Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Ending A was Canon [SPOILERS]

137 replies to this topic
SSBBW
  • SSBBW

    ---

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#91

Posted 23 November 2013 - 07:12 PM

Stop saying sh*t, Ending B is more canon that the Ending A, if Ending A was canon the chinese people will kill Michael and also in Ending B you can help Michael but he dies anyway, Ending A Trevor is scared ( doesnt make any sense ) and in Ending B Franklin help Michael before he die.

xxRichter
  • xxRichter

    IT'S WARIO TIME!

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2010
  • North-Korea

#92

Posted 23 November 2013 - 07:22 PM Edited by SopFox3, 23 November 2013 - 07:33 PM.

GTA really has no storyline or any canon at all whatsoever.

GTA 4 Francis or Derrick are choose to die.

Yet he is mentioned to be in GTA V 

GTA 2 Claude died

He was yet alive in GTA V "His model atleast and status says alive when he died on the movie"

Let's not forget what ever happened to CJ and that Ballas and Vagos was wiped out

Somehow Yakuza not in GTA V, Caesar, and Azteca isn't friends with Grove St

and that Vic died in GTA VC, Got fat, drug deals again

GTA VCS he mentioned to leave VC and never to DRUG DEAL again.

So yea None of these GTA's endings are canon whatsoever ROCKSTARGAME does that to piss people off I guess 

Edit: Just wait till GTA 6 they'll mention Trevor or none of those 3 main character will ever show up.

So who cares about which ending is canon? They wont appear in the new GTA

Just like Roman or Katie gets an ending but they never show up in GTA V

So who the hell would care? Im guessing none of these are actual Real endings this is just an ending for you to pick and not what RSG believes in a "CANON STORY"

 

Let's not forget.

http://images2.wikia..._easter_Egg.jpg

"RIP CJ, RIP TOMMY, RIP TONI, ETC"


RandomNoun
  • RandomNoun

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2012

#93

Posted 23 November 2013 - 07:35 PM

Opening post.

 

I agree to some extent. Personally I think that A and B were the real endings, and the reason C seemed so rushed is because Rockstar threw it in at the last minute when they realised people would be pissed off that they lose one of their characters; I went for C for this very reason. I think ending A or B can be justified, and I think B is a much more potent ending.

 

Personally I think Trevor's death would have been canon if it had had more significance. That ending needed to feel more like you were just putting him out of his misery, and that it was a sad ending. But the way they handled it was just, I don't know, sh*tty; Michael is just too keen to wipe him out.


Mainland Marauder
  • Mainland Marauder

    Ghost

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2005
  • None

#94

Posted 23 November 2013 - 07:53 PM

Perhaps we won't know until the next release - or at all.

 

After completing the storyline I have to say that I consider Michael the "protagonist" and Trevor the "antagonist" when viewed through the same prism as the other GTAs. It runs some parallels to the relationship between Tommy Vercetti and Sonny Forelli, former partners who felt betrayed by one another, as well as Tommy and Lance. Also, CJ and Smoke. For all the discussion of what extent Trevor should be "sympathized with" in spite of his despicable behavior, maybe the point was you weren't supposed to "sympathize" and Rockstar knew there would likely be two camps - people who see the character of Trevor for what it is, and those who hate the character and wanted to see him die. They got that choice, as "A" no less, and I can certainly see that being canon.

 

"B" ending I have a hard time digesting. I could see Franklin participating in Franklin's killing. But he hunts down Michael right after he gets a call about his f*ckup daughter apparently straightening up and going to school? Can't see that out of F-Dog. This should have been the "antagonist wins" ending, i.e. Trevor kills Michael.

 

"C" takes out the non-player antagonists who, compared to those of GTAs past, did not have the same place in the story that Tenpenny, Forelli or Salvatore did before. Steve Haines I consider more of a Mike Toreno-like character, someone having your guy do a bunch of f*cked up things for the sake of setting up missions, and ostensibly Toreno could have decided to let Sweet stay in prison and have CJ jailed or killed for his crimes, or perhaps because he knew too much about Toreno. If "A" (or "B" for that matter) is canon then the guys who get killed in "C" stay around and could appear again.

  • lizardman563 likes this

RandomNoun
  • RandomNoun

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2012

#95

Posted 23 November 2013 - 08:11 PM

Perhaps we won't know until the next release - or at all.

