Anyone else disappointed how they handled the GTA IV characters?

[UshaB]

From the narrative angle, I and ChiroVette have made it clear. Its not just a cheap shot at simply using it for mere shock value.

 

In that sense, it works to make Trevor's persona grow. However, there was really no point at all for Johnny to be in V. Any way we look at it, Johnny's death is still dishonorable, a bad way to go, and his appearance in the game never should of happened at all. Still a bad move on R* part.

[ChiroVette]

Nope. Its not average story telling.

They cleverly chose the death of Johnny simply for making the introduction to Trevor intentionally disturbing to the players and it worked, in making players hate Trevor more instead of creating a more likeable first impression for Trevor's introduction, unlike what follows later in the narrative, when Trevor gradually starts to grow on the players, in spite of at that uncomfortable intro. As they experience the story further with him they feel much at home in enjoying his character from gameplay standpoint despite his behavior with every passing mission.

Simple as that.

Its a clever way to introduce the players with his personality.

From the narrative angle, I and ChiroVette have made it clear. Its not just a cheap shot at simply using it for mere shock value.

 

I agree. Its great storytelling and, like the torture scene, is intentionally disturbing. There is nothing cheap about it. Trevor is a maniac, psychotic, and Johnny K, whatever he may have once been in LC, degenerated into a meth-addled goon and Trevor took him out.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

I'd wager 80% of people didn't even know who Johnny was when Trevor stomped him out, so making Trevor's first impression "disturbing" works in the same way as it would if he killed an AoD member. It's a monstrous stomping to the point of getting brains on your shoe. Making that Johnny's brains doesn't matter to 80% (probably much more than that tbh), and to the minority who played TLAD going into GTA V only ruins their experience. Let's just keep in mind it makes no sense to even bring The Lost to San Andreas, since the AoD have already been stated to originate from there and The Lost basically fell apart at the end of TLAD. So not only was Johnny ruined for shock value, so was Terry and Clay. I honestly don't care about this anymore, but saying these characters weren't just killed off to shock people is pretty much wrong at this point (those who didn't know Johnny got a vicious and gory kill to shock them, those who did know him were thrown under the bus, essentially). As for ULP's character, I'm alright with him dying like he did (or didn't), but it's kinda confusing why a desk agent is on the front lines. Yet another case of those who knew him getting thrown under the bus.

This. Trevor's intro was not at all "disturbing" for me. In fact, it gave Trevor that wild unpredictability (which was sadly lost). TLAD is great but it's not like Johnny's story ended on a high note is it?

 

I can see why it would turn players off though, should they want to play TLAD if they hadn't already. But that's Rockstar, all their protagonists are highly expendable, best not to get attached.

[Osho]

@ CaptainBicycle

I think its inapproproate to say that "Johnny's death contradicts the plot of TLaD, as in, the Johnny from TLaD would not become the one in V".

Here's a nicely explained summary:

"Nearly every notable event in TLAD is due to Ashley's actions and dishonesty. Her cheating with Billy Grey strained his and Johnny Klebitz' friendship, which eventually led the gang to civil war. Her debt with the Russians made Johnny kidnap Roman Bellic. Her affair with Ray Boccino sucked Johnny into the diamonds story arc. Finally, her cheating with Trevor Philips led to Johnny's death and several Lost members of the Stab City chapter"

There.

Simple to understand.

Except to those who do not want to understand at all.

Its not like Rockstar placed an event of killing Johnny with zero logic behind it. There are some strong hints available if one looks more closely, and the explanation as provided make sense and don't seem to me contradicting with the TLAD plot, AT ALL!

Ashley started dating Johnny again and probably got Johnny into meth too. There has been a history between these two lovers, as seen in TLAD, about her addiction and despite what Johnny thinks about Ashley, he seems to still care about her, as evident in one of the missions in TLAD, when she is in trouble, Johnny makes his way to her house and chooses to save her by doing a favor. Man, I wonder why is it so common for IV trio to keep doing favors!

Anyways,

To explain myself more clearly, here's an interesting conversation from the mission 'Was It Worth it?':

 

Johnny: I don't got you. Crystal gone and got you babe.

