Option C was really necessary? [spoilers]

[JotaPDF20]

I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks like that, but seriously. The game gives you three options. Kill Michael, Kill Trevor, Kill the Antagonists and Live Happily Ever After. So... Why the hell would someone choose to kill one of the protagonists if you can save all of them? There's no point to do it, other than curiosity or revenge (Trevor killed Johnny, that's really annoying if you played TLAD ). I mean, all the tragedy and commotion the game's end could have was spoiled by this Deathwish thing. It would be better if the player had no choice and just had to save the day.

This just proves how GTA V aims to be the opposite of GTA IV. V is over-the-top, cheery, vicious and all. IV is serious, dark, deep. There, you have to choose between losing your cousin or your girlfriend. Here, you just have to choose if you wanna check out someone's death.

[lydianduck]

Well, I think in a sense, Trevor represents Michael's dark past, and since it was intended for Trevor to die at the Ludendorff Heist (notice how Dave Norton's first bullet was for Trevor but Brad got in the way), I think it's a way to close the circle and let Michael live a normal (as normal as it can be) life with his family.

Edited November 20, 2015 by lydianduck

[Osho]

Simply put, it makes no sense!

As you rightly pointed V tried to be different than IV, but how?

By simply following on the footsteps laid before in IV ( and prev. titles ), for a lot of things both in and outside the story, and making minor changes to them putting in a different ( nothing new ) way to present it.

It's like the saying: old wine in new bottles.

 

To me a better ending would be killing the antagonists not in just one final mission but over the time throughout the story like boss battles seen in RPG games. I mean, I find it funny how suddenly all three decide to wipe out all of them in the end but not before?

Also, I wouldn't be interested to kill any of the protagonists either, even in the name of giving something different with the choices for Franklin.

Why the f*ck should I kill the protags is beyond me, and that too, Franklin?

Basically, I still didn't understand the story as its a lot confusing with a lot of things unexplained.

Even GTA SA story tried to offer some justification to every action of what CJ decides to choose.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Osho

[JotaPDF20]

I don't like how they just kill all of their enemies by the end, too. What if Mikhail Faustin, Jimmy Pegorino, Ray Boccino, Ray Bulgarin and Dimitri Rascalov were all killed in one final mission? I can't even imagine that.

I think that if it's well done and reasonable, killing one of the protagonists would be very fascinating. But that doesn't happen in GTA V. Two dudes just tell you to kill a friend of yours, then you have to choose if you will kill one of your allies or ALL YOUR F*CKING ENEMIES AT ONCE.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Yeah that's why I don't like this option either. It's like R* forgot about all of these loose ends and right at the last minute decided to throw them all together instead of logically being silenced one at a time leading up to the finale like other GTA games.

 

Truthfully all three endings feel rushed, uninspired and lack that extra something IMO.

Edited November 20, 2015 by PulpFiction

[fefenc]

The whole game has been rushed, but option C would be necessary if it ended-up with Franklin getting killed. Worst character ever.

[chilleverest]

Tinfoil hat on but i think the other options are connected to chilliad mystrey, other than that, i agree with OP people would select them for curiosity reason, neither do they have any dept nor a deep replay value to select either options.

[lydianduck]

Tinfoil hat on but i think the other options are connected to chilliad mystrey, other than that, i agree with OP people would select them for curiosity reason, neither do they have any dept nor a deep replay value to select either options.

 

I've been saying this for a while now, in fact, I think it's what the mural represents, if M survives you get the driveable UFO, if T dies you get the Jetpack.

 

*tinfoil hat intensifies*

[TheOneLibertonian]

I think all the endings are rather generic and really made the narrative too rushed, and bland. But Option C is the worst of all the endings in V. It's basically go there and kill this guy and do this all over again. Where's the confrontation? Where's the epic climactic moment? It's all lost there in the ending C. Franklin and Lester's plan wouldn't work really well too. IV did multiple endings a lot better to my liking.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Diamond Dogs

[slimeball supreme]

The endings were sh*t. Complete sh*t.

Deathwish was probably the only ending, but the other two were shoehorned in for a way to have some closure to things happening with the villains. You know, so they're whole shtick of asking you doesn't go completely to waste. Hell, the way it was just thrown in that the FIB wanted T gone in Lamar Down was half assed.

