Talk:Grand Theft Auto V/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Xbox one, PS4, and PC Release Date

Confirmed to be November 18th, 2014 along with the Heist DLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.92.11 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"Confirmed" by whom? Please provide a link. - X201 (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Release date hasn't been announced czar ♔ 06:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hate to say i told you so. . . Morons who think they need face to face proof. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.92.11 (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you're acting like a child. One of Wikipedia's main policies is sources; all facts need "face to face proof" (especially one as big as this).

Secondly, you didn't "[tell us] so". You literally edited your original statement about half an hour ago from "November 14th" to "November 18th". -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

Gta 5 cheats can be found at gta-cheats-x.com 117.201.239.20 (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done non-encyclopedic information - Arjayay (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GTA V for Wii U

You doing to GTA V for the Nintendo Wii U released? - 19:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.156.210 (talk)

Edit request

Just a simple request. Since Ned Luke finally has a wikipedia page, could someone add the link to it where he is named? (Under Production - Development) PhilosophicalZebra (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ done czar ♔ 03:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Plot length

Yesterday I snipped the plot section down from 745 words to 592 words to be in line with WP:VG's guideline that places 700 words as the ideal maximum. However, this action was reverted by Mansmokingacigar. I have reverted the changes back and think the plot is much easier to navigate how it is now. Any thoughts to the contrary? CR4ZE (t • c) 03:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes section

What's up with this notes section? This seems non-standard to me. Either the information is relevant in which case it should be inline in the article body or else it is trivia and should be removed. Is there a WP guideline on this ? --Cornellier (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's common for footnotes to provide explanatory information that would be important for those curious but not vital to the point of the main paragraph czar ♔ 16:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate my points:

• you say it's common but I've rarely since this, not sure how to quantify
• why not just put the info in the article body? e.g. the first about which Rockstar studios did work should just be in Development of Grand Theft Auto V. In this case the footnote refers to a reference which only refers to other WP articles. --Cornellier (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's codified in the Manual of Style at WP:FNNR. It's more common in featured-quality articles than in random Wikipedia articles. If you want to discuss any specific footnote, go for it, but I'm just answering your first question that it's fine and standard to have a Notes section. For the first footnote, that's a compromise from standing consensus to not list all contributing developers in the infobox. It's information that someone might expect to see in that infobox location (but not everyone). czar ♔ 06:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer some of what you wrote above: "more common in featured-quality articles than in random Wikipedia articles". Maybe, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Where are footnotes used on the web outside of WP? "footnotes ... provide explanatory information that would be important for those curious but not vital to the point". We already have a better solution to that in the form of articles, sections, and "sub" articles.

The underlying information design problem is how to organise info according to its level of detail / importance. There's already a good solution to that in the form of hierarchies of article: Grand Theft Auto V > Section on Development > Development of Grand Theft Auto V. This is a convention people are used to using, and not just on WP. I just moved a note about dev sites from the infobox to Development of Grand Theft Auto V. Imagine if someone did the reverse of that. What argument could there be for taking info out of Development of Grand Theft Auto V and putting in a footnote of an infobox where it is harder to use on a PC and very difficult to use on a mobile device?--Cornellier (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how summary style resolves a need for footnotes. Some concepts are only peripherally important: sufficiently important to include somewhere but not in the main text. Also, the dev note can exist both in the prose and as a footnote—it's about making the experience easiest for the reader. Footnotes are a mainstay of literature and almost every work of length and merit that I can recall uses them. But if you are against explanatory footnotes in general, the best forum for that would be the aforementioned guideline's talk page and not this article's talk page. czar ♔ 17:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the footnotes that were taken out, but I didn't remove the information from the Development sub-article. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Both the additional development studios and Japanese release date have relevancy to both articles, and I can't see a more appropriate way for the article to have this information than in a notes list per WP:FNNR. I'd say that footnotes are there to provide additional information that is likely relevant or helpful to some readers without weighing the main prose down with facts that feel like asides. Not to mention that I have also seen plenty of FA's featuring them. As Czar suggested, I would say it's best to take it to the guideline's page if you feel strongly enough against them. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

GTA VI?

I read on a website that GTA 6 is in development at the moment. They said there was probably gonna be a female lead this time, only if the setting is suitable for that, and it will go back to Vice City again. Probably too early for a article mention, but I read it on a website, and I'll give you a link:

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.133.212 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Its just a collection of rumour and speculation dressed up to look like a story. - X201 (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

First person image deletion

I have nominated File:GTA V 1st person.jpg, which is being used in the Enhanced re-release section, for speedy deletion as I don't think the usage is minimal and the rationale does not convey why the image cannot be replaced by text. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if it had a side-by-side comparison like File:Grand Theft Auto V PS3 PS4 comparison.jpg does. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have File:Grand Theft Auto V combat.jpg conveying that the game has a third-person camera. The difference is that the first-person image doesn't convey other important elements like the HUD, the crosshair or the open world. It also doesn't do wonders showing the high-res improvements because of all the grey textures depicted. It's a shot of a corridor that I don't think serves enough of a purpose. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I figured I'd look at replacing the image myself, because the first-person view looks like a big deal, and so it's probably a good idea to have a screenshot. I narrowed it down to three options from the first-person trailer: Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3. Can I get some input? CR4ZE (t • c) 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of the three, I say the third. The first is too dark and the second looks more like a cutscene without the HUD czar ♔ 05:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting—that was the one I was leaning towards the least. The first option would be the only shot in the article that displays nighttime and a wanted level. It also demonstrates the particle/lighting effects discussed in the last paragraph (look at those sexy reflections on the rain-slicked road). The second option shows the detail that's gone into the helicopter cockpit, and would be the only shot to really show off the wide vistas and mountain ranges in the open world. The third option doesn't stray too close to the Gameplay image to you? CR4ZE (t • c) 05:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that rationale would be sound if those details were to be visible in the thumbnails. I'm not completely sold that a first-person illustration is necessary. A diagram or comparison shot that depicts the difference between first- and third-person in the frame would be more informative for those who might actually be served by an illustration. I'm not necessarily opposed to any of the above three options—just my 2¢ based on how I think they'll look at low res czar ♔ 06:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? Rhain1999, X201, SNUGGUMS, TheDeviantPro, Masem? CR4ZE (t • c) 08:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I favour an image like No. 3, but with a side-by-side third person version of the same scene as well, to bring home the fact it can be played in either mode. - X201 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the first image, mainly because of the reasons that CR4ZE brought up, though czar also brings up a good point about the lighting. My second choice would be the third image. I also like the suggestions from Snuggums and X201 about a side-by-side comparison of both first-person and third-person view. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-release reception chart?

