"Moral" choises... what's the point?

[thatstupidbug]

It's just me, or the idea of "moral choices" is a total bluff in GTA (both IV and V)? I just

spared Dr Friedman's life, and then he got killed by one of his patient...what was the point in having a choice? The same goes for Ashley (kill her or leave her, she will die by an overdose), for the final choices (because whe know what is the Canon choice, it was even in some artworks), not talking about the fact that even some choices in GTA IV have the same fate, like the one with Derrick (he'll die after the game, as packie said) and even both endings in IV are meaningless because niko "went quiet".

 

 

What do you think about the choices?

Edited November 1, 2013 by thatstupidbug

[VileClown]

It's just me, or the idea of "moral choises" is a total bluff in GTA (both IV and V)? I just

spared Dr Friedman's life, and then he got killed by one of his patient...what was the point in having a choise? The same goes for Ashley (kill her or leave her, she will die by an overdose), for the final choises (because whe know what is the Canon choise, it was even in some artworks), not talking about the fact that even some choises in GTA IV have the same fate, like the one with Derrick (he'll die after the game, as packie said) and even both endings in IV are meaningless because niko "went quiet".

 

 

What do you think about the choises?

 

 

I think the CHOICE you made to drop out of the second grade was a poor one, because clearly, there is an issue between you and the english language.

[Prodigalsunz]

I don't understand alot of choises we get to make like accepting freidman's advice or not, accepting to help michael's family, accepting solomon's request to drop by after the Rocco thing. I'm sure I missed some others.

[thatstupidbug]

 

It's just me, or the idea of "moral choises" is a total bluff in GTA (both IV and V)? I just

spared Dr Friedman's life, and then he got killed by one of his patient...what was the point in having a choise? The same goes for Ashley (kill her or leave her, she will die by an overdose), for the final choises (because whe know what is the Canon choise, it was even in some artworks), not talking about the fact that even some choises in GTA IV have the same fate, like the one with Derrick (he'll die after the game, as packie said) and even both endings in IV are meaningless because niko "went quiet".

 

 

What do you think about the choises?

 

 

I think the CHOICE you made to drop out of the second grade was a poor one, because clearly, there is an issue between you and the english language.

 

It's a shame that there's no way to show the birthplace of every user, because I'm from italy and i think a mistake can always happens if you don't use your native language (not talking about the HORROR when in some english media they try to speak like an italian!) But hey, insulting is easy than asking, right?

 

By the way, writing on an english forum is a great way to improve my english skills, so I thank you for the correction and I have just changed my mistakes... just be more polite next time, ok?

 

back on topic now! i think accepting (or not) Friedlander's advice could change his evaluation at the end of the game...but I'm just guessing.

Edited November 1, 2013 by thatstupidbug

[Dope_0110]

I hate the idea of choices, especially the end ones.

In my opinion they ruin the story as there is no cannon any more (even though we can assume which should be cannon in V from artwork). I prefer the developer to create a story and be sure it is perfect and only let the player play the story.

3D era GTA's, as many other games at that time, had no choices and were perfectly fine without them.

[thatstupidbug]

I hate the idea of choices, especially the end ones.

 

In my opinion they ruin the story as there is no cannon any more (even though we can assume which should be cannon in V from artwork). I prefer the developer to create a story and be sure it is perfect and only let the player play the story.

 

3D era GTA's, as many other games at that time, had no choices and were perfectly fine without them.

 

in reality there was 1 choice in VC: save or let Cam Johnes die in the bank robbery. it changed 1 line of dialogue and nothing else, but still...

[Dope_0110]

 

I hate the idea of choices, especially the end ones.

 

In my opinion they ruin the story as there is no cannon any more (even though we can assume which should be cannon in V from artwork). I prefer the developer to create a story and be sure it is perfect and only let the player play the story.

 

3D era GTA's, as many other games at that time, had no choices and were perfectly fine without them.

 

in reality there was 1 choice in VC: save or let Cam Johnes die in the bank robbery. it changed 1 line of dialogue and nothing else, but still...

 

Oh yeah.. forgot that one. Though they didn't even present is as blatantly as they present choices in HD era and he was just a small side character that had a role in two missions.

[shadyslady]

It's just me, or the idea of "moral choices" is a total bluff in GTA (both IV and V)? I just

spared Dr Friedman's life, and then he got killed by one of his patient...what was the point in having a choice? The same goes for Ashley (kill her or leave her, she will die by an overdose), for the final choices (because whe know what is the Canon choice, it was even in some artworks), not talking about the fact that even some choices in GTA IV have the same fate, like the one with Derrick (he'll die after the game, as packie said) and even both endings in IV are meaningless because niko "went quiet".

 

 

What do you think about the choices?

I think your view is a bit strange in that case. No offense. We get choices for the actual game to form our own way of playing. It's good Niko would not turn up in LS. I prefer GTA 4 btw. And option C is not cannon. Don't get me wrong...I will always take that one too, but I see plenty of people getting rid of Mike or Trevor. The latter for being the killer of the lost.

[Soarindude]

I think GTA 5 really missed the ability to go with 'moral choices' in this game. I think a lot of the reason for that is because they were afraid of messing up a storyline with a plot-hole or something. When GTA IV came out, fans were asking for more and more choices to alter the storyline for GTA 5. While GTA 5 did add more abilities to 'alter' the storyline, it was usually for the side-missions or even missions that many players never played. (I never did the Dr.Friedlander storyline, and don't plan on it).

 

But why wouldn't they add more 'choices' for players to make? Im assuming it was in fear of them either A) screwing up a plothole because the story would end up having to connect eventually) or B) they didn't want to have to write several different scripts for every different choice ever made, from that point on.

 

I feel it was an easy way out for the writers to not have to add extra dialogue for the different situations, depending on how much of an impact the 'choice' was.