Santos? C'mon, fix that up. Bush league move for an article locked for editing. Just kidding. Big love. But fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oodus (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done - The article underwent a major overhaul this morning. Eros crypt inn. - X201 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My fault. I did a rewrite and thought I'd spell-checked it enough, but I obviously missed that error. Thanks, X201. CR4ZE (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Gone Gold

Maybe it'd be nice to update the Development section with the official announcement that GTA V has gone gold. Seen in the comments of this article. Maybe a mention of the recent leaks too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiderVice (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Its coming. - X201 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I added information on the leak a few days ago, and I'm trying to find a way to incorporate the "gone gold" fact into the section now. It should be there in a matter of minutes. --Rhain1999 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Does the article need (commonly shortened as GTA V)?

The lead section of the article is fragmented by the insert (commonly shortened as GTA V). While I know that it is a common abbreviation to use for the game in informal conversation, I don't see how that necessitates including the abbreviation in the opening sentence of the article. When I contribute to the article and refer back I give it its full title Grand Theft Auto V because I think it takes on a more formal and encyclopedic tone. Do we need to include the insert for the abbreviation GTA V? It disrupts the flow of the opening sentence and I'd be happy to see it go. CR4ZE (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I can understand its use in articles for new game series, and ones where the game's acronym isn't obvious, but Grand Theft Auto has been around ages and is a fairly straightforward acronym. The added fact that we do the right thing and use the full name only serves to make the GTA explanation even more redundant. - X201 (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack info

Rolling Stone interview with various people responsible for the soundtrack. - X201 (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Uncovered some more potential references

Uncovered some goldmine sources today, and I'm going to list them here and use them in my continual writing. Feel free to use them as well.

1. Americana at Its Most Felonious - Q. and A.: Rockstar’s Dan Houser on Grand Theft Auto V (By Chris Suellentrop, published 9 November 2012)
2. GTA 5 mural being painted onto famous Figueroa Hotel (By David Scammell, published 9 August 2013)
3. GTA V: Burning Questions Answered (By Greg Miller, published 16 November 2012)
4. "Way Beyond Anything We’ve Done Before": Building The World Of "Grand Theft Auto V" (By Joseph Bernstein, published 13 August 2013)
5. Rockstar North Boss on GTA Online, Why the Time is Finally Right (By Shaun McInnis, published 15 August 2013)
6. GTA 5 is "much faster" than GTA 4, characters won't "do crazy things for no reason" (By Edwin Evans-Thirlwell, published 16 July 2013)
7. GTA 5 writer explains the decision to develop for current gen consoles (By Kevin Gifford, published 14 November 2012)
8. Crime pays: meet the brains behind Grand Theft Auto (By Ben Mckelvey, published 26 December 2012)

CR4ZE (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Release Date

The Japanese release date is not September 17. The given release date is not worldwide, Japan will have to wait to October 10. HjalteRMC (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)HjalteRMC

Extreme overuse of the word "partake."

Writer(s) would do well to avoid the overuse of the word "partake" and all of its form. Very distracting to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.15 (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd partake in the removal the usage of the word if it constituted improper English, however the term is used twice in an appropriate context to clearly explain that the player can (for lack of a better word) partake in activities. Participate would be an alternative, but there'd probably be somebody else who found the use of participate "distracting". CR4ZE (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not distracted by it, but it's slightly wordier. I don't see a problem with "partake". "Partook" looks stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is GTA V really a third person shooter?

I'd like to see the arguments for this statement. I've always associated the Grand Theft Auto with driving and organized crime. Although shooting is definitely a part of the game, it can be argued that it is not "the main activity" -- a player likely spends considerably more time driving or "exploring the sandbox" than shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throsturth (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't personally call it that. Without a source, seems strange that Wikipedia would. In this GTA especially, it looks like there are more things than ever to do besides shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a 3rd person shooter and a driving game hybrid, so I added the driving part to the lead.Frmorrison (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Budget and length

Today it was revealed that GTAV has the biggest budget in videogame history, with a budget of £170 million. And the game is 100 hours long.

It's also the 2cnd highest budget for a piece of entertainment (2cnd to Pirates of the Carabien 3)

"According to reports from Scottish website, Scotsman.com, the Edinburgh based game has a marketing and development budget of £170 million."

http://www.lazygamer.net/xbox-360/look-at-the-size-of-the-gta-v-budget/

"GTA V is believed to be one of the most expensive video games ever made, boasting an estimated budget of £170 million."