The critics' reviews about the PS4 and Xbox One version are coming in. Should we be creating a disparate chart of reviews? We'd also have to consider the same for when it's released on PC next year. Blee395 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be worth splitting the PS4/Xbox One reviews off into their own section with a table, yes. I'd suggest we hold off from that until the reviews have finished rolling out. A lot of publications won't be giving their final verdicts until later this week because they didn't receive review copies. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I had actually been considering this earlier, as I did something similar with Grand Theft Auto IV's Reception section, but didn't have the time nor effort to actually do it with this page. I agree that we should wait a few days before going ahead. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 04:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-release page split

I created a draft of a possible page split for the enhanced re-release of the game. All of the required material and I think the re-release has enough notability on its own. Figured this would be an ideal to keep prose length down on the main article. If there are no concerns, I'll split it off within the next few days. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, and I don't think it's been done before (complete remasters like Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary notwithstanding). Despite that, I can agree with the split. I like what's been done on the draft! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea to split, and there's certainly enough coverage to be notable on its own. This article will become bloated otherwise. Do I sense another GAN? Ring me up if there is. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Developer

The infobox gives Rockstar North as the developer, which is largely true. However, should it be noted that the PC version of the game was developed by Rockstar Leeds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.203.47 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The footnote that follows the developer in the infobox lists all of the studios that worked on the game. Furthermore, a quick Google search only returns results stating that Rockstar Leeds was hiring for a PC port, hinting (not specifically stating) that it was for the PC version of Grand Theft Auto V. Unless you can find a reliable source, then I don't think it belongs in the infobox (until the PC version is released, which will likely confirm or deny Rockstar Leeds' involvement). -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2015

I want to add review from famous Czech gaming magazine Hrej.cz MCsplash (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Kharkiv07^Talk 20:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

PC release date

People in North America are actually having it released on PC on the 13th so i think that needs to be changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructor rph (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 April 2015‎

Everyone is getting it at the same time, Rockstar are using UK time as the global release date; because of the way the world rotates the USA is behind everywhere else, it will still be the 13th there. - X201 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with San Andreas (HD Universe)

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.

---

I'm not sure if these two articles should exist independently. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Merge what can/should be merged and delete that article. A game world doesn't need a seprate article from the main game in question. —DangerousJXD (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete San Andreas (HD Universe). It's almost entirely trivial, and unnecessary. A similar article (Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)) was merged earlier this year, following a discussion. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge then delete. --☣Anarchyte☣ 02:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. Stranger195 (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Delete as per Rhain1999. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete without merge - The whole content is copy and paste from GTA Wiki. Delete and reference what content is needed from there. - X201 (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete without merge – Nothing to merge here. Any useful content is already covered in the GTA V article. The rest here is just lists of trivia and non-notable things within the game. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete without merge - There's no relevant encyclopedic information here, clearly in conflict with WP:GAMEGUIDE. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

Proposed merge with Strawberry (GTA V)

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.

---

I found another merger candidate. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Merge then delete. --☣Anarchyte☣ 02:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge what can/should be merged and delete that article. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. Do we really need a page for strawberries in GTA V? Stranger195 (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete, not Notable. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as per TheDeviantPro. I don't even think a merge is possible; none of the information on the article is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia at all, in my opinion. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete without merge - The whole content is copy and paste from GTA Wiki. Delete and reference what content is needed from there. - X201 (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete without merge – There's nothing useful to merge here, it's just a list of non-notable things within the game. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete without merge - There's no relevant encyclopedic information here, clearly in conflict with WP:GAMEGUIDE. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

Merger proposal

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.

---

I propose that Grand Theft Auto V (re-release) be merged into Grand Theft Auto V. I think that the content in the Grand Theft Auto V (re-release) article can easily be explained in the context of the Grand Theft Auto V article, and the Grand Theft Auto V article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Grand Theft Auto V (re-release) article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. It is the same game literally having pages for versions of a game released on different platforms is ludicrous. Yes there are some features exclusive to some platforms but I do not think that warrants a separate article, having the information here only makes it harder to find as anyone looking for it will likely look on the Grand Theft Auto V article. Mainline421 (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Support . The development section on the re-release can be put on the extended Development page, and the added reception can readily fit into the main article. What minimal gameplay changes there are can be added in a few sentences to the gameplay section. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Oppose I think the re-release article meets the WP:GNG as it has been discussed in a wide number of reliable sources. It has its own development and reception information not related to the main article. I'll happily defer to any consensus to merge, but I created the article and used summary style to reduce the main page's weight and fork the re-release information off for readers that seek it. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Throwing down a definitive vote. My feeling is still that the re-release page meets notability and I'm not at all convinced by arguments to the contrary. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Support . It's the same game, it can easily be covered in a section of the original article adding the changes/new material/whatever.68.51.193.141 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe that the re-release has enough information to support a separate article. There are similar existing articles on Wikipedia already, such as The Last of Us Remastered and Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, so I don't think it's unreasonable. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. As per Rhain1999, I think there's enough information for notability to have it's own article which included good enough details about features in the re-release. Also if we try to merge then the original article will become too cluttered with information which is why we have a separate article in the first place. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment In this case it's not about notability, it's about the fact that like it or not the current gen console versions and the PC are Grand Theft Auto V like it or not, not anything else, and therefore should be covered on the Grand Theft Auto V page. All five versions of GTAV are notable but they are all the same game. Every Grand Theft Auto game has had additional features and better graphics on PC yet for every other GTA there is only one page. Both the games named above by Rhain1999 were marketed with different titles and developed years afterwards, whereas all versions of GTAV have the same title and the PC version was developed in parallel with the previous generation console versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainline421 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is almost always about notability. In addition, the re-release is covered on the main page, but the separate article goes into more depth, for readers that are looking for that information.