 

After completing the storyline I have to say that I consider Michael the "protagonist" and Trevor the "antagonist" when viewed through the same prism as the other GTAs. It runs some parallels to the relationship between Tommy Vercetti and Sonny Forelli, former partners who felt betrayed by one another, as well as Tommy and Lance. Also, CJ and Smoke. For all the discussion of what extent Trevor should be "sympathized with" in spite of his despicable behavior, maybe the point was you weren't supposed to "sympathize" and Rockstar knew there would likely be two camps - people who see the character of Trevor for what it is, and those who hate the character and wanted to see him die. They got that choice, as "A" no less, and I can certainly see that being canon.

 

"B" ending I have a hard time digesting. I could see Franklin participating in Franklin's killing. But he hunts down Michael right after he gets a call about his f*ckup daughter apparently straightening up and going to school? Can't see that out of F-Dog. This should have been the "antagonist wins" ending, i.e. Trevor kills Michael.

 

"C" takes out the non-player antagonists who, compared to those of GTAs past, did not have the same place in the story that Tenpenny, Forelli or Salvatore did before. Steve Haines I consider more of a Mike Toreno-like character, someone having your guy do a bunch of f*cked up things for the sake of setting up missions, and ostensibly Toreno could have decided to let Sweet stay in prison and have CJ jailed or killed for his crimes, or perhaps because he knew too much about Toreno. If "A" (or "B" for that matter) is canon then the guys who get killed in "C" stay around and could appear again.

Yeah. I think at the end of the day we have to accept that the story just wasn't good enough to create debates about the ending (unlike IV--deal all the way).


Tomy1986
  • Tomy1986

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2011

#96

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:41 PM

I concur with many of you that say that the multiple endings are to fulfill the player's way to set their own finale on the game. But I find Ending C the "real" ending for GTA V, and I'm sure that Rockstar meant it too.

 

Why am I so sure? Because there was evidences all over the place before the game was launched, but we couldn't have known until we beat the game. Let me explain and prove this reasoning:

Trailer 2 (01:34): TREVOR - Jesus, your therapist has a LOT to answer for.
These are the exact words that Trevor says in Ending C, after dumping Devin Weston down the cliff. The trailer doesn't depict this scene, but the audio is the same.

Trailer 3, Trevor's Trailer (03:04): TREVOR - ...a lot of friends! I mean, things could get really messy!
Though it was mixed with another clip in which Trevor mocks he is new in town (he actually said it in the intro of the mission Hood Safari, before rendering us fans to a nostalgia-fest by driving back to Grove Street to cap some Ballas), those exact lines, and the same scene, were taken from the mission that leads to Ending C, after dealing with the FIB and the Merryweather thugs.

Gameplay trailer (00:59): TREVOR - Now what?
This could be far-fetched, but I swear this "Now what?" is the same he says in Ending C, after they dump Devin Weston down the cliff and before Michael answers that "now" they would resume their lives as "friends". The audio is the same, though the scene was put to look like part of the first (or second) mission in which all three characters are playable at the same time (can't remember the name).

And finally, we have the official GTA V artwork called "The Trunk". There is only one scenario in which this could have happened. Yep, you guessed right: Ending C.
(http://www.thegtapla...ork/v_trunk.jpg)

So those are my two cents on the matter of which ending is canon, and my reasons to believe that Rockstar meant Ending C to be the "true, real ending". And now, the disclaimer:
-These were my thoughts and opinions. I do not force you to believe them, and I respect yours. I come in peace.
-Mind typos, grammar, syntax, etc. I'm half asleep and English is not my native tongue.
-Only Rockstar knows what they wanted for the end of GTA V. And I'm not Rockstar, as you might comprende.

-I have a lot of free time.

-I'm out before this nonsense reaches the SPAM level (*****).
 

  • lizardman563 likes this

Bat Guano
  • Bat Guano

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2012

#97

Posted 24 November 2013 - 12:03 AM Edited by MaterSausage, 24 November 2013 - 12:06 AM.

"killing" merryweather was not a nonsense.

Merryweather is a huge army but they aren't outlaws, calling a full attack on three men in a urban area in american soil is bad to PR.

Their constant defeat to the protagonists damaged their reputation in the USA and so they got "banned" by the government, probably being pressured by the media. 