Ashley: Johnny. I'm gonna quit.

 

Johnny: Yeah and I'm an idiot believing in your bullsh*t all this time.

Ashley: It ain't your fault.

Johnny: It's my fault I'm a f*cking moron.

 

In a nutshell!

Ashley is still a drug addict, even begins having sex with Trevor and that pissed Johnny off, except he was messing with a psychopath called Trevor and that's what Rockstar wanted to show exactly.

Hell the mission where Johnny accepts to do a favor for saving Ashley in TLAD was even more stupid than what people are complaining about the mission in V.

Here's an excerpt:

Kidnapper: You must be Johnny.

Johnny: Who are you?

Kidnapper:My name is not important.

Johnny: What is this?

Kidnapper: Your woman here owes Dimitri Rascalov a lot of money. Johnny: Okay.

Kidnapper: We need you to do us favor.

Johnny: What?

Kidnapper: We need you to kidnap someone for us.

Johnny: Well, I'm not in the kidnapping business, dude.

Kidnapper: And I'm not in the dude business, dude. You either do it, or junky gets killed. Not difficult decision, even for a man stuck in 1960s time warp. It's easy. You grab him and deliver him to warehouse, off Lompoc in Bohan Industrial.

Johnny: And this'll pay off her debts?

Kidnapper: Well... it pays off interest.

Johnny: Wonderful...

Johnny: Ashley you gotta stop f*cking things up... f*ck!

 

Finally, Rockstar gave a closure to this stupid relationship between Johnny and Ashley, which unfortunately, may not seem likeable for Johnny fans, but for the targeted audience, it worked. Lol..

 

The interesting part about Trevor in that mission many don't highlight is the decision for the player to kill/spare Ashley, which further hints that this relationship between Ashley and Johnny could be a strong the reason that Rockstar had in mind for Johnny's death, and offer a closure by giving the player the choice to decide about Ashley's fate, later.

Coming to the interesting part is this dialogue between Trevor and Wade:

Wade Hebert: But, if we bury Johnny in the desert, and then quiet down that bitch Ashley you was in then they don't need to find out about it.

 

Trevor Philips: You think it's clever to disrespect women?

 

Wade Hebert: Disrespect? What? I wasn't disrespecting. I was just saying we should kill her.

 

Trevor Philips: You called her a bitch. Ain't you got a mother?

 

"However, regardless of the player's decision, a news report and an internet news article will later reveal that Ashley died after participating in a heroin orgy in a Paleto Bay condo, along with four local males in their 50s and 80s. According to the article, police broke down the doors to the apartment after neighbors complained about an unpleasant smell and found five naked corpses"

 

LOL!

The End! Johnny - Ashley!

 

So, I don't find any contradictions here!!!

[UshaB]

But the question is for R*, "Was it worth it?" (see what I did there) Clearly not. Either way if TLAD closure made sense, or if it didn't make sense, the death itself was dishonorable and never should of taken place in V. Johnny should of never been in V at all.

[jyssys]

I would have thought that Trevor was a Marmite character for most players, so if they disliked him enough to actually pick that ending, then they would probably hate him enough to kill him in a very brutal way.

 

I guess not?

 

 

The only reason why I didn't pick the "Kill Trevor" ending was that I wanted to complete the game 100% and I hadn't done all of the Trevor stuff yet.

[DangerZ0neX]

Dude, they made Trevor's and Michael's side quests non-required for 100%, you could've gotten a medium rare Trevor steak and still enjoy that 100%!

[shadowoperative]

 

From the narrative angle, I and ChiroVette have made it clear. Its not just a cheap shot at simply using it for mere shock value.

In that sense, it works to make Trevor's persona grow. However, there was really no point at all for Johnny to be in V. Any way we look at it, Johnny's death is still dishonorable, a bad way to go, and his appearance in the game never should of happened at all. Still a bad move on R* part.

I disagree. He was a methhead with no money or crew. A blind midget could have killed him.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

No crew? So what? Trevor just hallucinated the 20 or so bikers he pre-emptively slaughters shortly after Johnny? Actually, don't answer that.

