Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

(Spoilers) Why did all the GTA IV + Episodes characters get so little

49 replies to this topic
gtarules_95
  • gtarules_95

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012

#1

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:21 AM

Johny, Terry and Clay were killed when they first appeared, Karen(michelle) was only shown for a few

seconds, that ULC Paper dude appeared briefly in two mission cutscenes and got killed

 

At least Rocco got two missions and Packie's role was small but important (in my playthrough at least I took him on all of the heist and I got some reference to Three Leaf Clover)

 

WTF? I mean its ok if they dont want previous characters to play a big role but why did they give almost all of them such a bad treatment

Characters from Previous games were much handled much better in the GTA 3D Era where they would give you at least some missions and they had some relevance to the story (like Ken Rosenberg in SA or Catalina)

  • Mister Pink, Bull12345Bull and theomenofficial like this

spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#2

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:23 AM

Because people didn't like IV. Rockstar were trying to backpedal to be more like the 3D Era without completely abandoning the HD canon. 


Ermac.
  • Ermac.

    the last two words of ICTC's member title

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2012
  • Jamaica

#3

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:24 AM

Because people didn't like IV. Rockstar were trying to backpedal to be more like the 3D Era without completely abandoning the HD canon. 

Pretty much this. It's akin to them trying to erase it, but instead of using an eraser, they used their hands.


Zodape
  • Zodape

    Brilliant Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#4

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:32 AM Edited by Zodape, 10 November 2013 - 01:34 AM.

Maybe because R* tries to humanize their characters a bit? I mean, they don't always have to befriend every protag nor die an extremely cliché death.

 

I love what R* did. I don't think it has anything to do with the hate towards IV.

 

Spoilers :D

 

Spoiler

 

Edit: spoiler thingy f*cked up the comment. Sorry.


gtarules_95
  • gtarules_95

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012

#5

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:44 AM

Maybe because R* tries to humanize their characters a bit? I mean, they don't always have to befriend every protag nor die an extremely cliché death.

 

I love what R* did. I don't think it has anything to do with the hate towards IV.

 

Spoilers :D

 

Spoiler

 

Edit: spoiler thingy f*cked up the comment. Sorry.

I like to think this is the reason and not because they just dont give a f*ck about GTA IV


dorcy
  • dorcy

    "Alright, let's get straight to the biscuits."

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2013

#6

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:48 AM

imo it's like when Lucas cut Darth Maul in half. it's a way of saying that;s the the end of that character. it's not a flesh wound and he won't be back for revenge. he's dead. (test audiences for the awful menace did actually think Maul would be back after watching the original duel scene where he just fell to his death in one piece.)


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#7

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:54 AM Edited by spamtackey, 10 November 2013 - 01:55 AM.

 

Maybe because R* tries to humanize their characters a bit? I mean, they don't always have to befriend every protag nor die an extremely cliché death.

 

I love what R* did. I don't think it has anything to do with the hate towards IV.

 

Spoilers :D

 

Spoiler

 

Edit: spoiler thingy f*cked up the comment. Sorry.

I like to think this is the reason and not because they just dont give a f*ck about GTA IV

 

 

 

SPOILERS!!

 

I doubt they hate the GTA IV canon, but they either want to justify some people's dislike or kill off the characters. The only one with a positive appearance is Packie. 

 

UL Paper guy can be killed in one of the missions (might not count as canon). He was likely used because they didn't need to come up with a new government agent. 

 

Karen is back in a cutscene and she's obviously doing shady things for the government. (I thought she was just being used like Niko. Why is she still working for them? Oh well) 

 

Rocco is killed.

 

Johnny, and the rest of the Lost are killed.

 

Niko is mentioned and dismissed. 

 

I believe Brucie is in the Online, but I'm not counting Online in the official canon. 

 

If this is because Rockstar loves their characters rather than because they needed someone to kill off, I would expect better treatment. I could be wrong, but that's just how I feel about it. 


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Ice cold slavic killer

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Serbia

#8

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:56 AM

Although I would've liked the Trevor/The Lost angle to have gone on a bit longer I think all the other roles were justified. I mean what point would it serve for the U.L Paper guy, Michelle/Karen etc to have been in the story longer?

