Option C was really necessary? [spoilers]

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

Kind of lame that they're simple chases that lead to simple executions...lame.

So says a IV fan. Like most of IV's missions? Drive here and kill the guy? Ring a bell? The irony is real here.The irony you say? Yeah I find it ironic that most people laud GTA V for having immense mission variety yet two of its endings are exactly what they complained about in GTA IV "drive, chase and kill this guy, mission complete" except we're not just talking run of the mill missions during the story, but the ENDING.

 

Compared to Out Of Commission and A Revengers Tragedy they're lackluster. Not even a staunch GTA IV hater like you can deny it bruh.

 

I really thought R* would've put more effort in considering the endings of GTA IV, RDR and even MP3 were so well done and felt like they capped things off perfectly. I chose option C originally and whilst I think it's the best of three it left me hollow and thinking "Ok is that it?". Never felt that way about any GTA before.

 

I only done the other two out of curiosity and they never felt like endings to me. Not even on the same level as The Master And The Moltov or The Holland Play quite frankly and they're not even endings.

Edited November 24, 2015 by PulpFiction

[Cheatz/Trickz]

After they all start suggesting to kill everyone, I was thinking to myself "are they really just going to kill these high profile targets and just sail off into the sunset? Surely this must be building up to some major consequence". Would the writers at R* really put forward such a tactless ending after all this?

 

Well, I was hoping it would lead to DLC featuring Don Percival and Merryweather and there would be tragic consequences, but no, Percival issues a warning and happily ever after it was.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[PhillBellic]

Well, I was hoping it would lead to DLC featuring Don Percival and Merryweather and there would be tragic consequences, but no, happily ever after it was.

That would be an awesome start to the Story Expansion.

[UshaB]

Well, I was hoping it would lead to DLC featuring Don Percival and Merryweather and there would be tragic consequences, but no, Percival issues a warning and happily ever after it was.

 

That's what I was thinking and Don would reign down hell on each protags' loved ones. Tanisha and/or Lamar being killed, Mike's family become hostages and you're forced to chhose which one would live, but in the intense moment Frank comes and saves the day somehow etc.

[--Vega--]

They were likely just put there for the hell of it. Anybody on their main 100% save file that didn't choose "C" is nuts.

 

The "Kill Michael" ending is the worst of the 3. Trevor could stand to die but killing the guy with things finally looking up with kids and a wife is just cruel and heartless.

[cp1dell]

After they all start suggesting to kill everyone, I was thinking to myself "are they really just going to kill these high profile targets and just sail off into the sunset? Surely this must be building up to some major consequence". Would the writers at R* really put forward such a tactless ending after all this?

 

Well, I was hoping it would lead to DLC featuring Don Percival and Merryweather and there would be tragic consequences, but no, Percival issues a warning and happily ever after it was.

I feel like that was supposed to lead to a Story DLC, but they never got around to it. Would have been the perfect story for an expansion instead of the: "Hey kids! Tune in this week on GTAO to see the new crazy antics Lamar is up to in the rough and tuff hood! LOWRIDERS!" and just about every other thing released for GTAO.

[Xing of Virtue]

They were likely just put there for the hell of it. Anybody on their main 100% save file that didn't choose "C" is nuts.

 

The "Kill Michael" ending is the worst of the 3. Trevor could stand to die but killing the guy with things finally looking up with kids and a wife is just cruel and heartless.

As if Michael even cared about that "family" of his. It's all proven by his massive negligence of what was going on inside the mansion. A cockhound wife, a pornstar daughter, and a pot-user son with little education. And they are probably not even his kids, due to Michael whore-mongering his waifu. Which might explain why do they have different hair colours than their parents.

 

Slaying him will probably give the De Santas a better life, AWAY from LS.

 

Plus, M and T are not even needed for 100%.

 

Edited November 24, 2015 by Xing of Virtue

[combustion]

Rushed endings, that explains everything. Most of the players will rather choose C rather than A or B. The game's main feature is three players, and having one of the killed in the end isn't the right thing to do. This is why the ending of GTAIV was much much more better. There was no pointless C option; and you had to choose between revenge or deal with Dimitri. When you played the game first time, you had no clue that either Roman or Kate would get killed. That's how a GTA should end.