 

It should've been either Trevor or Micheal, in a climatic showdown or some sh*t. Instead of the 5-8 minute missions we got instead for the deaths and the 30 minute one we got for Deathwish.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Mr. Fahrenheit

[cp1dell]

How does it try to be the opposite of GTA IV? If anything, adding the choice at the end makes it seem like they were trying to be like IV but couldn't.

 

What worked with GTA IV's ending/choice, was that they were pretty much the same except some characters were swapped, and the outcome was different. With V you have two missions that are completely anti-climatic, and you lose a protagonist, lose all your friends, etc. Then you have one mission which is nothing like the other two, and is your classic over-the-top, action-packed, GTA finale.

 

You can hate Ending C all you want because one of the two characters you "hated so much" for whatever reason and hold some personal grudge towards survives, or because it "wraps things up too fast," but at least it actually provides closure to the story and real antagonists. I feel bad for the chumps that picked A or B first and realized: "Wow, that was the final mission? I didn't even do anything."

[MGgames100]

IMO whole story was sh*t. I like all protagonists (yeah, even Frank, even if he was poorly written) and some characters (Lamar, Lester Molester, Jimmy), but rest felt bland. I forgot about Stretch, Simion, Denise, Solomon, O'Neil Brothers, Floyd, Fabien, Cheng and Dave etc. I even forgot that there was that fu#ker Rocco from TBOGT. When I first played the game I through that the Weston and Hains were the same guy...

In GTA IV I remembered every single character...

 

I really hope that story will be better in VI...

Edited November 24, 2015 by MGgames100

[JotaPDF20]

How does it try to be the opposite of GTA IV? If anything, adding the choice at the end makes it seem like they were trying to be like IV but couldn't.

 

What worked with GTA IV's ending/choice, was that they were pretty much the same except some characters were swapped, and the outcome was different. With V you have two missions that are completely anti-climatic, and you lose a protagonist, lose all your friends, etc. Then you have one mission which is nothing like the other two, and is your classic over-the-top, action-packed, GTA finale.

 

You can hate Ending C all you want because one of the two characters you "hated so much" for whatever reason and hold some personal grudge towards survives, or because it "wraps things up too fast," but at least it actually provides closure to the story and real antagonists. I feel bad for the chumps that picked A or B first and realized: "Wow, that was the final mission? I didn't even do anything."

There's no reason to allow the player to kill a protagonist if it can be completely avoided. The game had a chance to give the player a difficult decision (kill Michael or Trevor), but they've put a happy ending through Option C. It seems like they just wanted people to check out how it feels to kill a protagonist. It's barely a decision, as you know you'll probably lose some possibilities by eliminating Michael or Trevor. Besides their death scenes, choosing Option A or B makes no sense. And that's why I think that if C wasn't there, things would be better. You'd actually have to take a decision

 

In a sense, GTA V does try to be the opposite of IV. After a long and sad story of an immigrant set a in a metropolis that always seems to be cloudy, we get an over-the-top story about a "gangsta", a middle-aged criminal and a psycho in a huge state where everything can happen and the sun is almost always there. IV takes a serious approach, while V takes a sarcastic approach. That's it.

IMO whole story was sh*t. I like all protagonists (yeah, even Frank, even if he was poorly written) and some characters (Lamar, Lester Molester, Jimmy), but rest felt bland. I forgot about Stretch, Simion, Denise, Solomon, O'Neil Brothers, Floyd, Fabien, Cheng and Dave etc. I even forgot that there was that fu#ker Rocco from TBOGT. When I first played the game I through that the Weston and Hains were the same guy...

In GTA IV I remembered every single character...

 

I really that story will be better in VI...

I think GTA V's gameplay is very good, but the story is just disappointing. GTA SA and IV brought us amazing plots + great gameplay, while V focused more on the gameplay and Online, of course.

Edited November 20, 2015 by JotaPDF20

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

How does it try to be the opposite of GTA IV? If anything, adding the choice at the end makes it seem like they were trying to be like IV but couldn't.

 

What worked with GTA IV's ending/choice, was that they were pretty much the same except some characters were swapped, and the outcome was different. With V you have two missions that are completely anti-climatic, and you lose a protagonist, lose all your friends, etc. Then you have one mission which is nothing like the other two, and is your classic over-the-top, action-packed, GTA finale.