"The vice-president of Rockstar Games has confirmed that Grand Theft Auto V will last players around 100 hours.

Dan Houser made the comments during a chinwag with The Guardian,"

http://www.psu.com/a020899/GTA-V-is-100-hours-long-confirms-Rockstar

--Kandyce 2013 (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please be wary about using The Scotsman source. The claimed budget has not been confirmed or denied by Rockstar Games and the projection McLaughlin gives is an estimation. So long as we say that the budget cited is an estimation, that's ok. Also, including the estimated length of the game in the Gameplay section gets away from the core gameplay, which is what that section needs to be. It'd be better to synthesise information from that interview (such as when Houser's talking about the design of the game, the influence of cinema etc.) into the Development [and sub-sections] at appropriate spots. CR4ZE (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's safe to say the source from The Scotsman is pretty accurate. What with me being British and knowing what the Scottish are like. And what with the The Scotsman advertising a job vacancy to be a games tester at Rockstar North and test GTAV for a salary of £14,000 a year back in January 2011 i think it was. I applied for the very job myself. That was legit, so i think it's safe to say this is legit too.--Kandyce 2013 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on the budget, but using a word like "confirmed" for how long players in general will take isn't great. "Estimated" would be OK. Mileage always varies wildly with an open game like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Available on Xbox 360

on the info box to the right of the article under the "platform(s)" section, it does not mention Xbox 360. --92.232.146.115 (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone removed it without explanation. I reverted it. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Most expensive game ever?

It isn't fair to include marketing costs, which, by all standards, has absolutely nothing to do with actual game development, in total price point.

Development costs is the cost used to develop the game, which would rightfully result in GTA V loosing it's bragging power as "the most expensive game ever". I'll bet they even reached the price point just to be able to call it the most expensive game ever.

For people who doesn't understand gaming, the price point is deceiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.27.80 (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Good map reference?

I found this map and it would be nice for the references section! http://gtavox.com/map/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.156.210 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A 3.5/5 review of GTA V neglected?

The Escapist is a fairly popular and large gaming site with reviews. They have reviewed the game and chose a 3.5/5 (7/10) for their review. Adding this article to the reception portion would should show that some game media professionals did have complaints about the game at launch. The revie is from a reputable and popular English language site. That would show that popular media outlets all may have liked the game but not all given it perfect or near perfect scores.

The review (2 pages) http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10598-Grand-Theft-Auto-5-Review-People-Suck

Alexa for escapist: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/escapistmagazine.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.103.90 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: It should be noted the review is included on metacritic. http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews?dist=neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.103.90 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to note that yes, this is exactly a case where the Escapist score is an outlier to the rest and as an RS, needs to be included as counter to the higher praise everyone else has given the game. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly they are not going to include it, as that could hurt the sales, there are just too much money and hype in this, I believe many of the reviewers gave higher scores just out of fear from fans and the Rockstar, I saw the videos and reviews, I don't believe it's that good. 81.198.216.220 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Given what the review takes issue with, I imagine it would go in a section/paragraph discussing the story rather than the game mechanics. When the time comes, here's a little something to put with it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Having only browsed the review to get the gist and that article (dont have the game yet) this would seem to be completely appropriate way to address that score/story issue. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Reception > Sales

Grand Theft Auto V grossed US$ 800 million on its launch day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TQTBR2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack to have it's own page

Since the game is out, I think it's time to make a page for the soundtrack like the other GTA articles in Wikipedia. Here's a article for the soundtrack [1]. -TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack information

For the fifth installment of Grand Theft Auto, video game developer and publisher Rockstar Games turned to DJ Shadow's veteran hands to help mix and arrange the much-talked-about game's soundtrack <http://www.djshadow.com/news/shadow-lends-hand-new-grand-theft-auto> Velheru (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done (Grand Theft Auto V soundtrack and The Music of Grand Theft Auto V)

Correction to 2nd best selling XBox360 game claim

The 13-14 million estimated sales include PS3 sales. Therefore, the entire sales figures should not be listed as being 360 sales, which is being done currently. The list of best selling XBox360 games needs updating as well to correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.181.200 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

In the final paragraph of the article, it says on "'it's' release date." It should be the possessive "its", not the contraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.171.162.204 (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Reception section

Is somebody else able to help me collate and read reviews to add to the Reception section? I added an expansion template because as of right now the only solid information about the Reception is the quote I added from IGN about the story. Given that the game is in full circulation now, the article would benefit from an adequate Reception section. CR4ZE (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the controversy surrounding the in-game torture scene

I think the article should mention the controversy surrounding the in-game torture scene, anyone agrees?. - TheDeviantPro (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. CR4ZE (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Change Audio subhead of Development to Music?

