The End

[Algonquin Assassin]

I got this idea from the Misson Impossible thread, but since that's about the final mission itself this is more about the cutscenes and whatnot. For once I think it would be cool if our final enemy didn't actually die. Imagine after doing the last mission where you've blown up the guy's mansion or whatever thinking your foe is dead (maybe have a cutscene beforehand of the protagonist shooting him to make it convincing).

 

The credits roll and everything's good until you get a weird phone call from who you think you just killed. Turns out he used a body double and infact fled LS before the final mission.

 

GTA has never had a ending like that before and it would give R* a reason to make GTA VI a direct sequel to GTA V and if the protagonist is well liked they could use use him again as he hunts his foe down.

 

I understand it's not to everyone's liking, but I thought I 'd throw it out there.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Miamivicecity

[scarface910]

Its actually a real good idea, rockstar is a genius at storytelling and i wouldn't put it past them if they were to pull something like this off..

 

 

[Durden]

 

it would give R* a reason to make GTA VI

 

You forgo about the eras, though. GTAVI will be on next-gen, therefore it will mark a new era. And you know the rule -- no physically returning characters in different eras. I thought it wasn't a bad idea, but it just contradicts R*'s statement.

 

Secondly, it would be very odd for R* to keep their protagonist. I personally wouldn't mind, but it's their 'signature thing', ya know?

[guden]

and in GTA VI we'll play as this "bad guy" and try to kill GTA V's main character

[Durden]

and in GTA VI we'll play as this "bad guy" and try to kill GTA V's main character

Damn that would be a great idea, if it weren't for the era rule

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

it would give R* a reason to make GTA VI

 

You forgo about the eras, though. GTAVI will be on next-gen, therefore it will mark a new era. And you know the rule -- no physically returning characters in different eras. I thought it wasn't a bad idea, but it just contradicts R*'s statement.

 

Secondly, it would be very odd for R* to keep their protagonist. I personally wouldn't mind, but it's their 'signature thing', ya know?

They could always make an exception. GTA games aren't heavily tied to eachother in terms of story however something like this would allow for an actual sequel. It's something I've wanted to see.for a long time. I've always wondered what would happen if Sonny, Tenpenny, Dimitri etc didn't die.

 

guden- That's a brilliant idea.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Miamivicecity

[Mokrie Dela]

as a writer i'd have to say no.

 

stories are all about conflict and the resolution of such.

Having the antagonsist escape at the end of the game would not leave us with the satisfaction that we want. We've done it all and ... oh he got away. Great. Now there'll be a lazy sequel.

 

Saints Row annoyed me with this that we never got to take Troy down.

 

But, i suppose it'd depend on how the storie's written. For years i've been going on about branching storylines so let me offer a counter proposal.

 

If V has a moral system that works like Fallout/RDR, when you get to certain missions, theses would change depending on your "karma". If you've forgiven people, and let them live (Ivan the terrible for example), the the mission would play out to follow suit. If you killed people, the mission would differ as such.

 

So the ending would vary, depending on your choices.

Perhaps the option to let your enemy go could be there. Like Darko. You can choose to let it go, then maybe he would f*ck you over then run off.

 

 

But i don't know. I was also disappointed in IV that we never got to take out Bulgarin. BOGT rectified this to immense satisfaction.

 

It's an interesting concept MVC, but another idea i just had - after seeing guden's comment:

 

Two protags, like the rumours or EFLC. You start one game as one guy, and play it. At the end you could, depending on your choices, kill or have the bad guy escape.

Then play the game as the other guy, with the tables turned.

 

In City of Lies and Justice in Flames i've tried to pit Niko against Johnny/Luis, but neither are the bad guy. They're just on the other side. If these two stories played like games, you would play them like the DLC, and the two characters would be enemies of sorts.

Perhaps that's the "bold new direction" If V did the same thing, with the player able to play as the protag and the antag, i could see that being really interesting. Did you ever get the feeling that Dimitri, or Bulgarin werent actually evil, theu just had a story conflicting with Nikos....?

