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

[woggleman]

Money very much was a part of the theme during the story and it shows it from three different points of view.

 

Michael already has it and it has in no way solved all his problems

 

Franklin wants it and will do anything to get it

 

Trevor couldn't care less and actually prefers to live on the margins of society

 

What way is the best is up to you to decide. I think it was done very well.

 

If you also pay attention to the story corporate greed, materialism, the economy and how the regular guy is screwed over are constant running undercurrents throughout the story. Most of Lester's missions are about screwing over corporate America.

[spamtackey]

Money very much was a part of the theme during the story and it shows it from three different points of view.

 

Michael already has it and it has in no way solved all his problems

 

Franklin wants it and will do anything to get it

 

Trevor couldn't care less and actually prefers to live on the margins of society

 

What way is the best is up to you to decide. I think it was done very well.

 

If you also pay attention to the story corporate greed, materialism, the economy and how the regular guy is screwed over are constant running undercurrents throughout the story. Most of Lester's missions are about screwing over corporate America.

 

Money as a whole may have been a theme. Corporate America and the Government may have been the theme.

 

The "Pursuit of the Almighty Dollar"* is, however, not.

 

Michael already has money. Not pursuing the dollar. He didn't betray Trevor for money he did it for his family. Not about pursuing the dollar.

Franklin wants money. He pursues the dollar... for all of two missions before he is given his mansion and stops really doing anything to pursue the dollar. It'd be nice if his ambition led him to do something like a heist of his own.

If Trevor doesn't care. He's not pursuing the dollar, but I'd say he's the most in pursuit because of TP Industries.

 

I think the statement was probably a way to build up the whole heist thing (same with the logo), but perhaps they put it in the wrong words. Don't get me wrong, I like the story as-is. I think I would have done it differently, I would have probably tried to balance out the characters more and flesh out the them of pursuing the dollar and the effects of pursuing the dollar, but I like the story as it is. It's a fun action movie kinda story and it entertained me quite a lot.

 

* http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/03/gta-v-about-pursuit-of-the-almighty-dollar/

Edited November 8, 2013 by spamtackey

[Official General]

@ spamtackey

 

 

The only reason we kept arguing was because you put words in my mouth. We came to the same conclusion that Rockstar misrepresented GTA V, but the details are different. You directly talk about the hood stuff and I'm talking about the role of Franklin. They are connected but they are not the same thing. I can't come up with a way to expand Franklin's role without adding more gang stuff, but if Rockstar did then I wouldn't have a problem with the smaller focus on gang stuff.

 

Look, I don't wanna keep arguing about the same thing. I was talking about everything to do with Franklin's personal story that was misrepresented in his trailer, and that was centered on the hood and gang activity. I already know that his role was supposed to be less focused on being a gang member, but my point is that Rockstar clearly stated he would very frequently get dragged back into the gang life outside of the main heist theme, and that was not really the case, save a very few missions with Lamar. I would not even have cared if the gang stuff played a major part in the main storyline, I would have been happy with Franklin having re-playable gang activity to do as side missions only, that would have been good enough for me.

 

We can definitely agree on this :

 

 

Money as a whole may have been a theme. Corporate America and the Government may have been the theme.

The "Pursuit of the Almighty Dollar"* is, however, not.

Michael already has money. Not pursuing the dollar. He didn't betray Trevor for money he did it for his family. Not about pursuing the dollar.

Franklin wants money. He pursues the dollar... for all of two missions before he is given his mansion and stops really doing anything to pursue the dollar. It'd be nice if his ambition led him to do something like a heist of his own. If Trevor doesn't care. He's not pursuing the dollar, but I'd say he's the most in pursuit because of TP Industries.

 

I stated something very similar to this myself in another thread. If:

 

* Michael had lost his mansion, cars and money due being in constant major debt.

* Franklin actually worked much harder for the money and wealth he needs to get out of the hood and live a life of luxury.

* Trevor was very serious about cleaning himself up, kicking his drug habit, moving out a dirty trailer and building his own criminal empire in the desert but needs the funding to do all this.

 

Then yeah I'd have understood the theme as having that 'pursuing the almighty dollar' meaning much more than I do now.

