Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

ending b has a few plot holes spoilers

48 replies to this topic
TheticalFlyer97
  • TheticalFlyer97

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2013

#31

Posted 16 July 2014 - 11:05 PM

Lamar is a big nigga? Since when? For me he's just another 90's half-assed buster.

  • ten-a-penny likes this

AzelfandQuilava
  • AzelfandQuilava

    Another COD Player...

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 May 2014
  • Scotland

#32

Posted 16 July 2014 - 11:05 PM

 

 

 

A and B are definitely the more undeveloped endings. They seem to only be there in order to cater towards people who hate Trevor or Micheal.

But nothing for those who hate Franklin.

 

Franklin's cool, f**k those who don't like him.

 

Depending on the ending you choose, Franklin is a treacherous swine and a coward.

 

Which is why only C is canon, Franklin doesn't even show any sign of wanting to betray his friends at any point of the story.

  • OneManCrimeWave, ten-a-penny and Zanje like this

Dopeeey
  • Dopeeey

    Dopest

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2012

#33

Posted 17 July 2014 - 01:41 AM Edited by Dopeeey, 17 July 2014 - 01:42 AM.

And as I stated months before the release of GTA V... 9 years have passed since 2005 and I'm still looking for a better GTA than SA. Still no sign of it.

 

So true lol, if GTA V would have been a direct sequel to San Andreas it would have been doper, and included more denser forest, with 2 more cities.

 

I mean its awesome that did RockStar give us something though. 


Budweiser Addict
  • Budweiser Addict

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#34

Posted 17 July 2014 - 08:00 AM


And as I stated months before the release of GTA V... 9 years have passed since 2005 and I'm still looking for a better GTA than SA. Still no sign of it.

 
So true lol, if GTA V would have been a direct sequel to San Andreas it would have been doper, and included more denser forest, with 2 more cities.
The problem with every GTA related forum on this website summed up on one paragraphy. Good job, now go back with wishing for a sequel to the game that's cancer on this wonderful series. There's a better chance that war in the middle east will cease before you get it.

Plus why the hell are people even replying to Jimmy_Leppard's post? It has absolutely zero to do with this thread. Seems like a troll post to try and stir up sh*t between different sects of fanboys.
  • Jeansowaty likes this

ten-a-penny
  • ten-a-penny

    كساااد

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Libya

#35

Posted 17 July 2014 - 09:05 AM

 

 

And as I stated months before the release of GTA V... 9 years have passed since 2005 and I'm still looking for a better GTA than SA. Still no sign of it.

 
So true lol, if GTA V would have been a direct sequel to San Andreas it would have been doper, and included more denser forest, with 2 more cities.
The problem with every GTA related forum on this website summed up on one paragraphy. Good job, now go back with wishing for a sequel to the game that's cancer on this wonderful series. There's a better chance that war in the middle east will cease before you get it.

Plus why the hell are people even replying to Jimmy_Leppard's post? It has absolutely zero to do with this thread. Seems like a troll post to try and stir up sh*t between different sects of fanboys.

And I though I was the only one who was thinking that GTA:SA had totally ruined the series.

Sure, GTA:SA is great, and its the second best GTA (a tie with TBOGT), but not to the level of saying its a f*cking masterpiece. Worst storyline (A ghetto gangster has a garage in SF and own casino steaks in LV and has access to a 60mil dollars project, Okay...), Most glitch-ed game I have ever played, dumbest peds in a GTA game, full of brainless myths (Yeti? Bigfoot? Mt. Chilliad Ghost Car? Please....)

 

The only nice thing in GTA:SA is the map. Its fairly equal to GTAV and all what I miss from that game was Shady Creeks area. Other than that, its just a normal GTA game, nothing more, nothing less.

 

F*ck likes limit. I was gonna like your post but whoever made the limit deserves to be fired upon.


Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]

#36

Posted 17 July 2014 - 03:39 PM Edited by Deji, 17 July 2014 - 03:40 PM.

And I though I was the only one who was thinking that GTA:SA had totally ruined the series.
Sure, GTA:SA is great, and its the second best GTA (a tie with TBOGT), but not to the level of saying its a f*cking masterpiece.