Audio is currently not the proper title for this section: there is no information about the sound effects, voice acting, etc. Only the music, and the title should reflect that. If more information is added, then changing it back to audio would make sense. Music is only a portion of Audio in a video game. 173.196.54.44 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Noted. CR4ZE (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Why controversy section is unnecessary.

If the US Government can torture muslims in an prison in Cuba, why can't we do it to animated people inside a video game? with this, I believe a controversy section is a least superfluous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigdioofmiami (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not here to make political statements, so there's no point to comparing to that. The torture scene in the game is part of its negative reception and thus necessary to be covered to balance the article. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In your edit summary you made some politically motivated statement which you used to justify deleting the entire section. As Masem said, we're not here to make such statements, but to provide accurate documentation of the reception of the game. The mission in question stirred up a generous amount of controversy, and was reported on by a number of reliable third-party sources. You have no case for the information not being included. Whatever your personal opinion on the issue is, is irrelevant. The fact that there have been a number of sources documenting the controversy makes it notable. CR4ZE (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

expand section tag

Please hold off on adding this tag for now. Te article is under nomination or In The News on the front page, and orange tags are considered a reason to hold such nominations. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance tags without fixing the problem, the prose of the critical reception section is significantly lacking, as only one single review (IGN) is detailed in prose. Every single review in the ratings template needs to also have prose in the section, and someone with more knowledge of video game reviewers needs to trim the ratings template down, as it sits now it is exponentially long. The template is supposed to summarize the critical reception of the subject, not list every single publication that gave it a review. STATic message me! 20:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The expand section tag is not relevant to what I understand of your objection. If you want additional material added to address a balance issue you see, you can add it. It is improper for you to command others to do work according to some invisible standard in your head. I'll look at a balance issue, but since this item has only been available for less than a week it is not helpful to demand reaction coverage already be to a certain standard. Also look at the fact that an item being published at In the news is also meant to draw editors who will do exactly what you want, expand the article. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

For video game articles, we generally have 2-3 paragraphs of prose to summarize the reviews of the game; as big as this one is, that might be 3-4 paragraphs. This isn't arbitrary here - just summarizing the references in the table is not sufficient for a proper article. The expand-section is completely reasonable here as we expect this to be added so this is something for other editors if they think they can help to provide that assistance. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not something that has to be addressed within 15 minutes or the world will end, the next few days is fine, no? In the meanwhile, the orange tag, which is not necessary will keep the article off the front page as a news item. How does that benefit the article? μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

My understanding from WP:ITN is that article-level warning tags, not section-level, is what stops an article being posted. The expand-section tag should not be limiting a new article from being posted. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Co-producer not listed

Imran Sarwar is a co-producer for this game. It should be listed that he did work with Leslie. 92.22.39.112 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Small errors in plot

In the plot section, it says Jimmy is overdue on his loan payment, though Michael makes it clear that the car dealership is running a scam, not needing the car back for missed payment.

Secondly, Michael doesn't lead Trevor to believe Brad is in prison; in fact I'm pretty sure he doesn't even reply to Trevor whenever Trevor mentions this. It should instead be noted it's Dave Norton leading him to believe this, through the letters/e-mails, which is the only reason Trevor believes Brad is alive. Also, it may be better to add in the same section that the first two sentences of the paragraph happen in North Yankton at the cemetery - there's no context as to where Trevor is fleeing from, and Trevor only properly finds out Brad is dead by digging up the grave in North Yankton. RDXL (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

Source confirmation for development section

"Grand Theft Auto V was envisioned to exceed the core mechanics of the Grand Theft Auto 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)

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)

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

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 ©^hat_ontributions 01:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

PlayStation 4

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

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)