Still, Merryweather operates worldwide and theres probably hundreds of thousands Merryweather soldiers out there.


Dr. Robotnik
  • Dr. Robotnik

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2012

#98

Posted 24 November 2013 - 12:55 AM Edited by Dr. Robotnik, 24 November 2013 - 01:16 AM.

Perhaps we won't know until the next release - or at all.

 

After completing the storyline I have to say that I consider Michael the "protagonist" and Trevor the "antagonist" when viewed through the same prism as the other GTAs.

 

Pretty much this. I get the complaints about the antagonists of the game being weak in comparison to other installments, but I don't think they were ever meant to be of great significance to begin with. I think the main conflict is about whether the three protagonists will stand together as friends and take down their enemies, or whether they'll end up turning on each other.

 

The reason I have a hard time swallowing Ending A isn't really because I like Trevor (I don't, although I do think there are some subtle nuances to his character a lot of people miss), it's because of what it says about Michael.

 

Maybe it goes unnoticed because many simply don't keep playing afterwards, but after Ending A, Michael pretty much becomes Playboy X; if you arrange Michael and Franklin so that they bump into each other, he tries to blame Trevor's death entirely on Franklin and cuts ties with him.

 

Michael didn't betray Trevor because he was unstable; he betrayed him because he thought he had to. That Trevor was crazy is just an excuse that he tells Franklin and himself to justify it. What Ending A does is highlight those self-centered, cowardly aspects of Michael's character. It's why Franklin bitterly mutters, "Damn straight," when Michael tells him that surviving is winning; he knows that, if the chips were down, Michael would sell even him out, and that Trevor, bad as he was, was right about him all along.


The Odyssey
  • The Odyssey

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Australia

#99

Posted 24 November 2013 - 02:01 AM

There's a difference between betraying and doing the sensible thing. Even R* agrees that ending A was the smart thing to do, the mission is called "Something Sensible"

Stop saying sh*t, Ending B is more canon that the Ending A, if Ending A was canon the chinese people will kill Michael and also in Ending B you can help Michael but he dies anyway, Ending A Trevor is scared ( doesnt make any sense ) and in Ending B Franklin help Michael before he die.

The Chinese people were after Trevor.
Also in ending A you can choose to not shoot Trevor and if you don't Michael does.

SempiternalFreak
  • SempiternalFreak

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2013

#100

Posted 29 November 2013 - 07:48 PM Edited by SempiternalFreak, 29 November 2013 - 07:49 PM.

There's a multiplayer? Are you referring to GTA online or an actual multiplayer version?


SempiternalFreak
  • SempiternalFreak

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2013

#101

Posted 29 November 2013 - 07:49 PM

Wait, there's a multiplayer?


Niobium
  • Niobium

    PROFESSIONAL IV FANBOY & SH*TPOSTER

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#102

Posted 30 November 2013 - 03:58 AM Edited by nobum62, 30 November 2013 - 03:59 AM.


Perhaps we won't know until the next release - or at all.
 
After completing the storyline I have to say that I consider Michael the "protagonist" and Trevor the "antagonist" when viewed through the same prism as the other GTAs.

 
Maybe it goes unnoticed because many simply don't keep playing afterwards, but after Ending A, Michael pretty much becomes Playboy X; if you arrange Michael and Franklin so that they bump into each other, he tries to blame Trevor's death entirely on Franklin and cuts ties with him.
 
Michael didn't betray Trevor because he was unstable; he betrayed him because he thought he had to. That Trevor was crazy is just an excuse that he tells Franklin and himself to justify it. What Ending A does is highlight those self-centered, cowardly aspects of Michael's character. It's why Franklin bitterly mutters, "Damn straight," when Michael tells him that surviving is winning; he knows that, if the chips were down, Michael would sell even Franklinout, and that Trevor, bad as he was, was right about him all along.
if mike would sell frank out, then why would mike say "F*CK YOU FRANK, YOU WERE LIKE A SON TO ME" if frank betrays him in option B?

also, can you tell me what mike says when he blames trevor's death on frank, and cuts his ties with him?

cp1dell
  • cp1dell

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2008
  • None

#103

Posted 30 November 2013 - 04:55 AM

Tomy1986 perfectly summed it up. C is showcased in the trailers and artwork.

 

My opinion on the matter is also the fact that it makes no sense to kill off one protagonist in a game where having three was a big focus point.