 

Instead, we are given three options, and we know who would die when an option is picked. And C made no sense at all, taking out an FIB agent, a senior gangster, the Triad boss and a millionaire investor would certainly get you killed. Instead, there was an argument about mid-life crisis, and that's it. No set of Ballas showed up at Michael's house, no Triad gangsters blew up Franklin's mansion and no FIB agents placed Trevor under surveillance and order a mission to kill him.

 

This explains GTAV- weak antagonists, weak and rushed story and pointless endings.

[PhillBellic]

Rushed endings, that explains everything. Most of the players will rather choose C rather than A or B. The game's main feature is three players, and having one of the killed in the end isn't the right thing to do. This is why the ending of GTAIV was much much more better. There was no pointless C option; and you had to choose between revenge or deal with Dimitri. When you played the game first time, you had no clue that either Roman or Kate would get killed. That's how a GTA should end.

 

Instead, we are given three options, and we know who would die when an option is picked. And C made no sense at all, taking out an FIB agent, a senior gangster, the Triad boss and a millionaire investor would certainly get you killed. Instead, there was an argument about mid-life crisis, and that's it. No set of Ballas showed up at Michael's house, no Triad gangsters blew up Franklin's mansion and no FIB agents placed Trevor under surveillance and order a mission to kill him.

 

This explains GTAV- weak antagonists, weak and rushed story and pointless endings.

It's a shame there's no Cliffhangers offered post Ending. You know, perhaps those peoples Associates want to exact Revenge on M, T, and F.

[XenoxX]

Rushed endings, that explains everything. Most of the players will rather choose C rather than A or B. The game's main feature is three players, and having one of the killed in the end isn't the right thing to do. This is why the ending of GTAIV was much much more better. There was no pointless C option; and you had to choose between revenge or deal with Dimitri. When you played the game first time, you had no clue that either Roman or Kate would get killed. That's how a GTA should end.

 

Instead, we are given three options, and we know who would die when an option is picked. And C made no sense at all, taking out an FIB agent, a senior gangster, the Triad boss and a millionaire investor would certainly get you killed. Instead, there was an argument about mid-life crisis, and that's it. No set of Ballas showed up at Michael's house, no Triad gangsters blew up Franklin's mansion and no FIB agents placed Trevor under surveillance and order a mission to kill him.

 

This explains GTAV- weak antagonists, weak and rushed story and pointless endings.

The people did not show up simply because they did not knew who it was,

thats why they switched roles, and Franklin got rid of the Triads(because they do not know who he is realy), MIchael got rid of Stretch(because those again, do not know who he is), Trevor got rid of haines(Thats because the FIB wanted Haines dead anyway, he was allready been investigated upon) and Devin Weston, you get an explanation for that from Don Percival himself.I sort of think SP DLC would evolve around that.

[D9fred95]

The people did not show up simply because they did not knew who it was,

 

This was a thing that had me scratching my head. The reason why the trio kills the people they know the least is so others won't come back looking for vengeance. That's fair and all, but the problem is you have to kill everyone with the target in addition to the target themselves. How would any allies of Stretch know that it was Michael, not Franklin who killed Stretch? There's no witnesses left thus making it pointless as the Ballas would just assume Franklin did it.

 

This is exactly why in GTA 3's Waka Gashira Wipeout you are barred from killing all the Yakuza in the parking lot because of this very reason. You kill everybody there, no witness to report to the superior about who killed the target.

[XenoxX]

 

The people did not show up simply because they did not knew who it was,

 

This was a thing that had me scratching my head. The reason why the trio kills the people they know the least is so others won't come back looking for vengeance. That's fair and all, but the problem is you have to kill everyone with the target in addition to the target themselves. How would any allies of Stretch know that it was Michael, not Franklin who killed Stretch? There's no witnesses left thus making it pointless as the Ballas would just assume Franklin did it.

