Option C was really necessary? [spoilers]

[Lester-The-Molester]

 

 

 

 

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.

Why can't you just accept that GTA Online affected SP in a bad way?

[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.

Why can't you just accept that GTA Online affected SP in a bad way?

 

Thats not up to discussion at the moment, for a fact though GTA Online DID NOT affect the Story structure of the game, that is a fact.

Edited November 29, 2015 by XenoxX

[HaythamKenway]

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.

You're missing the point. It's not about the lack of story-based decisions, but the way the whole game is designed and the ending stands as a prime example.

 

V is a game about powerlessness, about resignation, about people eating each other to climb to the top, with only people already at the top profiting of it all. And about the fact that this cycle can not be changed, that it's a machine that will keep chugging on and on forever. The C ending, where the trio manages to break from this cycle and live happily ever after goes against the spirit of the rest of the game. And why? Because the audience doesn't want a dark, depressing ending with gameplay repercussions, right?

 

This design/writing philosophy is reflected elsewhere in the game too, in things big and small, and the C ending just stands as a obvious example of that. It's about cutting corners, softening out the edges, to make the game more inviting, comfortable and player-friendly. But while that makes for a fun game, ultimately, it robs us of more profound, memorable experience.

[Osho]

Are you trying to imply 02that R* did not include that much Story choices, because they would have been too difficult for the players?02

I don't think it's too difficult. I have read Sam's interview still they could have offered some choices in the story to open up new activities, similar to, how they introduced yoga through the mission. For instance, they could have given us the option too chose what Franklin wants to do - whether stay in the hood and involve in the hood related and other crimes' like territory acquisition while still being a part of the team of M and T, Or: Franklin choose to what currently forced upon the players to move out of the hood and settle in Vinewood hills, while still eating chips, ironing clothes and doing boring errand boy jobs.

[XenoxX]

 

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.

You're missing the point. It's not about the lack of story-based decisions, but the way the whole game is designed and the ending stands as a prime example.

 

V is a game about powerlessness, about resignation, about people eating each other to climb to the top, with only people already at the top profiting of it all. And about the fact that this cycle can not be changed, that it's a machine that will keep chugging on and on forever. The C ending, where the trio manages to break from this cycle and live happily ever after goes against the spirit of the rest of the game. And why? Because the audience doesn't want a dark, depressing ending with gameplay repercussions, right?

 

This design/writing philosophy is reflected elsewhere in the game too, in things big and small, and the C ending just stands as a obvious example of that. It's about cutting corners, softening out the edges, to make the game more inviting, comfortable and player-friendly. But while that makes for a fun game, ultimately, it robs us of more profound, memorable experience.

 

But where do you base that from?

There is no evidence suggesting such thing, as of now its just speculation, R* themselfs even said that V was different, NOT because of the criticism towards IV, but simply because they wanted to make a different game.

 

This "dark ending" would be killling either Trevor or Michael, V simply gives you the choice.

 

Are you trying to imply 02that R* did not include that much Story choices, because they would have been too difficult for the players?02

I don't think it's too difficult. I have read Sam's interview still they could have offered some choices in the story to open up new activities, similar to, how they introduced yoga through the mission. For instance, they could have given us the option too chose what Franklin wants to do - whether stay in the hood and involve in the hood related and other crimes' like territory acquisition while still being a part of the team of M and T, Or: Franklin choose to what currently forced upon the players to move out of the hood and settle in Vinewood hills, while still eating chips, ironing clothes and doing boring errand boy jobs.

 

No they couldn't have done this, since that would have literally changed out how the whole story developes, Franklin in the hood would have no incentive to work together with Trevor and/or Michael, thats just gibberish.

 

Off Topic:

https://www.gta5-mods.com/scripts/gangmod

^That Gang Mod on PC is one of the best btw. might try it out since it even got the recruiting feature from SA in it.

Edited November 29, 2015 by XenoxX

[Osho]

https://www.gta5-mods.com/scripts/gangmod ^That Gang Mod on PC is one of the best btw. might try it out since it even got the recruiting feature from SA in it.

That's cool.

Now I don't have any more complaints regarding Franklin.

[Lester-The-Molester]

God damn, I really wish that drug dealing mod was in the game. No worries, we got Yoga and non-repeatable random events.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

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 in RDR it is given some thought and planning so that it meshes with the game design, it wasn't tacked onto an already established design just because it worked elsewhere.

