Ideology (skip to paragraph #2 for to the point):
Personally, I like stories where the protagonists and the antagonists have some type of moral center or are "pushed" to do what they have to do. "Man on fire" scenarios are only cool when there is a greater good at stake. What can I say? I think many folks like the "Good-guy gone bad because of bad, but for the right reasons/back to good after" stories. Examples: Die Hard, Red, Bad Boys, Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, Point Break.
My point? All the characters are luke-warm and lack much depth. Especially when compared with GTA4. Long story short, I hated Trevor minutes into the game because his depth (or rather lack of) was perceived early on and then that (lack of) depth was confirmed throughout the story until the final, rather predictable ending (I chose to kill Trevor). And, at the same time, what's the point of burning Trevor alive? It was unnecessary - more over, cowardly and shallow. Like a dirty, double-crossing, no-good low-life would do. Again, counter-intuitive to Frankling and Michael's characters.
Trevor and Michael are dirtbags. Trevor, oh god, where to start. The off-the-wall aspect of Trevor is cool for rampaging but I think depth is what matters in story telling. For example: Shootouts ad infinitum is one thing, but overall understanding why someone is pulling the trigger brings depth, understanding, identifying with the character etc. Trevor just seems all "Shock and Engage" for Mommy and Daddy reasons (past) and not really for "good" reasons in the future. He wants to build a nefarious cargo and drug operation, but his character doesn't give an inkling of indication that he would enjoy any of the perks of that labor: enjoying finer, expensive things in life. Leaves me irritated and haunted by the genius of GTA4 characters. To be honest, I don't really care about Trevor, Frankling or Michael much at all. Trevor killing Johnny was just another poop-colored cherry on the dog-poop cake. (Reasoning below)
Micheal, Michael, Michael. Call me old (You old bastard Packet!) but Michael is like the parent you see once in a while that has no parenting skills what-so-ever, who has no balls to do the right thing in raising his chilren and who hasn't the spine to realize that he's raising Hitler by spoiling his kids and not disciplining them. Then, he feels disappointed in his life. He's having a pitty-party that is literally, out of control. It's sad, not cool. If he did something about it, maybe it would be cool.
He was the most intriguing character in GTA5 because he was basically like a stick-up artist on steroids.Mastermind, cool cat, age-bestowed wise-man-type criminal with a moral center. That's what I thought until
I played GTA5. Maybe it was the GTA5 ending where Michael and Franklin weren't supreme champions of Los Santos that was the problem. Would you call that lack of a happy ending? haha. IDK. Maybe...
Trevor Killing Johnny:
This actually left a residual irritation immediately after playing it. Maybe it's because I've been a side-liner in the modding community for so long. That scene actually came off as anti-GTA4 and anti-GTA4
modding to me. Like "DIE GTA4 memories muahaha ur idols have been killed and pooped on! muahaha" Trevor stomped out the likes of GTA4 characters like he (Trevor) was cooler than GTA4 characters. Like
GTA4 characters live's were garbage, no good and that Johnny just turned into a poopy drug addict loser with a hoe, prostiture wife that had nothing to live for. That seemed really counter-intuitive compared
to his role in IV.
I guess in many ways I'm a little peeved at Rockstar treating GTA4 characters like that. Like if they brought back Tommy Vercetti and made him a 24/7 clerk who gets shot in a crappy nightime robbery with
a 3D printed gun and one bullet.