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Also see WP:NDA. CR4ZE (t)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, I'll see if I can add on anything when you're done. - Sausboss (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Second thought: would that be censoring for the sake of "fairness"? --Soetermans. T / C 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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 Grand Theft Auto 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I find it absolutely absurd that the voice actors aren't mentioned. The Wikipedia pages for Grand Theft Autos 3, Vice City, San Andreas, and 4 all name the voice actors. But even beyond that, this video game is surpassing global sales across the board in entertainment, including music and film. There should be 1,000 articles on Wikipedia dedicated just to GTA V to be within 1 billionth the amount of undue weight this website gives lesser films and music. There should be a page for every voice actor's pets. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The GTA 5 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://fansided.com/2013/09/16/gta-5-will-release-pc-website-fake/ 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. I think this should be put in the controversy section of the article. http://www.rockstarannouncement.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.190.150 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If a PC version of the game is actually announced, then this may be notable then (probably not in the Controversy section, though). However, for now, let's just leave it out. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 22:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fix the infobox

Someone broke it! --24.191.70.128 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox possible system requirements heading

Seeing as though the game requires an initial space on your systems hard drive of 8 gigagbytes perhaps we should mention this in a system requirements part of the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.142.98 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. For starters, I don't think there is a "system requirements part of the infobox" anyway, and the article mentions the mandatory 8GB install in the second paragraph of the Development section anyway. I see where you're coming from, though; I was thinking about adding a System requirements table to the article a few weeks ago as well, but as long as it's mentioned in there somewhere, I think we'll be okay. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit

On 11 October 2013, former Death Row Records artist and Tha Dogg Pound member Daz "Dat Nigga Daz" Dillinger issued a cease-and-desist letter to Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive for allegedly using two of his songs without authorization. According to Dillinger, Rockstar offered him US$4,271 to allow the material to be used in the game; he declined, but the songs were used regardless. The songs are "C-Walk" by Kurupt and "Nothin' But the Cavi Hit" by Mack 10 and Tha Dogg Pound, which were both produced by Dillinger and included in the West Coast Classics station. In the order, Dillinger and his lawyers requested "a better offer", or recall and destroy unsold copies of the game. Dillinger has afforded the publisher fourteen days to comply with the suit.[158]

It has been over 14 days. Does anyone know the outcome of this? 68.153.29.9 (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive have not publicly responded to the letter. The paragraph will be updated when we have reliable sources which confirm what the outcome of the conflict was. CR4ZE (t) 12:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

New Categories

Shouldn't the categories "Video games developed in the United States" and "Video games developed in Canada" be added to this article since Rockstar San Diego, Rockstar New England, and Rockstar Toronto also made contributions to the game's development? 67.181.110.75 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Theft Auto V/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 04:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Hi,I will be reviewing this article.Overall this perfectly fits for the GA but still there are some stuffs to make note of.

Gameplay

• Is there any star system in the wanted meter?
• How can the player improve the skill of the characters?
• Are the vehicles real life or imaginary?If real life they can be mentioned.If they are imaginary but based on real life vehicles then that is also a mentionable thing.RRD13 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In this diff, I have clarified the way the "Wanted" system works. In regard to your second concern, the article provides a couple of examples of different skills - shooting and driving - and mentions that they are improved as they play. I'm not sure how this needs to be clarified. Wouldn't the non-gamer therefore make the link that you improve your shooting skill by shooting, and your driving skill by driving? In regard to your third concern, the vehicles are based upon real-life vehicles but are given different names to avoid licensing concerns. I don't know that this information is necessary for inclusion in the Gameplay section, given that its function is to describe the core function of gameplay. Take the FA-Class Crackdown article as an example, because it uses similar wording. CR4ZE (t) 13:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot

• This section lacks citations in all the paragraphs.RRD13 (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally-speaking, plot sections for visual mediums don't need heavy use of inline citations as the information is sourced directly from the medium itself. {{cite video game}} is used at the end of the last paragraph. If you'd prefer it can be placed at the end of each paragraph, but it's not so much a concern for articles like this. Another alternative is to cite a game guide -- IGN has an online guide which we can cite if you'd prefer. CR4ZE (t) 05:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm with CR4ZE; plot sections don't really need references. Unless they refer to a fact that needs referencing (eg. in Grand Theft Auto IV, Niko Bellic is an Eastern European), then it doesn't really need any. However, there are also some featured video game articles (Batman: Arkham City, Kingdom Hearts II) that use various citations in the plot section, while there are a number of other featured articles (Journey, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask) that only use the aforementioned required references. I don't think the source at the end of the last paragraph should be used in every paragraph; it's ugly and pointless, in my opinion. However, direct quotes from the game, or game guides (like CR4ZE suggested), could certainly be used. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I find nothing more to work on so I am now passing it.RRD13 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Useful sources