 

We probably will find out the true ending with the next game. I feel they revealed the true ending for IV in V by including Packie.

  • Tomy1986 likes this

Mr Rabbit
  • Mr Rabbit

    Part-time spy, full-time maniac

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#104

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:14 AM Edited by Flynny, 30 November 2013 - 05:16 AM.

C is canon. I went over this a long time ago:.

 

A does not complete the story. If you kill Trevor in A then the Chinese are still out there, looking for him and they will use Michael to get to him, so did they just stop caring? Also what about Devin Weston who has a hard-on for killing Michael, so did he just stop caring and let it go, and let franklin live too after not doing what he told them. Also Steve Haines; he went back on his word to the crew about letting them go after this ''last job.'' So if you do what he wanted and killed Trevor then going by his past actions he would hold that over Franklin and turn him into the new Michael; making him do sh*t at the threat of going to prison or being killed. franklin would either have to comply; so the story is not complete, or he does not comply and is thrown in jail or killed, so Michael is the only one left and do we expect him to be left alone by all these people? that they would have simply forgotten? I call BULL and SH*T on that one my friend. 

 

B has all the same issues except a bit of name swapping: in this case the Chinese would be still going after Trevor, as would Haines; he would not simply let franklin go for not killing Trevor either. Or he could continue to use Franklin like he was before. Also Stretch in both endings won't just stop trying to get Franklin and Lamar killed, he will continue trying to get them killed.

 

Neither of these 2 endings finish the story at all. Unless you assume the antagonists are all going "f*ck this" in a similar way to the merryweather head in C, and they are not all businessmen, they don't think like him, only Weston might. the others? nah

 

Ending C, kills them all off, it finishes the story, granted in a rather quick and hap-hazard way that made it seem all too easy but it finishes the f*cking story. Also note the footage form trailers and artwork brought to attention by tomy. AND also traditionally the last mission of GTA is a long climactic clusterf*ck of shooting. The other 2 endings are not that, this one is. That is probably not hard evidence but it should be considered, either for or against C being the legit ending.

 

happy birthday to the reader if it is your birthday today.

if not... come back on your birthday

 

 

oh and spoilers... should have mentioned that earlier. 


Lazor Guns
  • Lazor Guns

    Fuuma Kanryo!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2013
  • United-States
  • Best Concept 2015 [GTA Online: Liberty City Expansion]

#105

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:23 AM

Tomy1986 perfectly summed it up. C is showcased in the trailers and artwork.

 

My opinion on the matter is also the fact that it makes no sense to kill off one protagonist in a game where having three was a big focus point.

 

We probably will find out the true ending with the next game. I feel they revealed the true ending for IV in V by including Packie.

How? Packie was alive no matter what in IV.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#106

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:30 AM

 

Tomy1986 perfectly summed it up. C is showcased in the trailers and artwork.

 

My opinion on the matter is also the fact that it makes no sense to kill off one protagonist in a game where having three was a big focus point.

 

We probably will find out the true ending with the next game. I feel they revealed the true ending for IV in V by including Packie.

How? Packie was alive no matter what in IV.

 

 

Packie mentions in GTA IV that he'd have to stay to take care of his Ma if no one else could. So it's possible that his presence means that the Deal Ending is canon and 

 

Spoiler

 

Some people also think it points to the revenge ending, but I don't get the logic behind that one. Honestly, it doesn't really answer the ending of GTA IV at all solidly in any way. 


Zodape
  • Zodape

    CABINETS

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#107

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:53 AM

Logic is not an excuse to pick an ending. The game has it's own, sightly flawed logic, which anyone can clearly see through the story. Why all of a sudden, pick the most logical option right at the end?

It was more logical for Franklin to let Lamar die instead of saving him, for example.

 

Another thing is that ending A and B don't fit with the game (I don't know if I already explained this, too lazy to check, hehe). They are quite depressing, they don't fit a story which is mostly pure humor* and action and sh*t.

 

*Yes, it's a funny story with some sad parts, not a serious story with some jokes in it. Some people just don't get this, and hate the story for something it's not trying to be.

 

I'm sure that I have more to say, but I'm tired.

 

There it is, my opinion why C is canon.