What exactly makes a masterpiece? Please explain exactly what that is.
 

Worst storyline (A ghetto gangster has a garage in SF and own casino steaks in LV and has access to a 60mil dollars project, Okay...),

You're not even mentioning the bad parts of the storyline! :p

I love SA, and definitely would call it a masterpiece despite the flaws I can so blatantly see - just like some would call IV a masterpiece despite its many flaws. There's never going to be such a thing as a flawless game - or at least, there will never be something that's flawless for everyone. Some people don't care about the story. I for one liked SA's story, even though I would call the storyline stupid if I was judging it by any other terms - like for, say, a movie. But there's a big difference - a movie is only about a storyline (well - that's just me too, others think it's also about acting and direction, which barely matters to me as long as the script can make me think), whereas a game has a tonne of other concepts to weigh out. I think SA's story was perfect for the game it was, or at least the game it tried to be - yes, it's totally unrealistic, but if you were to try to make it more realistic, you'd be giving up on a heck-load of content and the many epic missions where ghetto-star CJ was working as a secret agent, leading a heist operation or dabbling in conspiracy theory activism. The story actually made complete sense if you look at it - there's nothing false. It's not even unrealistic - but the events that happen are merely highly unlikely - which is the same for most plots, or there'd be nothing to enjoy. The storyline isn't flawless or a masterpiece, but that's not what makes a game a masterpiece, it's how it uses EVERY element in its arsenal and brings them all together - every PIECE of the MASTER subject fits together nicely, making it a masterpiece.

If, unlike me, you can't see past the simple fact the storyline events are somewhat improbable (but any sequence of events in life are all equally unlikely - see the "Infinite Monkey Theorem"), then you may say that the game isn't a masterpiece. That doesn't change my view, nor the hundreds of thousands of people out there, most of whom still play it to this day, that think it is the dogs bollocks... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which I've said before more elaborately and metaphorically as it makes a nice metaphor.
 

Most glitch-ed game I have ever played,

Apparently you've not played many :p

There were way less glitches on PS2, same as every other GTA, in fact. There has yet to be an unglitchy 3D GTA release on PC (saying that, GTA 2 is glitchy as hell on PC too!) but if I had to point at any game and say it was the glitchiest on PC, I'd definitely have to say it was IV - and that's without even involving my slight bias.
 

dumbest peds in a GTA game,

Now YOU are just being dumb. Either that, or you don't understand what AI is...
 

full of brainless myths (Yeti? Bigfoot? Mt. Chilliad Ghost Car? Please....)

Umm... the myths aren't part of the game, so why you'd involve that, I've no idea. That's like the equivalent of complaining about its multiplayer mode :p
 

The only nice thing in GTA:SA is the map.

I also linked to this in the same post I basically compared women to GTA: http://www.develop-o...-vision/0183989

Interestingly, the reason for the 3 cities is because the 3 characters idea from V was originally thought of for SA. That most of us probably already know by now - except in that article it's heavily clarified that 3 cities == 3 characters, and not just a coincidence. Going off of that, we can also assume the storyline was based off the 3 characters concept, too! As that article even confirms, the process for North is to come up with the map first and build a storyline which tries to involve it all. So, if the map was based on the 3 characters concept, the storyline was based on the 3 characters concept, too! Makes sense, eh? Carl practically lives 3 different lives - they just happened to have been squeezed down to fit around one character.

To completely theorise more, I'd guess these were the 3 types of character:
  • CJ - Gang-banger living in Los Santos
  • 'Huang Lee' - A triad (?) gang member living in Chinatown, San Fierro, who meets Wu Zi Mu and co-owns a casino, before eventually robbing the Mob-owned Caligulars
  • ??? - A ['agent'? / contract killer?] who becomes involved with The Truth and is involved in an attempt to bring down an organised crime family (Loco Syndicate), eventually ends up working for Toreno
The storyline would be interwoven, yet unlike V the characters wouldn't ever have to meet directly - but they could all be equally focused on the many antagonists of SA's storyline, indirectly aiding each other in a way much more tightly-knitted than what we actually got in SA.

