Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

GTAForums does NOT endorse or allow any kind of GTA Online modding, mod menus or tools. Do NOT post them here or advertise them, as per the forum rules.
Guru Fijis

Johnny K's downfall real or important? [Spoilers]

Johnny's death: Happy or not?  

116 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you glad that Johnny is dead in gta 5?

    • yes
      30
    • no
      88


Recommended Posts

Son of Zeus

 

If C* wanted Johnny the Jew to die, why couldn't he die in a 'boss fight'? I have never played TLAD, so I'm not much attached to Johnny but what R* should have done is to make Johnny show up in Sandy Shores heavily armed with back-up bikers, including Terry and Clay. It wasn't the first or second time Trevor was f**king Ashely, so Johnny should definitely get pissed about this and try to kill Trevor once in for all.

 

This would make the game (and Trevor) more interesting, add replay-ability, and give a fitting send-off to a previous playable character, not to mention that a great action mission would appeal to the kids' fanbase.

Rockstar isn't clever enough to make cool boss fights. All we get is "shoot the gas to burn Trevor alive" or "press X or B to kill or save Michael."

No. R* can make cool boss fights. Remember VC, SA and IV? That's how endings should be done. For some reason they slipped up badly in V. Hopefully we get an epic ending in VI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vinewood Villain

 

 

If C* wanted Johnny the Jew to die, why couldn't he die in a 'boss fight'? I have never played TLAD, so I'm not much attached to Johnny but what R* should have done is to make Johnny show up in Sandy Shores heavily armed with back-up bikers, including Terry and Clay. It wasn't the first or second time Trevor was f**king Ashely, so Johnny should definitely get pissed about this and try to kill Trevor once in for all.

 

This would make the game (and Trevor) more interesting, add replay-ability, and give a fitting send-off to a previous playable character, not to mention that a great action mission would appeal to the kids' fanbase.

Rockstar isn't clever enough to make cool boss fights. All we get is "shoot the gas to burn Trevor alive" or "press X or B to kill or save Michael."

No. R* can make cool boss fights. Remember VC, SA and IV? That's how endings should be done. For some reason they slipped up badly in V. Hopefully we get an epic ending in VI.

 

 

Yeah, that was Rockstar over ten years ago. I do admit the Big Smoke boss fight was pretty cool back in the day. Battling your way up that crack palace and finally confronting Smoke's fatass. Last time I saw a boss fight from Rockstar was in Max Payne 3, and it was laughably anticlimactic. "Shoot the ceiling tiles to take down the UFE agent."

Edited by Vinewood Villain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

Leo2301, on 19 Jan 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:

 

Rockstar isn't clever enough to make cool boss fights. All we get is "shoot the gas to burn Trevor alive" or "press X or B to kill or save Michael."

 

 

I don't think that the lack of boss fights is about clever or not, so much as Rockstar has never put boss fights into GTA games, probably because of their tending to feel a little tedious for a Sandbox Game. Obviously Big Smoke is an exception, but I was never a fan of that part of End Of the Line anyway. I think boss fights are great in Ratchet & Clank and other types of non-GTA games.

 

Not that I disagree with you about GTA V's A and B endings. They were just poorly implemented and they feel like they were tossed in their just so the writers could appear "edgy" by letting you kill one or the other protagonist in about the most lazy, lackluster way.

 

I am not sure why, but in GTA V, Rockstar seems to do things that are either incredibly amazing, storywise, or completely lazy. Luckily most of the story is fantastic, but both the A and B endings are horrible, and there is one other scene in the game that I think has no place in GTA, was written badly, and was both pointless and a pompous attempt to appear edgy and trendy.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vinewood Villain

All jokes aside, I think it's harder for them to develop a compelling boss fight in a more well-realized, realistic HD setting compared to the cartoony sandbox in San Andreas where boss fights are more frequent in that era of gaming.

 

I think Rockstar's inclusion of options A and B were pointlessly inspired by GTA IV's revenge/deal choices, and by John Marston's death in Red Dead to, like you said, appear more edgy.

Edited by Vinewood Villain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pedinhuh

All jokes aside, I think it's harder for them to develop a compelling boss fight in a more well-realized, realistic HD setting compared to the cartoony sandbox in San Andreas where boss fights are more frequent in that era of gaming.