[guden]

well, multiple endings may give a place for an "escaping bad guy" ending option.

but these multiple endings should be based on decisions made during the whole game. not like in gta iv, but like in rpg games.

however, this will remove sequel option and we don't know yet how R* will handle multiple gta iv's endings in gta v.

[Typhus]

A body double? That's a bit unbelievable isn't it?

Now, if it was a crazy dictator like Saddam Hussein, I could believe it. But a gangster in Los Santos? Doubtful.

What if the antagonist was someone it would be too costly to kill? Like a big-shot politician. Killing him would lead to certain death or imprisonment, so the player would have to find another way to beat him.

Kind of like Hearst in Deadwood.

 

Some of the worst monsters avoid any responsibility merely by way of their position or connections.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Typhus

[The__Phoenix]

this is a great,genial idea. This end can open a world of new posibilities after the game end even if R* planned has DLC.

Some of the big movies and books o the history have an inconclusive ending, open to personal interpretation. Would be interesting to see it in a gta.

The problem is the interpretation of universe that R* has. Why have multiples universes when you can has a single, vast and rich universe? I don´t know.

Would be perfect to see claude,cj,tommy packie and other in the futures gta games but i don´t know if R* want do it .They are completely wrong in his idea of various universes.

the miami vice idea sounds genial, I prefer this end than the traditional end where the bad is killed and the good guy win and survive.

We will see

[GTAIndonesia]

GTA V: Episode Two?????

[Algonquin Assassin]

A body double? That's a bit unbelievable isn't it?

Now, if it was a crazy dictator like Saddam Hussein, I could believe it. But a gangster in Los Santos? Doubtful.

What if the antagonist was someone it would be too costly to kill? Like a big-shot politician. Killing him would lead to certain death or imprisonment, so the player would have to find another way to beat him.

Kind of like Hearst in Deadwood.

 

Some of the worst monsters avoid any responsibility merely by way of their position or connections.

I must admit the body double idea was a bit stupid. It's the only thing that came to mind when I wrote the thread.

[elammm]

For once I'd love this to happen, the guy your supposed to kill survives, and flees to vice city / san fierro / las venturas, anywhere but liberty city. Then if the protag is well liked, they can re use, and if they want a new protag, they can still use the same antagonist!

[Algonquin Assassin]

For once I'd love this to happen, the guy your supposed to kill survives, and flees to vice city / san fierro / las venturas, anywhere but liberty city. Then if the protag is well liked, they can re use, and if they want a new protag, they can still use the same antagonist!

Or as guden suggested we play as the GTA V antagonist. The more I think of it the more I like it. I 'm sure he wasn't being serious, but it's a fantastic idea.

[Jimbatron]

 

as a writer i'd have to say no.

 

stories are all about conflict and the resolution of such.

Having the antagonsist escape at the end of the game would not leave us with the satisfaction that we want. We've done it all and ... oh he got away. Great. Now there'll be a lazy sequel.

 

Saints Row annoyed me with this that we never got to take Troy down.

 

But, i suppose it'd depend on how the storie's written. For years i've been going on about branching storylines so let me offer a counter proposal.

 

If V has a moral system that works like Fallout/RDR, when you get to certain missions, theses would change depending on your "karma". If you've forgiven people, and let them live (Ivan the terrible for example), the the mission would play out to follow suit. If you killed people, the mission would differ as such.

 

So the ending would vary, depending on your choices.

Perhaps the option to let your enemy go could be there. Like Darko. You can choose to let it go, then maybe he would f*ck you over then run off.

 

 

But i don't know. I was also disappointed in IV that we never got to take out Bulgarin. BOGT rectified this to immense satisfaction.

 

It's an interesting concept MVC, but another idea i just had - after seeing guden's comment:

 

Two protags, like the rumours or EFLC. You start one game as one guy, and play it. At the end you could, depending on your choices, kill or have the bad guy escape.

Then play the game as the other guy, with the tables turned.

 

In City of Lies and Justice in Flames i've tried to pit Niko against Johnny/Luis, but neither are the bad guy. They're just on the other side. If these two stories played like games, you would play them like the DLC, and the two characters would be enemies of sorts.

