why do people say option c in gta 5 is the best??????

[captain jack sparrow]

20 minutes ago, ThatKyloRenGuy said:

You are all bringing up very good points in relation to Michael being the main antagonist of his own game. I can see where people are coming from when they say that Franklin is the only protagonist and we see the entirety of the game through his eyes. To be completely honest, Michael, Trevor, Steve, and Devin were ALL pretty much users of Franklin. Franklin is absolutely similar to other GTA protagonists like Niko Bellic, Johnny Klebitz, Luis Fernando Lopez, Claude, and CJ. They’re all basically whipping boys who are bound to be betrayed and forced to do dirty work for others. They all are constantly treated like dogs, cats, horses, or useful tools rather than actual friends. Michael and Trevor, on the other hand, are not quite the same story as they’re kinda the slavedrivers themselves, much like many other GTA main antagonists including Steve and Devin. With all of that being said, it is definitely a hallmark of the GTA series to see the oppressed take down their oppressors. Case in point with the deaths of Catalina, Frank Tenpenny, Dimitri Rascalov, Jimmy Pegorino, Billy Grey, Ray Bulgarin, Michael, Trevor, Steve, and Devin.

you are right and i absolutly love franklin glad we get to experience him more and i hate michael such a selfish asshole glad franklin killed that bitch in option b

[Tonesta]

9 hours ago, captain jack sparrow said:

is it that hard to understand that michael was the bad guy from the start?????sure trevor might have been a sociopath but it was michael's best friend  and michael  bertrayed him!!!!!!!!and it was not right and he bertrayed him with one of the worst ways possible:he faked his death and that my friends  made trevor  really sad and even more of a psychopath.

michael was the real antagonist all along!!!!!!!

 

Tend to agree that Michael really was a bad guy - his actions throughout the game were deeply selfish; not only his betrayal of Trevor (which you could just about justify on grounds of doing it to protect his family), but also the way he puts everyone at risk by snuggling up to Devin Weston purely because he's his route into the movie business.

 

The problem with Ending B though is how it's written. Although Michael is a bad guy, he's not a bad guy to Franklin. In fact, he's the one that's given Franklin a route to riches. And he's not a risk to Franklin either (arguably unlike Trevor) - by the end of the game, Michael just wants to sit in his mansion and make movies with Soloman. Franklin gains absolutely nothing by killing him other than losing a friend and mentor.

And he's asked to kill Michael by Devin Weston - a guy who, to that point, has done nothing to Franklin but patronize him and fail to pay him for his work. It seems 100% out of character for Franklin to ever want to do Devin a favour.

 

So yes, it could have been a great, and well deserved, ending to kill off Michael at the end. But it certainly wasn't a good ending the way they wrote it......

[Bratva Assassin]

In relation to all of what has been said earlier, Franklin, Niko Bellic, Johnny Klebitz, Luis Fernando Lopez, CJ, and Claude are all examples of what is called Chaotic Neutral. Trevor and Michael, on the other hand are examples of Chaotic Evil. What differentiates Chaotic Neutral from Chaotic Evil is simply how bent on chaos the character is. Michael and Trevor are both, without a doubt, more evil than the other protagonists I mentioned, which is why it's good for there to be an option to kill them. As far as some other characters go, Devin and Steve are both examples of Lawful Evil while Dave Norton and Andreas Sanchez are both examples of Lawful Neutral. What differentiates Lawful Evil from Lawful Neutral is that the first is a corrupt person in a position of authority whereas the latter is an authority figure who is neither righteous nor corrupt. It is also still good to know you can kill a corrupt person of authority. However, Wei Cheng and Stretch are both called Neutral Evil (the same alignment as Tommy Vercetti). This doesn't mean they're an on and off hero or villain. It simply means that they're indifferent to law vs chaos on the spectrum. What differentiates them from Lawful Evil is that they don't have any obligation to society. They are also different from Chaotic Evil because they aren't as big of a menace to society. They are also different from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral because they are more "evil" than "neutral". Though there are always exceptions to every rule, it is USUALLY a better idea to kill a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil character over a Neutral Evil one. However, it is also much better to kill a Neutral Evil character over a Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral character. That's the reason as to why even if Johnny Klebitz was added as a main antagonist in GTA V, I'd still go with ending A or possibly even B. However, everyone has the right to their own opinion. I'm not preaching anything, I'm just putting my two cents in.

[captain jack sparrow]

1 hour ago, ThatKyloRenGuy said:

In relation to all of what has been said earlier, Franklin, Niko Bellic, Johnny Klebitz, Luis Fernando Lopez, CJ, and Claude are all examples of what is called Chaotic Neutral. Trevor and Michael, on the other hand are examples of Chaotic Evil. What differentiates Chaotic Neutral from Chaotic Evil is simply how bent on chaos the character is. Michael and Trevor are both, without a doubt, more evil than the other protagonists I mentioned, which is why it's good for there to be an option to kill them. As far as some other characters go, Devin and Steve are both examples of Lawful Evil while Dave Norton and Andreas Sanchez are both examples of Lawful Neutral. What differentiates Lawful Evil from Lawful Neutral is that the first is a corrupt person in a position of authority whereas the latter is an authority figure who is neither righteous nor corrupt. It is also still good to know you can kill a corrupt person of authority. However, Wei Cheng and Stretch are both called Neutral Evil (the same alignment as Tommy Vercetti). This doesn't mean they're an on and off hero or villain. It simply means that they're indifferent to law vs chaos on the spectrum. What differentiates them from Lawful Evil is that they don't have any obligation to society. They are also different from Chaotic Evil because they aren't as big of a menace to society. They are also different from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral because they are more "evil" than "neutral". Though there are always exceptions to every rule, it is USUALLY a better idea to kill a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil character over a Neutral Evil one. However, it is also much better to kill a Neutral Evil character over a Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral character. That's the reason as to why even if Johnny Klebitz was added as a main antagonist in GTA V, I'd still go with ending A or possibly even B. However, everyone has the right to their own opinion. I'm not preaching anything, I'm just putting my two cents in.

if you think about it michael was the only bad guy and trevor was not but only my opinion tho

[Zello]

2 hours ago, Tonesta said:

So yes, it could have been a great, and well deserved, ending to kill off Michael at the end. But it certainly wasn't a good ending the way they wrote it......