Furthermore, stating that the games I mentioned were "marketed with different titles" shouldn't be an issue here. Also, I should mention that The Last of Us Remastered was not "developed years afterwards" (development began almost immediately after The Last of Us), and the PC version of Grand Theft Auto V was not "developed in parallel with the previous generation console versions" (that development finished in 2013, while the PC version development continued for another eighteen months). -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is almost always about notability but this case isn't. All verisons are notable but they are all GTAV. The games you named having different titles/names obviously is relevant, and you have still not addressed my point about all GTAs being "re-released" how ever only this one having a sepparete page.Mainline421 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please tell us how the re-release isn't notable enough to have it's own page? the re-release highly marketed and praised by reviewers upon release for the PS4, Xbox One and PC as well enough in-depth information about the new features, so the re-release have enough notable information to have it's own separate article. Also I like to point out that the reasons why the articles The Last of Us Remastered and Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary were created was not because they have a different name then the original game, it's because they have enough notable information to have their own separate articles exactly like with Grand Theft Auto V, just because it doesn't have a different name doesn't mean it shouldn't have it's own article, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Wikipedia have always been based on notability. The reason why there no articles for other Grand Theft Auto re-releases it's because there isn't enough notable information for the games features because they only make small changes to game play or graphics to fit the platform the game being released on while with the re-release of Grand Theft Auto V they did a graphics upgrade and added a lot of new features such as "First-Person mode" making it notable. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mainline421: To put it bluntly, I see no basis in your arguments beyond your own personal opinion. You say that "like it or not" the current-gen/PC version is the exact same game and was developed in tandem with the 2013 release, which is 100% incorrect. As explained above, the re-release was developed after the fact and adds many new features not included in the 2013 release. There's also nothing in policy that says a game's re-release needs a different name to have a separate page: what is required is that the page meets notability by itself. Your claim that this "case" isn't about notability contravenes the spirit of having the WP:GNG at all, because we're assessing an article's notability in and of itself, not making unsubstantiated proclamations about the game's development and arguing about WP:OTHERSTUFF. Based on the re-release's wide coverage by reliable sources, its added features, development and unique points of critical praise, I don't see how the page fails to meet notability, and it should stay. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@CR4ZE: Please do at least check the facts before making baseless claims. The "Re-Realease" was developed in tandem with the 2013 release. The reason I wrote "like it or not" is because of exactly that, it seems the only reason their are two seeparete pages is because of that's what some people want. You are then defending this by claiming it is notable. Yes it is but by applying your logic we would have to have a page for Grand Theft Auto V (Xbox360 game), Grand Theft Auto V (PS3 game) and so on, all of them are definatley notable, but all the information would be much better presented in one article. The only differnernce between this re-release and other GTA re-releases is the first perosn view all other additions and more have been included in previous re-releases.

We could easily incorporate all of the content form the re-release article in the main article without it becoming bloated as almost everything in the re-release article is just a abridged duplicate of the Grand Theft Auto V article! Now how that would harm the project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainline421 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The source that you cited isn't a confirmation that the re-release was developed in tandem; for all we know, they might have started development on the re-release near the end of the development cycle for the original game. But that's besides the point. Of course there are two separate pages because "that's what some people want", or else we wouldn't even be having this argument, but the argument to keep the separate pages is also based on Wikipedia's guidelines (in particular, notability). As for your comment stating that we should have an article for each version of the game, as they are "definatly [sic] notable", you are wrong; the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of the game are notable together, not separately, but the re-released versions of the game are quite notable (together) in their own right (just look at how much is written on the article already). Finally, I believe incorporating the content from the re-release article into the main article would be a terrible idea, as the main article would certainly become "bloated"; almost everything on the re-release article is new material, not an "abridged duplicate" of the main article. You should take another look before making such comments. But I still respect your opinion, of course, and I'm happy to hear stronger counter-arguments. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 22:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I personally believe the difference in versions can be inserted into the "development" section of the original article. Attitude2000 (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Support at its core it is the exact same game, and have a content split just results in one inferior and out of date article... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly not "the exact same game", as outlined in the re-release article. I'm also not sure what you're referring to by "out of date article"; the Grand Theft Auto V article is up-to-date, including some details of the re-release. However, if readers want to go deeper into the information about the re-release, then the separate article is there for them to read. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The re-released Grand Theft Auto V deserves a separate article. If it is merged into Grand Theft Auto V, it would not be possible to retain all the necessary information about the re-release in a single article. -- s M mAnIrUzZaMAN _{"Free speech is life itself"} 01:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. As others have said, I think that, with significant information, this article can stand on its own. If it were not so, it would have been an entirely different subject because the original topic was the Grand Theft Auto V game, not its re-release version. That is just my opinion. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Support As per above arguments. Cyclonius (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. More features and a separate release date do not mean a different page. Stranger195 (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. It's fine as is, the re-release was a major part of it, it does not need merging. --Anarchyte 11:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Lots of information about the re-release as stated above, no merge should take place as the amount of info is sufficient for its own article. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Differences between PS3/360 version and the re-release are minimal. Development of re-release can be covered in Development of Grand Theft Auto V. Reception of changes within the re-release can be covered in a single paragraph on this article. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Support There is little precedent of a games re-release getting its own article. This is better suited to being a dedicated section of the original Grand Theft Auto V article --shinsukato (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best argument to support the merge; there was also little precedent of a "List of accolades received by (video game)" article on here, but we still made it work and ended up with two FLs; sames goes for Development articles (which has 2 FAs and 6 GAs). Not to mention that there are actually quite a few articles on video game re-releases on Wikipedia (such as Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, Borderlands: The Handsome Collection and The Last of Us Remastered). The only real difference between the Grand Theft Auto V re-release and my examples is that the name of the former re-release is identical to the name of the original game, which shouldn't discredit its notability in any way. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Combat Evolved Anniversary is not a good comparison at all. There was a 10 year gap between the original and the remaster. There's significant coverage on the development where the graphics and audio were completely overhauled and the remaster had different multiplayer component from the original; the changes in GTA5 are minor. Combat Evolved Anniversary was developed by different studios from the original which was also worth noting. And most importantly, Combat Evolved doesn't have a separate article covering it's development like GTA5 does. This merge isn't about notability, all the information in re-release article for GTA5 can fit perfectly into existing articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your points about Combat Evolved Anniversary make sense, but I still believe this re-release deserves its own separate article. It should be mentioned that the Grand Theft Auto V article is already extremely large (some could say too large), so moving some of the content of the re-release onto here doesn't seem like the best thing to do, in my opinion. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Merge The re-release article doesn't seem to have something new to be told about, most of text is copy of main article. Re-release part can be written as a section on main page. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Merge. I'm always late to these. What I think is covered by others above. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: Grand Theft Auto IV was also re-released later, and it was covered pretty well in its own, singular article. Just because it's a re-release, doesn't make it worthy of its own article. I'm not there. Message me! 23:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Merge – I don't get the point of making a separate article for the same game to begin with. Aria1561 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: I have to agree, while it isn't "exactly the same", it is the same story line and game. The only big changes are some technical changes and graphics, and some new missions, which can be included in it's own section. — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 01:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

