Screw you, Rockstar... GTA V *SPOILERS*

[Mr_Leone]

Captain downtown looking down at the animals in South Central before sucking some old fags dick huh F? (L)

[The Dedito Gae]

I don't mind that he died, i hate that he became a pussy methead and didn't had a fighting chance.

[Drunken Cowboy]

Maaaan we repeat ourselves a lot here.

[Niobium]

that's why i stopped arguing with people who thought his death was good. repeating myself won't change people's minds.

[Mr_Leone]

We need to burn down this thread and let the credits roll

[B Dawg]

 

We had fun here.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2014 by B Dawg

[HaythamKenway]

I'm probably not the first person to make that observation but Angus' speech at the end of TLaD, in addition to being an amazing piece of writing alone, fits the "bring GTA back to its roots" and anti-IV hatedom and the results of their campaign (V) perfectly.

 

 

It's that f_cked up part of people which means good is never good enough. It wasn't enough to be drug dealers, we also had to be outlaws, to be maniacs, to be psychos and to be greedy.

 

But the analogy can be applied to the whole cutscene, down to the guys burning down the clubhouse - essentially burying the concept of serious, story-driven IV-era GTA. And we all know we never got that kind of GTA again since TLaD's credits rolled.

 

It's bitter. TLaD was the last hurrah. It took the idea of a story-driven, gritty GTA to a whole new level, in many ways superior to its full priced predecessor. But it was too late. The backlash already happened. I believe we got TLaD in all its glory only thanks to being well in development by the time people started kicking the cr_p out of IV. Rockstar published it, well knowing they'll never pull a stunt like this again. Alderney's chapter downfall is the downfall of the "IV experiment".

 

And Johnny in the end wants to begin anew. He sees sunlight shining through the clouds. Fast forward four years later, to him, a personification of IV era being stomped to death by a personification of V era. The end of the line. The pursuit of the almighty dollar won.

Edited December 25, 2014 by HaythamKenway

[Mr_Leone]

Well, can't say we didn't fght. I love the TLAD cult following we have here, and we will never forget Johnny and the Lost.

[Mr_Leone]

Meh. Not much we can do about it. I am sensing we are on the wrong side of a generational gap in gaming. The idea of a well thought out game that carries itself on the back of it's story is not ideal for longevity, especially since games these days run on strict yearly calenders. Crap out the gimmicky first person "RPG" and give it a years worth of unmotivated support until letting it die for next years IP.

[PhillBellic]

 

 

I'm probably not the first person to make that observation but Angus' speech at the end of TLaD, in addition to being an amazing piece of writing alone, fits the "bring GTA back to its roots" and anti-IV hatedom and the results of their campaign (V) perfectly.

 

 

It's that f_cked up part of people which means good is never good enough. It wasn't enough to be drug dealers, we also had to be outlaws, to be maniacs, to be psychos and to be greedy.

 

But the analogy can be applied to the whole cutscene, down to the guys burning down the clubhouse - essentially burying the concept of serious, story-driven IV-era GTA. And we all know we never got that kind of GTA again since TLaD's credits rolled.

 

It's bitter. TLaD was the last hurrah. It took the idea of a story-driven, gritty GTA to a whole new level, in many ways superior to its full priced predecessor. But it was too late. The backlash already happened. I believe we got TLaD in all its glory only thanks to being well in development by the time people started kicking the cr_p out of IV. Rockstar published it, well knowing they'll never pull a stunt like this again. Alderney's chapter downfall is the downfall of the "IV experiment".

 

And Johnny in the end wants to begin anew. He sees sunlight shining through the clouds. Fast forward four years later, to him, a personification of IV era being stomped to death by a personification of V era. The end of the line. The pursuit of the almighty dollar won.

 

In retrospect you are right. The gamers like myself who want a gritty and serious game like IV and TLAD are reaching the end of the line.

[Femme Fatale]

I've got an idea, and no it doesn't involve murder like I posted a few weeks ago...it's something much more mature...and intellegent...

[B Dawg]

Meh. Not much we can do about it. I am sensing we are on the wrong side of a generational gap in gaming. The idea of a well thought out game that carries itself on the back of it's story is not ideal for longevity, especially since games these days run on strict yearly calenders. Crap out the gimmicky first person "RPG" and give it a years worth of unmotivated support until letting it die for next years IP.

R.I.P. good games with character.

 

On a side note, I figured out how to make Niko and Johnny's lives better.

 

Load up GTA IV and reach the mission Three Leaf Clover. When arriving in the bank and getting through the cutscene, kill Luis.

Fast forward to the Diamond Deal, both Niko and Johnny are happy and loaded with Do$h.

Edited December 25, 2014 by B Dawg

[HaythamKenway]

@B Dawg

The question is whether Johnny would try to take Niko out and get the cash for himself afterwards. I think he would, so the entire business would fall apart anyway. The only guy coming out happier would be Isaac Roth.