• http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/gta-v-is-the-biggest-selling-entertainment-product-of-2013-call-of-duty-falls-to-no-5/0126323 , GTA V the highest selling entertainment item in the UK, including home movies. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversial PC version release

Hey, I just noticed user Mads698h updated the page with the possible PC version, citing a source. However, it is important to point out that there was no official statement or announcement BY Rockstar that there'd be a PC version. Even the source itself has nothing official by Rockstar. Even though the chance of a PC version is huge, considering all the hints, it's still a rumor, thus I don't think it would be true to write it in the page. I'm not there. Message me! 01:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to PC version is incorrect since Rockstar has not yet confirmed one.Also the source mentioned is an old one.It was published on October,2013 and eurogamer could not back up their claims later.So the platform section should not mention windows yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.96 (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Game of the Year

The starting paragraph of Gta V should mention Game of the Year awards won by Gta V. after all it has won all the award ceremonies till now namely- Spike VGX, Golden Joystick and Inside Gaming Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.54.123 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

yeah bioshock's starting paragraph mentions its wins in inside gaming awards and vgx awards and similarly the last of us paragraph mentions it's win of publications but the game which has won all 3 award ceremonies till now has no mention of its accolades. gta V's first starting paragraph should mention it's top game of the year accolades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.154.107 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A-Class Review

Grand Theft Auto V (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch  · A-class review

I'm putting this article up for A-Class Review because I feel it meets the criteria. I want to take the article to FAC, but I feel an ACR will help with that process and give important feedback on the page before I put it up for nomination. CR4ZE (t) 04:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As the article has been sent to FAC I am withdrawing the request. CR4ZE (t) 10:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

GTA V DLC

Would it be too early to add this to the article? Given that there's no solid information, but it is official confirmation that there will be DLC with a tentative release date. CR4ZE (t) 00:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, until the DLC is released, do not add the information.  11Block |talk 01:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A bit late to chime in. I've written it into the article. What's your standing for the information not being included? It's cited directly from an RS. CR4ZE (t) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the mention of DLC. It is fine to include information like this in a Wikipedia article, but it mustn't make predictions about the future, like "DLC will be released in 2014" or even "DLC is likely to be released in 2014". Instead make factual statements about things that have already happened, such as "Rocksteady have announced that they plan to release DLC in 2014". Note that the announcement definitely has happened, so even if for some reason their plans change, the article still had accurate information. Quietbritishjim (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess adding in DLC would be fine now, with the Beach Bum pack and the Valentine's Day Massacre Special. Anthony is Muso (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Update to iFruit App Section

This article should be updated to mention that the iFruit App was released for Windows Phone on November 20th, 2013. As such, it only mentioned the iOS and Android release dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.177.148 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

iFruit on Windows Phone? If you get sources, like the page on the Windows Store or something. That will most likely be enough of a source to add it to the iFruit section. Anthony is Muso (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Article readability

I think we need to cut this baby down. I've been writing away at the Development section but it's just getting too big for the page. So I'm suggesting we split this off to its own new page, titled "Development of Grand Theft Auto V". CR4ZE (t) 13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Boldly decided to split it off myself. There's an executive summary of the development process here, not too long, but not too short either. I think we're good to go for FAC. CR4ZE (t) 06:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) no consensus to move, merge, or redirect this article, which appears to be TOOLONG to move anyway and makes a suitable SPINOFF article. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