 

I think Rockstar's inclusion of options A and B were pointlessly inspired by GTA IV's revenge/deal choices, and by John Marston's death in Red Dead to, like you said, appear more edgy.

Which is ironic when you consider that with V, R* aimed much more at fun instead of realism...

Edited by pedinhuh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

All jokes aside, I think it's harder for them to develop a compelling boss fight in a more well-realized, realistic HD setting compared to the cartoony sandbox in San Andreas where boss fights are more frequent in that era of gaming.

 

I think Rockstar's inclusion of options A and B were pointlessly inspired by GTA IV's revenge/deal choices, and by John Marston's death in Red Dead to, like you said, appear more edgy.

 

What amazes me, to be honest, is that both Dan And Sam Houser have a very high degree of love for GTA and are both brilliant at their jobs. How the A and B endings passed beta-testing is completely beyond me. Unless it was some kind of a practical joke, though I doubt it. I mean look how elaborate the Third Way is and contrast that with how anemic the story is in the A and B endings. It is a stark contradiction in everything Rockstar accomplished with most of the story in V. To spend all of this time and in-game story, and painstaking effort with meticulous detail in developing Michael and Trevor, you would think they would have a little more reverence for their own story and find a less boring way to kill them off.

 

Honestly, the A and B endings have all the inherent gaming-sophistication of Franklin walking into the boardwalk store and buying masks for the heist....Mission Passed!

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vinewood Villain

What bugs be is how undeveloped options A and B were. There are players who might personally feel compelled to kill Michael or Trevor after the campaign comes to and end, and what they get are two cheaply made car chases. Very anticlimactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzknuckles

 

All jokes aside, I think it's harder for them to develop a compelling boss fight in a more well-realized, realistic HD setting compared to the cartoony sandbox in San Andreas where boss fights are more frequent in that era of gaming.

 

I think Rockstar's inclusion of options A and B were pointlessly inspired by GTA IV's revenge/deal choices, and by John Marston's death in Red Dead to, like you said, appear more edgy.

 

What amazes me, to be honest, is that both Dan And Sam Houser have a very high degree of love for GTA and are both brilliant at their jobs. How the A and B endings passed beta-testing is completely beyond me. Unless it was some kind of a practical joke, though I doubt it. I mean look how elaborate the Third Way is and contrast that with how anemic the story is in the A and B endings. It is a stark contradiction in everything Rockstar accomplished with most of the story in V. To spend all of this time and in-game story, and painstaking effort with meticulous detail in developing Michael and Trevor, you would think they would have a little more reverence for their own story and find a less boring way to kill them off.

 

Honestly, the A and B endings have all the inherent gaming-sophistication of Franklin walking into the boardwalk store and buying masks for the heist....Mission Passed!

 

It was only after my third playthrough that I even bothered to look at endings A and B, and it really felt like they were afterthoughts, like someone had just realised it was possible and they cobbled it together in a rush and put it in the build. A and B are nice options for people that want to get rid of a specific character (and lose all that goes with that character - I mean, who in their right mind would kill off either... then come on here and complain about there being a lack of interiors, after conciously choosing to lock themselves out of one or more?)

 

But ultimately, they feel like they were just done for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vinewood Villain

Question, does killing off Michael or Trevor get rid of their 100% completion requirements? Or is 100% only valid through option C? Might sound like a dumb question but I never gave it much thought before.

Edited by Vinewood Villain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

What bugs be is how undeveloped options A and B were. There are players who might personally feel compelled to kill Michael or Trevor after the campaign comes to and end, and what they get are two cheaply made car chases. Very anticlimactic.

 

Exactly. Rockstar writers are not lazy. They go out of their way to layer subtext upon subtext, and everything has hidden, dual meanings, double entendre, misdirection, and incredibly deep satire and social commentary.

 

The way they kill off Michael and Trevor seems like something that some first year intern would do, not seasoned writers and devs. I am not sure what, but I have the feeling something else was at play with those endings. Yeah, they dropped the ball, but I don't think that the Housers are habitual ball-droppers with their games. So this leads me to believe that something odd is going on behind the scenes regarding this mission. It is far too inconsistent with not only the rest of the game, but GTA in general.