Mr Rabbit
  • Mr Rabbit

    Part-time spy, full-time maniac

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#108

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:17 AM

 

Some people also think it points to the revenge ending, but I don't get the logic behind that one. Honestly, it doesn't really answer the ending of GTA IV at all solidly in any way. 

 

Mother (who was old) died and he moved out of LC due to depression caused by the city.

 

It would actually make more sense him leaving after Kate's death to be honest.


spamtackey
  • spamtackey

    Business Socks

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#109

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:57 AM

 

 

Some people also think it points to the revenge ending, but I don't get the logic behind that one. Honestly, it doesn't really answer the ending of GTA IV at all solidly in any way. 

 

Mother (who was old) died and he moved out of LC due to depression caused by the city.

 

It would actually make more sense him leaving after Kate's death to be honest.

 

 

In the mission Departure Time (TBOGT) Dimitri's death can be mentioned.

This is the final chronological mission in GTA IV's story. 

This mission likely takes place close to the final mission in GTA IV as we see the guy finding the diamonds. We don't know exactly when it takes place, so it might run alongside the final mission or it might be just after. However, it's not too long after as Bulgarin is dead and Niko no longer has to worry about him. 

The end credits of TBOGT show Packie leaving LC. 

In the revenge ending of GTA IV Packie will talk about taking care of his mother in a phone call.

 

So we know Packie left not long after the GTA IV story. This suggests that the Deal Ending is canon because Packie would not leave so soon with a grieving mother and we have no factual basis to claim his mother died. 


Budweiser Addict
  • Budweiser Addict

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#110

Posted 30 November 2013 - 08:30 AM

Everyone who talks about Weston still going after Michael in ending A, or Haines still going after Trevor in ending B, shut up and actually watch the post-credit calls on Youtube before telling people they're wrong.

Ending A: Merryweather loses their ability to operate on US soil, and Weston goes broke and can no longer has the influence to have somebody kill Michael.

Ending B: Weston talks to Haines's supperiors and makes them ensure that Steve won't try to have Trevor killed. That said however, the Chinese are still forgotten about and out there.

Each ending is valid. The canon ending is the one YOU chose, as there will probably not be any references to Michael, Trevor, Haines, Weston, Strech or Cheng in later installments anyway, unless they venture into the past again.

FearTheLiving
  • FearTheLiving

    Giovane D'onore

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2008

#111

Posted 30 November 2013 - 08:56 AM Edited by FearTheLiving, 30 November 2013 - 09:00 AM.

 

In the mission Departure Time (TBOGT) Dimitri's death can be mentioned.

This is the final chronological mission in GTA IV's story. 

This mission likely takes place close to the final mission in GTA IV as we see the guy finding the diamonds. We don't know exactly when it takes place, so it might run alongside the final mission or it might be just after. However, it's not too long after as Bulgarin is dead and Niko no longer has to worry about him. 

The end credits of TBOGT show Packie leaving LC. 

In the revenge ending of GTA IV Packie will talk about taking care of his mother in a phone call.

 

So we know Packie left not long after the GTA IV story. This suggests that the Deal Ending is canon because Packie would not leave so soon with a grieving mother and we have no factual basis to claim his mother died. 

 

Are you really using one line to justify that? Johnny said multiple things he wasn't going to do multiple times and yet all them seem to have happened in V. R* are just got lazy when it came to a story that made any sense. However I would said Revenge is canon considering Roman seems to be alive.


Lazor Guns
  • Lazor Guns

    Fuuma Kanryo!

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2013
  • United-States
  • Best Concept 2015 [GTA Online: Liberty City Expansion]

#112

Posted 30 November 2013 - 09:19 AM

Perhaps we won't know until the next release - or at all.

 

After completing the storyline I have to say that I consider Michael the "protagonist" and Trevor the "antagonist" when viewed through the same prism as the other GTAs. It runs some parallels to the relationship between Tommy Vercetti and Sonny Forelli, former partners who felt betrayed by one another, as well as Tommy and Lance. Also, CJ and Smoke. For all the discussion of what extent Trevor should be "sympathized with" in spite of his despicable behavior, maybe the point was you weren't supposed to "sympathize" and Rockstar knew there would likely be two camps - people who see the character of Trevor for what it is, and those who hate the character and wanted to see him die. They got that choice, as "A" no less, and I can certainly see that being canon.