---

The article is largely the same from the AfD. The majority of the important content already exists in GTAV, while anything not included is pretty much just selective comments from reviewers that don't really add anything. You could easily take such comments from any review and have enough to make an article on pretty much anything mentioned more than once. They don't have the necessary weight to properly hold the article in my opinion. Really, the only unique thing I would consider relevant is the comparison to the copies sold outnumbering the real life city. That single sentence should be merged, while the article gets redirected to the Grand Theft Auto#Setting. TTN (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - Per last AfD. There just isn't any information unique from the GTA V page to hold this page up. The New Yorker's article is mentioned in the GTA V article in a different context already, but Sweet's point about the copies of the games sold versus LA's population could be an interesting note to add to the Sales section. CR4ZE (t) 02:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Against Due to Improper Merge Request Los Santos exists in 2 Grand Theft Auto not just GTA V but also Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Due to the fact the article exists covering both games. The only possible merge is to do a multi page merge to both here and the GTA SA Article and create a WP:DISAMBIG page on the Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto). I will possibly support a multi page merge but this is a improper merge requests per my reasons stated. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing at all to merge to the other article, so there is no issue there. It being in two games is why I proposed redirecting it to Grand Theft Auto#Setting, which is suitable to summarize it and link to the destination pages. TTN (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• If you would had mentioned Grand Theft Auto#Setting as a merge target I would had been more understanding about it, but you hidden that target article in your reasoning for the merge to here. This confused me as I was thinking with your merge proposal you were gonna turn the Los Santos page into a Redirect to here instead of the other place when it exists in the 2 games. Also there is something on GTA SA's version on that article even if it's just 1 sentence, it should still be listed as a merge target. Also don't forget about the consensus from the recent AFD for that article. With all that in mind I am still Opposed to the merger. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 21:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• The article is 80% redundant info that already exists here in some form, and the rest is plot info unsuitable to merge into anything. The only thing worth salvaging is the sentence mentioned above into this article. There is nothing that needs to be added to the other game or the series article, so marking them as such is pointless. If you think it needs more discussion for whatever reason, feel free to slap tags on those articles. I just see it as irrelevant because there is literally not a single sentence that needs to be added to either. TTN (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - Pointless article. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Care to elaborate on your Vote? Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 21:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As TTN previously said, there's no need for a separate article since the majority of its content already exists in GTAV. Therefore, the article does not have its own notability other than the Districts section, which I consider fancruft. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose due to upholding the consensus at the AfD. We had a proper discussion, there were some votes for merge, but keep was clearly the consensus. We should not be having a local discussion to overturn that one, without at least notifying the voters of the last discussion. Not to mention the issues with the article that have been brang up here can easily be fixed if someone took time to do some research. Obviously there is information online about GTA:SA version of Los Santos too. STATic message me! 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

At the AfD we had back in September, I !voted weak keep because the sources were there but the content wasn't. The problem is that the article has remained largely the same since then, and almost all of the information can be found in Grand Theft Auto V#Setting instead. Because the city exists in two major Grand Theft Auto entries, notability may be there, but the article doesn't offer up any information GTA V's setting section doesn't. Thus I don't feel we need to have a separate page, at least at its current length. CR4ZE (t) 11:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect, may not be notable. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as San Andreas belongs to not only GTA V, but also GTA San Andreas and the original GTA.Brimspark (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to the Grand Theft Auto article or delete, not enough information to be a article although not appropriate for the Grand Theft Auto V article as the article features information from all the games that the city is present in. Merging to the series article seems unnecessary as the series article does have a reasonable amount of information about the city and the San Andreas state, so either redirect the article to the series article or delete the article completely. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per significant reception of the city, moreso than in Rapture (BioShock), for example. Some of the information that appears in other articles could be chopped in those articles for cleanliness; the GTAV article is incredibly long. Tezero (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• After appraising the article and relevant game articles it's related to, I would agree with a merge. As a setting it can be explained rather perfunctorily; development info and reception info are more useful in the respective game articles than segregated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Merge Per WP:FICT, the page isn't really significant in coverage, so the best idea is to merge it into this article where it settled best at. ///EuroCarGT 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to the Grand Theft Auto article, as it appears in more than just one GTA game. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, Los Santos isn't just based on one game but several actually and has been mentioned numerous times over the years. Not to mention that San Andreas was the most popular game thus giving the name "Los Santos" a notable status. CloudKade11 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Los Santos also appeared in GTA San Andreas, and this article has enough sources for it to be it's own article. TJD2 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Merge. Article does not present itself as a necessary split. I'm all for articles about fictional locations, and kudos for putting the effort into trying to make the article more complete, but it feels like something that could be summed up in a few sentences with respect to reception, and outside of that, the rest of the content can or already is be summed up in the Grand Theft Auto V article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spelling Mistake

In the Plot section, at the end, someone misspelled FBI. They said FIB.Football1607 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's deliberate. They are referred to in the game as the "FIB". CR4ZE (t) 07:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Bafta's