 

This is exactly why in GTA 3's Waka Gashira Wipeout you are barred from killing all the Yakuza in the parking lot because of this very reason. You kill everybody there, no witness to report to the superior about who killed the target.

 

You can just kill Stretch and not the gang members, or some people may have seen etc.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

It still doesn't make much sense. The triads would still know Trevor was involved (and they know Michael), the FIB and IAA would obviously know who killed Haines, and the Ballas would probably take an educated guess, they know Franklin is hanging around with an old dude, the entire hood knows. All of them being killed within a few hours would show a correlation too, common sense. Rushed, no excuses.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[NikoBellicGTAIV]

Even so, it woulda been cooler if Frank killed Stretch and Trevor killed Cheng, that way there would be a cool confrontation/stand-off between the protagonist and his own antagonist. I don't give a sh*t about this "no associates" bullsh*t, it's a video game!

[XenoxX]

It still doesn't make much sense. The triads would still know Trevor was involved (and they know Michael), the FIB and IAA would obviously know who killed Haines, and the Ballas would probably take an educated guess, they know Franklin is hanging around with an old dude, the entire hood knows. All of them being killed within a few hours would show a correlation too, common sense. Rushed, no excuses.

Your argumentation makes no sense

 

 

 

The triads would still know Trevor was involved (and they know Michael)

How would they know?

They wouldn't at all, since the only one who knew was the Triad Boss, who died

 

 

e FIB and IAA would obviously know who killed Haines

Again they wanted him dead anyway

 

 

and the Ballas would probably take an educated guess, they know Franklin is hanging around with an old dude, the entire hood knows.

Because Franklin is the ONLY enemy of the Ballas?

[Cheatz/Trickz]

You can't defend sloppy writing man. Triads would blame Trevor because it's obvious, he's their enemy in the state. OBVIOUS. Ballas would immediately blame the Families anyway over the Vagos because Stretch used to be Families, and witnesses would describe Michael whom the Ballas are aware of concluding Franklin was involved. This would also put Lamar in danger which Franklin doesn't think about.

 

And as usual, you ignore another point; all 3 killed within an hour followed by the disappearance of Weston... Yeah, it's stupid and you know it.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[XenoxX]

You can't defend sloppy writing man. Triads would blame Trevor because it's obvious, he's their enemy in the state. OBVIOUS. Ballas would immediately blame the Families anyway over the Vagos because Stretch used to be Families, and witnesses would describe Michael whom the Ballas are aware of concluding Franklin was involved. This would also put Lamar in danger which Franklin doesn't think about.

 

And as usual, you ignore another point; all 3 killed within an hour followed by the disappearance of Weston... Yeah, it's stupid and you know it.

Its not stupid at all, its a cool hollywood styled finish them all ending.

Then again you tend to ignore that Mr. Cheng is the only major representetive of the triads in Los Santos also the Ballas would blame the FAMILYS YES, but not Franklin or Lamar, Lamar is only somehow part with the Families.

Also witnesses do not talk to gang members....

Edited November 28, 2015 by XenoxX

[fefenc]

Steve Haines had a huge potential to become a great motherf*cking villain, but we know that Online happened and the SP had to be rushed... I'm yet to see an hateful villain in a GTA game as Tempenny and Pulaski, I literally hate those guys and their deaths were so sactisfying. At least I hate Tempenny and Pulaski for being dicks with CJ through the game instead of hating on them for being blank characters with wasted potential like the V characters...

 

I wonder how impressive would be the V storyline if GTA Online never existed, perhaps we would have a GTA IV level of storywritting with consistent endings and the SA level of gameplay freedom

Edited November 29, 2015 by fefenc

[XenoxX]

Steve Haines had a huge potential to become a great motherf*cking villain, but we know that Online happened and the SP had to be rushed... I'm yet to see an hateful villain in a GTA game as Tempenny and Pulaski, I literally hate those guys and their deaths was so sactisfying. At least I hate Tempenny and Pulaski for being dicks with CJ through the game instead of hating on them for being blank characters with wasted potential like the V characters...