[Sunrise Driver]

Am I the only one who liked option C and thought of it as classic good GTA finale mission?

[K1FFLOM]

No, youre not !

[D9fred95]

Thats not up to discussion at the moment, for a fact though GTA Online DID NOT affect the Story structure of the game, that is a fact.

 

I love how Black Noise gives a thought out detailed reason about how both game modes can suffer during development and you just reply with a post that is essentially "Nuh uh, it's not because I say it's not".

 

What you're not getting is the it is actually fact that if Online didn't exist, then SP WOULD get all the attention. Why? Well if Online didn't exist, then there'd only be SP obviously. And since SP GTA V would be R*s hottest game at the time, they would add updates to it like they do now with Online. The problem here is the fact you think that if Online didn't exist, all of R*s employees would just sit down and do nothing since "if there's no Online, that means no updates" which is flawed since if Online didn't exist, R* would have a different mindset, a SP mindset.

Edited November 29, 2015 by D9fred95

[XenoxX]

 

Thats not up to discussion at the moment, for a fact though GTA Online DID NOT affect the Story structure of the game, that is a fact.

 

I love how Black Noise gives a thought out detailed reason about how both game modes can suffer during development and you just reply with a post that is essentially "Nuh uh, it's not because I say it's not".

 

What you're not getting is the it is actually fact that if Online didn't exist, then SP WOULD get all the attention. Why? Well if Online didn't exist, then there'd only be SP obviously. And since SP GTA V would be R*s hottest game at the time, they would add updates to it like they do now with Online. The problem here is the fact you think that if Online didn't exist, all of R*s employees would just sit down and do nothing since "if there's no Online, that means no updates" which is flawed since if Online didn't exist, R* would have a different mindset, a SP mindset.

 

While that is true, it has nothing to do with the narrative structure of V as a whole, the ending of V wouldn't be different, nor would Story choices if Online did not exist...

[Osho]

The narrative structure should be different because there would be a story dlc then.

[XenoxX]

The narrative structure should be different because there would be a story dlc then.

No, that would not CHANGE the narrative structure of the CURRENT GAME it would just expand on it.

[Osho]

It should obviously change the narrative structure, because the current game will EXPAND in tapping its potential in many ways, as it wont be cannibalized by the enormity of the online mode.

Simple as that.

The whole five years will revolve around the development of a solid single player experience.

[XenoxX]

It should obviously change the narrative structure, because the current game will EXPAND in tapping its potential in many ways, as it wont be cannibalized by the enormity of the online mode.

Simple as that.

The whole five years will revolve around the development of a solid single player experience.

You think there would be small free Updates for SP?

Because that obviously would NOT be the case...shall I tell you why?

Because the SP makes no money...

Only a constant revenue stream would finance consistent little Singleplayer DLCs...

And if you are talking about an expansion, how do you know that it is not in developement right now?

 

Also no, that again would NOT change the Story of the original game, that would, as I said above only expand on it, Franklin would NOT suddenly be a gang member or something.

[Osho]

I never said anything about getting small free Updates for SP, rather straight away pointed out of the possibility of getting the SP DLC only more than what currently feels like DEAD and pointless to hope.

I don't know about the future whether they are still planning any SP DLC or not, but based on the current assumption that we are discussing around, that is, no Online, at all, might lead to a better experience both gameplay wise and story wise. The story DLC may help to expand and extend the gameplay with additional content and short story, assuming that the vanilla storyline will be much better written and fleshed out.

The expansion may introduce a short side adventure narrative, and not necessarily continue from the ending. For instance, the trio's adventure in North Yankton and around the opening of Casinos and extra heists.

[XenoxX]

I never said anything about getting small free Updates for SP, rather straight away pointed out of the possibility of getting the SP DLC only more than what currently feels like DEAD and pointless to hope.

I don't know about the future whether they are still planning any SP DLC or not, but based on the current assumption that we are discussing around, that is, no Online, at all, might lead to a better experience both gameplay wise and story wise. The story DLC may help to expand and extend the gameplay with additional content and short story, assuming that the vanilla storyline will be much better written and fleshed out.

The expansion may introduce a short side adventure narrative, and not necessarily continue from the ending. For instance, the trio's adventure in North Yankton and around the opening of Casinos and extra heists.

" assuming that the vanilla storyline will be much better written and fleshed out."