[thatstupidbug]

To be honest, R* had (almost) never used returning characters well, often writing them out-of-character

 

- Claude in SA was there... i don't even know WHY he was there.

- Catalina became a crazy stalker bi**h with BDSM fetish and sex addiction

- Salvatore leone lost that "godfather" aura, appearing more like a lunatic boss

-Tommy Vercetti (cited in "the introduction") discarded all of his friends

- Avery carrington is killed in LCS, and was probabilly eaten and raped (don't know in what order)

 

- Johnny... we know about him

 

and the list is even longer.

There are some exception, but usually past character are used either to say "hi" and disappear, or to get mauled horribly. And that's not just a GTA V problem.

[jyssys]

Dude, they made Trevor's and Michael's side quests non-required for 100%, you could've gotten a medium rare Trevor steak and still enjoy that 100%!

Really? The guide I read said that Trevor had to be alive to finish some of the stuff that only he could do.

[Pedinhuh]

Dude, they made Trevor's and Michael's side quests non-required for 100%, you could've gotten a medium rare Trevor steak and still enjoy that 100%!

You need to do atleast one gun smuggling activity, said activity is exclusive to him, so if you killed him without doing that, bye bye 100% completion.

 

Also if I'm not mistaken you need to do Yoga atleast once beside that lame ass mission, that activity is exclusive to Michael too, so if you killed him without doing Yoga again, you lose your chance at 100% too.

 

You can check that out on the Social Club.

[NikoBellicGTAIV]

^^No, the gun smuggling activity is not required for 100% once you kill Trevor. With yoga it's the same.

Edited March 1, 2016 by NikoBellicGTAIV

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

 

 

From the narrative angle, I and ChiroVette have made it clear. Its not just a cheap shot at simply using it for mere shock value.

In that sense, it works to make Trevor's persona grow. However, there was really no point at all for Johnny to be in V. Any way we look at it, Johnny's death is still dishonorable, a bad way to go, and his appearance in the game never should of happened at all. Still a bad move on R* part.

I disagree. He was a methhead with no money or crew. A blind midget could have killed him.

 

Its rockstar that made him that way, play TLAD again and tell me he is the same methhead without a crew.

 

Johnny made it very clear that he won't be getting back with Ashley and that he didn't abuse or take drugs and the only reason he did that in 5 was so people like you give excuses for why they killed him off.

Edited March 1, 2016 by ClaudeSpeed1911

[Journey_95]

 

 

 

From the narrative angle, I and ChiroVette have made it clear. Its not just a cheap shot at simply using it for mere shock value.

In that sense, it works to make Trevor's persona grow. However, there was really no point at all for Johnny to be in V. Any way we look at it, Johnny's death is still dishonorable, a bad way to go, and his appearance in the game never should of happened at all. Still a bad move on R* part.

I disagree. He was a methhead with no money or crew. A blind midget could have killed him.

 

Its rockstar that made him that way, play TLAD again and tell me he is the same methhead without a crew.

 

Johnny made it very clear that he won't be getting back with Ashley and that he didn't abuse or take drugs and the only reason he did that in 5 was so people like you give excuses for why they killed him off.

 

I find it laughable how people are trying to justify the sh*tty writing of Johnny and the lost in GTA V. I

 

And people who clearly weren't a fan of Tlad no less...of course they wouldn't give a sh*t if he was ruined as a character.

 

It was done for pure shock value thats it, I thought Rockstar was better than that.

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

I find it laughable how people are trying to justify the sh*tty writing of Johnny and the lost in GTA V. I

 

 

 

 

 

And people who clearly weren't a fan of Tlad no less...of course they wouldn't give a sh*t if he was ruined as a character.

 

It was done for pure shock value thats it, I thought Rockstar was better than that.

 

I liked TLAD and I see why people didn't like it which could be because it felt similiar to IV and had less gameplay vaierty compared to TBOGT but I liked it because I liked IV. However, like you said its all about shock value and they don't care because TLAD was the most hated dlc.

Edited March 1, 2016 by ClaudeSpeed1911

[combustion]

To be honest, R* had (almost) never used returning characters well, often writing them out-of-character

 

- Claude in SA was there... i don't even know WHY he was there.