 

I wonder how impressive would be the V storyline if GTA Online never existed, perhaps we would have a GTA IV level of storywritting with consistent endings and the SA level of gameplay freedom

That has nothing to do with Online and I certainly do no see the connection.

 

The reason why V was different is because of the 3 charactar system.

But outrage culture will think what it wants.

[combustion]

 

Rushed endings, that explains everything. Most of the players will rather choose C rather than A or B. The game's main feature is three players, and having one of the killed in the end isn't the right thing to do. This is why the ending of GTAIV was much much more better. There was no pointless C option; and you had to choose between revenge or deal with Dimitri. When you played the game first time, you had no clue that either Roman or Kate would get killed. That's how a GTA should end.

 

Instead, we are given three options, and we know who would die when an option is picked. And C made no sense at all, taking out an FIB agent, a senior gangster, the Triad boss and a millionaire investor would certainly get you killed. Instead, there was an argument about mid-life crisis, and that's it. No set of Ballas showed up at Michael's house, no Triad gangsters blew up Franklin's mansion and no FIB agents placed Trevor under surveillance and order a mission to kill him.

 

This explains GTAV- weak antagonists, weak and rushed story and pointless endings.

The people did not show up simply because they did not knew who it was,

thats why they switched roles, and Franklin got rid of the Triads(because they do not know who he is realy), MIchael got rid of Stretch(because those again, do not know who he is), Trevor got rid of haines(Thats because the FIB wanted Haines dead anyway, he was allready been investigated upon) and Devin Weston, you get an explanation for that from Don Percival himself.I sort of think SP DLC would evolve around that.

 

 

People would still come after them... Trevor was wanted by the police after assassinating Haines, a simple joint op between the LSPD and the FIB would certainly make way to capture/kill Trevor.

 

Triads will still show up at Franklin's house, he was the one who rescued Michael from their abattoir, and he was sent to only kill Cheng Sr., so any survivors or remaining Triads would come after Franklin after some brief research.

 

The Ballas should know about Michael, he is the reason why Franklin became rich and moved into a mansion, he was the cause of Franklin's success, and the success is sure to annoy the Ballas. Michael only takes out Stretch, so the surviving Ballas conclude that Franklin sent Michael to kill Stretch. Since hitting on Franklin would cause the tensions between the gangs to increase, their only option is to attack Michael.

 

This makes this ending feel 'rushed'... they just kill a bunch of people and walk away happily, facing no consequences whatsoever. The ending(s) should take more GTA-IV style to it, like after the missions, there are more strings of missions facing the consequences of the ending picked. Like facing an angry Devin after A or fighting Haines' corrupt FIB division after B and the above mentioned events after ending C. Instead, Rockstar presents us with the rubbish endings. And no DLC could implement this... there's no word about SP DLC and even if the decide to make one, they have to make 3 different ones continuing the story from the different endings or focus on an entirely new protag, which they won't do, since developing new stuff for Online would generate more money.

[Osho]

 

I wonder how impressive would be the V storyline if GTA Online never existed, perhaps we would have a GTA IV level of storywritting with consistent endings and the SA level of gameplay freedom

That has nothing to do with Online and I certainly do no see the connection. 02 The reason why V was different is because of the 3 charactar system. But outrage culture will think what it wants. What he meant to say is, imagine!

Just imagine for a moment - If there was no Online, and Dan Houser didn't focus too much on the multiplayer concerns by saying, "I think we were concerned that some of our previous games, while they still had a very fun multiplayer component to them, it was almost like it was being cannibalized by the enormity of the single player game. People were just not focusing on it. So by moving it, we really wanted to go all in and make this much bigger, much more encompassing, a stand-alone product essentially"

 

Then I think Single player would have turned a much better, much more encompassing, a stand-alone solid single player experience essentially with no Story DLC required.

[cp1dell]

I love how now we're really planning this sh*t out, and picking away at sh*t because it would work totally different in real life. Discussing having the FIB and LSPD do a joint investigation to track down Trevor and sh*t.