 

But exactly that would NOT be the case, the Story would be almost exactly the same, only the amount of side activities and missions would have been expanded.

[CodeRedBruh]

 

I never said anything about getting small free Updates for SP, rather straight away pointed out of the possibility of getting the SP DLC only more than what currently feels like DEAD and pointless to hope.

I don't know about the future whether they are still planning any SP DLC or not, but based on the current assumption that we are discussing around, that is, no Online, at all, might lead to a better experience both gameplay wise and story wise. The story DLC may help to expand and extend the gameplay with additional content and short story, assuming that the vanilla storyline will be much better written and fleshed out.

The expansion may introduce a short side adventure narrative, and not necessarily continue from the ending. For instance, the trio's adventure in North Yankton and around the opening of Casinos and extra heists.

" assuming that the vanilla storyline will be much better written and fleshed out."

 

But exactly that would NOT be the case, the Story would be almost exactly the same, only the amount of side activities and missions would have been expanded.

lol. why should the story be same? they can add to it and stir things up. Like some confrontation ends up throwing Franklin into gang sh*t or something.

[XenoxX]

 

 

I never said anything about getting small free Updates for SP, rather straight away pointed out of the possibility of getting the SP DLC only more than what currently feels like DEAD and pointless to hope.

I don't know about the future whether they are still planning any SP DLC or not, but based on the current assumption that we are discussing around, that is, no Online, at all, might lead to a better experience both gameplay wise and story wise. The story DLC may help to expand and extend the gameplay with additional content and short story, assuming that the vanilla storyline will be much better written and fleshed out.

The expansion may introduce a short side adventure narrative, and not necessarily continue from the ending. For instance, the trio's adventure in North Yankton and around the opening of Casinos and extra heists.

" assuming that the vanilla storyline will be much better written and fleshed out."

 

But exactly that would NOT be the case, the Story would be almost exactly the same, only the amount of side activities and missions would have been expanded.

lol. why should the story be same? they can add to it and stir things up. Like some confrontation ends up throwing Franklin into gang sh*t or something.

 

No, Sam House did say that the reason for not so many Story choices was the 3 charactar system, I am not talking about Story DLC here.

[Lilіth]

//OP: Despite having played TLAD multiple times, alongside IV and TBOGT, I really gave zero f*cks when Trevor stomped his skull.

 

C is like a cheap way out. Antagonists-are-conveniently-out-in-the-open-thus-easy-targets Ex Machina right there. And I would've rathered that C killed Franklin. F*cker can't just stop with his moaning, and is a fifth wheel in general. If V was a movie, CinemaSins would give it a worse tally than The Room, just because of Mr.Goldcards sh*t.

[woggleman]

 

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.

You're missing the point. It's not about the lack of story-based decisions, but the way the whole game is designed and the ending stands as a prime example.

 

V is a game about powerlessness, about resignation, about people eating each other to climb to the top, with only people already at the top profiting of it all. And about the fact that this cycle can not be changed, that it's a machine that will keep chugging on and on forever. The C ending, where the trio manages to break from this cycle and live happily ever after goes against the spirit of the rest of the game. And why? Because the audience doesn't want a dark, depressing ending with gameplay repercussions, right?

 

This design/writing philosophy is reflected elsewhere in the game too, in things big and small, and the C ending just stands as a obvious example of that. It's about cutting corners, softening out the edges, to make the game more inviting, comfortable and player-friendly. But while that makes for a fun game, ultimately, it robs us of more profound, memorable experience.

 

I actually think that C fits in with this narrative. They win by twisting the system to their advantage which is the only way for a person to win in the world of V and sadly to a great extent in the real world. If you do the assassination missions and the stock market afterwards it makes even more sense. They manipulate the system and steal from it instead of playing within it's rules.

[Xing of Virtue]

I like how when M and T constantly complain about how their lives have became so miserable and bicker with each other like children from the game's start to finish, yet nobody gives a sh*t about their moaning. But when F complain about the idiots who are frequently dragging him into their troubles, and everybody wants the guy's head on a stake.

 

"Hypocrisy, Franklin. Civilization's greatest virtue."

[XenoxX]

I like how when M and T constantly complain about how their lives have became so miserable and bicker with each other like children from the game's start to finish, yet nobody gives a sh*t about their moaning. But when F complain about the idiots who are frequently dragging him into their troubles, and everybody wants the guy's head on a stake.

 

"Hypocrisy, Franklin. Civilization's greatest virtue."

