The Identity Crisis: The Problems with V's story.

[Drunken Cowboy]

WINNER: POST OF THE YEAR 2013

Thank you, GTA Forums Community!

 

 

This is strictly opinion based, though I have tried hard to corroborate my opinions. Your counter-opinions will be respected if also corroborated and presented intelligently.


Story events of GTA IV and V will be discussed, caution yourself against spoilers.

 

(I typed this out on multiple computers, please ignore the format inconsistencies.)


One of the main complaints of GTA V was that the story was inconsistent, lack-luster and overall, just had NO idea what it wanted to be. Every major reviewing company just spewed their 9's and 10's onto the title, and not one, seriously, I can't find any review that prizes the game on its character and story dynamic.

GTA IV was the perfect demonstration hybrid of story-telling and gameplay. Its criticism stemmed from the game being "too grim/gritty", which is why we got the San Andreas 2 that was GTA V focusing more on gimmicks and mission diversity than actual coherent and likable characters or dynamic and well-rounded story.
Rockstar has demonstrated their ability to fantastically intertwine story and gameplay into full experiences: GTA IV and its episodes, L.A. Noire, Max Payne 3, Red Dead Redemption, they need to return to this dynamic. GTA V struck me as taking the Call of Duty approach: An entirely too short and half-assed campaign and a decent multiplayer that would churn out more and more DLC for players to buy.

The Issues with V's Story

The Character Switch Dynamic

As stated, it all felt too gimmicky. The friendship dynamic between Michael, Trevor, and Franklin felt very forced. There was the three-player switch system. It was a fantastic concept, but I don't feel it was implemented correctly or to its full potential. It really went against Rockstar's philosophy of player freedom.
For example, let's take the Gruppe Sechs armored truck robbery.
All three characters were to have their niches. Michael was shown in the trailers as the gunman, Franklin the driver, and Trevor the pilot. Granted, you can't implement these roles on all the heists (especially with how few of them there were), but could they not have varied them from time to time a little?
I could play as Michael shooting cops over here, OR, I could play as Franklin shooting cops over HERE. What's the difference? What's my incentive to play as either? Well, Michael is given an LMG at the mission's start and he doesn't totally suck with guns (if you haven't been training Franklin) at this point. I guess that leaves Franklin out for the most part to most players.
What about Trevor? Along comes a helicopter, Trevor is tasked to shoot him down. Can't I let Trevor take care of that? No, the game forces you to switch to Trevor to take the thing down. (Which caused mission failure for me because the helicopter exploded, landed on, and killed Michael because I couldn't control him to move him out of cover.)
What about post mission? When moving Franklin to the getaway car? Can't I let him take care of that useless move and stash the truck as Michael? No. You are locked out of the other two COMPLETELY in this event.

This is just one mission. Recollect the numerous other times switching was either pointless, forced, or just unavailable.


Character Inconsistency: Protagonists

Franklin, at least my impression of the guy, his niche was to be the classic GTA "rags to riches/breaking out of the neighborhood" character, and a "hood gangsta" homage to people who played and relished San Andreas. I'm fine with him either being or not being a gangster, but what I wasn't fine with was how Rockstar presented the character. They hyped him up in the trailers as the driver/racer/gangster. His trailer depicted his hood missions (all four or five of them) shooting Ballas, walking around with Chop (who had SO much potential as a mission asset but was really forced against when missions made him cut away) wearing green gang colors, and engaging in daring police chases. What happened? He joined up with Michael to be a Vinewood-Hills inhabiting millionaire.
But wait, Franklin wanted this, correct? He wanted to make his "paper and not get killed". But wait, most of his clothing options are still trashy, sagging jeans, backwards thug caps, green hoodies. He is forced onto his green Bagger in most missions and switch events. He uses street slang and can still do most side missions for people in the hood. His only friend besides Michael and Trevor is Lamar. Which one is it? Is he the professional bank robber who uses sophisticated firearms with multiple attachments to hit up million dollar government buildings? Or is he the hoodie wearing, green motorcycle riding, Chop sicing CJ homage that Rockstar hyped the players up on?
Additionally, wasn't he supposed to be the getaway driver/street racer? When did he drive during a heist? Maybe the gold getaway in the U.D.? Or the cash getaway in the jewelery store? BOTH events he was driving his OWN vehicle, not the typical getaway driver roll.


Michael, IN MY OPINION, IF THE GAME WAS INEVITABLE TO CARRY THE THREE-PROTAGONIST DYNAMIC THE WAY IT DID, should have been the only protagonist this game was about. The game, since the first trailer, I felt unofficially made Michael the "main main character". This is the criminal we haven't had a look into the life of yet: the bank robber and the retired professional. We had hitmen Niko and Claude, gangbanging CJ, biker Johnny, mobsters Tommy and Toni, this bank robber niche was something totally left alone and untouched. Besides, what do Claude, Niko, CJ, Tommy, Toni, Vic, and Luis have in common? (Never played Chinatown Wars and I think Johnny really deviated from this forumula.) They're all "rags-to-riches 'breaking out of the neighborhood'" stories. Michael has it all! The mansion, the cars, the money, the connections, the skills, where do we go from here? What's going on with fifty-something year old Tommy sitting on all his coke and money in Vice City? Or CJ managing a rapper whose career has gone over a couple decades quite successfully?
Michael was very unique. He took therapy sessions, had a successful legal day-time career. It could have been even similar to Max Payne; the man whose greatest enemy was himself. Michael also plays into Rockstar's themes of money and capitalism, when will Michael realize the money doesn't matter? Could he have an epitome half way through the game and pursue something unique and different? It would have been very interesting to find out.


Trevor (This one gets pretty critical, bear with me)I hate Trevor. I mean, as someone who relishes stories over dumb gags and gimmicks. I HATE Trevor. This is the worst protagonist BY far, to the GTA series. Trevor is the antonym of a dignified, story-driven game. Talk about inconsistency. He's bat-sh*t crazy when killing on his "rampages", he's slightly loose but composed enough to function during heists, and he takes the sane, moral high-ground in the Nigel and Minute Men side-missions. The dumb gimmicks of waking up extremely far from any mission activity drunk and in your underwear wore off after like... one... maybe TWO times... He shares that similarity with Luis. They and other characters say they're crazy, that they're murdering maniacs. But why? Neither of them have in-depth or interesting back stories. Luis was like... in prison for a bit, and Trevor flew planes and grew up in Canada. It would have been far more interesting to have maybe... a Hannibal Lector, Dexter Morgan-like character. The maniac, the serial killer in disguise, the one who relished blood and gore but acted like a normal and well composed man on the surface... not the "LOL HE'S WEARING A DRESS AND KILLING PEOPLE" psycho.
You CAN like characters for "being bad." Going back to television, Dexter, Walter White, Tony Soprano, they're "bad guys", they're ammoral and do bad things, but they have these motivations and moral codes that make you sympathize with them. Think of past GTA protagonists: Johnny Klebitz and CJ wanted what was best for the gang that reared and took care of them, Johnny in particular had a sense of morality he wouldn't violate, and none of his missions were really for the sake of just making money or trying out a dumb gimmick. Johnny and CJ. They even had to kill their mentors, their "family" they had done everything to protect and save. Niko was kind and respectful to the likable characters on screen, and resentful and questioning of the assholes, like Faustin and Bulgarian. Tommy, and yes, even Luis to a degree had a cheesy, tacky element to their games which made their quests of financial gain forgiveable and even entertaining.
Trevor was RUINED as a playable character for me from the start.