 

I really wished Franklin used his money to help improve the prospects of his Families gang set. That would have opened up the doors of all kinds of great side missions and activities that are re-playable. Instead of his whining and b*tching at Lamar and the rest to do better and looking down on him, he could have used some of his money to fund major drug-dealing operations for his fellow gang members. This in turn could have led to exciting stuff like gang wars over turf for drug sales and sabotaging and hijacking drug deals (like TBOGT's Drug Wars). He could even have recruited gang members to go with him on mini-heists too.

 

I did very much enjoy playing GTA V overall, and I was entertained for most part. But I really cannot say that I was completely blown away and totally impressed by it. It was great, just not as great as I felt it should have been.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Official General

[Fuzzknuckles]

Regarding Franklin:

 

You ask 'who is he', in reference to whether he's the high-flying baller or the balla-killing thug. He's both. He doesn't know which he is, or where he belongs. Right up the moment he meets with Lester and says he doesn't know which way to go, of the three ways he's being pulled, this is obvious.

He's a confused man. He has a hard time being around Lamar, yet he's his best friend and sticks with him to the end. I think they got this exactly right - they've represent a confused, slightly lost gangster that doesn't know which world is right for him - the familiar or the fantastical. That, to me, worked really well.

 

Regarding the rest of the post: tl;dr. I probably disagree though, because it's me.

 

The one thing I did catch up there was Johnny K - killing him was GREAT decision. It set up a potential couple of endings - in as much as it says, basically, you can't get too attached to anyone here. This echoes The Wire, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead and many of the other huge shows of the last ten years.

 

Your favourite character might die. That's to elicit an emotional response from you. You loved that guy? Tough sh*t, he's dead now. Life is hard on the streets.

 

Can anyone say 'Omar'? Same deal. Anti hero we love... but is ultimately doomed because of the life he's chosen to live. And I think that is brilliant use of character right there. Don't get attached, they could be dead in the final act.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Fuzzknuckles

[Official General]

@ Fuzz

 

 

Regarding Franklin:

You ask 'who is he', in reference to whether he's the high-flying baller or the balla-killing thug. He's both. He doesn't know which he is, or where he belongs. Right up the moment he meets with Lester and says he doesn't know which way to go, of the three ways he's being pulled, this is obvious.

He's a confused man. He has a hard time being around Lamar, yet he's his best friend and sticks with him to the end. I think they got this exactly right - they've represent a confused, slightly lost gangster that doesn't know which world is right for him - the familiar or the fantastical. That, to me, worked really well.

 

Yeah they got the concept right, but they did not implement Franklin's trials and tribulations properly in the game. After the first few missions that Franklin did with Lamar and the failed drug deal with the Ballas, there was not much to Franklin's story, and that is the main problem. We hardly saw him deal with his conflict on interests, we only knew from what updates we saw on his LifeInvader page. That was it. There was just not enough of that part of Franklin's story to elaborate on his conflicting interests, not even as side missions, which was very poor.

 

I'm not too bothered about Johnny K. but I still think Rockstar were stupid to put that in GTA V, it all just felt so rushed and lame. The Lost should have stayed out of the game, the Angels Of Death angle would have been better. It would have been something fresh with regards to biker gangs.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Official General

[MindCorrupt]

Regarding Franklin:

 

You ask 'who is he', in reference to whether he's the high-flying baller or the balla-killing thug. He's both. He doesn't know which he is, or where he belongs. Right up the moment he meets with Lester and says he doesn't know which way to go, of the three ways he's being pulled, this is obvious.

He's a confused man. He has a hard time being around Lamar, yet he's his best friend and sticks with him to the end. I think they got this exactly right - they've represent a confused, slightly lost gangster that doesn't know which world is right for him - the familiar or the fantastical. That, to me, worked really well.

 

Regarding the rest of the post: tl;dr. I probably disagree though, because it's me.

 

The one thing I did catch up there was Johnny K - killing him was GREAT decision. It set up a potential couple of endings - in as much as it says, basically, you can't get too attached to anyone here. This echoes The Wire, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead and many of the other huge shows of the last ten years.

 

Your favourite character might die. That's to elicit an emotional response from you. You loved that guy? Tough sh*t, he's dead now. Life is hard on the streets.

