Template talk:Grand Theft Auto

Universe vs. Mainline ordering

I'm against dividing the games by "Universe", since it prioritizes the fictional continuity over the actual relevance of the games. It's pretty clear that the GBA game, the City Stories series and Chinatown Wars are not as important as the numbered titles released on PC and consoles, since they were primarily developed for portable devices and were outsourced to different developers (Digital Eclipse for the GBA game and Rockstar Leeds for the others) with Rockstar North mostly taking a supervisory role in them. It's also a bit misleading too, since the GBA game is not really in 3D and Chinatown Wars was not originally in HD. I also think people misinterpret Rockstar's official statement of each era of Grand Theft Auto being set in their own "universe" as literal alternate continuities when they also mean the development, graphical and gameplay style of the games as well. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm also against dividing the games by "Universe", for the reasons that you put forward. It's quite misleading, and there's no real reason for it. I'd prefer to change it back to this revision. Any objections? -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

New template?

I can't help but feel as though the current template is looking a bit crowded; there's a lot of repetition, which would probably confuse the average reader. As such, I think we should try and find a way to improve this. I've come up with a new template. It's not perfect, but I'd like some opinions on it. Perhaps a variation can be implemented in the near future?

Let me know what you think. Thanks in advance! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The columns version is going to look like crap on a not-widescreen monitor (less common these days I suppose) and is not particularly extensible (the addition of more games will cause more columns, exacerbating the prior problem). Even on my screen, which is sitting at a 1920 px width resolution, the column headers are starting to look squashed, and there are some unhappy linebreaks... --Izno (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Izno. Do you have any suggestions on how to change it? Also pinging @X201, Czar, and Soetermans for possible feedback. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the columns are accessibility issues (navboxes are boring for a reason). Luckily, I think the main concerns here will resolve themselves once the junk articles are handled (e.g., when Grand Theft Auto 2 soundtrack and List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters go whence they came). The current template will look much less cluttered with many of those entries gone and I'm not sure you'll need the redesign after all? (But if it must be, I would recommend grouping the related games together (pre-III, III + related, IV, V). – czar 09:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I took a shot at what I had in mind. It'll look better when the Characters section is obliterated (I think most of the lists and characters can be merged, though I'm not exactly excited to meddle with them). – czar 10:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What if we make it like the {{Final Fantasy series}}? Respective characters, settings and possible development and controversy linked there? --Soetermans. T / C 10:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think GTA has the same continuity between series entries, and the subarticles will vary widely from one to the next – czar 11:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

{{Final Fantasy series}} works because there are so many Final Fantasy subarticles (understandably), and such a large (and often confusing) story continuity. I think czar's test above is just what we need; perhaps we could implement a {{Final Fantasy series}}-type format in the future, when Grand Theft Auto has as many games as Final Fantasy. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 04:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Concern about Template

I'm deeply concerned about the current layout of the template. The current layout has issues in my opinion. I don't understand the need to merge games that were designed for console systems, with those for handheld games, or even having an entire group labelled "Video Game", since we haven't had any other form of medium for GTA than video games:

My attempt was to design it as this, and wish to know if there are issues or problems - Revision as of 15:01, 9 April 2020 GUtt01 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@GUtt01: If you'd like to know why the group is titled "Video games", I'd refer you to the "Other media" group that immediately follows. If you think that separating console and handheld games is important, you'd be better to do so like this:

It's far from perfect, but I think the version you suggested feels a little too crowded with all the brackets in the "Console games" group. Let me know your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 15:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

XD Surprisingly enough I just altered the template to that version you suggested, maybe with a little difference, before I saw it here on the talk page. GUtt01 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, defining console games as "Main Series" implies they come from the same setting as such, when they differ in that they're divided in groups that have a unique setting and series of events. However, it might be problematic to define between "universes", so I'll leave it at that. GUtt01 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really imply anything other than that those games are considered the "main" ones, which they are. Perhaps once new games are released, we can consider other options for clarity. – Rhain ☔ 17:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)