 

Poster Peachrocks put it excellently in his quote an another post:

"I actually really wanted to like Trevor, I really did. He's probably the only character with a background and a significant amount of dialogue that I actually dislike.

My first impressions before the game out of him were low. I was like 'oh great a character with practically no depth', I wanted to pleasantly surprised. I wanted a method behind his madness. I was surprised alright... and it was anything but pleasant and I resented every time I was forced to use him. The online missions were just salt in the wound.

As for Trevor murdering Floyd the point is that it was completely unnecessary. It was merely there so he gets to go on another rampage showing how much he 'doesn't care what other people think'. So what man? You've only demonstrated that in practically every scene you are in...

He never really needed to go back there and even if he did only to pick Wade up (only for him to be absorbed in the strip club never to be seen again), Debra could have just been a never seen character and only serve as a conversation point with Floyd. His murder was completely unnecessary and served no purpose.

Or yet again that entire sequence could have been written completely differently. It's yet another scene that made it impossible to sympathize with Trevor and we ARE meant to sympathize with him. With any protganist good or evil you are usually meant to see their reasons and motives. You might not agree with them but they are still clear to see and you still generally want to be on their side when you see the story from their point of view. In Trevor's case we are borderline commanded to feel sympathy for him.

Take the entire sequence with Patricia. 'Everyone always abandons me?' Funny how hitting your friends and actively being deceitful while being a self righteous prick has that effect without feeling remorse for any of it? Yeah... no.... The entire Brad ordeal has a chunk of this as well.

Trevor wasn't even the main target of Michael's deception either it was just a side effect, Michael chose between his criminal life and his family. That was it. Indirectly he did not choose Trevor so sure he could interpret it as a betrayal but he did not ask Dave to go and have him killed and make sure he was dead as to make his 'disappearance' complete. If anything he probably had to convince Dave to spare him. In fact Michael's mercy on Trevor is the sole thing that causes him so much grief in the first place. This makes Trevor's self righteousness all the more nauseating.

Furthermore he killed off Wade's friends for no reason as well just so he could have someone he could manipulate and then claim to him they abandoned him as to give him a false connection to Trevor. Feel so sorry for Wade being under that asshole's thumb.

As for Rockstar wanting to try something different that is definitely true. However it is not away from the protag 100% wins because Niko and Johnny both paid a heavy price in their respective plots. Trevor's solo design was meant to absorb the mindless average destruction crazed GTA player, they succeeded and sure... I can't deny there are some aspects to him I like but the rest of what I've said completely cancels that out."

On a very personal note, this argument bears little weight, but it shall be said nevertheless:
Killing Johnny was one of the worst writing decisions Rockstar ever made, from a company that nails it 99% of the time. I have bitched about this on many posts, and yes, I'm doing it again. What was the purpose? To show people "DRUGS ARE BAD, M'KAY?" To show people "O DAM TREVUR CRAZY"? If anyone played the end of TLaD, you'd KNOW Johnny wouldn't get back together with Ashley, let alone get into drugs. Clay and Terry were just overkill. The Angels of Death OWNED San Andreas. Why would The Lost move into enemy territory and rebuild a club only four members strong? And of course, all the principles and ideas of the Lost we were meant to believe in TLaD were completely shat on. "BUT HEY TREVOR GETS A SPARE SHOOTING GALLERY LOL, SCREW YOU EVERYONE WHO BOUGHT AND RELISHED TLAD."
You can read more of our whining and ranting here: http://gtaforums.com/topic/595167-screw-you-rockstar-gta-v-spoilers/

They didn't have to be friends

Think of the movie, Pulp Fiction. Rockstar could really have taken a page from the multiple-main-character dynamic.

Now we're onto something. The dynamic of switching was too forced when just "shoot guys over here!" or "shoot guys over there!"
What would have made for a more challenging, interesting story dynamic is something like Niko, Johnny, and Luis. There's that removal from each of their stories. Luis was an antagonistic figure to Niko and Johnny who both directly and indirectly affected them on not necessarily a personal basis. Niko and Johnny thought the other one was cool, but Johnny kidnapped Roman, and Niko killed Jason and supposedly Jim.
For those who saw Pulp Fiction *SPOILERS BELOW*,
think of how GENIUS that story was. We got a feel for who Vince was for a good half the movie, and then just saw him blown away by Butch so nonchalantly. Did I get pissed? No. We knew who Vince was, but we also knew who Butch was. Butch had his own story and agenda, contrasting with that of Vince, Jules, and Marcelus's.
Even something out of sequence like Pulp Fiction would have been interesting. Starting with the ending like Max Payne 3, or something of that regard.
Trevor and Micheal's cooperation was REALLY forced, up until the end. Trevor despised Michael, he and Lester even formulated Brad's prison break that would have made Michael the fall-guy. But, if you chose ending C, Trevor and Michael are at each other's throats at the mission's beginning, and at the ending are good pals reunited again.
Pushing Weston over a cliff was fun, but is that action enough to make Mike and T BBFs again?

What would have been far more interesting is that if Trevor was not such a sh*tty, more interesting character that gave you incentive to sympathize with him... and have him work AGAINST Michael. Maybe he could have contracted Michael's yacht to be stolen, without knowing it was Michael's? Maybe he could have worked for Madrazzo and been real chummy with the guy to have that interesting confliction between Michael's side and Trevor's side.
Maybe Franklin didn't have to follow the belabored "rags to riches" story line, and stayed a Families gangsta? Michael needs a howitzer to wage war on TP Enterprises' band of meth heads. Michael calls Lester. Lester contracts Franklin to steal the thing.
Michael could have had the more interesting heisting missions focused around stealth (STEALTH IS THE MOST HORRIBLE, BROKEN, UNUSED MECHANIC IN GTA V, GG ROCKSTAR), while Franklin could be the "run into the warehouse and kill all these Chinese gangsters smuggling weapons" guy. Franklin and Michael were essentially one of the same at the game's end, both haughty, rich guys with nice cars living in Vinewood Hills. However, Franklin's clothes still consisted of wife-beaters, sagging jeans, backwards ballcaps, etc. He should have stayed a gangster, that would have left the SA fanboys happier.