Actuating the merge

Now that this merger proposal has been deemed to have reached sufficient consensus, I am making this sub-section to allow coordination amongst you towards putting said merge into effect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not happy with how the consensus has been reached, but I went ahead and actuated the merge. I moved the re-release section above Controversies and added the development and reception sub-sections. I'm satisfied with how the section has been organised, but if anybody has any different ideas I'd be happy to hear them. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I have rearranged the re-release content to be more integrated with the rest of the article, but it could probably still do with some improvement. Mainline421 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I also don't like how the consensus was reached, I can understand it. Following this, I think the way that CR4ZE merged the two articles was great; it was clean, and I felt that it gave the re-release enough separation. However, if I'm being honest, I'm not particularly fond of the merge that Mainline421 has done. Minor spelling and grammar errors aside, it just feels like too much information in on place (particularly that Development section; if anything, the information could be added to the Development article, but then I fear that we would be spreading the information out too much). Personally, I'd just like to go back to this edit, in which information regarding the re-release is split from the rest of the article, but I felt that I should check for other opinions first. Please let me know what you think. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer as it was as well. Mainline's revision has created organisation issues, particularly with how the re-release development information is just kind of thrown into the development section like that. Plus now the Reception section is disproportionately long. I think we should rollback to that edit as well. The question that remains is whether or not to merge the re-release development into the Development article, which we can discuss after the fact. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the Mainline's revision. I agree that it messes with the structure of the article. PS4, Xbox One, Windows development should be covered in the Development of Grand Theft Auto V article in some capacity. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why information about some platforms should be split in to a stub article within the article, it makes no sense. That said, as I said it needed some improvement and I didn't realize a lot of errors (sorry). "... organisation issues, particularly with how the re-release development information is just kind of thrown into the development section like that" You must see how this is illogical. Information regarding development obviously belongs in the development section. Rhain1999, CR4ZE and others seem to be committed to keeping information about the PS4 XBone and PC versions as separate as possible from other platforms. As for covering all versions in the Development of Grand Theft Auto V I agree they definatley should be included. Mainline421 (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mainline421: While you're correct when you say that development information belongs in that section, the Development section on the article is basically a summary of the information on the Development article. Your move did not fit with this; instead, the information was "just kind of thrown" into the section. And that's okay on your behalf―you didn't know, and that's fine―but it doesn't really belong there in such a way. As for merging the information the re-release development into the Development article: though I was initially against it, I've thought about it a bit more and I think I'd support the move (although I also don't mind if it stays). – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