 

Can anyone say 'Omar'? Same deal. Anti hero we love... but is ultimately doomed because of the life he's chosen to live. And I think that is brilliant use of character right there. Don't get attached, they could be dead in the final act.

 

Agreed about the killing of Johnny K, I also enjoyed how fast you learn about the mindset of Trevor because of that act. You are under no illusions what kind of guy he is after he brutally beats to death a previous character for next to no reason at all.

 

For those of you upset about the death of him, just think he got the honour of being the first GTA protagonist to be killed.

[Fuzzknuckles]

@ Fuzz

 

 

Regarding Franklin:

You ask 'who is he', in reference to whether he's the high-flying baller or the balla-killing thug. He's both. He doesn't know which he is, or where he belongs. Right up the moment he meets with Lester and says he doesn't know which way to go, of the three ways he's being pulled, this is obvious.

He's a confused man. He has a hard time being around Lamar, yet he's his best friend and sticks with him to the end. I think they got this exactly right - they've represent a confused, slightly lost gangster that doesn't know which world is right for him - the familiar or the fantastical. That, to me, worked really well.

 

Yeah they got the concept right, but they did not implement Franklin's trials and tribulations properly in the game. After the first few missions that Franklin did with Lamar and the failed drug deal with the Ballas, there was not much to Franklin's story, and that is the main problem. We hardly saw him deal with his conflict on interests, we only knew from what updates we saw on his LifeInvader page. That was it. There was just not enough of that part of Franklin;s story, not even as side missions, which was very poor.

I actually agree here - I would have loved more of Franklin's story. I would have taken a whole game with him, with Trevor and Michael as just characters, rather than playable. I'm happy with what we got, don't get me wrong, but Franklin's story just had so much more promise.

 

Michael went from vaguely interesting to f*cking boring pretty quick for me - once you've completed the story, his cut-tos are awful - like the one where he berates a security guard at backlot city and tells him 'I'm your boss!'. What a c*nt.

 

Trevor... well, Trevor is what he is. Occasionally entertaining, largely disappointing. Great performance from Ogg, but not as much of a psycho as I'd expected. He pussies out a lot.

 

Franklin, IMO, is the only one that has any real convictions - but as you say, we don't see how he deals with this enough... or really at all. A very promising character that was diluted as a result of the 3-protag mechanic.

 

See? I'm not always sh*tting golden glowing praise on the game.

[Vagos MC]

 

 

 

People don't play these games for the storylines.

 

You have to be kidding, right? The whole point of the game IS the storyline. Without the storyline, you wouldn't understand the game properly.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

 

 

 

People don't play these games for the storylines.

 

You have to be kidding, right? The whole point of the game IS the storyline. Without the storyline, you wouldn't understand the game properly.

 

You appear to have missed the point.

 

Yes, there is a story line, but most people, me, my RL friends and most people I speak to on here, aren't playing for the story. We're playing for the game. The world. The interactivity and the exploration. The details. The pedestrians.

 

It's nice of R* to chuck in a story line, but I think I can manage disaster level carnage without Michael's pathetic self-pitying rise to ultra-moron.

[Official General]

 

@ Fuzz

 

 

Regarding Franklin:

You ask 'who is he', in reference to whether he's the high-flying baller or the balla-killing thug. He's both. He doesn't know which he is, or where he belongs. Right up the moment he meets with Lester and says he doesn't know which way to go, of the three ways he's being pulled, this is obvious.

He's a confused man. He has a hard time being around Lamar, yet he's his best friend and sticks with him to the end. I think they got this exactly right - they've represent a confused, slightly lost gangster that doesn't know which world is right for him - the familiar or the fantastical. That, to me, worked really well.

 

Yeah they got the concept right, but they did not implement Franklin's trials and tribulations properly in the game. After the first few missions that Franklin did with Lamar and the failed drug deal with the Ballas, there was not much to Franklin's story, and that is the main problem. We hardly saw him deal with his conflict on interests, we only knew from what updates we saw on his LifeInvader page. That was it. There was just not enough of that part of Franklin;s story, not even as side missions, which was very poor.

I actually agree here - I would have loved more of Franklin's story. I would have taken a whole game with him, with Trevor and Michael as just characters, rather than playable. I'm happy with what we got, don't get me wrong, but Franklin's story just had so much more promise.