 

I don't think it was R* trying to distance themselves from GTA IV at all. There are more GTA IV character appearances than I ever thought there would be and don't forget there are other GTA IV/EFLC characters that appear in Strangers & Freaks missions and random events also like...

 

-Al Di Napoli (Appeared in a club management mission in TBOGT)

-Marnie (Random character in GTA IV)

-Antonia Bottina (Not actually a character seen in GTA IV, but is the daughter of Sammy Bottino)

-Kerry McIntosh (GTA IV)

 

The thing is some people probably wouldn't  remember these characters, but for hardcore GTA IV fans (like me) it's a nice reminder there's a strong correlation with GTA IV and GTA V. If you ask me it was R* honouring GTA IV's existence than distancing themselves from it.

  • Bull12345Bull and ReekyAlex like this

Wheatley
  • Wheatley

    I'm living in High Pressure Days.

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010

#9

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:58 AM Edited by Wheatley, 10 November 2013 - 01:59 AM.

imo it's like when Lucas cut Darth Maul in half. it's a way of saying that;s the the end of that character. it's not a flesh wound and he won't be back for revenge. he's dead. (test audiences for the awful menace did actually think Maul would be back after watching the original duel scene where he just fell to his death in one piece.)

 

Spoiler

 

Also, personally I don't think we've seen the last of Luis and Tony.

Spoiler

  • dorcy likes this

Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#10

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:58 AM

Because people didn't like IV. Rockstar were trying to backpedal to be more like the 3D Era without completely abandoning the HD canon. 

Speak for yourself, I loved GTA IV and so do a good portion of the Rockstar fanbase. Hell I think it's the best installment Rockstar has made so far.
And no, it was far from that reason. You think all the characters could just walk off into the sunset following their last appearance with Niko/Johnny/Luis? No, they tried to be realistic. You're in this line of work for long enough, and you will either end up dead or in prison.
  • kvic, Matty and Loxley like this

Zodape
  • Zodape

    Brilliant Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#11

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:59 AM

One day, I'm gonna write a story, and make a side character to be extremely likeable, see if the fans like him/her, and then kill the fool in the fastest and stupidest way. Why? For the sake of it.

  • nobum62 likes this

Officer Ronson
  • Officer Ronson

    Police Officer

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2011
  • United-States

#12

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:05 AM

We already knew these guys, we already know what they went through, so I don't see any reason why they should get more screentime.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#13

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:05 AM

Although I would've liked the Trevor/The Lost angle to have gone on a bit longer I think all the other roles were justified. I mean what point would it serve for the U.L Paper guy, Michelle/Karen etc to have been in the story longer?

 

I don't think it was R* trying to distance themselves from GTA IV at all. There are more GTA IV character appearances than I ever thought there would be and don't forget there are other GTA IV/EFLC characters that appear in Strangers & Freaks missions and random events also like...

 

-Al Di Napoli (Appeared in a club management mission in TBOGT)

-Marnie (Random character in GTA IV)

-Antonia Bottina (Not actually a character seen in GTA IV, but is the daughter of Sammy Bottino)

-Kerry McIntosh (GTA IV)

 

The thing is some people probably wouldn't  remember these characters, but for hardcore GTA IV fans (like me) it's a nice reminder there's a strong correlation with GTA IV and GTA V. If you ask me it was R* honouring GTA IV's existence than distancing themselves from it.

 

With those characters they sort of have more leeway because, as you said,  fewer people would recognize them. The people who recognize them and liked GTA IV will appreciate the nod, but the major characters from GTA IV seem to have gotten the short end of the stick. When they appeared they were either killed or portrayed in a negative way. I don't think Rockstar hate the GTA IV game or storyline, but I think they want to give the crowd what they want and distance themselves from what people don't want. 

 

 

 

Because people didn't like IV. Rockstar were trying to backpedal to be more like the 3D Era without completely abandoning the HD canon. 