 

"B" ending I have a hard time digesting. I could see Franklin participating in Franklin's killing. But he hunts down Michael right after he gets a call about his f*ckup daughter apparently straightening up and going to school? Can't see that out of F-Dog. This should have been the "antagonist wins" ending, i.e. Trevor kills Michael.

 

"C" takes out the non-player antagonists who, compared to those of GTAs past, did not have the same place in the story that Tenpenny, Forelli or Salvatore did before. Steve Haines I consider more of a Mike Toreno-like character, someone having your guy do a bunch of f*cked up things for the sake of setting up missions, and ostensibly Toreno could have decided to let Sweet stay in prison and have CJ jailed or killed for his crimes, or perhaps because he knew too much about Toreno. If "A" (or "B" for that matter) is canon then the guys who get killed in "C" stay around and could appear again.

I didn't know Franklin was suicidal.


Dr. Robotnik
  • Dr. Robotnik

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2012

#113

Posted 18 December 2013 - 03:02 AM

 

 

Perhaps we won't know until the next release - or at all.
 
After completing the storyline I have to say that I consider Michael the "protagonist" and Trevor the "antagonist" when viewed through the same prism as the other GTAs.

 
Maybe it goes unnoticed because many simply don't keep playing afterwards, but after Ending A, Michael pretty much becomes Playboy X; if you arrange Michael and Franklin so that they bump into each other, he tries to blame Trevor's death entirely on Franklin and cuts ties with him.
 
Michael didn't betray Trevor because he was unstable; he betrayed him because he thought he had to. That Trevor was crazy is just an excuse that he tells Franklin and himself to justify it. What Ending A does is highlight those self-centered, cowardly aspects of Michael's character. It's why Franklin bitterly mutters, "Damn straight," when Michael tells him that surviving is winning; he knows that, if the chips were down, Michael would sell even Franklinout, and that Trevor, bad as he was, was right about him all along.
if mike would sell frank out, then why would mike say "F*CK YOU FRANK, YOU WERE LIKE A SON TO ME" if frank betrays him in option B?

also, can you tell me what mike says when he blames trevor's death on frank, and cuts his ties with him?

 

Apologies for the late reply; hope you read this.

 

The implication that Michael would betray Franklin only really comes up in Ending A, because that seems to be the only time the writers played up that aspect of his character. It may not apply to the other endings.

 

But even if it does, Michael wouldn't be planning to sell Franklin out right then and there in Ending B, as he would have no motivation to do so, just like he presumably didn't feel motivated to turn on Trevor until the law really got on their case and Trevor began pushing him. When things really went to sh*t, he, however reluctantly, chose himself and his family over his friends. He felt bad about it, but he did it.

 

Franklin sees this part of him, and realizes how easily it could have been him, instead of Trevor, who got sold out. It's at that point that he realizes Michael wasn't the person he thought he was, and loses the respect he once had for him, which in its own way is far sadder than Trevor's death.

 

I can't remember the exact wording of the conversation (and I can't seem to find a transcript of it, unfortunately). From what I remember, Michael says he doesn't want to see Franklin after he "did Trevor". Franklin protests that Michael "did Trevor too", and Michael apologizes, saying he needs some time. Franklin obviously doesn't believe him, and angrily says, "Whatever, man."

 

If you're interested in getting it yourself, play through Ending A, and afterwards, arrange Michael and Franklin in free roam so that they're in the same place. They'll have the conversation. See what you think.


skittlez86
  • skittlez86

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2013

#114

Posted 18 December 2013 - 03:35 AM Edited by bikerman3, 18 December 2013 - 03:36 AM.

 

 

Tomy1986 perfectly summed it up. C is showcased in the trailers and artwork.

 

My opinion on the matter is also the fact that it makes no sense to kill off one protagonist in a game where having three was a big focus point.

 

We probably will find out the true ending with the next game. I feel they revealed the true ending for IV in V by including Packie.

How? Packie was alive no matter what in IV.

 

 

Packie mentions in GTA IV that he'd have to stay to take care of his Ma if no one else could. So it's possible that his presence means that the Deal Ending is canon and 

 

Spoiler

 

Some people also think it points to the revenge ending, but I don't get the logic behind that one. Honestly, it doesn't really answer the ending of GTA IV at all solidly in any way. 