Going back to Niko and Johnny. Franklin and Michael could meet and seem compatible on the surface, and be working against each other knowing, or more interestingly, not knowing it. That would leave a lot more options of choice left to players. Maybe at the end or toward it, they could have had a revelation. Michael could have found out something minor like Franklin being the camera man in one of Traci's "films". Or something major, like Franklin could find out Michael killed Lamar under God-knows-what circumstance.


They didn't have to be friends, and it would have been more interesting if they weren't. R*'s prior examples of GENIUS character writing have shown they're capable of making three likeable-yet-hateable characters that would leave the players to choose some very difficult sides, if they had to.
Imagine if we had more choice in GTA IV. I didn't want Niko to kill Jason once I knew Johnny's side of the story. But then what would happen? My pal Niko would be in deep sh*t with Faustin, while Johnny's brother is still alive to crusade in their futile war against the AoD. If Luis had more reasons to like and sympathize with him, what would I want? Maybe kill Packie and leave Niko without the diamonds or Gracie? Or could I shoot at Tony as Niko, leaving Luis scrambling as Packie and Niko ran away with the diamonds and the ransom girl?

Character Inconsistency: Supporting Characters


Antagonists


Our three choices for the game's ending weren't really choices. If you sought the most fulfillment, you're obviously going to have chosen C knowing the circumstances around it. Even after ending C, did it leave any of you scratching your heads going "huh"? I mean, WHO WAS THE MAIN ANTAGONIST?

 

Surely it couldn't have been Weston, why are we pushing him over a cliff? Every antagonist just felt so forced compared to previous titles.

Take a dynamic like Vlad and Dimitri with Niko. They give off their negative auras at the beginning of the story, reasons for the player to hate them. Niko exhibits a negative attitude toward them, as the
player would.

Now Madrazo and Michael. The guy goes to Michael's house, beats him with a baseball bat, has his trash mistress spit on him, and then Michael goes to fetch him some money. Okay, Michael's being a submissive little pussy to this guy we're clearly meant to hate, something's gonna develop, right? Okay, Michael and Trevor are in Madrazo's house. Trevor's giving off a negative response to him, but Michael's still being a little whimpering dog. What now? We're gonna run missions for him? Michael's gonna defend the man when Trevor insults him?

OKAY, NOW Trevor took Madrazo's wife. Are we gonna kill her? Ransom
her? Madrazo's sending guys out to kill us. NOPE. WE'RE GONNA GIVE HER
BACK! No consequences to us, no consequences to Madrazo. What did we
get out of this? Some love relationship between Trevor and Patricia
that's gimmicky and we're supposed to find funny?

Bullsh*t.

You could argue it's more "realistic" to submit to the Mexican drug
lord, but this is a game, it's fictional. There are tons of moments of
unrealistic events we just take because it's a Grand Theft Auto game.
How come I can kill several hundred cops and just sleep in my bed to
be acquitted of my charges? It's a game. Give the player when they
want. Let us kill f*cking Madrazo, who's an irritating, greedy,
domineering asshole that they make you run missions for in
multiplayer. Or hell, let Madrazo kill Michael, give ONE of the
characters some consistency.


What about ending C? "We're taking heat from every authority on the
gang and federal level. Let's just KILL EVERYONE! Oh, we gotta make it
a triangle. Uhhhh, Stretch appeared in two missions and was kind of a
dick to Franklin, obviously as much of a bad guy as Haynes. Let's KILL
HIM! HE'S EQUALLY A BAD GUY! Then there's the Chinese boss, also
appearing in a mission or two with no real personal connection to
anyone except having been pissed off by Trevor's business practices.
Gotta kill him too! What about Weston? They ULTIMATE FINAL BAD GUY
BOSS! He was introduced toward the end and screwed the trio out of a
few car payments. Let's make him THE CINEMATIC FINAL BOSS!"

If anyone, Haynes, should have been the only antagonist, or at least
the one pushed over the cliff. He was introduced earlier, he was a
dick to Michael, and Michael was a dick to him. Sorta like Niko and
Dimitri. Or it could have been a more interesting "harmonious to bad"
relationship. Like Dave could have betrayed Michael instead. Like
Sonny and Tommy. Billy and Johnny. Big Smoke and CJ. Hell, even Niko
was apprenticed to Dimitri early and, and sympathized with him.


Supporting Characters


These shined a little bit more than the protagonists and antagonists,
but there were still definite flaws.

What has pretty much made every previous GTA game and their stories
was their casts of characters. They all really played into and
supported the games' themes.

Lavish and outlandish Lance Vance, Love Fist, Kent Paul, Rosenberg,
and Phil Cassidy supported the 80's cheesy action of Tommy and Vic in
Vice City.

Gritty, grim, contrastingly optimistic and dynamic Roman, Lil' Jacob,
U.L. Paper, Ray Boccino, Faustin, and may more added the
uncompromisable flavor to each of Niko's escapades.


Which characters are we left from in V? Running off some of the
positives: Lamar, Lester, Ron, Michael's Therapist, Chef, Wade, Floyd,
Solomon, Lazlow, Dave, and Michael's family.


How did we see Trevor's "pals"? Lester, Ron, Wade, Floyd, and Chef.

They were all interesting, but how much time did they see? And for
what? See Wade, Ron and Floyd just cower under Trevor's dominion after
he was such a dick to them? And we're supposed to sympathize with
Trevor?


Michael is left with no side missions other than the weed fella and
Mary-Ann, (both of which were shared with Frank and Trevor.)

Who are we left with to pick the brain of the more complicated
protagonist? The therapist (I apologize, his name escapes me now, Friedman? I think) was
a great gateway, and Michael's therapy sessions were limited but very
interesting. Michael's family dynamic was also one that could have
been explored a lot more. No other protagonists have families or
stable (if you can call Michael and Amanda that) or serious
relationships to speak of.

One of the more interesting missions to me was when Michael reuinted
with his family after beating the sh*t out of Fabian. It seemed, just
for a moment there, the story would take itself seriously.

But no. They went back to cheap gags and gimmicks. Making Jimmy,
Traci, and Amanda totally out of touch, antagonistic assholes to
Michael. How were we supposed to sympathize with Michael who wanted
the best for his family? Could we not have had a more serious
epiphanywith his kids and wife?


Franklin's only real friend outside of his and Michael's circle was
Lamar. He was a good comic-relief character, but unlike someone like
Jimmy or Wade (at least his retardation provided a little bit of
believability to his behavior) was quite believable. We also got to
see a good deal of him in both GTA:O and singeplayer.


The Lack of Niche


I very much appreciated GTA IV and its episode's ticket to the
environment. Even in a place as seemingly bland as Liberty City, we
got to live it in three fantastically contrasting and unique ways.