 

Michael went from vaguely interesting to f*cking boring pretty quick for me - once you've completed the story, his cut-tos are awful - like the one where he berates a security guard at backlot city and tells him 'I'm your boss!'. What a c*nt.

 

Trevor... well, Trevor is what he is. Occasionally entertaining, largely disappointing. Great performance from Ogg, but not as much of a psycho as I'd expected. He pussies out a lot.

 

Franklin, IMO, is the only one that has any real convictions - but as you say, we don't see how he deals with this enough... or really at all. A very promising character that was diluted as a result of the 3-protag mechanic.

 

See? I'm not always sh*tting golden glowing praise on the game.

 

 

@ Fuzz

 

Yeah we can definitely agree on Franklin issue. After the failed drug deal mission with the Ballas, Lamar and Trevor, I found myself wondering just when Franklin was gonna get another call from Lamar to help him out with some more exciting hood/gang antics. All we got in the end was the mediocre final shootout with the Ballas at the sawmill at Mount Chilliad after Lamar's kidnap.

 

There are many things I praise this game for, it got many things right indeed, but at the same time it got quite a few things wrong, or did not do anything in certain areas at all.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

 

 

There are many things I praise this game for, it got many things right indeed, but at the same time it got quite a few things wrong, or did not do anything in certain areas at all.

 

 

This is it, right here. I don't think it did things wrong, as such. I think it just didn't do them. It didn't plenty of other stuff right, though. Let's not overlook that.

 

There's never a real explanation for Trevor being a f*cking nutjob, other than him occasionally telling people he had a difficult childhood. His little bedtime story for Wade didn't really tell us anything we couldn't have figured out ourselves.

 

There's never a real explanation for why Michael is so utterly tedious, either, which I could really have got behind.

 

The story does tie together, but it's missing a few things. Overall though, I really enjoyed the story.

[The4orTy67]

Get a life you critic rat.

OMG baby you so right! I agree with everything you said!

[Official General]

 

 

There are many things I praise this game for, it got many things right indeed, but at the same time it got quite a few things wrong, or did not do anything in certain areas at all.

 

 

This is it, right here. I don't think it did things wrong, as such. I think it just didn't do them. It didn't plenty of other stuff right, though. Let's not overlook that.

 

There's never a real explanation for Trevor being a f*cking nutjob, other than him occasionally telling people he had a difficult childhood. His little bedtime story for Wade didn't really tell us anything we couldn't have figured out ourselves.

 

There's never a real explanation for why Michael is so utterly tedious, either, which I could really have got behind.

 

The story does tie together, but it's missing a few things. Overall though, I really enjoyed the story.

 

 

 

To be honest I did not even care to know about Trevor's history. He repulsed and disgusted me so much, that I just wanted to kill if I had the chance.

 

I agree with you about Michael though - to me he just was not as interesting as I'd thought he'd be. I really hoped that Michael was gonna have some very intriguing, complex and deep story. All he turned out to be in the end, was a career criminal backed into a corner that was forced to betray his friends, become a snitch and then fall back into the pockets of the dirty cops and federal agents who protected him. And that family guy stuff was nothing special in the end, there was not much to it at all. After the first quarter of the game, Michael's family disappear from the scene and only reappear at towards the end of the game, which I found that quite disappointing. I did enjoy saving Michael's family from the Merryweather guys though - however, Madrazo's cartel gunmen should have featured in that mission to make it more believable.

 

The main storyline was brilliant in some areas and downright bad in others. So overall, I would just say it was okay, but nothing special. GTA IV had a much better storyline in my view.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Official General

[cutter666]

Funny, trevor is my all time favorite gta character.

Johnny is up there and its a shame they decided to kill him off (remines me of the rdr disappointment). personal emotions aside, it was a strong yet jaring entrence that went along perfectly with trevors character.

When trevor stomped in johnnys head that was R* way of preparing you for a charactor like you have never seen before.

Death of one badass birth of another.

[LWE112]

Any chance someone could summarise this...

[polycount]

Read the entire thing, and I couldn't agree more. Very well said. Thanks for taking the time to write all of this. I feel bad that most people will read the first paragraph and say "LOL 2 LONG DEDNT REEEDDDDD XDXDXDXD".