{ping|Rhain1999}} We seem to all be agreed that development info from all platforms should be added to the Development of Grand Theft Auto V article so can someone with more knowledge on the subject do this? I can attempt this myself ofcourse, but I couldn't do much more than a copy and paste without knowing any sources. Perhaps this can be put in tasks for the Rockstar task force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainline421 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999:You seem to showing signs of WP:Ownership by (despite your comments above) reverting edits that add information about all platforms to the Development of Grand Theft Auto V article. Please explain why you think they should not be included, as they are notable. Mainline421 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't properly discuss the merge beforehand, which is why I reverted your edits. Not to mention that CR4ZE clearly opposed the merge below, yet you made no attempt to reply to him. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 13:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999:I did try to discuss it beforehand (see above) but I didn't get a response. Also I am under no obligation to do so and by sugesting I am you confirming what I said in my last comment. Mainline421 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring, as you are both doing on the Development page, never ends well for any parties involved. This discussion is still ongoing as far as I can tell, so I think Mainline421's decision to copy the information across was premature. Also, accusing others of WP:Ownership rather than engaging in healthy discussion is an extremely immature approach that will get you nowhere. If it's necessary, we can ask for feedback on the matter from the project, or even get a third opinion if we cannot reach a consensus. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as an edit war we were both obeying WP:3RR. I think a RFC is more appropiate for the issue of the layout of this page as I feel we should seek the opinion of editors as univolved as possible. Mainline421 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for any unnecessary edits on my part, but I just felt that Mainline421's edit was unwarranted, considering that no formal discussion had taken place beforehand. I would like to avoid edit warring, though, which is why I refrained from reverting Mainline's last edit. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 12:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need to merge the development information across. If anything it will create redundancy with the need to summarise here and to then have to explain what the re-release is in the development article, when as is it's only a couple of paragraphs of material that fits nicely here without weighing the page down. Better to keep information relevant to a specific thing in one place in my opinion. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm here via the WT:VG notice. (1) I'm not convinced by the argument for merge and I don't believe the support "votes" were based in substantive, policy-backed arguments. What's clear is that the re-release received significant coverage on its own—articles about its separate development, articles about its separate release, separate reviews. Any convincing case should have been about (a) how a merge would not preclude any part of the Re-release article's content, or (b) how the original release and "re-release" were not split in the minds of the secondary source coverage or of Rockstar. (2) I agree with the AN poster that said the discussion was closer to "no consensus" (and therefore a default to the status quo) than consensus to merge. (3) In consideration that the merge appears to be going through and is not in limbo (and perhaps it makes sense to leave the challenge for another date), the exact issue of the content disagreement is unclear to me (please provide diffs or summarize the issue when asking for outside opinions). It appears to be over whether the re-release should have its own section as opposed to being better integrated? The merge was really over whether the Re-release is its own entity, with the supporters largely defending the point that it was not. If indeed the merge is not in limbo, the content should be distributed throughout the article: to the bottom of the Gameplay, of the Development, of the Reception, and the greater, non-summary bulk of the remake's development would go in the dedicated article. (This would be to say that the remake's content would not be grouped together to later expand as a summary style section.) But if the merge is actually still in contest, please ping me in any ensuing discussion because, minding my review of the above, I think it remains a bad idea.  – czar 14:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Czar: You are right to say the current disagreement is over how the re-release information is organised in the article, but I think a resolution to the issue would have come more easily if the original merge discussion ended less turbulently. I think those of us who opposed the merge could make the case that the support !votes did not present the more compelling argument, especially in consideration to the fact that it wasn't policy-backed and failed to address the significant coverage argument of the oppose !votes. If it was closed any other way, an appeal to the decision at AN would not have been a matter of endorsing the "consensus" or overturning to "no consensus" and retaining the status quo, but would have instead focused on the merit of the arguments made by both sides. As I see it, unless there is a process beyond a merge discussion and the AN (if there is, I'm unaware of it), the options to re-open the debate (for now) have been exhausted. As for how the merge is integrated into this article, I believe that presenting all information pertaining to the re-release in one section (or, ideally, one article, but that ship has sailed) best services the reader, and that to distribute into different sections (and the Development article) would be to lose the cohesiveness of what the re-release is, how it was developed and how it was received. If, per your suggestion, the re-release's gameplay changes are explained in the Gameplay section, you have the problem of the reader not yet knowing what the re-release is (assuming the article is read chronologically) until they get to the Development section, where the fact of its development and release date over a year after the 17 September launch is explained. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  In any event, the main article is better served by having the re-make fit into the overall narrative. Many articles have later ports that add upgraded visuals or add features and this would be the same sort of integration—tack a paragraph or two in each appropriate section. (I'd likely recommend this whether or not the separate article existed, as it's easier to read.) As for the lingering question, I recommend either stalemating (if there truly is "no consensus") or raising the issue again in six months to a year (but bring specific refs that show that both sources and the dev conceptualize the re-release as a separate entity). the problem of the reader not yet knowing what the re-release is Solution for topic sentence of new Gameplay ¶: "In the later re-release for next generation consoles and Windows, ..."  – czar 09:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Which layout is better?

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.

---

Which layout is better 21:10, 7 August 2015 or 23:01, 7 August 2015‎‎? Specifically should content from the enhanced versions be presented separately or integrated with the rest of the article? Mainline421 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Integrated (though I don't necessarily agree with the diff) as concisely elaborated in my last post in the previous section. I read the merge decision as a mandate on whether the re-release should be seen as a separate entity. Even if the re-release page remained standalone (as I believe it should have under what I judge as a "no consensus" consensus), there is nothing distinct about the re-release effort, as portrayed in its sources, to warrant its own section. The re-release is closer to a notable "port" than a notable "re-make". – czar 09:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Actually actuating the merge

This article is set to appear as TFA on Thursday, and I don't like the recent warring that is taking place (yes, I am aware that I am part of the problem). As can be seen above, when the re-release article was merged into the main article, there was quite a bit of discussion regarding how to do this. Some attempts were made, but they appear to be in contention with each other, so we need to make a decision as to which attempt is best:

1. Placing the information in a separate section
2. Mainline421's attempt at integrating information throughout the article, as suggested above
3. My attempt at integrating

I don't really mind what you choose, but the sooner a decision is reached, the better. Thanks in advance. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 14:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, the merge has been actuated. You have stretched this over four months and this post is merely Votestacking. If you want I can post diffs which clearly prove your Disruptive Editing but you clearly do care way too much about which is chosen. Just Relax and accept you've lost. Mainline421 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mainline421: You continually refuse to accept any other opinions on this matter, and now you're claiming that you've "won", so allow me to explain why I think your edit is not very beneficial to the article:

• You have not added any information about the re-release to the "Gameplay" section, which was suggested in the "consensus" above. Any information regarding the DualShock 4's touchpad, Xbox One's Impulse Triggers, or PC's replay editor is thereby lost in your revision.
• You have just dumped all of the re-release development information at the bottom of the "Development" section. As I know you are already aware, this information is also present on the Development article, so its reuse on here is redundant. Not to mention that the image's fair use rationale only covers one article, and the use of the image and quote so closely looks messy.
• You also added an unsourced statement to the end of the "Development" section.
• I guess this is more of a matter of opinion, but I don't quite like the way the "Reception" section is set up. As The1337gamer mentioned below, having so many boxes so close to each other looks messy. I think it's more beneficial merging the re-release section into one, and just adding the paragraph about the PC version to the end.