Niko was our middle ground. We got to see a little bit of everyone
from rich Pegorino's lavish mansion to Jacob and Badman's sh*tty
apartment. Johnny and Luis were our extremes, and their games were
presented as that. Johnny was the true low-class, grit, and danger.
The themes of political discourse GTA is so prided for were very
apparent in his dealings with Congressman Stubbs. We lived in a dirty
clubhouse blaring incessantly loud death metal. The weapons were
rag-tag and credible for what you'd find on the streets: pipe bombs,
sawn-off wooden shotguns, modified automatic pistols, etc. The
vehicles (AN ACTUAL DECENT VARIETY OF MOTORCYCLES) were very different
to that of IV. Ignoring the plethora of both sport bikes and choppers,
we had rusty and beat up tow trucks, vans, and utility trucks. You
worked within your own gang, small-time and believably, only dealing
with petty gang wars (until that memorable but very cheesy finale of
storming the gates of Alderny State Correctional.)

Moving onto Gay Tony, the whole game was cheesy glitz and glam. We had
the highest tier in weaponry, explosive automatic military grade
shotguns and and sniper rifles, remote-detonated plastic explosives,
and guns literally made out of gold. The vehicles were the most lavish
of sports carts. The HUD and map were literally pink. You did missions
either in your down-town nightclub or for billionaire Arab playboys.


What niches were we left with in V?

Old, retired bank robber, young and spritely bank robber, and a filthy
psychopath.

The map of V was one part of the game I absolutely hold in the highest
regard. It was just made with such love, care, and detail. How come
nearly all of our missions are in Los Santos? Blaine County is
SPRAWLING. We're out of Sandy Shores COMPLETELY after Trevor's sub-par
introductory missions. What about the sprawling fields and vineyards in
the middle of the map? We don't even see those. I just found out about
those areas playing GTA:O.

Michael is the suit-wearing, air conditioning and bug repellent
loving-urban professional. Franklin loves the same class as Michael,
but has just been brought up with a lower standard.

Trevor has unfortunately been our only key left to believably explore
the desert, clothing beyond hoodies and suits, and vehicles beyond
sports cars and luxury sedans. But how often are we given the
incentives to explore out there? Most all Strangers and Freaks
missions as well as story missions take place in LS. Trevor even lives
in Floyd's place and the Vanilla Unicorn for the majority and epilogue
of the game. Whenever I randomly switched to him, he'd USUALLY be
f*cking around in LS.


Blaine County and its niche had so much potential, and so little of it
was realized. Did it feel right hunting deer with suppressed,
high-powered, military grade sniper rifles? Where was TLaD's pipe
bombs and wooden sawn-offs? Where was San Andreas' unscoped hunting
rifles? Where was Vice City's revolvers and wooden assault rifles?

We were left with super high-tier, gunmetal, attachment-loaded guns
that are not credibly found in the hands of back-country rednecks or
typical gang-bangers.


Moving to GTA:O, we still find our options really limited. We cannot
make any vans or city utility vehicles personal (without heavy exploit
which certain posters might or might not have engaged in), we are
limited with TWO damn choppers, leather jackets loaded with dumb
racing stripes, and suits that don't even have matching pants. The
Social Club is LOADED with mafias, motorcycle clubs, and other crews
and gangs that aren't just San Andreas fan-boys or skinny-jean wearing
hipsters.


Strong opening, weak middle, horrible ending

(This section onward is inexplicably double-spaced on my computer, if it is on yours, I apologize) GTA V seemed very much as though it were going to be a strong, story-driven and exciting game. The trailers showed three distinct protagonists. Little did we realize that EVERY heist and heist-style (neglecting the very anti-climactic U.D.) was shown in the trailers: The Jewelery Store, The Armored Truck Robbery, the FIB Building kidnapping, the FIB Building Robbery, The Merryweather Job, and the Paleto Bay score. The Strangers and Freaks missions were only given to Franklin and Trevor as well, as riveting as it was to tow cars five times in a row and smash real-estate signs.
The game started out with the past setting of North Yankton, a very detailed environment that would automatically fail the mission if you stepped out of bounds in the Brad grave discovery. It seemed as though this were going to be a major theme and explained, and it was relatively. Not really how Michael was allowed to be acquitted of all past crimes in exchange of boosting Dave's career, but that's not the point.
Franklin's own story took over, and the "repo man by day, gang banger by night" took about a few missions that WERE very entertaining to throw out his niche of driver and gangster completely. But I digress, seeing him and Michael was a very interesting dynamic, especially when you only played as the one character for a long period of time, proving once again the switch system could have been implemented a lot more proficiently.
Nevertheless, the early part of the game was a very coherent, enjoyable experience. We had an antagonist-type, Madrazo, introduced. We took special care into surveying and preparing for the jewelery store heist.
And when all was said and done, along comes Trevor. He's pissed off, hellbent on revenge, but what does he do? He casually jokes around with Michael when they decide to go beat up Lazlow for the sake of Traci. They chum and joke around, but then Trevor gets MORE hostile to "new" Michael, oddly enough, as time progresses. It metamorphosizes from a silent resentment when Trevor thought Michael was no use to him to all-out anger and hostility towards the end after Michael earned Trevor some very successful scores and proved his trustworthiness.

The game also experienced that identity crisis: the boundary between games like San Andreas and Gay Tony, and games like IV, TLaD, and III. It didn't even find that happy equilibrium like Vice City did. I'm speaking of the game's overall theme and tone. What is this game's theme? Is it the "just have some crazy fun" like San Andreas? I mean, Michael and Trevor are shooting fantasy clowns and aliens, Michael gets knocked out and wakes up in a morgue very inexplicably, three men in bomb defusal suits murder an entire town's police force and hop a train to freedom, hippies build us space cars, we shoot down a passenger plane in the middle of the desert and no one turns a blind eye, and GTA in general is just the "cops forget your whole identity after you hide a couple minutes". What was with the police? Why were they so difficult? To replicate realism? Realism in the game where you can harbor an RPG and scores of ammunition in your anus?
Was this game intended to be a serious story? The betrayal and dispute between two former friends? A strong statement about corrupt police and capitalism? A game where you're very prone to gun damage as is realistic? I couldn't figure it out. Not even at the ending that was grim, bleak, and serious. Ending C at least, Michael and Trevor were supposedly f*cked due to having pissed off the entire Chinese Mafia, the FIB, the police, Merryweather, and Weston's goons. But wait, we can just kill a few dozen of them in a warehouse, kill the big players, and be golden? And Michael and Trevor are good friends again? And Franklin and his past life and friends are all settled? It just didn't check out to me.



To Conclude...

Compared to the past GTA's, even all the past Rockstar titles, this game really had an identity crisis. It would have been passable, IF Rockstar did not hype it up for a good three years as an exciting story with sophisticated characters and events. Hell, even the multiplayer was horridly unfinished and still continues to be.
What did you think of V's story? Agree? Disagree? Suggestions? Problems? Questions? Concerns?

