It's good to see even more people are outraged by this poor writing move.
I've made another futile rant here: http://gtaforums.com...spoilers/page-7
Already 20k views and many passionate replies, that should tell Rockstar something.
You should read the post I've linked, a lot of great discussion has arisen ATTEMPTING (but ultimately coming to no good justification) on rationalizing Johnny's death.
Why was his death such bullsh*t?
- It completely broke character. Johnny went through the ultimate journey of maturity; abandoning his junkie girlfriend WHO HE LOVED but KNEW she was bad for him and the club, losing his best friends to gang and drug violence, having to storm a government facility to kill his childhood friend and former mentor, and burning down his house and effectively his club and livlihood he literally killed to keep together, not for himself, but for his brothers.
- It was a lazy, half-assed, poorly writted way to kill off a PROTAGONIST. "What about Vic Vance?" Vic Vance first appeared in Vice City as a meaningless, two-dimensional nobody, but reappeared as a valiant and complex individual. Johnny was presented as a valiant and complex individual, and killed as a meaningless, tw-dimensional nobody.
Could we have not had a fight between the two? Johnny, the man who stormed Alderny State Correctional and killed several dozen fully trained SWAT officers, died hugging it out with the man who f*cked his girlfriend? (Whom of which he would never have gotten back together with if his character remained from IV.) I mean, the player model of Johnny still has a f*cking "Vice President" patch on his cut. You could argue they're leaving room for a president DLC, but more than likely, the models and writers were shown "here's a picture biker from the last game, and here's a girl he would f*ck, just kill them both or something."
- There was no need to bring him back. If they wanted to and they did it respectfully, I, as well as the several thousand other fans of TLaD, would have found that amazing. But what did they do? "Drugs are bad, guys! Don't do them! (Or maybe do speed instead of meth, look at what a badass Trevor is for doing speed!) To quote another poster,
"It would have been akin to have an ambulance arriving and reviving Victor Vance, but on the way back to the hospital the ambulance goes off route and flips upside down and crash and burn and explodes. It's overkill."
- It left a real sour taste or even completely RUINED Trevor as a playable character. The typical insipid gamer who could care less for a story were bought off with the novelty "lol hes a psychopath in his underwear lol." Trevor (IN MY OPINION) is a bad character to begin with. His personality was very inconsistant. He was the sane, moral authority with the minute-men, the psychotic individual in the story missions but one who could comprehensively plan and accomplish tasks, or just bat-sh*t insane "rampage" missions. Killing off three of my main characters was enough to make me HATE Trevor (who had far more game content than Michael and a bit more than Franklin open to him, unfortunately) him being just an egotistical, selfish asshole who abused the sh*t out of likeable Lester, Wade, Michael, Ron, and even Floyd were not going to redeem him. He's just a big cry-baby who isn't satisfied until he's handed a bigger lolipop.
- Terry and Clay? Seriously? Talk about f*cking overkill. These were our only "friends" surviving the end of TLaD (excluding Angus), and they weren't even dignified with a cutscene death, just a ram with a truck... They were fully developed, loyal, personalities that we were told to love in IV, and not give a sh*t about in V.
- What purpose did it serve killing them or Johnny? People who LIKED The Lost and Damned have had Trevor and their favorite story RUINED for them. People who DIDN'T KNOW OF of DIDN'T LIKE The Lost and Damned were probably just passing off Johnny as any other character, thus ruining the argument that R* did this to introduce the radical nature of Trevor with a bang. Why not kill Joe-Jon? The AoD Road Captain. We were taught to hate the AoD in TLaD. We were told the AoD are a so. Cal MC opperating out of San Fierro and Los Santos. Player who knew of TLaD would have known who Joe-Jon was, so it was a fun nod to them, but they would either be impartial or satisfied to see Joe-Jon's head stomped in. The same effect of Johnny's death would apply to those who didn't know about Joe-Jon.
- It ruined good story possibilities. You'd think with things out there like that Sons of Anarchy show that there's a good player base fond of the So. Cal MC scene, or the whole 1%er club idea in general.
In fact, there is. There's tons of MCs advertising on the forums and social clubs, same with Mafias. Though mafias and MCs are a good part of GTA's world, and the community, this game ONLY panders to the San Andreas fans who love their sagging pants and shooting each other for wearing purple or green.
Additionally, a war between the AoD and the Lost would have made an excellent transition to the desert; random events of chopper riders shooting at chopper riders on the freeway? Amazing, it'd make the world feel so much more alive, and be a good nod to TLaD's story. But nah, too much work, right, Rockstar? Thanks for like, the three planes, yoga, and Grove Street, bestist feechurs 2013.
Sorry this is such a crushing wall of text, but I'm REALLY pissed off by the ordeal. Rockstar has such a large and diverse player base, and V on a whole really only cators to one section of that, the San Andreas players who cared more about planes, Grove Street, and other dumb gimmicks than a real story. (Not to knock San Andreas as a game itself, it was quite revolutionary and I loved it, though its story and atmosphere will never trump that of IV, it's episodes, or Vice City.)
Make sure to check out my post. Long live Johnny K: killed 2013 by poor writting. Lost, but not forgotten.