- Catalina became a crazy stalker bi**h with BDSM fetish and sex addiction

- Salvatore leone lost that "godfather" aura, appearing more like a lunatic boss

-Tommy Vercetti (cited in "the introduction") discarded all of his friends

- Avery carrington is killed in LCS, and was probabilly eaten and raped (don't know in what order)

 

- Johnny... we know about him

 

and the list is even longer.

There are some exception, but usually past character are used either to say "hi" and disappear, or to get mauled horribly. And that's not just a GTA V problem.

 

Claude was there in GTA SA because R* just wanted to clear some fan doubts about him... Claude didn't have an official name in in-game GTAIII, he was named 'Claude' in SA, and also informs us how Claude got acquainted with Catalina. The Doherty garage also belonged to Claude, which itself plays a significant part in that game's storyline.

 

Catalina was there in GTA SA because the devs wanted to clear the info on how she became a psychotic b***h and how she got to know Claude.

 

Tommy would have had a major role in SA, but I believe there were problems with his voice actor, so he was only briefly mentioned in the game. This was done so to explain as why would Rosenberg be stuck in rehab in the middle of a desert instead of dealing drugs in Vice City.

 

Salvatore had to jointly run a casino along with two other mafia families, which resulted him in being a lunatic boss.

 

Previous games brought back characters to fill up and explain storylines, but bringing back Johnny just to make Trevor appear a douche isn't a great idea.

[The Dedito Gae]

...Also, why is a made man in one of Liberty City's most powerful crime families an agent to some crappy actor? Like, not even having his own posse, just him and some goon? I'm talking about Rocco. That was also pretty dumb.

I think the family cut ties with him after the TBOGT events, he literally ran away from LC, is not like you don't know he went bad by listening his voicemail.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Midnight Hitman

[MARKUS.]

R* needs to sit down, talk and negotiate with Michael Hollick for Niko Bellic making an appearance. Maybe for a DLC main character o for a role in GTA VI

 

Who knows, at least 10 years later (GTA VI) Niko would be much older (maybe at the age as Michael in GTA V) so maybe they can change his voice but that actor make a great job specially at "aaaaargh motherf*ckers!"

[Niobium]

the treatment of the IV characters was awful. i mean look at this:

 

 

 

look at this and tell me that the IV characters were handled well.

 

LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME.

[D9fred95]

the treatment of the IV characters was awful. i mean look at this:

 

 

 

look at this and tell me that the IV characters were handled well.

 

LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME.

Odd considering they should've still had Johnny's President character model. That is pretty lazy.

[Big_Smiley]

 

the treatment of the IV characters was awful. i mean look at this:

look at this and tell me that the IV characters were handled well.

LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME.

 

Odd considering they should've still had Johnny's President character model. That is pretty lazy. Yeah Lazy

 

 

Really f*cking LAZY

 

[ChiroVette]

I love the way they handled the IV characters. They all basically made cameo appearances. I could honestly not care less about Johnny's blurry gang patch. It is of no consequence to the story of V. It is what it is. I love how Johnny's death establishes Trevor as the maniac psychotic he invariably is.

 

 

I am for the moment withholding any Johnny poetry, .gifs of the kill scene, and disparaging comments about the IV characters. It is taking some willpower, though, I can assure you. I would strongly suggest that WE ALL on both sides consider a little restraint, because I certainly have no problem going back to being an ass and expressing my TRUE opinions undiluted in as disparaging a way as I can concoct. So how about we all be mindful of the respective games that the opposing side enjoys, lest this start to degenerate again?

 

[Niobium]

chiro, what's the point of the writers bringing back a character from a previous game if they aren't even paying attention to important sh*t like johnny's patch? (if johnny is only the vice president, then who is the president? angus? that motherfu*ker was never even referenced in GTA V, let alone mentioned, let alone fu*king appeared physically.)

