Option C was really necessary? [spoilers]

[TheOneLibertonian]

@XenoxX: Okay, fair enough lol. But I am not comparing IV vs V's writing, but I am saying that GTA IV had similar methods when it comes to certain dialogue's in missions.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Diamond Dogs

[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...

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.

 

I agree that the story was a little unstructured however saying Franklin does not play a role in the middle part is just wrong, Franklin allways is the one who convinces M and T to come together and stop arguing he is the one helping out Trevor, he developes from being Michaels "son" into being his father, showing him how its supposed to be done.

Also I wouldn't call the FIB subplot boring...it is definately a change compared to the allready used drug empire plot. The FIB mission offer variety, hollywood feel, and realy well made critique towards the american government.

Edited November 20, 2015 by XenoxX

[sammystarock]

R* should have added option D, in which Trevor gets one of his over-acted aggression rushes. He gets pissed off by everything and everyone, kills Michael, then Franklin and then himself. After that, the screen turns black and you are never able to play GTA V again.

[XenoxX]

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

I can't distinguish with?

You do realize that you should have said Story telling in the first place, and dialouge = writing....but anyway...

 

The Story telling is not good?

Forward some arguments?

[PhillBellic]

R* should have added option D, in which Trevor gets one of his over-acted aggression rushes. He gets pissed off by everything and everyone, kills Michael, then Franklin and then himself. After that, the screen turns black and you are never able to play GTA V again.

Options. -> New Game.

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

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

I can't distinguish with?

You do realize that you should have said Story telling in the first place, and dialouge = writing....but anyway...

 

The Story telling is not good?

Forward some arguments?

 

The story was rushed and it did not tied up it's loose ends pretty well. But at least that is my opinion. I respect your opinion on V's story though.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

I can't distinguish with?

You do realize that you should have said Story telling in the first place, and dialouge = writing....but anyway...

 

The Story telling is not good?

Forward some arguments?

Writing in general includes the art of storytelling. This is why some scenes in V between Trevor and Michael are amazing, and make me think how good the story would have been if the actual storytelling matched the quality of the dialogue.

[XenoxX]

 

I can't distinguish with?

You do realize that you should have said Story telling in the first place, and dialouge = writing....but anyway...

 

The Story telling is not good?

Forward some arguments?

Writing in general includes the art of storytelling. This is why some scenes in V between Trevor and Michael are amazing, and make me think how good the story would have been if the actual storytelling matched the quality of the dialogue.

 

And what exactly is the problem with "the actual storytelling" ?

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

I can't distinguish with?

You do realize that you should have said Story telling in the first place, and dialouge = writing....but anyway...

 

The Story telling is not good?

Forward some arguments?

Writing in general includes the art of storytelling. This is why some scenes in V between Trevor and Michael are amazing, and make me think how good the story would have been if the actual storytelling matched the quality of the dialogue.

 

This. The writing was pretty good and consistent, but the storytelling was all over the place with it's cheesy Hollywood action romp. Also characterization with characters in V is horrible too. Most of them being stereotypes, and bigots. Even Trevor is a walking cliche. Michael is too, but I think despite that he is a very well written character though.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Diamond Dogs

[FranklinsIron]

Really the ending should of been based on options you pick through out the game. Not just 3 different endings for replay value, then let you re do missions anyway lol. So can pick c for your ending and then re do a and b, just to see what they're like. Weird really. Like properties once you're minutes who gives a sh*t if you make 8000 a week? And that only works consistently if you load an auto save up, otherwise the game is at the point, of your save. Weird arse game sometimes! Still love it though..

[XenoxX]

Really the ending should of been based on options you pick through out the game. Not just 3 different endings for replay value, then let you re do missions anyway lol. So can pick c for your ending and then re do a and b, just to see what they're like. Weird really. Like properties once you're minutes who gives a sh*t if you make 8000 a week? And that only works consistently if you load an auto save up, otherwise the game is at the point, of your save. Weird arse game sometimes! Still love it though..

The endings aren't for replay value, with the endings you can choose your antagonist practicly, it changes the whole game around just with one simple decision.