 

Hell, if you're going to nitpick at how unrealistic the ending is we might as well do the same for the whole game. Hell, the whole GTA series.

 

Lets just ignore that the ENTIRE GTA SERIES, has every protagonist with some form of "plot armor" where the police and law enforcement in general do not operate like they do in real life.

[BlackNoise]

 

 

I wonder how impressive would be the V storyline if GTA Online never existed, perhaps we would have a GTA IV level of storywritting with consistent endings and the SA level of gameplay freedom

That has nothing to do with Online and I certainly do no see the connection.

 

The reason why V was different is because of the 3 charactar system.

But outrage culture will think what it wants.

 

But you're thinking what you want as well. How can you not consider Online as a potential reason why the single player was different? You just made the exact same point about the 3 character system. This means you understand how something being different can affect the game as a whole, right? Online isn't separate in the way some of you guys think. If anything is developed, IT AFFECTS THE REST OF DEVELOPMENT. These modes and features aren't developed in a vacuum. There's a huge list of priorities and they all affect each other.

 

When you're doing two big modes at once, one or both will probably suffer. You act like this is a foreign concept. This has been talked about in the industry since the beginning of big SP+MP games. One always wins or both lose to some degree. Stop playing, XenoxX. You know how division works.

 

Even if you loved every aspect of GTA V, how can you not consider how one mode could possibly be improved if it had all the attention? Online would've probably been better with no single player and single player would've probably been better with no online. It's just basic arithmetic. Employees, time, money, etc. all get divided.

 

 

To the OP, there's a little bit of "option C" in every aspect of GTA V. It's in the shark cards, special abilities, driving, carrying weapons, etc. It represents the current direction of GTA. R* wants it to be much easier. This even applies to emotional stuff. Imagine if RDR had another easier to stomach option. At the time I probably would've loved it, but it also would've ruined it. That's what a lot of GTA V fans & fanboys don't seem to understand. I know it's a game, but some of us see games as art and/or a medium for good storytelling. It's not just supposed to make you feel good in every way, which is why our opinions confuse so many of you. On one level you can see option C as a positive thing. I don't want anything bad to happen to anyone, so I'll just avoid those, but then A&B are meaningless. No feeling or anything. I don't need to think about weapons or driving or anything anymore, but it's easier so I guess it's better.

Edited November 29, 2015 by BlackNoise

[woggleman]

Why does V get crap when RDR started many of these easier things? Nobody whines about things like carrying all weapons, regen health and dead eye in RDR but when V has similar things this forum is in an uproar.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Why does V get crap when RDR started many of these easier things? Nobody whines about things like carrying all weapons, regen health and dead eye in RDR but when V has similar things this forum is in an uproar.

Because RDR is a masterpiece and GTA V isn't?

 

On a serious note probably because RDR isn't apart of the GTA franchise. It's like saying why doesn't anyone complain about bullet time in MP3?

 

We're on a GTA forum. That's why.

Edited November 29, 2015 by SonOfLiberty

[woggleman]

 

Why does V get crap when RDR started many of these easier things? Nobody whines about things like carrying all weapons, regen health and dead eye in RDR but when V has similar things this forum is in an uproar.

Because RDR is a masterpiece and GTA V isn't?

 

On a serious note probably because RDR isn't apart of the GTA franchise. It's like saying why doesn't anyone complain about bullet time in MP3?

 

We're on a GTA forum. That's why.

 

I think it's more that this forum has an inherent bias against V. If it didn't have these things people would complain that RDR was a step forward and V was a step back.

[HaythamKenway]

To the OP, there's a little bit of "option C" in every aspect of GTA V. It's in the shark cards, special abilities, driving, carrying weapons, etc. It represents the current direction of GTA. R* wants it to be much easier. This even applies to emotional stuff. Imagine if RDR had another easier to stomach option. At the time I probably would've loved it, but it also would've ruined it. That's what a lot of GTA V fans & fanboys don't seem to understand. I know it's a game, but some of us see games as art and/or a medium for good storytelling. It's not just supposed to make you feel good in every way, which is why our opinions confuse so many of you. On one level you can see option C as a positive thing. I don't want anything bad to happen to anyone, so I'll just avoid those, but then A&B are meaningless. No feeling or anything. I don't need to think about weapons or driving or anything anymore, but it's easier so I guess it's better.