 

i do agree that johnny's patch has no consequence on the story of V, however johnny and the lost even being in V has no consequence in V's plot either. they could have just replaced johnny with the AoD leader and the lost with deadbeats, and trevor will still be able to show how "badass" he is by stomping on the AoD leader instead. it would have made much more sense for IV's lore to have the deadbeats in the state of san andreas instead of the lost anyway.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Niobium

[feckyerlife]

there has been 5yrs inbetween 4 and 5, anyone could be the president. its not johnnys story anymore. we dont even know why johnny is in san andreas

[ChiroVette]

chiro, what's the point of the writers bringing back a character from a previous game if they aren't even paying attention to important sh*t like johnny's patch?

 

Might of been a mistake by the graphics department, to be honest. Some low level tech writing code for the artwork and submits an image to the video that is the wrong resolution, and for whatever reason, it gets past beta testing. Games always have tons of little mistakes like this.

 

As for why kill Johnny? Well, Cheatz_N_Tricks and I agree on almost NOTHING with regard to IV versus V, but he said something yesterday in this thread that I wholeheartedly agree with:

 

 

But that's Rockstar, all their protagonists are highly expendable, best not to get attached.

 

 

Unfortunately this is the truth. Look, if Johnny was the first GTA protagonist or even solid supporting character killed off in a sequel or prequel of some sort, then even though I absolutely hate IV, I would object to how Johnny was treated on strictly moral grounds as a fellow writer. But Rockstar is absurdly cavalier with their characters, and they show absolutely no respect for the emotional investment people who love these games make in the characters.

 

Honestly, that's just a f*cking fact. Its a shame, but its a fact.

 

Here:

 

-For absolutely NO REASON whatsoever, they have the player hunt down and kill Avery Carrington in LCS.

-Completely OBLITERATING all of the awesome characters from the PS2-era GTA when they rebooted the series. Well, except Lazlow.

-Johnny K, obviously.

-The afterthought way they offered the player the ability to kill Trevor and Michael.

 

One of my complaints about GTA IV when I played it was not that none of the characters from SA, VC, III, LCS, or VCS were in it, but that in "this reality" they simply cease to exist other than some absurdly callow scribbling of graffiti somewhere in LC that says, "Claude is dead" and some mention of other GTA characters:

 

 

Look, to be frank, I love GTA V, I really do. But after I saw how Rockstar discarded the entire GTA universe from the 3D era games, I made up my mind that I would NEVER invest myself in any of their characters every again. I will play the games, enjoy the gameplay, lavish in the great story and dialog and acting, but once the game was over, I would simply assume that Rockstar will either kill them off one by one, or even worse, simply toss them all into the trash heap when the next gen of GTA launches.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but before IV, I was emotionally invested in Tommy, Fido, CJ, Vic, and Tony Cipriani. Now, knowing what I know about the characters, I don't care how much I enjoy the games, I flat out refuse to care one iota about "GTA lore" in the future. I still, oddly enough, care about all the PS2 era GTA characters because I kind of allow myself to see them existing in another universe, like an alternate dimension or something. So as much as I really like Franklin, Michael, and Trevor (as well as Norton, Lester, and others) let Rockstar slaugher 'em all one by one in coming games for all I care. I am not invested in them at all.

 

Rockstar fooled me once when they discarded ALL the characters I love except Lazlow. They won't get me again! lol

Edited March 1, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Pedinhuh]

And then there's Victor Vance too, everybody forgets that character but I never will.
They made him that f*cking badass ex-soldier turned into the biggest drug dealer in Vice City in GTA:VCS and then in GTA:VC he's just a cannon fodder that doesn't even look or SOUND like him.

Edited March 1, 2016 by pedinhuh

[ChiroVette]

And then there's Victor Vance too, everybody forgets that character but I never will.

They made him that f*cking badass ex-soldier turned into the biggest drug dealer in Vice City in GTA:VCS and then in GTA:VC he's just a cannon fodder that doesn't even look or SOUND like him.