 

@Mr_Leone

True. Games aren't self-contained stories anymore. They are "services". Just like every Hollywood studio is trying to turn their properties into MCU, every video game publisher wants to turn everything into hybrid single/multiplayer WoW/CoD "ongoing experiences" to get people hooked for months to come and to spend money on DLCs and microtransactions.

 

Yeah, it's hard to not be sceptical about the future of video game industry.

Edited December 25, 2014 by HaythamKenway

[MrDeSanta]

One thing i can`t understand. Why did Rockstar buried their own character in the most pathetic way. I mean they created Johnny and he was one of the best GTA characters so why the need of making his dead in the most humiliating way?

They created him and then they disposed and sacrificed him for the sake of cheap shock effect.

 

Killing one character for building up the other character`s fame is a strange way if you ask me.

 

And why Johnny? If they needed to dispose one of their previous characters just for the shock value they`d be better adding Claude or Luis who were only half developed characters with almost no personality and for whom noone would even care.

 

I think it would be fair if Rockstar would give us some prequel DLC of TLAD set before 2009 when Billy was still the chapter leader and TLAD was still a powerfull MC.

[Sussus Amongus]

^^^ No, no, no, no! Claude will never die. Oh, wait. Shock value? Luis for sure. People wouldn't even know who the f*ck Claude is but it would sure work on me. Luis is a sh*t character.

[HaythamKenway]

@MrDeSanta

 

Johnny was an easy target for building Trevor up through Worf Effect. I guess you can make an excuse for Niko or Luis showing up in Blaine County, but it would be harder to do so than for the Lost. Huang would make sense (especially considering Trevor's deals with Chinese), but no one played Chinatown Wars. Niko is pretty much untouchable given his status in the canon (all those rather flattering references) and Luis starred in a game that "redeemed" IV and that people generally enjoyed. Johnny, unfortunately, was expendable.

 

Rockstar doesn't seem to care about characters in long-term or about their legacy. When they feel like killing people off, they'll do it. That isn't really new. While it adds to a certain unpredictability of their stories, pulling stunts like with Johnny isn't good either. GTA III era avoided it by vast majority of its games being prequels (but LCS had Avery Carrington killed off, for example) and IV was a new universe. V is a first sequel in a long time and, behold, we have Johnny and co., Rocco and ULPC all biting it.

Edited December 25, 2014 by HaythamKenway

[Nah nah nah Gta 6]

^^^ No, no, no, no! Claude will never die. Oh, wait. Shock value? Luis for sure. People wouldn't even know who the f*ck Claude is but it would sure work on me. Luis is a sh*t character.

If Claude Died I wouldn't be surprised. He kinda had it coming to him.

[Sussus Amongus]

@MrDeSanta

 

Johnny was an easy target for building Trevor up through Worf Effect. I guess you can make an excuse for Niko or Luis showing up in Blaine County, but it would be harder to do so than for the Lost. Huang would make sense (especially considering Trevor's deals with Chinese), but no one played Chinatown Wars. Niko is pretty much untouchable given his status in the canon (all those rather flattering references) and Luis starred in a game that "redeemed" IV and that people generally enjoyed. Johnny, unfortunately, was expendable.

 

Rockstar doesn't seem to care about characters in long-term or about their legacy. When they feel like killing people off, they'll do it. That isn't really new. While it adds to a certain unpredictability of their stories, pulling stunts like with Johnny isn't good either. GTA III era avoided it by vast majority of its games being prequels (but LCS had Avery Carrington killed off, for example) and IV was a new universe. V is a first sequel in a long time and, behold, we have Johnny and co., Rocco and ULPC all biting it.

Noone played Chinatown wars? Statistically there were more sales on Chinatown Wars than TBoGT. Mabye pirates did something, mabye EFLC full package.

[universetwisters]

Does anyone thing Brian was in the army or something to that affect? There's a good deal of army related buttons on his model.



POWMIA button, US Army, etc.

[AlisaM]

One thing i can`t understand. Why did Rockstar buried their own character in the most pathetic way. I mean they created Johnny and he was one of the best GTA characters so why the need of making his dead in the most humiliating way?

They created him and then they disposed and sacrificed him for the sake of cheap shock effect.

 

Killing one character for building up the other character`s fame is a strange way if you ask me.

 

And why Johnny? If they needed to dispose one of their previous characters just for the shock value they`d be better adding Claude or Luis who were only half developed characters with almost no personality and for whom noone would even care.

 

I think it would be fair if Rockstar would give us some prequel DLC of TLAD set before 2009 when Billy was still the chapter leader and TLAD was still a powerfull MC.

 

It's becoming more and more clear that you have no idea what you're babbling about. Do you even realize that you answered your own question?

 

And I'm still trying to figure out where "fair" entered the equation.

 

Your arguments are so mindbogglingly bad that I'm beginning to believe you're just trolling.

[The Dedito Gae]

Maaaan we repeat ourselves a lot here.

I have a question fer ya: when you joined here, this thread was the first post you did?