 

 

Question, does killing off Michael or Trevor get rid of their 100% completion requirements? Or is 100% only valid through option C? Might sound like a dumb question but I never gave it much thought before.

 

I don't know. I only did these two missions as an afterthought in my third time through the story, and only that to get my final two Gold medals in the game.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pedinhuh

 

All jokes aside, I think it's harder for them to develop a compelling boss fight in a more well-realized, realistic HD setting compared to the cartoony sandbox in San Andreas where boss fights are more frequent in that era of gaming.

 

I think Rockstar's inclusion of options A and B were pointlessly inspired by GTA IV's revenge/deal choices, and by John Marston's death in Red Dead to, like you said, appear more edgy.

 

What amazes me, to be honest, is that both Dan And Sam Houser have a very high degree of love for GTA and are both brilliant at their jobs. How the A and B endings passed beta-testing is completely beyond me. Unless it was some kind of a practical joke, though I doubt it. I mean look how elaborate the Third Way is and contrast that with how anemic the story is in the A and B endings. It is a stark contradiction in everything Rockstar accomplished with most of the story in V. To spend all of this time and in-game story, and painstaking effort with meticulous detail in developing Michael and Trevor, you would think they would have a little more reverence for their own story and find a less boring way to kill them off.

 

Honestly, the A and B endings have all the inherent gaming-sophistication of Franklin walking into the boardwalk store and buying masks for the heist....Mission Passed!

 

 

 

What bugs be is how undeveloped options A and B were. There are players who might personally feel compelled to kill Michael or Trevor after the campaign comes to and end, and what they get are two cheaply made car chases. Very anticlimactic.

This is something we can all agree with, the way I see it, the Housers just done those endings like that because if somebody had a problem with Trevor or Michael they could have the chance to kill them off and didn't bother to expand on it, they might have thought that everybody would just ignore those endings and go for Deathwish or something like that.

 

Still, I really wanted to see a boss fight against Trevor or Michael, Trevor having nigh invencibility by using his rage mode and Michael shots being a one hit kill because of his bullet time ability.

Anyways, it would make for a great boss battle, clearly missed opportunity there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

I think they included Johnny for a few reasons. Trevor is a meth dealer and the obvious rival would be a biker gang because they typically deal in meth (from what I gather). I think Rockstar wanted to establish early that Trevor was the craziest and toughest protagonist in the series' history and a good way to achieve that is to have him stomp a former protagonist to death. Johnny was the obvious candidate.

 

I suppose it was kind of a bummer to see a character I liked go out that way but it fit quite nicely into Trevor's intro. It may also have been intended as a metaphor for out with the old, in with the new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pedinhuh

Question, does killing off Michael or Trevor get rid of their 100% completion requirements? Or is 100% only valid through option C? Might sound like a dumb question but I never gave it much thought before.

Take a look at the your story progress on Social Club, if there any specific activities for Trevor or Michael then it means that you should get them done before killing one of them. I know you have to do atleast one gun-smuggling run with the airplane and the dune buggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzknuckles

Ridiculously delayed double post, ignore.

Edited by Fuzzknuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B Dawg

R* can make cool boss fights. Remember VC, SA and IV? That's how endings should be done. For some reason they slipped up badly in V. Hopefully we get an epic ending in VI.

I like boss fights. It breaks the monotony of every single enemy in the game being just another easy target. It's good for variety, and hell even immersion. It's a bit stupid when only the protagonist is able to tank a sh*tload of bullets and cause havoc. In IV, TLAD and TBOGT you had strong backup (Dwayne's backup, Terry, Clay and the rest of The Lost MC, Armando and Henrique) but you never had any strong enemy (story wise, not counting Vigilante/Gang/Drug wars). Big Smoke was the only 'true' boss fight as in being the only enemy in entire GTA history that doesn't die in a few bullets or a single headshot.

 

It would have been better if Johnny (or Terry and Clay at the very least) were strong enemies that busted your balls up pretty hard rather than becoming just another easy set of peds to kill.