Please consider my opinions before shutting them down. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rhain1999 I never claimed to have "won" Wikipedia is not about "wining".

• I have restored the information.I didn't realised you had improved the Gameplay section.
• Some content can be trimmed but I think all versions should be summarised here.
• That was copied from the old re-release article and I have removed it instead of finding a source in light your comments about reuse from the development article.
• As you say this is just opinion and you do have a point. But my opinion is that they should both remain as they are, because both receptions are sepparete and received alot of coverage being months apart. Mainline421 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mainline421: Thank you for restoring the information. I've just gone and removed the development information, and tried to summarise it; let me know what you think. As for the "Reception" section: I don't quite agree with the way that you've done it, but that's only a personal opinion (and it's not even that bad anyway), so that's a discussion for another time. Thanks for cooperating, and sorry for any inconvenience. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the third review box. It's redundant as all the PC scores are already contained in the second review box. Additionally, it looks messy having so many boxes fragmenting prose and a waste of space repeating the same scores in different tables. I haven't looked over the other changes yet. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@The1337gamer You're right my bad, they should never have been duplicated. It doesn't make sense for PC reception to be under the subheading "PlayStation4 and Xbox One" though so I moved PC scores back to Microsoft Windows and removed them from the PS4 & XBO section. Mainline421 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

PC for exiting.

Windows (64-bit) system supported playing Keyboard in Mouse computer run. Ninjabeachandjune2 (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Music

The game's music should be better represented in this article. I recommend having a bit more in the Development section (as a summary from the Development article) and having a bit more on the soundtrack's independent reviews in the Reception. I'm also proposing that The Music of Grand Theft Auto V and Welcome to Los Santos be merged into the Development article or something like Music of Grand Theft Auto V (similar in form to Music of the Mother series). The albums/radio stations have received some commentary on their own, but not to warrant several separate articles. I think they can be sufficiently covered in the Development article alone and then summarized in the main game article, but I also see enough sources to warrant an article on the game's music (the official soundtrack, secondary source coverage on the radio stations, the Alchemist/Oh No album) as a single entity. – czar 18:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

czar, I've just written a draft of the article here. It still needs some critical reception on Welcome to Los Santos, and the lead can probably be reworked, but is that basically what you were referring to? I also wanted to point out that Tangerine Dream released an album called The Cinematographic Score - GTA 5; it wasn't ever mentioned by Rockstar, so should this be added to the article too, or should we omit it? – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's definitely the right direction. Tangerine Dream's album should fit in there too—it's a better catch-all for the semi-but-not-independently notable music and soundtrack stuff czar 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll do some more work on it later. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 03:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed wing aircraft?

"To accommodate the map's size, the game introduces vehicle types absent in its predecessor Grand Theft Auto IV, such as fixed-wing aircraft.[12]"

Seems disingenuous to mention that GTA4 did not have airplanes, whereas GTA3 did. The whole tone of this artical is fawning, despite the citations.108.51.39.201 (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not that I disagree but GTA 4 DID infact have airplanes, there just weren't any player controlled/enterable ones. Benners88 (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

{ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.132.219 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

188.51.150.24 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2016 (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. Cannolis (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Most significant title in a generation

Hello, the article says GTA V is "considered one of seventh generation console gaming's most significant titles". But the game was launched in 2013, or seven years after the consoles were launched. Shouldn't it be the eighth generation, which began in 2013? --167.57.85.11 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically, it can be played on both seventh and eight generation consoles; so, I guess it belongs to both. Nonetheless, the cited source claims it is one of the best games of last generation, at the same time mentioning that it has the potential to be one of the best of the current as well. I think the former is mentioned in the article as it is explicit whereas the latter is implicit. -- ChamithN (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, generations overlap. We technically still are in both 7th and 8th generation systems. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

41.104.167.194 (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2016

95.0.35.213 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2016 (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. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Music updates

I can't make this an edit request per se as I don't have a source to provide, but if we can find one it should be noted that the "Next generation" version of the game released for PS4, etc., includes licensed musical tracks that were not included in the original game. One notable example is the single "Team" by Lorde which hadn't yet been released (at least as a single) at the time the original game came out. There are numerous other examples but I mention that one because I tend to keep the game "locked" on one specific radio station, Non-stop Pop. Cara Delevigne also recorded new DJ dialogue. Again, though, sources are needed before it can be added. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Third person shooter in lead

Lordtobi is WP:EDITWARRING over inserting this. The game is no more a third person shooter than it is a driving game, driving is as essential or inessential as shooting is, and flying is required too. Third person shooting is no more important or necessary than any of these things, but LordTobi has chosen to ignore that and revert two times rather than use this space to explain anything he is doing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of the above explains your actions taken or why you consider third-person a low-key aspect of the game. Instead you opted to write a short-hand uninformative sentence to justify your edit warring on the article, as you seemingly did not understand the concept of WP:STATUSQUO. You changed something, I undid it, and if you feel like discussion on your edit (the removal of TPS from the lede), then it stays out of the article as long as the discussion goes. After I pointed this out to you, you did not leave me the time to write this reply, but simply reverted me again (you risked breaking WP:3RR by reverting me again, stating edit warring but actually you are pushing the war on yourself). Before I carry on, please consider that a) STATUSQUO regards your edit, not my revert and b) The above title (which you now changed) does not adhere a civil conversation start. Now that this is out of the way, you could actually state why you consider third-person shooter not a key aspect of the game. The stage is yours. (edit conflict) P.S.: New reply income (seen above), simply states me in the third-person form, and it seems like you are seeking other people's attention rather than mine. Lordtobi (✉) 20:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up,"