Edited February 15, 2014 by Drunken Cowboy

[Kifflom!]

what was ur reaction when johnny was killed

[fwenshy]

Wow I love the input and effort but I'm way to busy to read that. Was some good points up to where I got to:

[Cherrymoon92]

FOR F*CKS SAKE, where do you get the time to write all of this ?!?!?!?!?!

Edited November 6, 2013 by Cherrymoon92

[FromBrnoCity]

Get a life you critic rat.

[Jacob-B]

Even though i heavily disagree with your opinions, I commend you for writing all of this and showcasing your opinions, even if they may be the unpopular ones.

[Car Lover]

Ain't nobody got time fo dat.

[Vagos MC]

Great input.

 

About Johnny - I totally agree with you. Rockstar made a major mistake about him. In TL&D, he is portrayed as a total badass and doesn't take sh*t from anyone. In GTA V, he is saying "Sorry" and asking for forgiveness. In his lifetime, he must of murdered well over 200 Angels of Death members but he's afraid of some unfit and drug addict psycho. Bullsh*t. I also didn't understand how he got back together with Ashley. They two getting back together simply doesn't make sense. He left Ashley for good. I thought she must of died from a drug overdose. As for Johnny getting hooked on drugs, that's another mistake. No way he would of got back onto drugs.

[RoadRunner71]

Interesting reading, I've liked the Pulp Fiction point, it would have been something different but pretty cool

[tbost3211]

Read the whole thing and it is 100% fact, to me the story never develops and there was way too few heist with little to no planning after the 1st, too many jokes not enough grit, really made me appreciate GTA IV 1000000x more I hope Rockstar goes back to a more serious, in depth story that I'll actually be attached too cuz GTA V is just lack luster in a lot of areas, the map is amazing like you said but the story is so unfulfilling I wanted to cry haha

[spamtackey]

Honestly I feel like a read a lot of this before and I have to say you completely seem to miss the point of Trevor. Trevor's point in the game is to give us a character who can do all of the crazy things that the player does. The players were complaining about how "Niko wouldn't wear a dress like the guy in Saints Row!" or "Wah! I can't take this story seriously when my actions contradict the given storyline!" In GTA IV there was a very clear line between narrative and gameplay. Perhaps too much of one, but it was really for the players good. They wanted to tell a crime drama, but GTA is known for it's freedom and fun. In order to mesh that they don't drain the players money when Roman spends it or berate the player for going on murder sprees. No, they ignore it and pretend it never happened. That wasn't enough for some people.

 

So they made Trevor. Trevor is sickening, he's repulsive, he has few morals and that's the point. He is what the character would have to be in order for us to truly believe they were wearing a dress or constantly murdering people. He is the standard GTA player given flesh and blood in the story of GTA and for that I believe he is a brilliant addition. He's not meant to be sympathetic or to have a code or reason. He actually DOES have more of a code than Michael in that he won't kill or abandon his friends. The problem is that so few people actually become his friend that he ends up manipulating people to 'like him'. Wade is clearly mentally retarded and Ron is clearly a man who has no confidence and is weak. They're not really his friends, but they're the closest thing he has. Trevor has plenty of issues such as abandonment from Mike, he has anger issues, but he's not inhuman and that is the point. He's a direct contrast to Michael who is the standard likable killer with a code.

 

That said, I enjoyed the GTA V storyline. It didn't always make logical sense but it was more of an action movie than a serious crime drama and it was good fun.

[Officer Ronson]

Taking Johhny out was of pure mercy, the poor guy had nothing left, yes he was a badass but after the events of Alderney in 2008 The Lost definetively went downhill.

[make total destroy]

You complain about Trevor, but that's what a GTA protagonist would have to be--a flawed psychopath--if we take that role to it's logical conclusion. I mean, with the amount of people you kill throughout each game, it's nice that Rockstar finally acknowledges that one would have to be totally batsh*t to behave that way, instead of making them look like well-meaning, well-adjusted people.

 

EDIT: Spamtackey basically said what I wanted to, and then some.

Edited November 6, 2013 by ShootPeopleNotDope

[Drunken Cowboy]

Honestly I feel like a read a lot of this before and I have to say you completely seem to miss the point of Trevor. Trevor's point in the game is to give us a character who can do all of the crazy things that the player does. The players were complaining about how "Niko wouldn't wear a dress like the guy in Saints Row!" or "Wah! I can't take this story seriously when my actions contradict the given storyline!" In GTA IV there was a very clear line between narrative and gameplay. Perhaps too much of one, but it was really for the players good. They wanted to tell a crime drama, but GTA is known for it's freedom and fun. In order to mesh that they don't drain the players money when Roman spends it or berate the player for going on murder sprees. No, they ignore it and pretend it never happened. That wasn't enough for some people.

 

So they made Trevor. Trevor is sickening, he's repulsive, he has few morals and that's the point. He is what the character would have to be in order for us to truly believe they were wearing a dress or constantly murdering people. He is the standard GTA player given flesh and blood in the story of GTA and for that I believe he is a brilliant addition. He's not meant to be sympathetic or to have a code or reason. He actually DOES have more of a code than Michael in that he won't kill or abandon his friends. The problem is that so few people actually become his friend that he ends up manipulating people to 'like him'. Wade is clearly mentally retarded and Ron is clearly a man who has no confidence and is weak. They're not really his friends, but they're the closest thing he has. Trevor has plenty of issues such as abandonment from Mike, he has anger issues, but he's not inhuman and that is the point. He's a direct contrast to Michael who is the standard likable killer with a code.

 

That said, I enjoyed the GTA V storyline. It didn't always make logical sense but it was more of an action movie than a serious crime drama and it was good fun.

 

 

I see exactly what you're saying, and I would even utilize Trevor like this, but the game doesn't present itself this way. The Michael/Trevor dynamic is present and VERY forced.

[Drunken Cowboy]

Taking Johhny out was of pure mercy, the poor guy had nothing left, yes he was a badass but after the events of Alderney in 2008 The Lost definetively went downhill.

Duh. They should have left it dead. Johnny lost his best friends, club, home, and had to kill his mentor. He should have either died in TLaD or the ending should have stayed; sitting on Brian's dirty mattress as blaring death metal played over his head for the rest of his days.

 

The fact he'd say "f*ck it! Let's recruit several hundred members, get back with my junkie bitch, and go straight into enemy territory!"

I've already made a ton of Johnny threads. I'd rather this one stay on V as a whole.