 

This I have to give Rockstar a pass on, though. I almost mentioned him, but in truth, VCS was released by Rockstar Leeds 14 years after VC was released. So I seriously doubt if anyone on the developer team concocted the idea to have an offhand character, Lance's brother, killed and then make a protagonist out of him almost 15 years later. I am quite certain that the dev team creating VCS just decided to use the character after the fact and center the game around him. But it isn't like they killed him off AFTER LCS launched (our timeline, not GTA's timeline, of course)

 

Look, if it were me on the Leeds team, I would have simply created a third brother for Lance and that would have been that. This way one brother dies at the beginning of VC, Lance dies at the end of the story, and there is a third brother (simply not mentioned in VC) that is the protagonist in VCS. But that's me lol.

[CaptainBicycle]

 

And then there's Victor Vance too, everybody forgets that character but I never will.

They made him that f*cking badass ex-soldier turned into the biggest drug dealer in Vice City in GTA:VCS and then in GTA:VC he's just a cannon fodder that doesn't even look or SOUND like him.

 

This I have to give Rockstar a pass on, though. I almost mentioned him, but in truth, VCS was released by Rockstar Leeds 14 years after VC was released. So I seriously doubt if anyone on the developer team concocted the idea to have an offhand character, Lance's brother, killed and then make a protagonist out of him almost 15 years later. I am quite certain that the dev team creating VCS just decided to use the character after the fact and center the game around him. But it isn't like they killed him off AFTER LCS launched (our timeline, not GTA's timeline, of course)

 

Look, if it were me on the Leeds team, I would have simply created a third brother for Lance and that would have been that. This way one brother dies at the beginning of VC, Lance dies at the end of the story, and there is a third brother (simply not mentioned in VC) that is the protagonist in VCS. But that's me lol.

They do have a third brother, Pete, but all that's caused is dumb people to believe it was Pete who actually died, even though R* said it's Vic. I don't mind Vic's death, not because I didn't like him, but because it was a foregone conclusion. You couldn't criticize VC for killing a random guy that 4 years later would become a protagonist. I can take one protagonist dying.

 

Also, R* killing their protags has got to stop. I can take one per universe, but in this one, Johnny, Michael and Trevor are all barred from appearing in future games. C'mon R*, everyone loved Claude appearing in SA. Don't burn your bridges.

[ChiroVette]

 

 

And then there's Victor Vance too, everybody forgets that character but I never will.

They made him that f*cking badass ex-soldier turned into the biggest drug dealer in Vice City in GTA:VCS and then in GTA:VC he's just a cannon fodder that doesn't even look or SOUND like him.

This I have to give Rockstar a pass on, though. I almost mentioned him, but in truth, VCS was released by Rockstar Leeds 14 years after VC was released. So I seriously doubt if anyone on the developer team concocted the idea to have an offhand character, Lance's brother, killed and then make a protagonist out of him almost 15 years later. I am quite certain that the dev team creating VCS just decided to use the character after the fact and center the game around him. But it isn't like they killed him off AFTER LCS launched (our timeline, not GTA's timeline, of course)

 

Look, if it were me on the Leeds team, I would have simply created a third brother for Lance and that would have been that. This way one brother dies at the beginning of VC, Lance dies at the end of the story, and there is a third brother (simply not mentioned in VC) that is the protagonist in VCS. But that's me lol.

They do have a third brother, Pete, but all that's caused is dumb people to believe it was Pete who actually died, even though R* said it's Vic. I don't mind Vic's death, not because I didn't like him, but because it was a foregone conclusion. You couldn't criticize VC for killing a random guy that 4 years later would become a protagonist. I can take one protagonist dying.

 

Also, R* killing their protags has got to stop. I can take one per universe, but in this one, Johnny, Michael and Trevor are all barred from appearing in future games. C'mon R*, everyone loved Claude appearing in SA. Don't burn your bridges.

 

 

All it means is that many people like myself will start treating GTA as "just good games" and stop getting caught up in the emotional investment to the characters. If that is what Rockstar wants, then all I can say is lol whatever. But to me, as a writer myself, its one thing to kill off a character, even a beloved one, but the LAST THING any writer wants is to instill a sense of reader-apathy in their audience. When characters are treated so fecklessly as Rockstar treats the obviously "disopsable GTA characters" then the gamers will just follow down that road and stop caring that much about the characters.

 

By the way, I was not aware that Lance did have a 3rd brother. Thanks for sharing that.