The only person who doesn't understand the concept of Status Quo is yourself. You made an edit, it was reverted, you were expected to leave the status quo up, it applies to your edit not mine, try reading the section again. And I explained above why it isn't any more important than any other genre in the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice quote you found there. The problem is that my edit was not the first one. Wrath X had, without consent, removed third-person shooter from the infobox previously instead of cross-copying it to the lede, which is what I did instead (a new edit), after which you removed it only from the lede again (pretty much restoring to before Wrath X' edit), but here you were good-faith reverted (see your quote above). You did start a discussion here, and that is not a bad idea!, but you also instantly revarted me, actively opting for war. I am not going to hold a discussion on what is a good-faith revert and what is not, rather, you can now explain how third-person shooting is not key. (edit conflict) Despite you retroactively adding the sentence to your message and risking that I might not actually see it as I am litterally writing this, I must disagree that your upper explains how third-person shooter is factually less important than action-adventure, but just re-states your opinion, which I have already read before. If you wish to hear mine again: Flying makes up the smallest amount of the game, and is not really relevant, rather a side-feature to the game. Land vehicles are a strong part of the game, yes, but you don't really need a car for progression, only for faster travel, other than guns that are acquired throughout the game, and have, in certain situations, to be used. Weaponry might just have only a small advantage over vehicles in terms of includeability, but yet it is suited quite a bit more. Surely, my argumentation also includes my POV, but also evidence. Also note that the genre itself has already been here for some time already. I would greatly invite TheDeviantPro to this discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 21:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So your argument is that "third person" in the opening sentence is that status quo because Wrath X removed it from the Infobox and you were undoing that? I didn't even notice it in the infobox but Wrath X was right to remove it, it isn't a primary genre. The article for Third-person shooter on this very site describes it as a game type where gameplay consists primarily of shooting. And GTA features shooting, every action or mission does not revolve around shooting. Might as well call Last of Us a third person shooter, after all it does contain guns and you can shoot people from a third person perspective. What goes in the opening sentence as a primary genre is not based on what percentage of the gameplay you feel it involves. One person can spend the game blowing millions of dollars buying guns and blowing everyone up, another can use a machete and baseball bat for the entire game, and another person just drives around. The only consistency is that they're doing it in an action-adventure game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind if Third-person shooter is or isn't in the infobox, I'm not that fuss about it. Since Grand Theft Auto III, the games have been in a third-person perspective with both shooting and driving being major game play elements in the series, some would call Grand Theft Auto a third-person shooter. Plus, the edit I made back in July 2016, I was making it fit in line with the edit that Lordtobi made on Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City and San Andreas articles back in December 2015, see [2] [3] [4]. Since then Third-person shooter, has been removed and re-added, a few times. TheDeviantPro (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

:This discussion should probably be centralized. Lordtobi (✉) 22:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

How about Grand Theft Auto V is an action-adventure video game with third-person shooter sections developed by... or a similar compromise? - X201 (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph could probably be adapted to fit this. – Rhain ☔ 10:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No? It's the same exact point, it isn't primarily a third person shooter, it's as much a driving game, in fact it's more a driving game since many missions require you to get into a vehicle and stay in the vehicle until the mission is over. Third person shooting is not special, it doesn't need mentioning in the first sentence and it doesn't need mentioning in the lede at all because then there is no reason the other myriad of gameplay types present in the game should not be mentioned. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it needs mentioning either, I was just suggesting a possibility. I think the second paragraph's "first-person or third-person view" clarifies this well enough. – Rhain ☔ 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the last sentence of the first paragraph in the subsection "Plot," Michael's name is misspelled as "Micheal."

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 02:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Micheal Unsworth as writer

I see that people are now removing Michael Unsworth from the "Written by" section in the infobox. While he is only credited for "additional dialogue" in the ending credits, in the opening credits he is there beside Houser and Humphries as "Written by". The question is, which takes predence? The opening or closing credits? I am unaware of any policy on the subject. If there is, I would like to know of it. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grand Theft Auto V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6UIT91nLm?url=http://www.videogamer.com/reviews/gta_5_review_ps4.html to http://www.videogamer.com/reviews/gta_5_review_ps4.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?sort=desc&year_selected=2013
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6U5z0HJMZ?url=http://techland.time.com/2013/12/04/technology/slide/top-10-video-games/ to http://techland.time.com/2013/12/04/technology/slide/top-10-video-games/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Should massive negative reviews regarding modding be added?

Maybe in development section, adding that modding was stopped due to lawyers and the game received too many negative reviews on steam. --Wakeup12 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It's currently mentioned at the end of Take-Two Interactive's history section. Definitely should be some mention of it here as it related specifically to GTA V. However it should focus more on the cease and desist letter and it's effect on modding, rather than just the review bombing itself. -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The cease and desist wasn't directly related to GTA V though; OpenIV, the program in question, is used for several of Rockstar's games. The summary in the Modding in Grand Theft Auto article sums it up quite nicely, I think. – Rhain ☔ 12:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant now that OpenIV is back up and Take Two is working harder to eliminate multiplayer modding. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in Modding in Grand Theft Auto, as Rhain said the modding tool is not only for Grand Theft Auto V. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Theft Auto V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219050729/http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/gta-5-ps3-review-grand-theft-auto-v-score-from-official-playstation-magazine/ to http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/review/gta-5-ps3-review-grand-theft-auto-v-score-from-official-playstation-magazine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Radio stations in GTA V remastered

The article gives a count of how many different songs were licensed for use in the game, however the PS4 remastered version eliminates some songs and replaces them with others. Should it be mentioned that the song mix is different in the PS4 version? 136.159.160.8 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Players" vs. "the player"

(WP:1RR). Recently there has been a difference in opinion over whether the gameplay section should use the singular noun "the player" or plural form "players". These changes were implemented by Pure conSouls on March 23, and my recent changes were reverted by Lordtobi today. WP:VG/GL explicitly allows either use, but recommends to pick and use one consistently: "For readability, choose either "the player" (singular) or "players" (plural) and stay consistent throughout the section [read: article]". Note that the plural form is used consistently in all other sections of the article (and has been for several years): in fact, in its current revision (with the gameplay changes) the article uses "players" 28 times, but "the player" only 21 times. The article passed all formal review processes and this issue was never raised at PR or FAC. My contention is that the use of plural form allows for more concise, 1a: "engaging" and "professional" writing, but also that the status quo should be retained unless there is a compelling argument to why this needed to be changed at all. Cheers, CR4ZE (t • c) 02:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Its simple, if its a multiplayer game then use "players" but if its a single-player game use "the player" because only a "single-player" is controlling the protagonist(s). Pure conSouls (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, consistency is always the primary aspect. I wasn't aware that there was an inconsistency, so apologies for that. Anyhow, I do agree with what PCS says just above me, so I'll revert myself now but in the meantime we should consider gaining consensus on using the singular through the entire article. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Context specific activities