[spamtackey]

 

Honestly I feel like a read a lot of this before and I have to say you completely seem to miss the point of Trevor. Trevor's point in the game is to give us a character who can do all of the crazy things that the player does. The players were complaining about how "Niko wouldn't wear a dress like the guy in Saints Row!" or "Wah! I can't take this story seriously when my actions contradict the given storyline!" In GTA IV there was a very clear line between narrative and gameplay. Perhaps too much of one, but it was really for the players good. They wanted to tell a crime drama, but GTA is known for it's freedom and fun. In order to mesh that they don't drain the players money when Roman spends it or berate the player for going on murder sprees. No, they ignore it and pretend it never happened. That wasn't enough for some people.

 

So they made Trevor. Trevor is sickening, he's repulsive, he has few morals and that's the point. He is what the character would have to be in order for us to truly believe they were wearing a dress or constantly murdering people. He is the standard GTA player given flesh and blood in the story of GTA and for that I believe he is a brilliant addition. He's not meant to be sympathetic or to have a code or reason. He actually DOES have more of a code than Michael in that he won't kill or abandon his friends. The problem is that so few people actually become his friend that he ends up manipulating people to 'like him'. Wade is clearly mentally retarded and Ron is clearly a man who has no confidence and is weak. They're not really his friends, but they're the closest thing he has. Trevor has plenty of issues such as abandonment from Mike, he has anger issues, but he's not inhuman and that is the point. He's a direct contrast to Michael who is the standard likable killer with a code.

 

That said, I enjoyed the GTA V storyline. It didn't always make logical sense but it was more of an action movie than a serious crime drama and it was good fun.

 

I see exactly what you're saying, and I would even utilize Trevor like this, but the game doesn't present itself this way. The Michael/Trevor dynamic is present and VERY forced.

 

 

I don't feel that way. Trevor has this underlying desire to have a true friend and Michael is that friend. He's too prideful to just admit that he wants a friend and he's rightfully bitter about what Michael did for him. If anything Michael is like a brother to Trevor who he's furious at for wronging him. He can't let go of their friendship but he can't just accept it either. Trevor starts to get even worse after the whole North Yankton thing and part of it probably is his trying to put Michael behind him. He probably wants to save Michael as much as he wants Michael to die. It's really a cool dynamic that only works because Trevor is so messed up and Michael isn't messed up. The only things I would change about their dynamic would be to have the conflict resolved in the main story rather than after ending C and have Michael have a moment where he chooses not to betray Trevor like he did before.

[Guest]

Read that from start to finish and I agree. Especially with the way the characters were introduced in the pre-release marketing. Michael was supposed to have a family, who hang around his house and have a daily routine. Did we get that? Nope. They don't even live there for the majority of the storyline, and the most you'll see is Jimmy doing starjumps in his bedroom, with the occasional one-liner. He'll do that FOREVER. He won't do anything else, no matter how long you sit and wait.

 

Franklin was marketed as a gangbanger who also did work for Simeon. In the Gameinformer preview, he was shown driving supercars, and riding sports bikes. That gave the impression that along with working for Simeon and repoing cars for him, we'd be able to head down to his garage and borrow a supercar. Did we get that? NOPE. He rides a green bike for the majority of the game, only does THREE jobs for Simeon, and three or so gangbanging styled missions. For a lot of the game, he leaves that awesome, detailed home in Strawberry and lives in some sh*tty, empty lonely home in the hills. Compared to the other places you can see in the hills, that place is utter sh*te.

 

Trevor seemed to be the only character who was the same as he was described in the marketing. It did kind of suck that we couldn't do the stuff in the gameinformer preview, like rolling up to that store then flicking people off. Or the lighter to throw into a gas trail. Sandy Shores was done brilliantly, there were some nice strangers and freaks missions there, Trevor had his own airfield, and it made sense to f*ck around. I do disagree with how you said he's inconsistent though. That's what he's about, he's unstable and random, and it is believable for him to do the stuff he did.

[Journey_95]

I agree with you on many points I hated how they killed Johny and I really hated that the multiple protagonists stuff was forced upon us I also think the story has many flaws and there is no good antagonist
The supporting characters were also much better in GTA IV and the criminal stuff was also much better there

 

BUT I really liked Trevor he was a unique character and a real maniac (although I hated that he killed Johny)

Franklin was a bit boring but Michael was badass

All in all GTA IV + episodes story was much better but GTA V was also fun

[Journey_95]

Get a life you critic rat.

 

could you please get out of Rockstar's ass for one minute?

Thanks!

I also dont agree with OP on many points (like how he hates Trevor) but still its his f*cking opinion

 

[tbost3211]

To me it felt like Rockstar started to head in a good direction multiple times in the story but then halfway through each story line began to half ass it and give it a poor ending.. A lot of possibilities with poor execution, still an excellent game just didn't quite reach my expectations(besides graphics and attention to detail in the open world which was excellent just the story was lacking)

[M22]

It was a good read, i agree with most points, the story could have had a bit more use with the countryside , they could have added more activities/freaks and strangers and missions imo especially near the zancudo river, but at some points the story is believable, at the end of every GTA i have played it felt as if something was accomplished, this GTA didn't yeah you kill one really bad guy and a few others but it didn't mean anything, i really think overall they just over hyped this game too much.

Edited November 6, 2013 by F02

[Cforumlbgfeva]

V's story was stupid. It felt rushed. I hate that they killed Johnny -_-. Who writes these dumb scripts at C* Gta V could have been so much better.

[Soarindude]

I read this whole post and could not agree more with all of it. I would love to discuss some more points with you here or via private messages if you'd like to.

 

I think a lot of the excitement got the better of us. After GTA IV came out, I thought the total vibe of the game was great. People legitimately enjoyed the game, and I did not see/hear anywhere the criticism that GTA V got.

 

Then, GTA V 'wish-list' was talked about. GTA V was going to be the game of the year, a game with great graphics, new physics, a perfect map, and all of these cool side-missions and side-mini games. Oh, and let's not forget, an amazing online experience, an unbelievable open-world experience (buying houses offline/online, buying businesses, etc)

 

Then, we started seeing trailers. People expressed some criticism, but overall, people were excited.

 

What GTA V delivered was a enjoyable game that could not live up to expectations. I still play GTA V a lot, but I was/am still disappointed. The graphics were current-gen graphics, they couldn't do better. The physics were changed, not improved/worsened. The side-m/games got extremely boring fast, and were, as most mini-games are, playable once or twice. The side-missions added nothing to the storyline and were just plain boring. (The towing mini-game is just...plain..stupid)

 

GTA IV's storyline was movie worthy. The story-line was rich, made sense, was logical, had its quirks, and just was well put together. But GTA V's was simply not. They focused way to much on trying to make the missions exciting and fun, instead of making the actual storyline truly exciting. They tried doing too much all at once with the 3 character system, yet, the storyline in the end felt rushed and very short. I agree with pretty much everything you said about the storyline, we're on the same page here.

 

One thing you touched upon that I would like to elaborate is this:

 

Where was the direction of this game taking us? With three characters, they tried giivng us 3 different experiences at once. Yet, it really just felt like an unfinished game.