The different heists aproaches offer replay value though

[Xing of Virtue]

B should've been the final actual ending. Felt like a proper way to finish Michael's drama, and let everybody he dragged with him to move on with their lives and go back to their old ways.

 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Xing of Virtue

[saintsrow]

 

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

Whoa, you're expecting an actual STORY in GTA VI ???? Look at the trend. GTA VI story will be reduced to cutscene tutorials and setups for Online. Sad but true.

 

 

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.

Indeed. These professional writers at Rockstar seemed to have forgotten one of the cardinal elements of video games since the beginning of time - the Boss level(s). As everyone here has said, GTA IV was structured so much better in terms of challenging missions to unlock next phase of the game, and the final branch of the story, no matter which path you took.

[HaythamKenway]

Indeed. These professional writers at Rockstar seemed to have forgotten one of the cardinal elements of video games since the beginning of time - the Boss level(s). As everyone here has said, GTA IV was structured so much better in terms of challenging missions to unlock next phase of the game, and the final branch of the story, no matter which path you took.

There is no progression anymore. Every mission right from the start must be an intense, explosive collection of overblown setpieces, with no subtlety or downtime, because otherwise the audience will get bored and not finish the game, right?

[fefenc]

 

Indeed. These professional writers at Rockstar seemed to have forgotten one of the cardinal elements of video games since the beginning of time - the Boss level(s). As everyone here has said, GTA IV was structured so much better in terms of challenging missions to unlock next phase of the game, and the final branch of the story, no matter which path you took.

There is no progression anymore. Every mission right from the start must be an intense, explosive collection of overblown setpieces, with no subtlety or downtime, because otherwise the childreen will get bored and not finish the game, right?

 

FTFY

 

GTA IV nailed that perfectly, so sad that U* had to dumb their next game down in prior to the casual players, yeah, casual players ruined another good franchise.

[JotaPDF20]

 

 

Indeed. These professional writers at Rockstar seemed to have forgotten one of the cardinal elements of video games since the beginning of time - the Boss level(s). As everyone here has said, GTA IV was structured so much better in terms of challenging missions to unlock next phase of the game, and the final branch of the story, no matter which path you took.

There is no progression anymore. Every mission right from the start must be an intense, explosive collection of overblown setpieces, with no subtlety or downtime, because otherwise the childreen will get bored and not finish the game, right?

 

FTFY

 

GTA IV nailed that perfectly, so sad that U* had to dumb their next game down in prior to the casual players, yeah, casual players ruined another good franchise.

 

That reminds me that some people find GTA IV boring and repetitive. Niko is an illegal immigrant who got no money, no power and no friends. Was he supposed to explode buildings by the third mission? The game has some amazing and explosive missions, mainly after the protagonist has connections and friends to do that.

[XenoxX]

 

 

Indeed. These professional writers at Rockstar seemed to have forgotten one of the cardinal elements of video games since the beginning of time - the Boss level(s). As everyone here has said, GTA IV was structured so much better in terms of challenging missions to unlock next phase of the game, and the final branch of the story, no matter which path you took.

There is no progression anymore. Every mission right from the start must be an intense, explosive collection of overblown setpieces, with no subtlety or downtime, because otherwise the childreen will get bored and not finish the game, right?

 

FTFY

 

GTA IV nailed that perfectly, so sad that U* had to dumb their next game down in prior to the casual players, yeah, casual players ruined another good franchise.

 

GTA V was allways a casual console gaming franchise

[SmokesWithCigs]

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.

They call the killtrvor option " something sensible for a reason. Michael meant to have trevor killed and has been I. Hiding hoping something tragic happened to him all the while. Int the dead man walking cutscene the way agent Dave Norton reacts when Michael tells him trevor is alive shows that he was a force to be wreckoned with. In a sense trvor is an optional antagonist and playing as him showed me that he is a monster so killing Trevor is reasonable. With option c trevor and mike chooses to stay out of each others way for the time being. Because of Brad that would not be likely to happen though and the fued between trevor and Michael wouldn't end until one of them is dead. I always choose option c though because it gives you extra missions. I don't under stand why Franklin would chose to kill Michael his mentor though.