Unfortunately, that wasn't possible at the time. PS2-era technology and all - not to mention they wouldn't have had anything near the budget they had for V, so if they did do that, it would have sacrificed many other things which have actually helped SA's success. There's no way of knowing if it would have been better if North could have stuck to the original plan, but what we do know is that SA was highly successful and is still being praised as a masterpiece to this day, plot holes or no plot holes.
 

Other than that, its just a normal GTA game, nothing more, nothing less.

Again, please explain what a "normal" GTA game is... do you mean to say "TO ME, it feels like just an ordinary GTA game"? Or is there actually a chart on the wall in your room that you can refer to which explains exactly what makes a GTA game? :p



This is why nitpicking doesn't work. It's easy to spot flaws when you look at each element really close up, but what wins hearts over is the entire appearance. To re-use my old metaphor, a beautiful woman could have a big ugly nose, but as long as you're looking at her whole face (and body, that's just as important ;)) then you can see how it simply aids in her beauty. People are attracted to imperfections - and the reason I've spent a huge portion of my life modding GTA SA. Not because it's the perfect game, that'd be boring within a month, but because it's almost perfect - but with just enough imperfection and lack of the simplicity of "it's perfect" to have me maintain more of an interest in it.


EDIT: What a poetic and romanticising post... maybe I should marry GTASA :p

ten-a-penny
  • ten-a-penny

    كساااد

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Libya

#37

Posted 17 July 2014 - 03:59 PM

Here we f*cking go again, the fanboys started the attack.

I'm not gonna quote that wall of text, so.....

 

You're not even mentioning the bad parts of the storyline! :p

Did you even read?

  1. A ghetto gangster breaks into a military base and steal a 60mil high project with no problem and police attention.
  2. Four Vagos on top of a train, okay. Then your mister auh sew star, wow CJ and Big Smoke attack them on a dirt bike, and SOMEHOW the shot land, but what is the worst part? BS uses a TEC-9 instead of a good weapon.
  3. Tenpenny gives CJ a sniper to take out a target (Mission Snail Trail), but you don't even need it.
  4. So apparently the Truth wants whateverthef*ckever from a train, and after you get it for him, he just run away.

etc.

 

 

Apparently you've not played many :p

I'm yet to play a game that has as much glitches like GTA:SA. Sure, TLOS:DOTD has many glitches, but not like GTA:SA's.

  1. In the past, I could remember 6 Blue Hell holes, 3 or 4 Black Hell/Ghost World holes.
  2. You jump from a building or from a heli/plane, half the time you can't open the parachute. That thing had at least 3 f*cking annoying glitches.
  3. In the PC version, if you use the parachute and pulled back, the animation will play but the parachute hands/sticks wouldn't move. (I can prove this if you want)
  4. Even if you're using God Mode, the cops can still shoot you dead. Happened billions of times on the PS2 version.
  5. So apparently the Hydra pilots (that come in 4-Star wanted level) are f*cking blind. Not sure if this is a glitch or its just the f*cking dumb AI. So I was having a dogfight above Area 69, and a Hydra came to fight me. The f*cking blind pilot crashed HEAD-ON to me.
  6. And lets not mention the f*cking blind normal AI pilots. You exit a store, a blind pilot riding a Rustler crashes into you. (Bug? Dumb AI? you decide.)
  7. Okay, so a floating tree and a bunch of floating bushes doesn't consider a glitch. Yeah-no. (Though this one do accor to other games, even GTAV)

 

Now YOU are just being dumb. Either that, or you don't understand what AI is...

What now, God forbids opinions?

 

GTA:SA had f*cking ruined the GTA series. Ask any SANE GTA fan and he may agree.

 

IN MY F*CKING OPINION.

  • Alec Skorpio likes this

Deji
  • Deji

    Coding like a Rockstar!

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2007
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Mods]

#38

Posted 17 July 2014 - 04:55 PM Edited by Deji, 17 July 2014 - 05:10 PM.

Here we f*cking go again, the fanboys started the attack.
I'm not gonna quote that wall of text, so.....

I think you're overreacting a tad... Perhaps you're one of those anti-fanboys?
 