[The Jungz]

Any chance someone could summarise this...

GTA V's storyline doesn't make sense. It starts out solid, presents the main characters well and gets you the will to play more. The more it unfolds itself, the less coherency it makes. It contradicts the beliefs and motives of a lot of characters, like Trevor and all, and changes its shape as it desires. It's sloppy, it's short and its ending is f*cking balls. You start the game, eager to play V and end it with as much hunger for it than you had when you first opened the box.

[Smith John]

 

I'm just going to leave this here again since it went completely ignored the first time I posted it:

 

"As for your point about the government corruption stuff not being fresh; you're saying the same thing that 'gtarules_95' said, and as I told him, those things were minor elements of past GTA's. Now it is its turn to take the spotlight. Kind of like how the 'gangsta' stuff had the spotlight in SA, now it is its turn to take a backseat."

 

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. GTA V is Michael's story with supporting roles from Trevor and Franklin. Trevor's TP Industries and war with the lost along with Franklin's gang war with the Ballas are subplots and not main plots. They take the background while the main story is about Michael, his deal with the FIB, and dealing with his past betrayal of Trevor.

 

Exactly

 

Unfortunately this doesn't appear to get through the thick skulls of people who thought just because the game was set in Los Santos, we were going to get a bunch of 'gangsta' gangbanging stuff again, when R* clearly didn't imply that that would be the case at all.

 

Also, I would say Trevor played just as big a part as Michael did. There was alot to both of their stories, and the game focused quite some time to their troubled relationship. Franklin felt like he was just thrown in to keep the SA kids quiet.

 

Funny, trevor is my all time favorite gta character.

Johnny is up there and its a shame they decided to kill him off (remines me of the rdr disappointment). personal emotions aside, it was a strong yet jaring entrence that went along perfectly with trevors character.

When trevor stomped in johnnys head that was R* way of preparing you for a charactor like you have never seen before.

Death of one badass birth of another.

 

Yeah Trevor was an awesome character, and gave the game an extremely hilarious element in regards to the story.

 

The haters don't like him because he's "too psychotic" and "too scruffy"....smfh....

[Smith John]

 

Any chance someone could summarise this...

GTA V's storyline doesn't make sense. It starts out solid, presents the main characters well and gets you the will to play more. The more it unfolds itself, the less coherency it makes. It contradicts the beliefs and motives of a lot of characters, like Trevor and all, and changes its shape as it desires. It's sloppy, it's short and its ending is f*cking balls. You start the game, eager to play V and end it with as much hunger for it than you had when you first opened the box.

 

 

The only thing I agree with there is the story being shorter than I expected. The rest is all subjective. I thought V had a great story, albeit not Oscar worthy, but then we all know GTA is mostly a gameplay>story franchise. But I'd say the dialogue could arguably be on par with Tarantino's works, especially that of Trevors. And the whole FIB dealings more than gave me enough hunger to work my way through the story.

[The Jungz]

 

 

Any chance someone could summarise this...

GTA V's storyline doesn't make sense. It starts out solid, presents the main characters well and gets you the will to play more. The more it unfolds itself, the less coherency it makes. It contradicts the beliefs and motives of a lot of characters, like Trevor and all, and changes its shape as it desires. It's sloppy, it's short and its ending is f*cking balls. You start the game, eager to play V and end it with as much hunger for it than you had when you first opened the box.

 

 

The only thing I agree with there is the story being shorter than I expected. The rest is all subjective. I thought V had a great story, albeit not Oscar worthy, but then we all know GTA is mostly a gameplay>story franchise. But I'd say the dialogue could arguably be on par with Tarantino's works, especially that of Trevors. And the whole FIB dealings more than gave me enough hunger to work my way through the story.

 

Oh of course, it was entertaining. Never seen a game with so much missions diversity. Much better than Saints Row 3 (Those who played will know). But its when I take a few steps back and look at it from a better perspective. Compared to IV, RDR, Max Payne 3, and even count the 3D era storyline ( All in one ) V's storyline is pretty weak. Would have been much better if it had an appealing and evil antagonist.