Thats just wrong, Franklin constantly advices M and T to stop moaning and constantly brings them together so they can all 3 perform a job/heist etc.

[SmileyBandito]

The endings are sh*t. All three of them. What's to discuss? You can't get too far past bad writing and rushed storytelling.

 

Simply put, all the endings were out of character. People try to be all clever about it, "Hmmm, why did I choose option c? Well, I guess it's because character a had motive x and character b was.. " No, stop it. Everyone from your mom's asscrack to Kentucky chose option c because all three characters live. Simple as that.

[Xing of Virtue]

Not me though. I'll never re-think about sparing Townley after he used and toyed with pretty much everyone to save his own sorry hide.

 

Edited November 29, 2015 by Xing of Virtue

[SmileyBandito]

He didn't even "toy" with anyone, really. He offered Franklin an out after the mission "Dead Man Walking", but Franklin decided to stick with M. And Trevor wasn't tricked into joining the FIB or anything, he simply came along once they told Michael to have him tag along. If anything Franklin is the snake. Why does everyone think Michael is always in the wrong? He's loyal enough to setup the Big One, the Union Depository Heist, just to appease Trevor. In no ending does he cop anyone out. Frankin is the pussy ass who decides to kill M and T just because some eccentric billionaire and pansy FIB douchebag "threatened" him. Everything was so last-second and poorly written. I just don't understand how Franklin was so fickle in the end. Options A and B are so shoehorned, giving the players illusion of choice, as if we can dictate story paths within the game. So pretentious on Rockstar's part. They did it right with GTA IV at least.

 

The only reason why people like Franklin is because of his laid back, millennial personality you can all relate to. He's bitchy, ungrateful; what a sh*tty character.

 

They were all aware of the dirty work they were blackmailed into, and Michael wasn't the puppeteer; he was simply the anchor between them since Norton was affiliated with him and Haines.

[BlackNoise]

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.

 

 

It's not about "all the attention". I'm just talking about "more than usual". I'm not trying to hate on online, especially since I played a lot of it when it released and I really want it to be as good as possible. I just think when R* is trying to juggle two big modes, it doesn't work out as well as it could. If your goal is to only/mainly impress with story & single-player gameplay, all/most of your resources go to that. It's possible R* would've been thinking differently about certain things in SP. If nothing else, Franklin's sneakers would've been finished. I'll never let that go...lol

 

I hate using it, but COD is the perfect example. All the big multiplayer shooters are great examples of what I'm talking about. With no MP or with a smaller MP mode, they would NEED to make sure their campaigns were something to remember. If COD was all about making unforgettable stories, gamers would be telling other gamers "you need to play this game". Instead, we already know it's for MP fans. This must affect how the devs view the SP. If it sucks, the game is still extremely successful. If it's great, it's just a bonus. It's like you're looking for some direct connection between online and story. None of us know what that would be, but D9fred95 summed it up perfectly. It's more about their mindset. SP simply doesn't need to be as good as it could/would/should be.

 

 

@Street Mix, Nothing is necessarily wrong with option C by itself. I thought it was a fun final mission, but A&B is what makes C look weak or like LilithAkuma said "C is like a cheap way out". It's like those hypothetical questions. "would you rather be deaf or blind?" or "would you rather lose a leg or an arm?". I choose to have all my senses and I'm deciding to keep all my limbs intact. When you add the third(easy) option, it just ruins it. That's the point of JotaPDF20's topic.

Edited November 29, 2015 by BlackNoise

[cp1dell]

 

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.

 

Don't know about Trevor, but Franklin and Michael's special ability is practically a "portable adrenaline pill." Actually, now that I think of it, the adrenaline pills actually made the protagonist physically stronger too - so that does apply to Trevor's special ability.

 

Wow-wee. They've been trying to sneak in this special ability stuff since the beginning. It was rigged from the start! Series literally ruined.

[Masketta Man]

Rockstar just likes giving players the illusion of choice. I say illusion because it hardly changes playability: one can always go back and undo it.

 

(Major spoilers for Star Wars below, DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT FINISHED STAR WARS EPISODE VI)

Story-wise, killing Michael is joining the sith, and killing Trevor is like if Luke killed Darth Vader without reconcilement. They're dumb endings, but they're at least more dynamic(?) than if everyone killed all the bad guys and got away with all the mulah. (Which is a really dumb ending.)