[oCrapaCreeper]

I'm about 90% sure C used to be the first and only ending but A and B were tacked on in the end for those who may have grudges against M and T and for the novelty of having multiple endings.

Edited November 20, 2015 by oCrapaCreeper

[UshaB]

Option C felt really quickly done, like they decided to throw all antags in one mission just because. Apart from the first few missions, the game overall felt rushed. No wonder V's code name was, "Rush".

[woggleman]

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

He tripped over himself after trying hard to make V not anything like IV. Blame all the people who hated on IV.

[Xing of Virtue]

 

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

He tripped over himself after trying hard to make V not anything like IV. Blame all the people who hated on IV.If only he didn't wrote SA...

 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Xing of Virtue

[XenoxX]

I'm about 90% sure C used to be the first and only ending but A and B were tacked on in the end for those who may have grudges against M and T and for the novelty of having multiple endings.

Nope Dan Houser allready confirmed in an rather old Interview you could play as the protagonist and the antagonist at the same time.

With the different endings you ultimately choose your antagonist/antagonists.

[slimeball supreme]

I regret writing in this topic now.

[Osho]

 

 

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

He tripped over himself after trying hard to make V not anything like IV. Blame all the people who hated on IV.

If only he didn't wrote SA...

 

Nice. Pass the blame on SA for everything.

[cp1dell]

 

I'm about 90% sure C used to be the first and only ending but A and B were tacked on in the end for those who may have grudges against M and T and for the novelty of having multiple endings.

Nope Dan Houser allready confirmed in an rather old Interview you could play as the protagonist and the antagonist at the same time.

With the different endings you ultimately choose your antagonist/antagonists.

 

Pretty sure that isn't talking about the A or B endings. *That same interview Dan Houser mentions that you get to play as the protagonist and antagonist, but then the roles switch - and the former antagonist is now the "good guy" and the former protagonist is the "bad guy," but then it switches again "until you're not really sure who the good or bad guy really is." Something along the lines of that.

 

What he's talking about is the whole Michael/Trevor dynamic. In the beginning when Trevor first shows up, Michael goes and warns Franklin about him and how they're going to have to play both sides until Michael can find a way out. At this point Trevor is supposed to be seen as a minor "antagonist," which is how Michael sees him. But as the story unfolds, it's revealed that Michael is really the one who screwed Trevor over (I think "Bury the Hatchet" is the switching point) and now you're supposed to see it from Trevor's POV that Michael is the real bad guy.

 

Then Michael gets captured and is going to be killed unless Trevor does something, which he doesn't. "Fresh Meat" is the next switching point, where Franklin has to save Michael because Trevor refuses to intervene. Whether it's justified that Trevor refused to do anything is up to who's side you're on, Trevor or Michael's.

 

Being able to kill one or the other because they are the antagonist from Steve Haines/Devon Weston's POV isn't necassarly "choosing your antagonist."

 

*EDIT: Not in the same interview, but he does say in this interview what I was talking about:

 

If you began to develop him and Michael and their previous relationships... We wanted this feeling where you start off thinking one's good and the other's awful. Then you get spun the other way. Then you get spun back the first way, until you can't decide.

And this is exactly what happens in the story. Especially between "Bury the Hatchet" and "Fresh Meat." If you're playing as Michael and seeing things from his POV, you're going to view Trevor as the antagonist to Michael, so playing as Trevor would be "playing as the antagonist." And vice-versa.

 

Again, you're not really "playing as the antagonist" if they are only suddenly the "antagonist" (barely) at the end of the game, and you don't even control them during said mission.

Edited November 21, 2015 by cp1dell

[XenoxX]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm about 90% sure C used to be the first and only ending but A and B were tacked on in the end for those who may have grudges against M and T and for the novelty of having multiple endings.

Nope Dan Houser allready confirmed in an rather old Interview you could play as the protagonist and the antagonist at the same time.