[spamtackey]

 

 

I'm just going to leave this here again since it went completely ignored the first time I posted it:

 

"As for your point about the government corruption stuff not being fresh; you're saying the same thing that 'gtarules_95' said, and as I told him, those things were minor elements of past GTA's. Now it is its turn to take the spotlight. Kind of like how the 'gangsta' stuff had the spotlight in SA, now it is its turn to take a backseat."

 

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. GTA V is Michael's story with supporting roles from Trevor and Franklin. Trevor's TP Industries and war with the lost along with Franklin's gang war with the Ballas are subplots and not main plots. They take the background while the main story is about Michael, his deal with the FIB, and dealing with his past betrayal of Trevor.

 

Exactly

 

Unfortunately this doesn't appear to get through the thick skulls of people who thought just because the game was set in Los Santos, we were going to get a bunch of 'gangsta' gangbanging stuff again, when R* clearly didn't imply that that would be the case at all.

 

Also, I would say Trevor played just as big a part as Michael did. There was alot to both of their stories, and the game focused quite some time to their troubled relationship. Franklin felt like he was just thrown in to keep the SA kids quiet.

 

 

I've started calling Trevor the Secondary Main character because of his large role in the main conflict and such. Saying he plays a supporting role does undermine his contribution. I still think the description fits Franklin. Franklin kinda feels like if Little Jacob was playable in GTA IV. Sure we'd see a little bit of Jacob's drug business and his conflicting loyalty to Badman, but he's mostly there to support Niko and Niko's story, so it would still take the backseat.

 

I definitely agree with your above statement on the dialogue being great. Trevor had me in stitches many times throughout the story and while I hate Lamar he does have his moments where the things he says just makes me laugh. People seem to forget that GTA V is trying to please the old fans. Not just San Andreas fans but the old fans. GTA III and VC didn't have long dramatic oscar-winning stories either, but they did have good dialogue. Like the older GTAs, V is a witty satirical action story.

[Journey_95]

 

 

Any chance someone could summarise this...

GTA V's storyline doesn't make sense. It starts out solid, presents the main characters well and gets you the will to play more. The more it unfolds itself, the less coherency it makes. It contradicts the beliefs and motives of a lot of characters, like Trevor and all, and changes its shape as it desires. It's sloppy, it's short and its ending is f*cking balls. You start the game, eager to play V and end it with as much hunger for it than you had when you first opened the box.

 

 

The only thing I agree with there is the story being shorter than I expected. The rest is all subjective. I thought V had a great story, albeit not Oscar worthy, but then we all know GTA is mostly a gameplay>story franchise. But I'd say the dialogue could arguably be on par with Tarantino's works, especially that of Trevors. And the whole FIB dealings more than gave me enough hunger to work my way through the story.

 

good for you man

I still think the story has major flaws and the whole FIB dealings just get annoying with time

 

But I still think you just don't understand the one's who don't like the story

I DID NOT expect the same gangbanging stuff from SA that doesn't seem to get in your f*cking head

[TJGM]

Didn't read all of it except the part's that seemed interesting and I agreed with pretty much everything. The Pulp Fiction comparison was nice too.

 

One of the better threads that I've seen recently.

Edited November 8, 2013 by TheJAMESGM

[Smith John]

@ThroatSlasher2:

 

Your examples of IV, RDR, MP3 are most definitely legitimate and worthy arguments/comparisons, especially MP3 (a severely underrated game imo). Sure, there were many holes and moments that made me say "wat"; like I said, it's nothing worthy of an Academy Award for Best Screenplay or anything, but as a whole, I'd say V's campaign was generally fairly solid for a GTA title. The government corruption stuff felt like a dark and gritty, realistic insight to a world which is, for the most part, shielded from the innocent Joe Public.

 

@spamtackey:

 

Exactly. Regarding the story and dialogue, this is one of things that I firmly believe the complainers can't appreciate. They've most likely played through the campaign once, found that it didn't suit their tastes because it didn't have enough hood stuff or whatever, and put the game down.

 

I'm currently on my 2nd play through, doing the missions differently, and loving the diversity. Add in the mix up of dialogue, and it's like playing a new game!

Edited November 8, 2013 by niko bellic half brother

[Smith John]

 

 

 

Any chance someone could summarise this...