 

You can hate Ending C all you want because one of the two characters you "hated so much" for whatever reason and hold some personal grudge towards survives, or because it "wraps things up too fast," but at least it actually provides closure to the story and real antagonists. I feel bad for the chumps that picked A or B first and realized: "Wow, that was the final mission? I didn't even do anything."

There's no reason to allow the player to kill a protagonist if it can be completely avoided. The game had a chance to give the player a difficult decision (kill Michael or Trevor), but they've put a happy ending through Option C. It seems like they just wanted people to check out how it feels to kill a protagonist. It's barely a decision, as you know you'll probably lose some possibilities by eliminating Michael or Trevor. Besides their death scenes, choosing Option A or B makes no sense. And that's why I think that if C wasn't there, things would be better. You'd actually have to take a decision

 

In a sense, GTA V does try to be the opposite of IV. After a long and sad story of an immigrant set a in a metropolis that always seems to be cloudy, we get an over-the-top story about a "gangsta", a middle-aged criminal and a psycho in a huge state where everything can happen and the sun is almost always there. IV takes a serious approach, while V takes a sarcastic approach. That's it.

I knew what was the game was aiming for, and I know how it will be from the start. But the candid and poor storytelling didn't do V's approach justice IMO.

[Modojo]

Option A and B weren't convincing enough to actually make a decision. Option C was probably the only ending that seems more plausible. Though I wish it would've ended on a better note with more thought on how to kill the antagonists. Like kidnapping all three of them and then have them get tortured/killed in three different scenarios. Ex: Steve Haines gets buried alive, Cheng hog tied & getting fed to the sharks, and Stretch getting his limbs stretched on two stretch limos.

[JotaPDF20]

 

 

How does it try to be the opposite of GTA IV? If anything, adding the choice at the end makes it seem like they were trying to be like IV but couldn't.

 

What worked with GTA IV's ending/choice, was that they were pretty much the same except some characters were swapped, and the outcome was different. With V you have two missions that are completely anti-climatic, and you lose a protagonist, lose all your friends, etc. Then you have one mission which is nothing like the other two, and is your classic over-the-top, action-packed, GTA finale.

 

You can hate Ending C all you want because one of the two characters you "hated so much" for whatever reason and hold some personal grudge towards survives, or because it "wraps things up too fast," but at least it actually provides closure to the story and real antagonists. I feel bad for the chumps that picked A or B first and realized: "Wow, that was the final mission? I didn't even do anything."

There's no reason to allow the player to kill a protagonist if it can be completely avoided. The game had a chance to give the player a difficult decision (kill Michael or Trevor), but they've put a happy ending through Option C. It seems like they just wanted people to check out how it feels to kill a protagonist. It's barely a decision, as you know you'll probably lose some possibilities by eliminating Michael or Trevor. Besides their death scenes, choosing Option A or B makes no sense. And that's why I think that if C wasn't there, things would be better. You'd actually have to take a decision

 

In a sense, GTA V does try to be the opposite of IV. After a long and sad story of an immigrant set a in a metropolis that always seems to be cloudy, we get an over-the-top story about a "gangsta", a middle-aged criminal and a psycho in a huge state where everything can happen and the sun is almost always there. IV takes a serious approach, while V takes a sarcastic approach. That's it.

I knew what was the game was aiming for, and I know how it will be from the start. But the candid and poor storytelling didn't do V's approach justice IMO.

 

The game's atmosphere feels very crazy and satiric. You can't tell an amazing story when you're too busy highlighting how America is extremely capitalist through ~funny~ characters, sex jokes and gore.

 

Also, I still need to get over Johnny's death. It seemed so ridiculous to me. By the end of TLAD, Johnny was healthy and had a strong distaste of drugs. Then he shows up in GTA V as a skinny meth head that is easily killed through a bottle and some kicks in the face. Why, Rockstar?

 

 

Option A and B weren't convincing enough to actually make a decision. Option C was probably the only ending that seems more plausible. Though I wish it would've ended on a better note with more thought on how to kill the antagonists. Like kidnapping all three of them and then have them get tortured/killed in three different scenarios. Ex: Steve Haines gets buried alive, Cheng hog tied & getting fed to the sharks, and Stretch getting his limbs stretched on two stretch limos.

What a sadistic mind you got, huh? Now that would be polemical. Some people would get mad at this and try to ban the game at any cost (as they already do, you can't please everyone).