Speak for yourself, I loved GTA IV and so do a good portion of the Rockstar fanbase. Hell I think it's the best installment Rockstar has made so far.
And no, it was far from that reason. You think all the characters could just walk off into the sunset following their last appearance with Niko/Johnny/Luis? No, they tried to be realistic. You're in this line of work for long enough, and you will either end up dead or in prison.

 

I'm not giving my opinion on GTA IV. I'm giving my opinion on why Rockstar may have treated the characters the way they did. GTA IV is my favorite game this entire console generation, personally. 


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Ice cold slavic killer

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Serbia

#14

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:17 AM

To be honest the only appearances I'm a fan of how they were portrayed were The Lost. I couldn't believe Johnny turned into a methhead after he swore against it in TLAD. Made him look like a joke and a phoney.

 

Terry and Clay's treatment was bullsh*t. They just rode without trying to defend themselves when Trevor chased them. Really I think it was The Lost that got the worst of it all and it's a shame because TLAD is one of favourite games, but in GTA V they seem weak, vulnerable and almost cowardly. I guess it was to push Trevor's personality however, but still.

  • nobum62 likes this

BlackLightning
  • BlackLightning

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 May 2012

#15

Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:34 AM Edited by BlackLightning, 10 November 2013 - 03:34 AM.

Because people didn't like IV. Rockstar were trying to backpedal to be more like the 3D Era without completely abandoning the HD canon. 

Speak for yourself; IV was an awesome game. Whiners like yourself find ways to hate everything which is why I don't think Rockstar much concerns itself with your kind. They know you're unpleasable, so they just take your money and then ignore your ignorant cries of complaint. Which is how it should be. 


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Ice cold slavic killer

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Serbia

#16

Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:36 AM

 

Because people didn't like IV. Rockstar were trying to backpedal to be more like the 3D Era without completely abandoning the HD canon. 

Speak for yourself; IV was an awesome game. Whiners like yourself find ways to hate everything which is why I don't think Rockstar much concerns itself with your kind. They know you're unpleasable, so they just take your money and then ignore your ignorant cries of complaint. Which is how it should be. 

 

Take it easy there. spamtackey is a known GTA IV fan. While I don't think they done it for the reason he stated he's not really a whiner.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#17

Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:42 AM

 

Because people didn't like IV. Rockstar were trying to backpedal to be more like the 3D Era without completely abandoning the HD canon. 

Speak for yourself; IV was an awesome game. Whiners like yourself find ways to hate everything which is why I don't think Rockstar much concerns itself with your kind. They know you're unpleasable, so they just take your money and then ignore your ignorant cries of complaint. Which is how it should be. 

 

 

No, no, what I was getting at was that they probably took the complaints into consideration when they decided which IV characters to bring over and which not to and how they treated them when they made V. A lot of V feels like a backpedal to me, which my just be my interpretation and I should have worded my first post as less factual. My bad there. 


Sasqui
  • Sasqui

    Gangsta sh*t

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013

#18

Posted 10 November 2013 - 04:00 AM

They built Johnny up to be a badass on the level of Niko, and wanted to push Trevor as an unstoppable lunatic. They did so by having the new badass kill the old badass (probably originally considered Niko, but decided the backlash would be too great) and make his supposedly unbeatable gang run scared.
Rocco got killed because he was a dick and had it coming. I'm surprised Luis didn't murder the little sh*t.
Packie appeared as a heist member, which is the most fitting and greatest role for him. Who better and what else would he do?
Niko was portrayed realistically as someone who was known in the criminal underworld but didn't just show up out of nowhere. Lester mentioned that he could have worked as a heist member, but he "went quiet", as any successful criminal would.
Really, only Johnny and the Lost had a negative role and, even then, it worked in some positive ways.

mastershake616
  • mastershake616

    The Wolf of BAWSAQ

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013

#19

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:54 AM

Really I think it was The Lost that got the worst of it all and it's a shame because TLAD is one of favourite games, but in GTA V they seem weak, vulnerable and almost cowardly. I guess it was to push Trevor's personality however, but still.

 

Meth is a helluva drug. 

 

I saw the death of Johnny in sights similar to yours. Trevor is the most extreme and erratic character ever created by Rockstar, and what better way to showcase his unhinged destructiveness than by having him wipe away a familiar, previously untouchable face with no contest?