[MrDeSanta]

 

One thing i can`t understand. Why did Rockstar buried their own character in the most pathetic way. I mean they created Johnny and he was one of the best GTA characters so why the need of making his dead in the most humiliating way?

They created him and then they disposed and sacrificed him for the sake of cheap shock effect.

 

Killing one character for building up the other character`s fame is a strange way if you ask me.

 

And why Johnny? If they needed to dispose one of their previous characters just for the shock value they`d be better adding Claude or Luis who were only half developed characters with almost no personality and for whom noone would even care.

 

I think it would be fair if Rockstar would give us some prequel DLC of TLAD set before 2009 when Billy was still the chapter leader and TLAD was still a powerfull MC.

 

It's becoming more and more clear that you have no idea what you're babbling about. Do you even realize that you answered your own question?

 

And I'm still trying to figure out where "fair" entered the equation.

 

Your arguments are so mindbogglingly bad that I'm beginning to believe you're just trolling.

 

Oh look if it isn`t the famous "tech company" girl.

Good to see you too.

[AlisaM]

Oh look if it isn`t the famous "tech company" girl.

 

 

Good to see you too.

 

 

Yet another thing you got wrong. I don't think you actually read anything, it seems you simply make up your mind and commence to spewing.

 

I work for an entertainment company as an animator. There I've said it AGAIN, feel free to get it wrong AGAIN.

 

And great response, BTW, makes my point even more splendidly than I ever could have.

[MrDeSanta]

 

Oh look if it isn`t the famous "tech company" girl.

 

 

Good to see you too.

 

 

Yet another thing you got wrong. I don't think you actually read anything, it seems you simply make up your mind and commence to spewing.

 

I work for an entertainment company as an animator. There I've said it AGAIN, feel free to get it wrong AGAIN.

 

And great response, BTW, makes my point even more splendidly than I ever could have.

 

You`re not even worth of response. Every word written to you is like i would talking to the wall.

You`re just some wannabee or maybe even a troll. And btw, you may actually be the real definition of troll. People use this word too often without even knowing it`s real meaning, they just say it when they are angry on someone or because it sounds good to them. But you my friend may actually fit the definition of the word troll just perfectly.

You say words that have no meanings. You really sound like you`re on something.

 

Now feel free to have the last word mrs. TECH company girl.

[AlisaM]

 

 

Oh look if it isn`t the famous "tech company" girl.

 

 

Good to see you too.

 

 

Yet another thing you got wrong. I don't think you actually read anything, it seems you simply make up your mind and commence to spewing.

 

I work for an entertainment company as an animator. There I've said it AGAIN, feel free to get it wrong AGAIN.

 

And great response, BTW, makes my point even more splendidly than I ever could have.

 

You`re not even worth of response. Every word written to you is like i would talking to the wall.

You`re just some wannabee or maybe even a troll. And btw, you may actually be the real definition of troll. People use this word too often without even knowing it`s real meaning, they just say it when they are angry on someone or because it sounds good to them. But you my friend may actually fit the definition of the word troll just perfectly.

You say words that have no meanings. You really sound like you`re on something.

 

Now feel free to have the last word mrs. TECH company girl.

 

 

Thank you,I will try, but I doubt you'll be able to resist the urge to respond. I understand that impulse control is an area you find problematic.

 

All right, on with it then...

 

- Ok, so I'm not worth a response, but you do anyway. Right.

 

- I may be the "real definition" of a troll... and yet you fail to provide what you believe that to be.

 

- So you're responding to words that have no meanings then, very clever of you.

 

- You think I'm "on" something? Care to elaborate? Probably better not to even try since you don't quite understand things like the actual definition of a hallucinogen.

 

I actually laughed out loud at the capping of TECH. I don't care if you don't know the difference, and it's hardly an insult to be associated with technology. You come across like the dumb kid that sits at the back of the room making fun of the "smart kids". The more you post the clearer it becomes how inept you are at this sort of thing.

[Niobium]

^guys, IDGAF

[AlisaM]

^guys, IDGAF

 

You would he was humping your leg.

[Drunken Cowboy]

If we are in truth burning down this thread, it was an honor and a pleasure bitching and moaning with you, gentlemen.

 

I'm really glad to see some people shared my views on this and what it represents both for GTA and the gaming industry in general.

 

I also really hope someone with more credibility in the gaming world will address this, but until then, we still got the forums, brothers.

[donnits]

[Uncle Vlad]

I think it´s utter bullsh*t what they done with Johnny in V. It´s not the fact that he´s been killed. I wouldn´t have a problem with that, if it would´ve been believable.

 

But I can´t believe that he returned to Ashley and fell back into his meth habit after the ending of TLaD. He was done with her, he cut off all loose ends and was riding into the sunset. Lonely, but still alive and with some valuable experiences. And then in V he is with Ashley again and became a meth-smoking mess? Makes absolutely no sense.

 

It would have been great if they made Johnny and his new chapter as an antagonist for Trevor, with more than a few missions. But this means more development time, and they need all their development time for GTA ONLINE nowadays.