[9i OTD]

I'd question the quality of the C option as well. As mentioned before, it was basically just Haines and Norton telling Franklin to kill Trevor and Michael respectively, he tells and they're like "Hey, let's kill all the "antagonists" we've had, regardless of the general lack of development or screen time!" and then boom - they do it in one go, all in the span of, what, three missions? Poorly paced, written and planned IMO. At least if the player disliked Michael or Trevor, they had the opportunity to kill them, although that'd still end with an equally unsatisfying conclusion to the story.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Hocko1999_fgc

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

 

 

How does it try to be the opposite of GTA IV? If anything, adding the choice at the end makes it seem like they were trying to be like IV but couldn't.

 

What worked with GTA IV's ending/choice, was that they were pretty much the same except some characters were swapped, and the outcome was different. With V you have two missions that are completely anti-climatic, and you lose a protagonist, lose all your friends, etc. Then you have one mission which is nothing like the other two, and is your classic over-the-top, action-packed, GTA finale.

 

You can hate Ending C all you want because one of the two characters you "hated so much" for whatever reason and hold some personal grudge towards survives, or because it "wraps things up too fast," but at least it actually provides closure to the story and real antagonists. I feel bad for the chumps that picked A or B first and realized: "Wow, that was the final mission? I didn't even do anything."

There's no reason to allow the player to kill a protagonist if it can be completely avoided. The game had a chance to give the player a difficult decision (kill Michael or Trevor), but they've put a happy ending through Option C. It seems like they just wanted people to check out how it feels to kill a protagonist. It's barely a decision, as you know you'll probably lose some possibilities by eliminating Michael or Trevor. Besides their death scenes, choosing Option A or B makes no sense. And that's why I think that if C wasn't there, things would be better. You'd actually have to take a decision

 

In a sense, GTA V does try to be the opposite of IV. After a long and sad story of an immigrant set a in a metropolis that always seems to be cloudy, we get an over-the-top story about a "gangsta", a middle-aged criminal and a psycho in a huge state where everything can happen and the sun is almost always there. IV takes a serious approach, while V takes a sarcastic approach. That's it.

I knew what was the game was aiming for, and I know how it will be from the start. But the candid and poor storytelling didn't do V's approach justice IMO.

 

The game's atmosphere feels very crazy and satiric. You can't tell an amazing story when you're too busy highlighting how America is extremely capitalist through ~funny~ characters, sex jokes and gore.

 

Also, I still need to get over Johnny's death. It seemed so ridiculous to me. By the end of TLAD, Johnny was healthy and had a strong distaste of drugs. Then he shows up in GTA V as a skinny meth head that is easily killed through a bottle and some kicks in the face. Why, Rockstar?

 

In some way you can tell a great story using satire. Rockstar just didn't have the balls to tell a great story. Which they always have done in the past.

[JotaPDF20]

Too much focus on Online, maybe? Releasing a shooter without multiplayer is pretty much suicide nowadays.

[PhillBellic]

Options A, B , and C represent the following.

 

A = Asinine.

B = Bollocks.

C = Claptrap.

 

They all just don't make any sense, as has been posted above.

[kBlaise]

The confrontation at the foundry was supposed to be the big final climactic battle but it fell flat. Kiling all the supposed bad guys all in one go was silly, yea. Not even B-moviesque. Rather a we-ran-out-of-the-budget-towards-the-end Z-movie.

 

Though I wouldn't say the ending was less satisfying than the last few GTAs'. I haven't had that "f*ck, this was amazing" feeling since Vice City (apart from LA Noire and Red Dead).

[TheOneLibertonian]

I think that GTA O had a part in ruining the SP experience, but in some ways they could have put all of GTA O's exclusive features in SP. It's not too much of a hassle to move some of them to story mode.

[HaythamKenway]

The C ending feels so out of place in a game as inherently bleak and hopeless as V. It should have been the real Deathwish, as the title promised. The protagonists making a desperate last stand, falling down one by one, until there is no one left and the game just ends, Halo: Reach-style. It doesn't make any sense for this hastily thrown together plan to work as well as it does and that there are no negative consequences for the trio. The way the GTA world works, the way it was portrayed previously in the game and the overarching theme of the power of the system and meaninglessness of an individual in it, just all clash against the fact that M,T and F just get away with it, with no problems whatsoever.