Edited by B Dawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lethal-lock

You're going to think im a bad person but i actually never completed Lost and the Damned because i absolutely hated how the Harley Davidson motorcycles handled, on top of that i have had some very negative experiences with bikers in real life and dislike everything about their lifestyle lol

 

I know its just a game but i just couldn't bring myself to get interested/invested in a story about people i really dislike, i do however visit their hangout in V and kill them all every time i play :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChiroVette

Still, I really wanted to see a boss fight against Trevor or Michael, Trevor having nigh invencibility by using his rage mode and Michael shots being a one hit kill because of his bullet time ability.

Anyways, it would make for a great boss battle, clearly missed opportunity there...

 

 

I don't think they even needed a boss fight. They could have simply made those endings far more interesting by even doing some awesome, warehouse betrayal thing, which was what I expected. Franklin could have colluded with Michael and Lester to trick Trevor into the last mission in the same warehouse even, and then before beginning Three Way where you will Cheng, Stretch, and Devin, there was some big showdown. Then the same kind of thing to kill Michael.

 

I am kind of wondering now if maybe, just maybe, endings A and B are there just to give the player the opportunity to kill either one of them AND to punish the player for daring to avail themselves of one of the kill-choices by making the mission so absolutely boring and lackluster.

Edited by ChiroVette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheatz/Trickz

What bugs be is how undeveloped options A and B were. There are players who might personally feel compelled to kill Michael or Trevor after the campaign comes to and end, and what they get are two cheaply made car chases. Very anticlimactic.

 

My problems with those endings are the change of personality in Michael during A and B, and how he acts in C. In A, he makes out like Trevor had to die, like it had to happen otherwise Mike himself would die. Now if he feels this way in this ending, all endings should keep that feeling and offer an alternate angle, but instead it's a completely different Michael in C. In the final scene, he is perfectly content with allowing Trevor to live. Ending C would have made more sense if Michael shot Trevor after pushing Weston off the cliff, because that is how he should feel.

Edited by Cheatz_N_Trickz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poland stronk

Question, does killing off Michael or Trevor get rid of their 100% completion requirements? Or is 100% only valid through option C? Might sound like a dumb question but I never gave it much thought before.

 

No, everything exclusive to Michael and/or Trevor is optional. I believe only yoga must be done before making decision but I am not sure if that requirement is ticked off during story-mode mission which pretty much requires you to do it anyway. That being said, only things that are available to Franklin are mandatory for 100% as well as finishing 69 story mode missions.

Edited by poland stronk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mirror Park Resident

I always feared by what as the writers did here to the character of T.

I fear in the next GTA, T get's his. I hope not.

Makes me wonder though..

 

If someone of the V trio is about to be killed in a future game, there's no chance in hell for Trevor to survive. MUST BE him. It's already a miracle for him to be alive at the beginning of V after all the nonsense made by him through the years. It's a matter of time for someone to get the revenge from him.

 

Michael and Franklin are ready to go quiet for good. Also Michael is a family man. Don't make much sense to bring them up again unless for a great role in a future game, obviously not a little cameo for the sake of shock value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Masketta Man

Yes, I'm glad that out of all the bridges Rockstar could have burned to introduce Trevor, they chose the right one. Johnny was the perfect balance between being a bad protagonist and being a supposed BAMF, and making him look like a weak wimp worked out well. One point to Rockstar for tactful writing, as usual. :monocle:

Edited by Masketta Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pedinhuh

Yes, I'm glad that out of all the bridges Rockstar could have burned to introduce Trevor, they chose the right one. Johnny was the perfect balance between being a bad protagonist and being a supposed BAMF, and making him look like a weak wimp worked out well. One point to Rockstar for tactful writing, as usual. :monocle:

Tell me exactly how Johnny was worse than Luis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Masketta Man

 

Yes, I'm glad that out of all the bridges Rockstar could have burned to introduce Trevor, they chose the right one. Johnny was the perfect balance between being a bad protagonist and being a supposed BAMF, and making him look like a weak wimp worked out well. One point to Rockstar for tactful writing, as usual. :monocle:

Tell me exactly how Johnny was worse than Luis.