With the different endings you ultimately choose your antagonist/antagonists.

 

Pretty sure that isn't talking about the A or B endings. *That same interview Dan Houser mentions that you get to play as the protagonist and antagonist, but then the roles switch - and the former antagonist is now the "good guy" and the former protagonist is the "bad guy," but then it switches again "until you're not really sure who the good or bad guy really is." Something along the lines of that.

 

What he's talking about is the whole Michael/Trevor dynamic. In the beginning when Trevor first shows up, Michael goes and warns Franklin about him and how they're going to have to play both sides until Michael can find a way out. At this point Trevor is supposed to be seen as a minor "antagonist," which is how Michael sees him. But as the story unfolds, it's revealed that Michael is really the one who screwed Trevor over (I think "Bury the Hatchet" is the switching point) and now you're supposed to see it from Trevor's POV that Michael is the real bad guy.

 

Then Michael gets captured and is going to be killed unless Trevor does something, which he doesn't. "Fresh Meat" is the next switching point, where Franklin has to save Michael because Trevor refuses to intervene. Whether it's justified that Trevor refused to do anything is up to who's side you're on, Trevor or Michael's.

 

Being able to kill one or the other because they are the antagonist from Steve Haines/Devon Weston's POV isn't necassarly "choosing your antagonist."

 

*EDIT: Not in the same interview, but he does say in this interview what I was talking about:

 

If you began to develop him and Michael and their previous relationships... We wanted this feeling where you start off thinking one's good and the other's awful. Then you get spun the other way. Then you get spun back the first way, until you can't decide.

And this is exactly what happens in the story. Especially between "Bury the Hatchet" and "Fresh Meat." If you're playing as Michael and seeing things from his POV, you're going to view Trevor as the antagonist to Michael, so playing as Trevor would be "playing as the antagonist." And vice-versa.

 

Again, you're not really "playing as the antagonist" if they are only suddenly the "antagonist" (barely) at the end of the game, and you don't even control them during said mission.

 

But after all in the end you have to decide, which is ultimately choosing your antagonist.

You may get lost of who it may be, or you might just go for deathwish, but I am pretty sure the endings were something planned allready way ahead.

[Magic_Al]

As these are games, I've always thought the canonical/correct ending is the one where you end up with the most stuff — continued access to the most content. In GTAIV this is Revenge, because you continue to have Roman's friendship abilities and conversations, and you lose access to Kate either way. In terms of character, if Niko knew he had to choose between Kate and Roman he would save Roman. In GTAV obviously C is correct for similar reasons. The other endings I think of as deleted/alternate scenes which give you some agency over the ending but mainly show you why the correct choice is the correct choice.

 

It doesn't make sense for Franklin to kill either Michael or Trevor. They've proved themselves as a team and by that point Franklin should be confident that together they can take on an army and solve things once and for all. Trevor's one moral value is loyalty and Michael is teaching organization and teamwork, and Franklin ignores everything he's learned if he picks anything but Deathwish.

[CynicalRise]

I regret joining this forum now.

[dyspoid]

I think, in general, we can agree that the actual writing within the story was good, but that the structure of the story was a little sub par. We don't get a feel for the power or dominance of the villains we are facing because we can take them out so simply.

 

Devin Weston had private security, but they were so weak and so few that you could run through the assassination with just a machine gun or a well aimed pistol.

 

The powerful Chinese crime boss could be wiped out with one sticky bomb. Would someone so powerful with international reach be so easy to annihilate? With no repercussions? This should have taken place earlier in the story, and we should have had to deal with the revenge directed upon us by the remaining members of his organisation.

 

And Steve Haines, a hated man, who undoubtedly knew he had enemies, was still able to film a television program with nothing more than a cameraman. No security, other police or even a film crew present to interfere with an execution that he knew was coming.

 

Like someone else mentioned, we would not even consider eliminating all of the antagonists in one final mission if this were IV... And the characters in IV, despicable and powerful, were not as powerful as those in V should have been.

 

I say this as someone who enjoys the game and plays it for hours everyday.