 

-Michael's role in the game was the best done. The guns, the storyline, and everything else fit around him. The overall city matched up with the way Michael's role would be played. Yet, we still never really scratched more then the surface. Did we see him enjoying the luxuries of being a flat out millionaire? Did we get any solid story-line's with his family? Absolutely not. They scratched the surface on Michael to where, he could've been a great character, but just fell short.

 

-Franklin was a character that would play the rags-to-riches storyline. Yet, he become a 'riches' way too early in the game. He spoke with great intellect, he moved into a nice house early on, rarely interacted with the 'hood', and never seemed like the gangster we appeared to get. In fact, I think him being black was the only true "gangster" attribute about him. The 'black' stereotype didn't take him far, because he didn't even participate in BLACK STEREOTYPE ROLES. He was a black michael for just about 85% of the game. While they tried portraying Franklin wanting to change his ways (dialogue with Lamar), he was already changed by Michael within the second mission between those two. His 'hood' stereotype was thrown in the gutter way too early in the game. We never saw 'gangster' weapons or anything along those lines. Designer weapons right away.

 

-Trevor was the biggest train-wreck out of them all. What was he? A redneck? a psychopath? A caring friend? Or just a crook? I could never tell. Before we could truly experience Trevor, we were given 'cliche' dialogue, designer weaponry, and never did we see him truly soak up Blaine County, Sandy Shores, or anything like that. He was given machine guns, nice clothes, and living in Los Santos by the very end of it.

 

Why were these people 'allowed' to purchase Rocket Launchers 20% into the game? The game was too easy because the amount of wealth was way too high. There was never a stress for funds, which made playing as a 'poor' black gangsta, and a 'red-neck trucker' pointless, when sports cars and Los Santos mansions/living in a strip club were given to us pretty early on.

[Mr_Goldcard]

I agree with you on all points. The beginning was good, but when Trevor stepped in it just felt too rushed. I mean when Trevor went into Michael's house? How the f*ck did he even find him?? How did he know he lived there?? He just appeared out of nowhere. Trevor is just a terrible protagonist. He would fit more as a side-character... But the fact that most fanboys love Trevor just makes me worry about the future of GTA's characters. Do us a favor Rockstar stop trying to please fans too much, go your own way like you were going with IV.

[spamtackey]

I agree with you on all points. The beginning was good, but when Trevor stepped in it just felt too rushed. I mean when Trevor went into Michael's house? How the f*ck did he even find him?? How did he know he lived there?? He just appeared out of nowhere. Trevor is just a terrible protagonist. He would fit more as a side-character... But the fact that most fanboys love Trevor just makes me worry about the future of GTA's characters. Do us a favor Rockstar stop trying to please fans too much, go your own way like you were going with IV.

 

He knew where Michael lived because he sent Wade to find out where Michael was. Wade found out where a Michael De Santa lived and he matched the description. That's why Trevor went to Los Santos. Do you really expect us to know exactly how Wade found out Michael's address? I'll use GTA IV as an example, since you hold it up high:

 

How the f*ck did UL Paper find Darko? All of a sudden they just have him! It's ridiculous and makes Niko's whole search pointless.

 

 

Off-screen stuff happens off-screen.

Edited November 6, 2013 by spamtackey

[Mr_Goldcard]

And how the f*ck did Trevor find Franklin's home??

[Maggot899]

So I came into this post thinking I was going to hate it, ready to e-warrior it out, but you made some pretty good points which I'd like to throw my two cents into.

 

Franklin: I loved his character. He was essentially the realist of the three which is probably why he comes off as a boring, asshole to some people. I blame Rockstar for how they set up his trailer, along with our expectations of his story, because his was really hood oriented and catered to everyone who wanted SA 2. They threw in little hints in the trailers about how he despised the gang life and wanted better things, but his trailers made it seem like 1/3 of the game would be like the beginning of San Andreas in a more modern setting. ALTHOUGH, back in November during the GI spread Dan clearly stated that Franklin was more of a gang banger in a post-gangbanging world, meaning that he grew up in that culture and spent a good amount of time in it but that those days were over. So it explains his slang, his clothing choices, hanging with Lamar on hood missions and all of that. He was also described as being ambitious and wanting more than just flaunting colors and doing drive-bys which is where Michael comes on. (I'm going to touch on the heists later, and his "Driver" role in it all.)

 

Michael: I loved his character, and he was obviously the most developed character of all three. I still sort of feel like they threw in Franklin so you could compare the two different characters together, (and of course as stated in the GI interview) Trevor was sort of thrown in later based off of some guys suggestion. Michael is the real story they wanted to tell, and I feel like they sacrificed some of that for the other two characters. Who do we have the best background on? Out of all three characters, which one was explained the most? Who was given a lot of depth and fleshed out better? I knew I would like Michael when the game opened up on his therapy scene. He was a smart, instinct driven, narcissist that got out when he was on top. Everything Michael did was for himself, despite how much he tried to convince people it was for his family, and I wanted that from a protagonist. It is very apparent that out of all three protagonists, Michael was the one that Rockstar worked on the most, and really wanted us to care about the most at the end. What I didn't like was how he was described as the brains of it all, the planner, and mastermind behind his work when in all reality it was Lester that did everything.

 

Trevor: I f*cking loved Trevor. He was the Billy Grey protagonist of this game, and we've needed a protagonist like this for awhile(personal opinion). Everyone knew how Trevor was going to act since the GI spread last year (Did you read that OP?) He is the crazy, impulse driven, maniac that doesn't want to stop doing what HE wants to do until he is killed. Sure I get that a lot of people don't like him because of some of the things he says, or does, but that is what really made him stand out for me. I think of all the characters in the game, Trevor was awarded the best dialogue. I loved the decision to kill Johnny because I never liked Johnny. I feel that Johnny was a very weak protagonist and that Rockstar couldn't decided what to do with...killing him made some very good points though. During every story, each protagonist we've ever had is at their prime...they can't be killed or stopped, we are made to like these characters at some point or another...so they need to be unstoppable AT THAT POINT in their life. Five years after TLAD, Johnny was no longer a major player in anything. He was a strung out meth head, that couldn't make any solid decisions because Rockstar made him that way. Bring in Trevor, who is at his peak, and Johnny wasn't a concern. Any of these characters can be killed at some point after their story, as they aren't invincible...Trevor proved that. Also TLAD wasn't that great...just saying.