* A ghetto gangster breaks into a military base and steal a 60mil high project with no problem and police attention.

WHO would phone the police, exactly? It's a SECRET and CLASSIFIED military project, and therefore th last thing they want is dumbass civilians such as the police knowing about it. You don't get hierarchy - the more reasonable question is why didn't the military put up much of a fight? Well, same reason - they don't want the extra attention! There's a reason, if you MUST have one.

Now the real reason... that's not even a script error. The choice to leave out a wanted level increment was a game-play decision. Instead, they went to all the effort of having missiles shoot at you, unless you were wise enough to disable the SAM satellites before leaving - or mindless enough that you did it without realising what you were doing, which might explain why you overlooked that fact. As for why a "ghetto gangster" would do it (I see no reason why a person HAS to be restricted to one lifestyle - what about the many movies and game stories where a relatively bland person ends up doing something great? how's it less acceptable for it to happen to a "ghetto gangster"?) - that's explained perfectly well in the SA storyline. Blame The Truth.
 

Four Vagos on top of a train, okay. Then your mister auh sew star, wow CJ and Big Smoke attack them on a dirt bike, and SOMEHOW the shot land, but what is the worst part? BS uses a TEC-9 instead of a good weapon.

Umm, what the hell are you talking about? Did you expect him to pull out an RPG? Perhaps an M4? No, that would have made way less sense. A Tec-9 is quite a common low-end automatic weapon, simple as. You have no idea what you're talking about here...

Also, you in fact didn't mention that in your last post, so this is COMPLETELY irrelevant to my point of you not mentioning the worst parts of the storyline. You're such an anti-fanboy!
 

Tenpenny gives CJ a sniper to take out a target (Mission Snail Trail), but you don't even need it.

So? How's that a storyline error in any way? You even know what a storyline is? I used it in that mission, anyway, because I believe it ends with the target meeting someone at the end of a pier, and it's nice and tidy to easily pick them both off from a distance. The most storyline-offensive part of that is that Tenpenny even gave CJ any sort of help - but that seems irrelevant too. Doesn't affect the story in any way, shape or form, and is more directly relateable to the game-play.

Also, you in fact didn't mention that in your last post, so this is COMPLETELY irrelevant to my point of you not mentioning the worst parts of the storyline. You're such an anti-fanboy!
 

So apparently the Truth wants whateverthef*ckever from a train, and after you get it for him, he just run away.

Still don't see how this affects the storyline in any way. The Truth is a crazy guy, he makes CJ do crazy things. But heck, CJ got paid and Respect+, so he has little reason to complain.

Also, you in fact didn't mention that in your last post, so this is COMPLETELY irrelevant to my point of you not mentioning the worst parts of the storyline. You're such an anti-fanboy!
 

I'm yet to play a game that has as much glitches like GTA:SA. Sure, TLOS:DOTD has many glitches, but not like GTA:SA's.

So maybe you've played many games, but you've not played enough buggy games, but of a game with SA's scale, it's pretty damn stable. There are a few infamous, yet hard to encounter, bugs in the PS2 version, that's it. Loads more in the PC version, but that's a porting issue.

- In the past, I could remember 6 Blue Hell holes, 3 or 4 Black Hell/Ghost World holes.
Not a bug. You're not supposed to fly a jet pack indoors - the game explicitly prevents you from doing that, unless you cheat it, in which case it doesn't care what happens to you. Furthermore, the "blue hell" thing actually IMPROVED the longevity of the game-play. In fact, you might even say the only reason that "bug" was discovered, was because of something people actually WANTED to happen.

- You jump from a building or from a heli/plane, half the time you can't open the parachute. That thing had at least 3 f*cking annoying glitches.
I can do it fine. That's not a bug, you just suck at using the parachuting feature.

- In the PC version, if you use the parachute and pulled back, the animation will play but the parachute hands/sticks wouldn't move. (I can prove this if you want)
Know that. I've spent the last 6 years modding the game, in case you didn't read. Already mentioned the PS2/PC problems, and other GTA games (*cough* IV) have had much worse bugs in PC ports. That's a port problem, not a game bug, but can be considered a flaw in the PC version of SA, so I'll let you have half a point for that one.