Hi, I'd noticed that you have put that GTAV won 4 Bafta's, but haven't specified what Bafta's it actually won. GTAV won Bafta's for Best British Game, Best Game Design, Best Multiplayer and Rockstar themselves won a Fellowship award. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/video-game-news/10694122/Bafta-video-game-awards-2014-The-Last-of-Us-cleans-up.html

--Kandyce 2013 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Done The Fellowhip Award was already covered. Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

601033867

I don't understand why some editors change direct wikilinks to sub-sections into redirect links - is there a policy I'm unaware of?
— [2]

@CR4ZE: There is a guideline on redirects that are not broken, if that helps czar ♔ 06:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In the case of this article, the wikilinks were direct to the sub-section of an article, but when editors scan the article with Reflinks it appears to change them back to redirects. Sam Sailor kindly explained on my talk page. Any comments for the FAC would be appreciated too! Thanks, CR4ZE (t • c) 06:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have opened up a debate at MOS:TALK that you'd probably be interested in. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Recreation

Re: the "recreation" edit summary, "recreation" (sans hyphen) is perfectly acceptable under NOAD. I don't have a problem with the hyphen, though czar ♔ 04:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Platform Availability

At the top of the article, as well as the basic info, the page says that the game is available for Playsation 3 and Xbox 360 on 13 September 2013. While this information is correct, the article fails to say the release dates for eighth-generation consoles. Grand Theft Auto was released as a launch title for the Playstation 4 and Xbox One on 11 November 2013 and 17 November 2013, respectively. the game was also released for Microsoft Windows, the date of which i do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiestaTha79thSt (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt you'll be able to find a reliable source to verify those claims czar ♔ 02:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Very poor troll attempt. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Award weighting

I understand that their current position in the awards prose is down to the awards being announced later than others, but shouldn't a BAFTA or GDC award be weighted higher than a GameTrailers "Best Whatever" award, and that in turn rated higher than awards given by the video game section of The Pig Breeder's Gazette? The awards section seems to end sentences with "...and BAFTA" too often. - X201 (talk)

That would make sense. And I didn't know The Pig Breeder's Gazette did video game reviews czar ♔ 23:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a clear cut rationale to evaluate which awards are more "important" than others. I've arranged the awards in the prose alphabetically by publication. Seems most neutral to me. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: In related news, rowspan is dead. CR4ZE (t • c) 16:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice work czar ♔ 16:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Who else would agree with me that a "List of awards received by Grand Theft Auto V" sub-article would be warranted, given the size of the table? X? czar? CR4ZE (t • c) 03:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for such lists? (For video games?) At the very least, a few have been merged before. I feel like I've seen at least one such before, but I can't think of any offhand czar ♔ 03:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We have one for BioShock Infinite (which currently has an inactive merge discussion) and one for Mass Effect 2. While that isn't a widespread precedent for video game articles, it is common (with films, musicians etc) to split a table off when the subject at hand receives a great deal of awards from established publications. I feel that having a separate article would reduce the weight of the current article (the table weighs at over 30,000 kb's of data), which already has an appropriate summary style section written. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

One the FAC gets cleared, I'm also going to look at writing a Controversies sub-article as well. The Controversies section here is quite brief and doesn't get into the analysis it potentially could, which would be best reserved for a split article I think. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Total article size matters most to places where Internet is slow, so it'd help to move it in that regard, but the size that matters most is the prose size—that's where readers are lost no matter their Internet connection. Anyway, I'd definitely be for summary style splits for both the "accolades" and the controversies. Having cut a lot of the controversies, I'd just make sure the new article stays on point (all reception and descriptions of what the secondary sources found controversial instead of elongated descriptions). czar ♔ 04:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. We have the refs and the content. If you create it in user space let us know where. - X201 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Czar & X201 – I did. If I wanted an FL-quality table, would it be okay as one big long table like that? (any input, Hahc21?) I'd of course work in an overview in the lead with an image. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Should be okay, but you need tablesort (WP:FLCR). Also I'd name the page "List of accolades received by..." in keeping with similar pages czar ♔ 07:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot more "List of awards and nominations received by..." than I do "List of accolades...", though. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I was using the media articles as a precedent (Category:Lists of accolades by video game, Category:Lists of accolades by film). czar ♔ 09:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FAC is over.