 

There is an undeniable wish fulfillment/poetic justice kind of thing going in there and while that isn't bad, per se, it just doesn't fit with the message of the rest of the game.

Edited November 20, 2015 by HaythamKenway

[XenoxX]

In my opinion the C ending is just right, it gives me that movie feel of ending.

It may be not familiar with some people and that may be the reason most don't think its good however in my opinion its just a good ending on the peak.

I think the 3 different endings change the whole game around. You can make out WHO to be your antagonist, you can make out who was the "bad guy" all around and it just shows that in this world there is no distinction between good and bad.

The last ending realy had everything it needed to be a good one, the pre ending was the Big One in my opinion and I was highly happy when I saw the credits flying over the screen.

Edited November 20, 2015 by XenoxX

[Cheatz/Trickz]

I just couldn't believe how Dan Houser managed to f*ck up so badly after writing IV.

[XenoxX]

I just couldn't believe how Dan Houser managed to f*ck up so badly after writing IV.

f*ck up so badly?

 

V was superbly written with a hell of a lot entertaining dialouge, way more than IV.

IV had more charactarization, however V emphasis on the relationship between the charactars which developes, and the dialouge is realy well written in most cutscenes and also along long drives.

There is even alternative dialouge with different Members picked for the Heists, which is very cool as well, especially if you pick Packi...

Some people just say "V was badly written" when they have no f*cking clue about writing...

[TheOneLibertonian]

I think V has it's moments in writing, and there are some great quotes within GTA V, but most of the writing falls flat and pales in comparison to Dan's previous works as a writer.

f*ck up so badly?

V was superbly written with a hell of a lot entertaining dialouge, way more than IV.

IV had more charactarization, however V emphasis on the relationship between the charactars which developes, and the dialouge is realy well written in most cutscenes and also along long drives.

There is even alternative dialouge with different Members picked for the Heists, which is very cool as well, especially if you pick Packi...

Some people just say "V was badly written" when they have no f*cking clue about writing...

 

GTA IV also has alternate dialogue's too after multiple repeats within missions. You don't know that your missing out friend.

[NikoBellicGTAIV]

 

I just couldn't believe how Dan Houser managed to f*ck up so badly after writing IV.

f*ck up so badly?

 

V was superbly written with a hell of a lot entertaining dialouge, way more than IV.

IV had more charactarization, however V emphasis on the relationship between the charactars which developes, and the dialouge is realy well written in most cutscenes and also along long drives.

There is even alternative dialouge with different Members picked for the Heists, which is very cool as well, especially if you pick Packi...

Some people just say "V was badly written" when they have no f*cking clue about writing...

I don't think he was talking about the dialogue/script, but more about how the story played out/developed as a whole, with the boring FBI plot and Michael's family and Trevor's childlish antics a d Franklin's irrelevance during the middle part of the story.

[XenoxX]

I think V has it's moments in writing, and there are some great quotes within GTA V, but most of the writing falls flat and pales in comparison to Dan's previous works as a writer.

f*ck up so badly?

V was superbly written with a hell of a lot entertaining dialouge, way more than IV.

IV had more charactarization, however V emphasis on the relationship between the charactars which developes, and the dialouge is realy well written in most cutscenes and also along long drives.

There is even alternative dialouge with different Members picked for the Heists, which is very cool as well, especially if you pick Packi...

Some people just say "V was badly written" when they have no f*cking clue about writing...

 

GTA IV also has alternate dialogue's too after multiple repeats within missions. You don't know that your missing out friend.

Missing out?

You are speaking as if I never played IV, I did and I enjoyed it a great deal, I know it has alternative dialouge for retries but V has alternative dialouge for retries AND different Crew members picked for a Heist AND for different Protagonists interacting with people AND for different Protagonists interacting with NPCs and Random Events...

 

But thats just a side point.

IV was a gritty serious story and it was good, no not good, very good for what it was.

 

But saying Vs writing is bad is something I don't understand, every cutscene I watch makes superb use of camera movement and charactarizes just with the move of a camera AND the writing in itself is thought provoking, entertaining most the times, and just fits the charactars....

[Cheatz/Trickz]

The dialogue in V is good, but the storytelling is absolute trash. That's what XenoxX can't distinguish between.