- Even if you're using God Mode, the cops can still shoot you dead. Happened billions of times on the PS2 version.
Intentional (it's not "god mode" - that's just what YOU decide to call it). Plus cheats aren't officially supported, so that's like complaining a mod bugged your game and saying that's why SA isn't a masterpiece.

- So apparently the Hydra pilots (that come in 4-Star wanted level) are f*cking blind. Not sure if this is a glitch or its just the f*cking dumb AI. So I was having a dogfight above Area 69, and a Hydra came to fight me. The f*cking blind pilot crashed HEAD-ON to me.
Perhaps it's YOU who is the bad pilot, then? Take this issue up with an insurance company, I don't have the means to verify this incident :p

- And lets not mention the f*cking blind normal AI pilots. You exit a store, a blind pilot riding a Rustler crashes into you. (Bug? Dumb AI? you decide.)
YES! A legitimate bug (kind of)! North acknowledged it themselves as well as explaining the problem. However, they also went on to say how they found it pretty interesting and decided to leave it the way it was. Personally, I have my doubts that North actually left the bug in intentionally, because as a modder I know how (internally) buggy the game is, yet complaining about internal bugs is silly - ANY game can have "internal bugs" you don't even realise are bugs - the every detail in a game could be considered a bug unless we're the developers and we know it's what's supposed to happen. Only thing that matters is whether the game's still playable or not and how it impacts on the fun.

- Okay, so a floating tree and a bunch of floating bushes doesn't consider a glitch. Yeah-no. (Though this one do accor to other games, even GTAV)
Exactly. Most of GTA's bugs are things that are common in ordinary games. Yet a GTA game is much bigger in scale than an average GTA game. You didn't even mention collision bugs, which are another thing ALL games have (somewhere) including GTA. However, every GTA game has always been able to outdo other games in such areas, so it feels more like a lack of bugs than a countable bug. Bugs exist everywhere, in all kinds of software. Anything big will have bugs - even if they're really hard to cause. SA's bugs are pretty hard to encounter or barely noticeable, which is a huge achievement given the scale of the game. We'll NEVER see a bug-free GTA game, but we can be happy that instead of bugs meaning they cut back on the games complexity, they manage to find a good balance between complexity and bugginess.

Your bug reporting score is: 1.5 bugs.
That's ONLY if you REALLY don't like the fact that planes SOMETIMES crash. I find it hilarious and fun, so personally I count 0.5 bugs. You missed so many!
 

What now, God forbids opinions?

Yes, actually, he does. According to most religions, God has rules, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is a sinner. This kind of thing is why I don't buy the whole "God" stuff, at least not when he's being treated like an actual person who is capable of forbidding stuff because he's apparently so unhappy with his own life he has to put restrictions on other peoples...
 

GTA:SA had f*cking ruined the GTA series. Ask any SANE GTA fan and he may agree.

Please describe, in detail, what a "sane" GTA fan is? I would say it was someone who has at least a modest appreciation for every GTA game released, and definitely doesn't think that the GTA series is so weak that a single 'bad' game could ruin the whole series... and ANY "sane" person wouldn't apply capitalisation, bold, italics and underline styles to the word "sane" simultaneously. But that's just my opinion. I'm not a psychologist and neither are you, so I don't see how sanity can come into this at all, really...
 

IN MY F*CKING OPINION.

Woahh, calm down, anti-fanboy! We're all friends here :)

Isn't my "f*cking opinion" allowed?


We SHOULD make these posts a bit more V-centric, though. I neglected to check the topic title before even replying to your post, but whether SA ruined the GTA series or not could be considered off-topic by the moderators. So instead of all the other points I counter-argued, you could have explained to me what I asked, which was basically "what exactly is a 'masterpiece' in terms of GTA games?". It was confusing this time too, since your post started with SA story complaints. Staying on-topic is hard, but I think the moderators won't mind as long as we you keep your temper.

Shadowfennekin
  • Shadowfennekin

    Proud Saints Row and Pokemon Fanboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#39

Posted 18 July 2014 - 07:08 AM

A and B are definitely the more undeveloped endings. They seem to only be there in order to cater towards people who hate Trevor or Micheal.