"While free roaming the game world, players may engage in context-specific activities such as scuba diving underwater or BASE jumping via parachute"

Where else would you SCUBA dive, and how else would you BASE jump?! 124.171.73.214 (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

North Yankton

Please add this article to Category:Video games set in North Dakota. The connection between Ludendorff and Bowbells is well established, the Ludendorff scenes are plot-significant, and North Yankton is a clear parody of North Dakota. --AlexWCovington (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Most stuff seen in North Yankton appears more like it is based on South Dakota (climate, city names, license plate colors). Either way, neither state-base/parody would be unsourced, hence no inclusion. 19:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And either case, Yankton is a fictional standin, and the game is not based in either "Dakota". -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Since you faqqots semi-autistic'ed the site from protection; "and the player is required to perform the acts in order to progress in the game," the previous sentence is false, extracted from [5]. Merely one act is requied to be performed multiple times, not all of them. The plural form is correct, as multiple torture sequences must be completed, but in current context it implies that all different torture methods must be attempted when, in actuality, merely repeating one method will suffice. Some person change this sentence on this article, on the "main article," and edit out my profanities if you're too sensitive to handle them. --I absolutely refuse to sign my post authentically, and remember; non-restricted pages results in none of abrasive comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.45.40 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Watch your language. Offensive and ridiculous comments such as yours are the reason pages like this become restricted in the first place. If you want a problem to be solved, think about your approach next time. – Rhain ☔ 16:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

most expensive

Maybe a link to List of most expensive video games to develop, for example from "most expensive game" or a See also section? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2019

i want to edit Male Munk (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Male Munk:This is not the place to request permission to edit protected articles. You need to post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. MadGuy7023 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

oh ok madguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Male Munk (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Developer studios

GTA V was a combined effort of Rockstar Studios, shouldn't the developer be credited as Rockstar Studios instead of Rockstar North with a note? Seems unnecessary. Lokii192 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Rockstar promoted this game as a Rockstar North production (per the game intro, website, trailer). Prefall 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2019

In the sentence "Players control the three lead protagonists throughout single-player and switch between them both during and outside missions." the word 'both' must be removed. 81.38.224.119 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've undone the edit. "both inside and outside" was correct, it is not referring to the number of protagonists, its referring to the two locations, inside and outside. "both inside and outside" would be correct if it was four, five or a million protagonists. - X201 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The both is referring to inside and outside not the number of protagonists.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Judging from the ER, though, this wording is ambiguous. The intended meaning stays the same, whether we keep the word or not, so removing it might be the better option. Lordtobi (✉) 17:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It definitely was; while "both" doesn't need to be in there at all, I've simply added a comma, which should reduce confusion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Gross revenue figures and sources, stated as fact.

There's a big issue on this article regarding sourcing for gross revenue. The most glaring is that Take Two has not released such information, at least not after initial year of sales that I can see. They release figures on units sold. Several of the articles being used to source these figures very clearly include text along the lines of "Assuming each copy was sold for $60 (which would be wrong as many are sold during sales), it would equal X billion in revenue." This also ignores that $60 paid for a game at a store does not go to Take Two, which would lose out on the store's cut and other distribution fees, etc. Steam for example is known to take as much as 30% of a sale. It also ignores that the game's price has long been dropped to $30. Each source in use clearly states "estimated" or "assumed", but the article is stating these figures as fact.

This is a featured article and this should be corrected. -- ferret (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Side note: The lead is linking the claim that GTA V, as a single product, is the "most financially successful entertainment product" to the list for video game franchises, which is at best an easter egg link, as GTA as a franchise is not the highest grossing. -- ferret (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

46.100.217.177 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

2.91.236.66 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge accolades list

Over the past few months, the length of List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V has dropped precipitously due to a number of discussions that changed the inclusion criteria for awards tables ([6] [7] [8]). I believe that the awards table can be merged back into this article without overburdening it. See WP:VG/AWARDS for the relevant guideline. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand it might be controversial to suggest a merge for a Featured List, but I really think this accolades table is quite short and manageable to maintain within the main article. In contrast, having it split onto a separate page increases the maintenance burden as the two articles slowly diverge in content and require multiple edits to ensure they are both up to date and in unison. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, no need for a split with this few amount of awards. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This list can more than easily be condensed into the article itself. There shouldn't have been a split due to how few awards there are. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is what it looked like when it was split, to be fair. – Rhain ☔ 21:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not suggesting that it was improperly split. Our MOS guidelines about awards lists changed recently and in the course of making this list compliant with them, it dropped below the threshold for what I believe warranted a split, hence this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I understand your reasoning fully—just wanted to give clarification to Namcokid’s comment. – Rhain ☔ 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support: It makes no sense to have separate articles as in this case it only increases the maintenance burden. Also, Grand Theft Auto V currently has 38 Kb of prose while Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V has 10 Kb of prose. So, per WP:SIZERULE, I would argue that we could/should merge that one as well since it would result in at worst 48 Kb of prose, well inside of the recommended article size. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 15:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Martin Madrazo

In the plot section the house you destroy belongs to Martin Madrazo's daughter not girlfriend, further in the story Patricia is his wife.

I don't know how to edit, can somebody else fix this little issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallygoodusername0 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The house belongs to Natalia Zverovna, Martin Madrazo’s mistress. – Rhain ☔ 05:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)