 

there is francis and don't say Derrick because he is dead packie say so if you bring him on the The Paleto Score ya you could have killed francis and then derrick died but maybe derrick look after ma then died but before he died packie  went to ls 


MasterToothDecayer
  • MasterToothDecayer

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2013

#115

Posted 18 December 2013 - 04:06 AM

All three endings are canon until proven otherwise in a future installment. That is literally Multiple Endings 101. This is almost as ridiculous as trying to establish the canon methods for all the heists.


jptawok
  • jptawok

    Lester the Molestor

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013

#116

Posted 18 December 2013 - 04:26 AM Edited by jptawok, 18 December 2013 - 04:28 AM.

 

Edit:
About the whole Merryweather thing. Merryweather, are mercenaries, they work for whoever pays them. In taking out Weston, you are killing the person who got so many of their 'soldiers' killed.

Many members of the FiB and IAA wanted Haines taken out. In an agency that is so corrupt, its not outside the realm of possibility that they wouldn't look too hard for the killer of the man who had been causing so many of their problems.

 

 

Merryweather is a private security contractor that works for the U.S. government. I'm just assuming most of you kids don't have a clue about black ops or the true military industrial complex and how it works. There is corporations like this in real life that no one knows about and they are in Iraq and the middle east fighting oil wars.

One hint, do some research on the private military company called Blackwater, it is real.

 

Calling them mercenaries is a stretch when they work for the government and military as a contractor. Don't you remember how the military shot down the plane you hijacked from these guys?

 

It should be common sense that they could pull strings in one agency or the other (or both) to have Trevor knocked off for constantly f*cking with them.

 

 

 

I have to totally agree with the OP. That's possibly the best post I've ever read on this forum and thought out.

 

Ah yes,  Xe Global/Academi.  Metal Gear 4 was a telling of the future.  Proxy wars fought by paid mercs.

 

Personally, all the endings suck.  Frank wouldn't turn on Mike like that, Mike wouldn't turn on Trevor even if every fiber in his body wanted to, and C was a fairytale of knocking off two bit Antagonists.  I didn't even know who Stretch was, and only knew the Chinese guy from the slaughter house mission.  The ending in this game didn't even begin to touch the ending of 4, that chase was f*cking epic.

  • Boxman108 likes this

Zodape
  • Zodape

    CABINETS

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#117

Posted 18 December 2013 - 04:41 AM

Tbh, logic isn't an option to pick an ending since there many things during the story that don't make sense.

 

If you have two endings in a Pokémon game, A being becoming the Pokémon master and B waking up from a coma, where Pokémons don't exist and you have severe mental problems, of course B would be the most logical, but it wouldn't fit with the whole game at all.

 

That's how I see it.

  • Fuzzknuckles likes this

Racecarlock
  • Racecarlock

    The floor here will kill you, try to avoid it.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009

#118

Posted 18 December 2013 - 07:22 AM

I chose BUZZ LIGHTYEAR!

 

"What? That's not a choice!"


Budweiser Addict
  • Budweiser Addict

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#119

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:09 PM Edited by Niko Vercetti 112, 13 January 2014 - 02:11 PM.

I really want to bump this topic to get this conversation going again. While I feel that there is no canon ending, A is definitley what any right minded person would do. Trevor was out of control, he may have been loyal to those around him, but his impulses for sure would land anyone associated with him in deep sh*t.

My two cents however is that ending B actually felt right to me, despite Michael being my favourite protagonist. There are many instances in the story where Franklin's betrayal of Michael is forshadowed (e.g. Lester telling Michael that hiring Franklin will be "his funeral"). Then there's the fact that everything comes full circle. Franklin in the end is the same person he is at the start, yet at the same time he also becomes Michael. Like Michael, Franklin betrays the person most loyal to him for the higher power (in Michael's case Dave and the FIB, in Franklin's it's Devin Weston) and simply ends up alone in his big lavish mansion. Then he also ends up where he started, with Michael dead and Trevor having nothing more to do with him, he's left with the one person he started with... Lamar.
Oh, and as to why the FIB doesn't come after Trevor later? If you've actually seen what happens post-game with this ending it's stated that Weston managed to talk Haine's supperiors out of having Trevor killed. And Strech... Well in reality the bad guys sometime do make it out in the end.

Mr_Goldcard
  • Mr_Goldcard

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2013

#120

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:13 PM

I picked option C motherf*cka.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users