And nothing for those like me, who just hate Franklin


kevin de santa
  • kevin de santa

    Thug

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2014
  • Ireland

#40

Posted 18 July 2014 - 07:14 AM

Cj fanboy

Protocol_10
  • Protocol_10

    Genius

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#41

Posted 18 July 2014 - 05:29 PM Edited by Protocol_10, 18 July 2014 - 05:30 PM.

I feel as if ending B made no sense at all. There was a reason to kill Michael, but that reason was from Devin or whoever and it made Franklin look like some mercenary and since Michael was Franklin's friend, it made Franklin also look like a hypocritical douchebag. Ending A made a little more sense, but even that was a little off.

How did you feel about ending B?


Aleph-Zero
  • Aleph-Zero

    ...

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2014
  • None

#42

Posted 18 July 2014 - 05:39 PM

That's why there are 3 options. You don't like one, you choose the other.


Scaglietti
  • Scaglietti

    Italia

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • Italy

#43

Posted 18 July 2014 - 05:42 PM

All of the endings were poor, let's just establish that.


Protocol_10
  • Protocol_10

    Genius

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#44

Posted 18 July 2014 - 05:44 PM

Yeah, I know, but the way it played out just didn't seem like something Franklin would do. That's what I'm saying.


Rockstargames691
  • Rockstargames691

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 May 2013

#45

Posted 18 July 2014 - 06:04 PM

franklin not as big a nigga as lamar, lamar should have smoked that chump in gravy nigga.
and micheal sucks ass for killing his best friend in a wheel chair after all he did for him motherf*cking micheal is a huge dickosaurus and hates the crippled.


What the hell are you talking about Micheal never kills Lester? That never happened?

Tao Cheng
  • Tao Cheng

    Man I'm fuuuucked up!

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • China

#46

Posted 18 July 2014 - 06:51 PM Edited by Tao Cheng, 18 July 2014 - 06:51 PM.

You can pretty much tell that ending C was meant to be the game's actual ending, but A and B seemed lazily put in last minute. A lot more work was put into ending C, as it takes about 35 minutes to complete if you're playing it for the first time, and the other ending can be finished in just 10 minutes. Ending C has more gold medal objectives, and has more detail put into it in general.

 

I'd bet ending A and B did not exist when this artwork was made:

actual_1356731693.jpg

Since you're using that picture as proof, I'm in the position to say that the Deal ending in GTAIV is the real ending because it showed on the game's trailer. Last time someone used that whole "picture" card, they got butthurt defensive and crybaby saying Revenge is the real ending because he loves little ol' Roman and he wants ending C to be canon.


Ridd
  • Ridd

    One of the Rotten Ones

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2014
  • Iceland

#47

Posted 18 July 2014 - 07:10 PM

"I'm rich, listen to me, kill Michael!"

 

"ok"

 

It's kinda hard to believe that Franklin would kill one of his best friends for that reason.


kevin de santa
  • kevin de santa

    Thug

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2014
  • Ireland

#48

Posted 18 July 2014 - 09:08 PM

Franklin does what he has to do to survive. He can A kill the crazy motherf*cker who eventually was gonna get everyone killed. Or b you take Michaels advice and do whatever it takes to survive even if it means stabbing. Your mentor the only guy who was ever decent to you. And it shows eventually everyone bows down to people who are richer. Or c . You learn from Michaels mistakes you are how Michael tried to sell out back in north Yankton and it all came back to bite in the ass.so you learn from Michaels mistakes I think that's the point of the story. Learn fromichaels mistakes

Alec Skorpio
  • Alec Skorpio

    n00b irritant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2004
  • None

#49

Posted 18 July 2014 - 09:12 PM Edited by liquidussnake119, 18 July 2014 - 09:14 PM.

Both endings don't deal with the real problem.  That's the point.  It's the quick and easy solution and it's not going to pay off because either way you piss off someone out to get you (Devin or the FIB)

 

Also neither ending makes sense because both endings go against Franklins character.  They were basically designed for players who couldn't get over Michael and Trevor for being who they are.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users