Perhaps that's the "bold new direction" If V did the same thing, with the player able to play as the protag and the antag, i could see that being really interesting. Did you ever get the feeling that Dimitri, or Bulgarin werent actually evil, theu just had a story conflicting with Nikos....?

Great analysis of the pros and cons.

 

My view is that the ideal story as mixture of these elements. The main antagonist has to die - simply to give a sense of the player acheiving the objective. But a significant bad guy ought to get away in my opinion. That gives the option to branch the story line in future episodes, and as you say, it was very effective the way Bulgarin was then re-introduced as the big bad in TBOGT.

[Deffpony]

Although I will agree that there needs to be something fresh I'm not sure this is it. First of all this wouldn't work because there would be no resolution. Imagine playing a game 30+ hours and at the end you realize it's not the end and you have to wait another 5 years to see what happens. Plus every GTA game is a fresh start and this would take away from that. But instead of telling you what's wrong with this I will give my similar alternative.

 

Like they did in IV there needs to b related plot points in the DLC that are parallel with the first story. It would be cool if the final mission leaves something left open that only the DLC can conclude.

 

Let's say you and your partner have to kill a Colombian drug lord and his family. While you are at the mansion your partner is at the warehouse. When you beat the last mission all you know about the warehouse is that your partner successfully destroyed the colleagues of the main boss. But when you play the DLC you actually get to play this mission.

 

Or if you want to be really complex, the entire game could be played backwards. Like a tarintino film. So the end of the game is actually the beginning of the story and reveals all the questions. IF this was done you could leave it open ended so that although you know how everything started and where it led the main protagonist your not sure where it actually ends. Then the DLC could pick up where the original game began but actually go forward in time instead of backward. Does that make sense

[guden]

For once I'd love this to happen, the guy your supposed to kill survives, and flees to vice city / san fierro / las venturas, anywhere but liberty city. Then if the protag is well liked, they can re use, and if they want a new protag, they can still use the same antagonist!

and if he flees to liberty city... WE GET ANOTHER GTA IV DLC WHOOHOO

[Typhus]

What if by the games end you scared the antagonist so much that thereafter they talked about you on the radio in glowing terms? Like, if Alex Shrub suddenly started saying that Tommy Vercetti was a close personal friend and an honest, civic-minded individual who wouldn't hurt a fly.

I think that could work, perhaps doing something like sniping the enemies phone out of his hand and terrifying him enough to make him have a change of heart.

 

This would be especially satisfying if the villain was a debauched, immoral politician who throughout the entire game had been hiding behind the police and his office.

[John The Grudge]

Maybe you could have a scenario where after a kick-ass battle, the hero and the bad guy shake hands and and have a laugh. It's a bit cliche and might come across like a Hong-Kong movie but it could be fun.

[Mokrie Dela]

the biggest problem would be the resolution i think.

In this day and age, an action game will have to end with an action scene. A game where you kill, you'll have to kill the bad guy.

 

Unless the bad guy's revealed to not be the bad guy after all, but someone has to answer for the story, and a resolution has to be arrived at for the conflict.

 

Typhus, i don't think that would work imho. It seems too far fetched. A bad guy who's fought you the entire game suddenly gets scared? Unless of course it's shown that he's not the bad guy after all.

[DeadWorld]

No.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

What if by the games end you scared the antagonist so much that thereafter they talked about you on the radio in glowing terms? Like, if Alex Shrub suddenly started saying that Tommy Vercetti was a close personal friend and an honest, civic-minded individual who wouldn't hurt a fly.

I think that could work, perhaps doing something like sniping the enemies phone out of his hand and terrifying him enough to make him have a change of heart.

 

This would be especially satisfying if the villain was a debauched, immoral politician who throughout the entire game had been hiding behind the police and his office.

Interesting. I quite like that idea. Breaking them down to the point where they concede would be far more interesting than just killing them. Keep the ideas flowing guys.

[Typhus]

Typhus, i don't think that would work imho. It seems too far fetched. A bad guy who's fought you the entire game suddenly gets scared? Unless of course it's shown that he's not the bad guy after all.

If he's a very insulated man, controlled by those around him, I think it could work.

Very often, the villain is portrayed as intelligent and calculating. What if this guy was a stupid, brutal coward? A guy with almost childish mood swings who left the real work to his underlings whilst he indulged his vices?