GTA V's storyline doesn't make sense. It starts out solid, presents the main characters well and gets you the will to play more. The more it unfolds itself, the less coherency it makes. It contradicts the beliefs and motives of a lot of characters, like Trevor and all, and changes its shape as it desires. It's sloppy, it's short and its ending is f*cking balls. You start the game, eager to play V and end it with as much hunger for it than you had when you first opened the box.

 

 

The only thing I agree with there is the story being shorter than I expected. The rest is all subjective. I thought V had a great story, albeit not Oscar worthy, but then we all know GTA is mostly a gameplay>story franchise. But I'd say the dialogue could arguably be on par with Tarantino's works, especially that of Trevors. And the whole FIB dealings more than gave me enough hunger to work my way through the story.

 

good for you man

I still think the story has major flaws and the whole FIB dealings just get annoying with time

 

But I still think you just don't understand the one's who don't like the story

I DID NOT expect the same gangbanging stuff from SA that doesn't seem to get in your f*cking head

 

 

Yes I do understand. You find the government stuff boring, fine. And I'm using the SA hood stuff as an example, and it's a faily relevant example, given there's a few people complaining about the lack of gangbanger action attributing to the game being broken for them, which I find ridiculous quite frankly.

[B Dawg]

The one thing I did catch up there was Johnny K - killing him was GREAT decision. It set up a potential couple of endings - in as much as it says, basically, you can't get too attached to anyone here. This echoes The Wire, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead and many of the other huge shows of the last ten years.

 

Your favourite character might die. That's to elicit an emotional response from you. You loved that guy? Tough sh*t, he's dead now. Life is hard on the streets.

Whether it was a good idea or not, it was poorly executed, like the whole damn game. Like many other have mentioned, it's like they wanted to erase IV out of existence. Besides, this is a protagonist. Sure, I loved Ryder and Big Smoke back in San Andreas, but I wasn't pissed off about it. They were side characters and they deserved it, but Johnny? Nope.

[am30]

They wanted to erase IV out of existence to such an extent that you can recruit Packie for heists, Niko Bellic gets a mention and there is a club called Bahama Mamas.

[TheJasonGallant]

I agree with what you said, even if I really liked the game, the story should have been much better... I felt like I was playing another game from the trailers.

[feckyerlife]

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.

 

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 goomar 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?

I would have to disagree with some of that as you say this is opinionated.

 

There is only one protagonist of the game which is Franklin. The story is too muddled and jumps all over the place so it can be hard to tell but...

 

Franklin is the only character given the option to kill anyone at the end, weather its michael, trevor or deathwish. only Franklin gets that option. which would make him the main protagonist. which truly baffles me, due to his weak ass story and he pretty much becomes a non factor once you switch to trevor.

 

Devin Weston and Steve Haines are the secondary antagonist of the game, much like jimmy pegorino was in gta 4. they are both introduced towards the middle of the game and from playing the GTA series over the years, all the main antagonists are always introduced in the beginning portions of the game. which leads me too..

 

Michael and Trevor. Both men are the main antagonist in the game. Both are introduced in the beginning of the game ,even though its technically michael that you start out playing with. The full length of there story is not known till they go to North Yankton. So even though you start as michael it doesnt mean anything. You have to complete 85% of the main story line to know their story in full. Thats why i believe R* left it up to the user/player to decide who the main antagonist is by learning their story as we progress. Is it going to be selfish, self centered michael who gave up his friends to save himself or is it going to be the crazy lunatic named trevor who has no remorse for human life. R* left it a little more muddled by allowing the deathwish option. But in my opinion the deathwish option couldve easliy been a mission prior to the 2 deaths. And then you couldve had Michael approach franklin to kill tervor & Dave Norton approach franklin about killing michael. but since you have the option of playing all 3 characters thru majority of the game R* had to give you the deathwish option at the end for the users/players that want to use all 3 characters at the end. Well thats how i view the charcters of the game im sure some will disagree, cause it can all be a matter of opinion like you said and its based on how the player views the story of the game.

[feckyerlife]

They wanted to erase IV out of existence to such an extent that you can recruit Packie for heists, Niko Bellic gets a mention and there is a club called Bahama Mamas.

you also rescue jon gravellis underbosses daughter and have to kill rocco from TBoGT