Funny, I was just thinking about similar things in the wake of the two hour interview with the lead writer of AC Syndicate. There was an interesting discussion about challenging the players by making the ride less smooth for them, in order to serve a point or to build a more meaningful experience.

 

It actually came up several times during the interview, but one example stood out to me. One of the mechanics of the game cut in the development was that after each big assassination, one aspect of the city would collapse/change and make it harder for the player to go on. Kill an important banker and the economy goes through recession, so everything in the shops is ten times as expensive. Kill a politician and the streets are now filled with cops and are under surveillance. Kill a transportation tycoon and the fast travel system doesn't work anymore and so on. The narrative still deals with these consequences even in the finished game, but Ubisoft decided to cut the gameplay impact, to not challenge the players. But that harms the whole experience, as the message of the game - the Assassins's reckless destruction of the Templars's system and the impact it has on the society overall - is now just delivered through words, rather than by making the player face the consequences themselves. Gameplay and story intergration, that kind of thing.

 

I digress, but it's an example that applies to how Rockstar dealt with V too. It's a smooth, sweet ride that goes out of its way to make the players comfortable and doesn't try to challenge them in any way, both in gameplay design and writing. It's pandering, really. The hardest choice in the game's narrative, the definite exclamation mark for V's themes can be easily avoided by a copout "third way" Hollywood happy ending that takes a dump all over them.

Edited November 29, 2015 by HaythamKenway

[XenoxX]

 

 

 

I wonder how impressive would be the V storyline if GTA Online never existed, perhaps we would have a GTA IV level of storywritting with consistent endings and the SA level of gameplay freedom

That has nothing to do with Online and I certainly do no see the connection.

 

The reason why V was different is because of the 3 charactar system.

But outrage culture will think what it wants.

 

But you're thinking what you want as well. How can you not consider Online as a potential reason why the single player was different? You just made the exact same point about the 3 character system. This means you understand how something being different can affect the game as a whole, right? Online isn't separate in the way some of you guys think. If anything is developed, IT AFFECTS THE REST OF DEVELOPMENT. These modes and features aren't developed in a vacuum. There's a huge list of priorities and they all affect each other.

 

When you're doing two big modes at once, one or both will probably suffer. You act like this is a foreign concept. This has been talked about in the industry since the beginning of big SP+MP games. One always wins or both lose to some degree. Stop playing, XenoxX. You know how division works.

 

Even if you loved every aspect of GTA V, how can you not consider how one mode could possibly be improved if it had all the attention? Online would've probably been better with no single player and single player would've probably been better with no online. It's just basic arithmetic. Employees, time, money, etc. all get divided.

 

 

To the OP, there's a little bit of "option C" in every aspect of GTA V. It's in the shark cards, special abilities, driving, carrying weapons, etc. It represents the current direction of GTA. R* wants it to be much easier. This even applies to emotional stuff. Imagine if RDR had another easier to stomach option. At the time I probably would've loved it, but it also would've ruined it. That's what a lot of GTA V fans & fanboys don't seem to understand. I know it's a game, but some of us see games as art and/or a medium for good storytelling. It's not just supposed to make you feel good in every way, which is why our opinions confuse so many of you. On one level you can see option C as a positive thing. I don't want anything bad to happen to anyone, so I'll just avoid those, but then A&B are meaningless. No feeling or anything. I don't need to think about weapons or driving or anything anymore, but it's easier so I guess it's better.

 

But my problem is that you are acting as if Online mode would have had all the attention of developement after release, but thats not the case, all Online mode had were a few set of missions and game modes, and of course some Free Mode Events.

 

Lets ASSUME all that would have been in GTA V, would have changed a dime with the writing or Storytelling?

No, it wouldn't have, the Storytelling was like it is at the moment simply. because R* tried the 3 charactar dynamic which OF COURSE makes up for a different story structure, like for example more Villains needed since we have more protagonists.