 

TLAD certainly had its own merits. It wasn't as much of an add-on to GTA IV as it was an entirely separate saga told at the same time and in the same place. Are they at the same level of quality, though? Not even close. If those were Niko's brains at the bottom of Trevor's boot, there would've been an exponentially larger uproar. 

 

Niko's fate is best left untold. Everyone else is expendable, even Packie (literally). 


SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Ice cold slavic killer

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Serbia

#20

Posted 10 November 2013 - 07:21 AM

I'd burn down R*'s headquarters if they killed Niko like that lol.

BathingApeStar
  • BathingApeStar

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2012

#21

Posted 10 November 2013 - 08:49 AM

Dude just thinking about Trevor killing Niko would've legit made me despise him lol. I mean I liked Johnny too but Niko is the one GTA protagonist who I felt had good morals and a good head on his shoulders even though he did terrible things. I had an emotional connection with Niko, by far and will always be my favorite protagonist. I'm glad his fate is left untold. When Lester said he "went quiet" I had a feeling of relief, glad that R* didn't just randomly kill him off; wasn't surprising though as Niko "going quiet" sounds exactly like something he would do. Especially after facing such a traumatic ending to his story.

gtarules_95
  • gtarules_95

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012

#22

Posted 10 November 2013 - 10:37 AM

Dude just thinking about Trevor killing Niko would've legit made me despise him lol. I mean I liked Johnny too but Niko is the one GTA protagonist who I felt had good morals and a good head on his shoulders even though he did terrible things. I had an emotional connection with Niko, by far and will always be my favorite protagonist. I'm glad his fate is left untold. When Lester said he "went quiet" I had a feeling of relief, glad that R* didn't just randomly kill him off; wasn't surprising though as Niko "going quiet" sounds exactly like something he would do. Especially after facing such a traumatic ending to his story.

I agree man Niko is the best GTA protagonist ever
good for rockstar that they didn't kill him off or gave him some bad treatment

he just went quiet and thats exactly what I wanted for him after GTA IV' story

he deserves some hapiness


IntoGloryRide
  • IntoGloryRide

    Warmonger

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • None

#23

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:01 AM

I'm nearly finished with my second playthrough of the story and never noticed Karen anywhere. Was that her interrogating the torture victim before Michael breaks him out of the building? If so she didn't resemble her character in IV much at all

gtarules_95
  • gtarules_95

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012

#24

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:06 AM

I'm nearly finished with my second playthrough of the story and never noticed Karen anywhere. Was that her interrogating the torture victim before Michael breaks him out of the building? If so she didn't resemble her character in IV much at all

yeah that was her she looked very different but its her voice


KiiWiiDeee
  • KiiWiiDeee

    Liberty City's finest.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2012

#25

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:07 AM

I think Klebitz's death was to show that even though he was tough, Trevor's manic brutality overshadowed that strength. So it was to show that Trevor was so much stronger. I think it was a great death, as we've played as Johnny and saw how strong he was, and he looked as if he can't be defeated. Then, our new protag shows up and kills him as part of his daily schedule. And it was so quick and it just happened, which is realistic as he wouldn't have an emotional death.

dorcy
  • dorcy

    "Alright, let's get straight to the biscuits."

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2013

#26

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:52 AM Edited by dorcy, 10 November 2013 - 11:55 AM.

 

imo it's like when Lucas cut Darth Maul in half. it's a way of saying that;s the the end of that character. it's not a flesh wound and he won't be back for revenge. he's dead. (test audiences for the awful menace did actually think Maul would be back after watching the original duel scene where he just fell to his death in one piece.)

 

Spoiler

 

Also, personally I don't think we've seen the last of Luis and Tony.

Spoiler

 

i stand corrected. never seen any of that show and had no idea. i won't even ask how he recovered from that, some kind of magic bandage i expect. :/

 

i agree with you Luis and Tony. when the screenshot of Bahama Mamas was shown i thought they might have a cameo in V. maybe they will in a DLC.

 

Tony does talk about having grown up near the airport...


Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#27

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:00 PM

^ I could really see Luis appearing in the next game if it is in modern Vice City actually. Yusuf wanted to franicse the clubs, so why not to the place with some of the most iconic nightlife in the US?
That being said though, if it happens and they, for some reason, decide to kill Luis off I want it to be dignifying. I mean, Luis is one of my least favourite protagonists and I wouldn't want to see him face a death as bad as Johnny's.
  • RyanM1995 likes this

AlienWillHeMonsta
  • AlienWillHeMonsta

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2012

#28

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:16 PM Edited by AlienWillHeMonsta, 10 November 2013 - 12:17 PM.

There are several instances in this game where Trevor got off lightly. Yes he is psycho etc but some characters seem to back down for some weird reason when Trevor goes into one.

 

Johnny's on meths but where was his shotgun? If you're going to call another guy out (Trevor) at least go with a weapon and threaten them. This is what should have happened, then Trevor traces Johnny back to the lost camp and wreaks havock. That would make more sense then simply stamping on Johnny's head.


simonp92
  • simonp92

    Whodunit?

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009

#29

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:03 PM Edited by simonp92, 10 November 2013 - 01:07 PM.

The biggest problem was not that johnny died, it was how out of character he was when Trevor killed him. Infact the only character trait left from TLAD was his love towards Ashley, which already back then got Jim killed. 

 

Morehowever R* broke their own lore just so that Trevor could kill Lost members for 3-4 missions. Piss poor writing.

 

In GTA IV it is mentioned that The Angels of Death originated in San Andreas. However in GTA V there's not one Angel of  Death left to be seen. And it's crawling with Lost members. 

At the end of GTA IV there were only 4 notable (Johnny, Clay, Terry and Angus) lost members left. Most died in the war against the AoD or the lost civil war of Johnny vs Brian. So the question is: "How they **** did Johnny manage to totally obliterate any and all AoD presence in SA with only so few Lost members left?" How could Johnny get so many new members to the Lost, kill all AoD members and at the same time grow so weak in only five years? 

 

I expected the AoD to have been Trevor's enemies, simply because it made sense. R* threw that sense out of the window for what? To show us a lame Cameo of Johnny so that Trevor may have something to kill before he finds Micheal. That is it. 

 

The other Cameos were done allot better. I loved that Marnie went from a coke whore to a respected Epsilon member, or that it was finally explained that the LC Paper contact was infact a member of the IAA.

  • Niko Vercetti 112 likes this

Niko Vercetti 112
  • Niko Vercetti 112

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#30

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:19 PM

The biggest problem was not that johnny died, it was how out of character he was when Trevor killed him. Infact the only character trait left from TLAD was his love towards Ashley, which already back then got Jim killed. 
 
Morehowever R* broke their own lore just so that Trevor could kill Lost members for 3-4 missions. Piss poor writing.
 
In GTA IV it is mentioned that The Angels of Death originated in San Andreas. However in GTA V there's not one Angel of  Death left to be seen. And it's crawling with Lost members. 
At the end of GTA IV there were only 4 notable (Johnny, Clay, Terry and Angus) lost members left. Most died in the war against the AoD or the lost civil war of Johnny vs Brian. So the question is: "How they **** did Johnny manage to totally obliterate any and all AoD presence in SA with only so few Lost members left?" How could Johnny get so many new members to the Lost, kill all AoD members and at the same time grow so weak in only five years? 
 
I expected the AoD to have been Trevor's enemies, simply because it made sense. R* threw that sense out of the window for what? To show us a lame Cameo of Johnny so that Trevor may have something to kill before he finds Micheal. That is it. 
 
The other Cameos were done allot better. I loved that Marnie went from a coke whore to a respected Epsilon member, or that it was finally explained that the LC Paper contact was infact a member of the IAA.

Since it's explained that LS and Blaine county aren't all of San Andreas is the HD era, that the AOD exists in other parts of the state. Being based on the Hells Angels, I'm pretty sure they would originate from San Fierro or whatever the GTA equivilennt of Oakland is. This is another reason why I would love GTA VI to be based on northern California (SA) in the 70's, they would deal with the origins of the AOD, much like the Hells Angels in that area during the 70's.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users