 

I felt that Johnny was too dependent to make a good character. He's stuck because everything he can do to break out of his situation, like throwing Billy and Brian into the ocean, or f*cking right off when he sees they're working with rats, is prevented by gang loyalty. He's also got Ashley, a f*cked up, drug-addicted ex-girlfriend who he'll still die for, and she goes on f*cking other men right in front of him. The only people he hangs out with that didn't stab him in the back are Terry and Clay, but it's only a matter of time until gang politics, or drugs, or some woman gets in the way, and then they're all gone and all Johnny has left is a shambling wreck of a gang.

 

Luis could take care of himself and spent his game keeping six+ different people's lives in order, fighting the mob, and becoming rich, all while keeping his cool.

Edited by Masketta Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chickensniping101

I'd be fine with Johnnyvdying... just not in the way it took place.

At the end of TLAD Johnny was completely different, he had given up on Ashley, he burnt down their clubhouse before monologing.

Why the hell would he get back into a drug dealing biker gang after all hes been through.

R* completely ignored the story of TLAD.

 

For me, the only way it makes sense is if you look at it like RDR: Undead Nightmare, it takes place in an alternate storyline/universe where the events of TLAD never took place, but even this sounds like a cheap explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzknuckles

R* completely ignored the story of TLAD.

 

Nah, they just told another part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimbatron

I'd be fine with Johnnyvdying... just not in the way it took place.

At the end of TLAD Johnny was completely different, he had given up on Ashley, he burnt down their clubhouse before monologing.

Why the hell would he get back into a drug dealing biker gang after all hes been through.

R* completely ignored the story of TLAD.

 

For me, the only way it makes sense is if you look at it like RDR: Undead Nightmare, it takes place in an alternate storyline/universe where the events of TLAD never took place, but even this sounds like a cheap explanation.

 

^ I don't think they completely ignored the story of TLAD, but there are definite plot holes that could only be explained with 5 years worth of back-story we haven't seen.

 

The most obvious ones (and possible explanations):

 

1) Johnny still infatuated with Ashley after not wanted to speak to her at the end of TLAD.

  • That's actually not a surprise to me. Johnny was addicted to her the same way she was to drugs. As much as he wanted to give her up and knew she was bad for him, I always doubted that he would.

2) How Johnny is himself in a drug addicted and weaker frame of mind.

  • Too much Ashley if you ask me - she was always going to be the end of him.

3) How the The Lost has gone from a broken gang in LC to a national one.

  • This is the most difficult, although several years have past. My best guess is Angus would be the driving force behind it with his bike sales operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spadge

Did the same voice actor for Johnny in TLAD voice V's? And if so, why would he agree to it?

He's just the voice of Johnny, I don't think he really has a decisions to make as far plot advancements goes. It's just his job.

Even if he disliked it, he had no word to say in that matter probably.

Edited by Spadge007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzknuckles

Did the same voice actor for Johnny in TLAD voice V's? And if so, why would he agree to it?

Because they offered him some money. That's how it works when you're a VA - you get offered a job and if the money's right, you agree to do it.

 

A bit like any job, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LSPDOfficerJohnson

I'll make it simple:

 

1) Fact: R* kills off every protagonist from their past games.

2) After the events of TLaD, Johnny drove himself to destruction by accepting the drugs that he once fought so hard to keep out of the gang and their livlihood. TLaD explains Johnny's entire downfall on a "silver platter" if you will and it's a bit much ATM for me to explain fully. All you need to know is that Johnny lost just about everything in TLaD. He also eventually gave into the very drug that he tried so hard to keep out of his former gang. Billy's betrayal, threats from the Mafia and Stubbs, Brian's betrayal, the death of Jim, so many "hits" to Johnny's pscyhe and to his sanity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agonistes06

 

Did the same voice actor for Johnny in TLAD voice V's? And if so, why would he agree to it?

He's just the voice of Johnny, I don't think he really has a decisions to make as far plot advancements goes. It's just his job.

Even if he disliked it, he had no word to say in that matter probably.

 

it's highly probable that the actor had no idea whether his character lived or died. there could have been three or more scenarios he read for, he might not even have seen trevor's lines, there could have been a lot of variables. also, he never gasps out, 'i am slain!' he just kinda goes, 'whaaaarghblcrack.' most voice actors for video games don't know what the outcome of what they read is, there usually is not a cohesive 'script' in the same sense as a stage play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.