He would perhaps treat you as a minor annoyance until you forced him to take you seriously.

 

Imagine a type of George Bush or Idi Amin. A sadistic buffoon, people like that are very easy to manipulate.

[Mokrie Dela]

Typhus, i don't think that would work imho. It seems too far fetched. A bad guy who's fought you the entire game suddenly gets scared? Unless of course it's shown that he's not the bad guy after all.

If he's a very insulated man, controlled by those around him, I think it could work.

Very often, the villain is portrayed as intelligent and calculating. What if this guy was a stupid, brutal coward? A guy with almost childish mood swings who left the real work to his underlings whilst he indulged his vices?

He would perhaps treat you as a minor annoyance until you forced him to take you seriously.

 

Imagine a type of George Bush or Idi Amin. A sadistic buffoon, people like that are very easy to manipulate.

sort of kill all his lieutenants and goons,and when he's on his own he bricks it? I get what you mean now i think.

 

It might work, but the game would need two bad guys - in this example and the example of the bad guy running away - there'd need to be one that you kill to get the releif imo.

 

Maybe these two ideas would work for a secondary antagonist. The main one you kill, the second one, you an intimidate.

 

I suppose it could work - as with every example it'd depend of its implementation.

[Deffpony]

No.

If your not going to contribute to discussion or at least back your "No" with some kind of reasoning than don't post anything at all. We are a community and as much as it doesn't seem like it, we respect eachothers opinions and enjoy imaginative creativity and the members who spark interesting banter.

 

 

[Deffpony]

Typhus, i don't think that would work imho. It seems too far fetched. A bad guy who's fought you the entire game suddenly gets scared? Unless of course it's shown that he's not the bad guy after all.

If he's a very insulated man, controlled by those around him, I think it could work.

Very often, the villain is portrayed as intelligent and calculating. What if this guy was a stupid, brutal coward? A guy with almost childish mood swings who left the real work to his underlings whilst he indulged his vices?

He would perhaps treat you as a minor annoyance until you forced him to take you seriously.

 

Imagine a type of George Bush or Idi Amin. A sadistic buffoon, people like that are very easy to manipulate.

sort of kill all his lieutenants and goons,and when he's on his own he bricks it? I get what you mean now i think.

 

It might work, but the game would need two bad guys - in this example and the example of the bad guy running away - there'd need to be one that you kill to get the releif imo.

 

Maybe these two ideas would work for a secondary antagonist. The main one you kill, the second one, you an intimidate.

 

I suppose it could work - as with every example it'd depend of its implementation.

Eh not too sure about this.

 

I want an antagonist that feels memorable. Someone that I fear. I want to hate this guy and respect this guy. If this is some squirmy politician I really won't feel the tension I think a villain deserves.

 

I wasn't impressed with the story in IV tbh. Wasn't really any reason for me to hate the antagonist. But in SA and VC I really got attached to the conflict

 

Btw what do u guys think of my tarintino idea from before. I think it would be cool

[FoxTint]

Awesome thread. Awesome idea.

 

Can't believe no one thought of that!

[IamTHEmodNOWbiotch]

There is a wishlist thread to post about things you want to see in the game. This thread is for general discussion only. Please use the wish list thread.

 

LOCKED

[ThEtRuThSANANDREAS69]

That would be a great idea, if they did this i think they should try and push another GTA out before the next consoles arrive. Keep all the features from V, just a new storyline and possibly a new map. that way it would take no more than a year and would actually be a sequel. Its the perfect way to incorporate SF/LV. And we can get Vice City right off the bat with the next gen

[Mokrie Dela]

There is a wishlist thread to post about things you want to see in the game. This thread is for general discussion only. Please use the wish list thread.

 

LOCKED

f*ck off.

You're not a mod, don't pretend to be

 

Deffpony, the problem with topics such as these is opinion.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong - no way - but here we can see the difference in it. I thought IVs story was fantastic. The antsgonism between darko and niko was implied and if you pay attention, IMO it's easy to hate him

 

MVC had a good idea and it's interesting to see the spins were all putting on it