Grand Theft Auto V is now an FA, but why is that "current featured article candidate" template still here? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The bot that closes the FACs is down. People have already been notified, it's just slow-going czar ♔ 18:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that has been taken care of. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

197.32.122.116 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

modify to reflect newly announced extra platforms it will be avaiable on

PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
17 September 2013
PlayStation 4, Xbox One, PC
Fall 2014
Wii U
TBA ProgrammerJoe (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Port" section title

I tried to change this title since I find it overly generic and simplistic, but it looks like someone didn't like it and reverted the change. What's really been made with GTA5 is a re-edit with improved texture resolution, but also with new programming (eg, weather), new assets (eg new flora & fauna), etc. So calling it a port is an oversimplification. In any case, even if it was just a port, we could easily find a more meaningful title for the section other than "Port", right? Maybe something that gave some insight on how such port is different to the original game? I'll see to propose a new wording for it when I get the time. --uKER (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I just gave it a second go. If anyone sees something they'd like to see improved, they're more than welcome to do so, but I'd say reverting to the previous (appallingly written) text is not productive to the article. --uKER (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Enhanced re-release" is definitely better than "Next generation release", but it's still not ideal. How about "Remake" (as per Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary)? -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Remaster? - X201 (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Reloaded? Re-energised? Douglas Reeman? CR4ZE (t • c) 12:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it needs its own section. It would fit fine under the existing "additional content", which is exactly what it is. (Also, for what it's worth, the phrase Rockstar used was "new generation upgrades".) czar ♔ 10:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That was pretty much what I had done here but someone (who incidentally happens to be the guy that created the section) reverted it, arguing that the title was wrong because the PC isn't next gen. Go figure. As for it meriting its own section or not, I'd say it does, since this is a separate game, and not just an add-on to the original one. --uKER (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The section is "additional content" not add-on. We're talking about some visual upgrades and maybe a few other features—it's added content. If it expands out, sure, give it a full section, but for a single paragraph, I don't see the need czar ♔ 02:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

UKER, you can use templates like {{u}} or {{ping}} instead of pretending I don't exist. "Next generation release" would perhaps be the worst choice for a title, with the ambiguous "next" not giving the reader clarity as to what the "previous" generation was. "Next" is poor. You can't lump PC into "next-gen" either, because generations refer to console cycles separate from PC upgrades. Personally, I don't care what the section's called. "Enhanced re-release" is fine with me, although I should point out that the (reliable) source mentions "port". CR4ZE (t • c) 22:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, CR4ZE, honestly I was pretty annoyed that you reverted all of my edit just because you didn't like the wording in some of it, despite it correcting several other stuff that needed changing. I hate reversionism. I expect Wikipedia to be an effort to improve upon each other's work, instead of dumping whatever I've done into a bucket because you didn't like 30% of it. So me not mentioning you by name was just seeking to not make things personal. I expected you to see it here. So well, no hard feelings anyway. If everyone's happy with the way things are, that's great with me. Cheers. --uKER (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So we're clear, the revert was also done to correct the poor prose in the image caption that you created. It is always "the PlayStation 4", as is precedent with other consumer electronics like the iPod. That, and the "higher quality" statement with no context of what the lower "quality" was. It's called nit-picking-an-article-you-recently-got-to-FA, so don't get snippy and WP:AGF. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

PS4 screenshot

I had the thought that File:Grand Theft Auto V port.jpg could perhaps work better if it was a side-by-side comparison shot, perhaps grabbed from Digital Foundry's comparison video. Would this be in fitting with the NFCC better? CR4ZE (t • c) 13:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea czar ♔ 14:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Shark cards

I think shark cards are worth mentioning under controversies. There was quite a bit of backlash against them. I could look some sources up if necessary. k-ham 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killhammer (talk • contribs)

Sources would be helpful. Remember to use sites with a vetted editorial policy, such as these czar ♔ 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive links

Might want to archive some of the links on this page, especially the stuff sourced from Rockstar—the pages aren't going to last forever. czar ♔ 15:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I 100% agree, and just last week I was looking into how long it would take to do all 180+ refs. Rhain1999, would you be interested in splitting the workload with me for this? CR4ZE (t • c) 03:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to split the workload. If you can start with at least a few references so I can see exactly what to do, I'd be happy to continue. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done all of Gameplay. We can go section-by-section, or I work on the first 90 and you the last 90. Up to you. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should go section-by-section. I'll do Development shortly. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

TakeTwo keep moving their corporate stuff around, if you find a deadlink with those don't dispair as searching for it won't dig it up on their site, but it will still be there - it will need a manual trawl to find it. - X201 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)