[Osho]

Why does V get crap when RDR started many of these easier things? Nobody whines about things like carrying all weapons, regen health and dead eye in RDR but when V has similar things this forum is in an uproar.

You're not understanding. People are complaining and blaming Rockstar's bad, dumbed down and wrong design decisions, regardless of the games.

It's not like RDR was created by Bethesda while V was created by Rockstar so we should blame RDR for starting the trend and not V.

Both games may have been created by different studios, but still share the name in common, that is, Rockstar!

I think it's more that this forum has an inherent bias against V

reality that V shames itself by being inferior to many prev. games in many areas of gameplay and story presentation.

If it didn't have these things people would complain that 02RDR was a step forward and V was a step back.

V is indeed a major step back to RDR when it comes to Story DLC.

That's just one step out of many "steps backward" taken by V.

[XenoxX]

 

To the OP, there's a little bit of "option C" in every aspect of GTA V. It's in the shark cards, special abilities, driving, carrying weapons, etc. It represents the current direction of GTA. R* wants it to be much easier. This even applies to emotional stuff. Imagine if RDR had another easier to stomach option. At the time I probably would've loved it, but it also would've ruined it. That's what a lot of GTA V fans & fanboys don't seem to understand. I know it's a game, but some of us see games as art and/or a medium for good storytelling. It's not just supposed to make you feel good in every way, which is why our opinions confuse so many of you. On one level you can see option C as a positive thing. I don't want anything bad to happen to anyone, so I'll just avoid those, but then A&B are meaningless. No feeling or anything. I don't need to think about weapons or driving or anything anymore, but it's easier so I guess it's better.

Funny, I was just thinking about similar things in the wake of the two hour interview with the lead writer of AC Syndicate. There was an interesting discussion about challenging the players by making the ride less smooth for them, in order to serve a point or to build a more meaningful experience.

 

It actually came up several times during the interview, but one example stood out to me. One of the mechanics of the game cut in the development was that after each big assassination, one aspect of the city would collapse/change and make it harder for the player to go on. Kill an important banker and the economy goes through recession, so everything in the shops is ten times as expensive. Kill a politician and the streets are now filled with cops and are under surveillance. Kill a transportation tycoon and the fast travel system doesn't work anymore and so on. The narrative still deals with these consequences even in the finished game, but Ubisoft decided to cut the gameplay impact, to not challenge the players. But that harms the whole experience, as the message of the game - the Assassins's reckless destruction of the Templars's system and the impact it has on the society overall - is now just delivered through words, rather than by making the player face the consequences themselves. Gameplay and story intergration, that kind of thing.

 

I digress, but it's an example that applies to how Rockstar dealt with V too. It's a smooth, sweet ride that goes out of its way to make the players comfortable and doesn't try to challenge them in any way, both in gameplay design and writing. It's pandering, really. The hardest choice in the game's narrative, the definite exclamation mark for V's themes can be easily avoided by a copout "third way" Hollywood happy ending that takes a dump all over them.

 

Are you trying to imply that R* did not include that much Story choices, because they would have been too difficult for the players?

Well, then again that is not the case, that MIGHT be the case with some aspects of the game, but with this one it is not.

 

As direct proof here is an excerpt from an Interview with Sam Houser, explaining why they do not have the amount of decisions as in IV in the game.

 

"We don't have the same choices as we had with Niko, for one very simple structural reason. Just keeping track of three stories as opposed to one story means it's harder to introduce a variable. You put a variable in a certain place and it just made our minds spin. You've got a lot of choices to missions. You have choices as to how you do things, that's a big focus of what you're doing. But the thing is, Niko is really an assassin. He gets told to go kill you; he can kill you or doesn't kill you. That gives an easy way to kick that back in later. With these guys, who are focused much more on money and robbery... They can do the robberies in different kinds of ways and have a lot of choice over the things they do, but it was hard to implement all these loose ends that fundamentally affected things after. It would be impossible to track them all."

 

Edited November 29, 2015 by XenoxX