 

Friendship: I completely agree with this. Before I even saw the first trailer, a friend and I were discussing what we would like to see with V. We came up with a "Two character driven game where their stories are completely separate and maybe briefly intersect at some point." Multiple characters was obviously the direction they were heading in with this game, and I was very open to it. I would have liked different stories that didn't intersect almost at all because they could have told a much better story that way. They used up a lot of time throwing these characters together in missions because "THREE PROTAGONISTS OMG!!!" and it felt like they had to rush a lot of parts because of this. Separate stories could have been better paced, and also had a lot more variety. Trevor had potential being a gun and drug runner in the desert with his own story. Franklin had potential being a reluctant gang banger in Los Santos with his own story. Michael had potential being the retiree, dragged back into crime and working with the FIB WITH HIS OWN STORY. I really felt like we were sort of cheated out of what we saw in the character trailers because everything in them, with a good exception of Michael's, was the first 5 missions of each character and then BAM! "OMG THREE PROTAGONISTS FIGHTING ABOUT MONEY WHILE CRITICIZING OUR BROKEN GOVERNMENT!!!! LULZ YEAH!!" Separation of these characters had potential to bring out three separate and very interesting stories, but I'm going to be that guy and blame the old hardware on our current gen consoles.

 

Antagonists: I don't agree with some of what you are saying. Some of the characters were kind of inconsistent, and I think it was because Rockstar made that whole "YOU WILL BE CONFUSED ON WHO THE MAIN ANTAGONIST REALLY IS!!! 3EDGY!!!" Most of the time, when a character was introduced, I though to myself "I'm probably going to kill that guy in like 5 missions." Classic GTA formula correct? Well they changed a lot of that this time around which took a lot of people by surprise. "Man that guy is an asshole...can't wait to kill him in like 5 missions...never mind 8 missions...ok soon? Hmm...well then..." So I think that they really tried to deviate from the standard "This guy is an asshole, kill him after you've done like 5 missions for him!" formula which we've grown so accustomed to. I really liked their decision to do this, as it made the anticipation of WANTING to kill some of these characters that much greater when you finally got to do it. I also didn't like how they handled Madrazo. I really thought "Man I can't wait to do like 5 more missions for this guy...he's gonna get what's coming to him." But instead it was more of a, "f*ck the guy up, steal his wife, take a break with some fun Trevor missions, give him a monkey statue and his wife, and all is forgiven." I really thought that Madrazo would be a very tough threat from the way Franklin described him in the beginning. Instead he was a pushover, that I guess wasn't that dangerous of a man. The supporting characters was kind of shirked on in this game because of the three character dynamic. Who needs friends when you have yourself three times? I understood Michael's family being dicks. He didn't care about them and let them run rampant with his money with no consequences, so in turn they ran rampant with his money and decided to not care about the asshole alcoholic that cared about them not because he wanted to, but because he knew that "someone with a family is supposed to care about them so I'll try that I guess...whiskey and movies =D)

 

Map: I really feel, once again, like the sprawling country side was put in as a throw back to SA. I didn't like that the game was all "LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS...sandy shores real fast... LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS... sandy shores real fast, oh yeah and let's rob a bank in Paleto Bay... LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS...what was it again, oh yeah North Yankton is important right?...LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS LOS SANTOS......." There was a huge load of potential for the countryside, especially if Trevor would have been given his OWN PERSONAL STORY. This is a beautiful map that they obviously took a lot of time to craft, yet they had a hardon for Los Santos for some reason.

 

Heists: They really f*cked with some people on these. I loved the heists, but they were kind of disappointing as well. "LOL THREE CHARACTERS GUYS!!!! YOU CAN ROB BANKS AND sh*t AND FULLY PLAN THEM OUT WITH YOUR THREE CHARACTERS, AND YOU WILL MAKE LOTS OF MONEY FOR YOUR THREE CHARACTERS AND THEN YOUR THREE CHARACTERS WILL RIDE OFF INTO THE SUNSET AFTER YOUR THREE CHARACTERS FULLY PLANNED OUT THESE AWESOME HEISTS THAT ARE A MAJOR PART OF THIS THREE CHARACTER DRIVEN GAME!!!!" -Rockstar Games.

Maybe I paraphrased a bit but I do remember being promised that these heists were huge factors in the game, and fully controllable and will cater to everyone who got an erection from "Three-Leaf Clover and Breaking the Bank at Caligula's!" Instead we got to watch as Lester planned everything and threw us a small bone every now and then. "Hey go steal a van and we can rob this bitch Michael. Hey go steal three cars and we can rob this bitch Michael. Hey go rob a janitor and we can rob this bitch Michael..." Ok at least we get to decide how we go about all these heists right? Well not really...Go in quiet for the jewels and then escape through the sewers or: Go in loud for the jewels and escape through the sewers? Hey steal a sub and blow up a private military ship (because that's easy) to get something, or: Steal a sub AND HELICOPTER, to go get something? Go f*ck up Paleto Bay guys. Go rob an armored truck guys. Go into the FIB building and mop and then blow some sh*t up and rappel down the elevator, or: Go into the FIB building and cause a helicopter to blow part of it up and rappel down the side? The Union Depository was the only one that was drastically different depending on how you went about it. And what was the point of playing as a Gunman, Driver, and Pilot for these awesome heists when you ended up hiring people to do this sh*t for you most of the time?

 

Endings: Does anyone even care about spoilers anymore? Because here they come...

I feel like they really threw in endings A and B to keep the people that either hated Michael or Trevor happy. The missions were very similar in nature and over pretty quickly...also quite boring, and they added onto the whole "BUT WAIT ONE OF YOUR THREE PROTAGONISTS THAT YOU CAN CONTROL BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE IS NOT IMMORTAL WHEN THE GANGBANGER SHOWS UP! THAT GANGBANGER BEING ONE OF THE THREE PROTAGONISTS THAT WE AREN'T SURE IF YOU KNEW ABOUT!" Chase Trevor in a vehicle for awhile and then kill him because he made some enemies, OR chase Michael in a vehicle for awhile and then kill him because he made enemies with a rich dude. Pretty sure A and B were thrown in there to be dramatic and edgy. Ending C was the best ending that was very aware of how cliche it was and it sat very well with me. I like to think that all of us have wanted an ending in a GTA game where we get to kill everyone that pissed us off, a bunch of cops and military people, all in one day at the same time. Ending C was the ideal ending for everyone to ride off into the sunset and settle their differences.

 

All in all, I loved this game...and there is my criticism of it, along with a response to you DrunkenCowboy.

[spamtackey]

And how the f*ck did Trevor find Franklin's home??

 

Technically he didn't. Technically he found Franklin's Aunt's home, so he probably just go lucky to stumble upon the whole Lamar/Franklin/Aunt debate.

[Staten]

What is this game's theme?

 

Addiction, whether to a drug, a way of life, or a kind of behaviour.

[Mr_Goldcard]

 

And how the f*ck did Trevor find Franklin's home??

 

Technically he didn't. Technically he found Franklin's Aunt's home, so he probably just go lucky to stumble upon the whole Lamar/Franklin/Aunt debate.

 

 

Now you're not making sense and trying to defend Rockstar's lazy writing.