Michael should have killed Trevor and Trevor should have killed Michael.

[captain jack sparrow]

11 hours ago, Zello said:

Michael should have killed Trevor and Trevor should have killed Michael.

well yeah but michael deserves to die while trevor does not

[Tonesta]

7 hours ago, captain jack sparrow said:

well yeah but michael deserves to die while trevor does not

Floyd disagrees with you!

You can maybe make an argument to try and suggest that many of the terrible things that Trevor did over the course of GTAV were justifiable (they were mostly doing bad things to bad people; they were a direct consequence of his messed up upbringing) - but there's no justifying what he did to Floyd, who was a perfectly decent (albeit weak and downtrodden) individual.

 

That act alone deserved to get Trevor a dramatic death at the end of GTAV. I really like Zello's suggestion of Michael/Trevor mutually assured annihilation at the end - would've been a much more satisfying way to end it.

[Sinner!]

On 3/4/2019 at 9:24 PM, ThatKyloRenGuy said:

In relation to all of what has been said earlier, Franklin, Niko Bellic, Johnny Klebitz, Luis Fernando Lopez, CJ, and Claude are all examples of what is called Chaotic Neutral. Trevor and Michael, on the other hand are examples of Chaotic Evil. What differentiates Chaotic Neutral from Chaotic Evil is simply how bent on chaos the character is. Michael and Trevor are both, without a doubt, more evil than the other protagonists I mentioned, which is why it's good for there to be an option to kill them. As far as some other characters go, Devin and Steve are both examples of Lawful Evil while Dave Norton and Andreas Sanchez are both examples of Lawful Neutral. What differentiates Lawful Evil from Lawful Neutral is that the first is a corrupt person in a position of authority whereas the latter is an authority figure who is neither righteous nor corrupt. It is also still good to know you can kill a corrupt person of authority. However, Wei Cheng and Stretch are both called Neutral Evil (the same alignment as Tommy Vercetti). This doesn't mean they're an on and off hero or villain. It simply means that they're indifferent to law vs chaos on the spectrum. What differentiates them from Lawful Evil is that they don't have any obligation to society. They are also different from Chaotic Evil because they aren't as big of a menace to society. They are also different from Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral because they are more "evil" than "neutral". Though there are always exceptions to every rule, it is USUALLY a better idea to kill a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil character over a Neutral Evil one. However, it is also much better to kill a Neutral Evil character over a Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral character. That's the reason as to why even if Johnny Klebitz was added as a main antagonist in GTA V, I'd still go with ending A or possibly even B. However, everyone has the right to their own opinion. I'm not preaching anything, I'm just putting my two cents in.

 

What are you waffling on about? this chaotic nonsense is incoherent drivel.

 

How is Michael any eviler than say, Claude? 

 

[Femme Fatale]

Not sure if playing too much Dungeons & Dragons, or reading too much TV Tropes.

[6fangedcutthroatTV]

Trevor is the Left. Michael is the Right. Both are wrong, so Franklin provides a third way that doesn't choose between them, because at the end of the day, Trevor is the best friend of the bunch, and Michael is like a father figure.

[captain jack sparrow]

nah trevor is right michael is wrong he is selfish

On 3/4/2019 at 10:35 PM, Tonesta said:

 

Tend to agree that Michael really was a bad guy - his actions throughout the game were deeply selfish; not only his betrayal of Trevor (which you could just about justify on grounds of doing it to protect his family), but also the way he puts everyone at risk by snuggling up to Devin Weston purely because he's his route into the movie business.

 

The problem with Ending B though is how it's written. Although Michael is a bad guy, he's not a bad guy to Franklin. In fact, he's the one that's given Franklin a route to riches. And he's not a risk to Franklin either (arguably unlike Trevor) - by the end of the game, Michael just wants to sit in his mansion and make movies with Soloman. Franklin gains absolutely nothing by killing him other than losing a friend and mentor.

And he's asked to kill Michael by Devin Weston - a guy who, to that point, has done nothing to Franklin but patronize him and fail to pay him for his work. It seems 100% out of character for Franklin to ever want to do Devin a favour.

 

So yes, it could have been a great, and well deserved, ending to kill off Michael at the end. But it certainly wasn't a good ending the way they wrote it......

but franklin is smart i think he did not did it just because he wanted to do devin a favour i think he did it because he understanded that michael was a bad guy even if he was is his mentor

[Aquamaniac]

On 3/5/2019 at 12:35 AM, Zello said:

Michael should have killed Trevor and Trevor should have killed Michael.

This would have made more sense, Franklin had no reason to kill either of them, but it would make more sense for him to kill Trevor, since both Agent Steve and Michael said that Trevor must go, Franklin would certainly be cold blooded enough to do this. Killing Trevor feels not as bad as killing Michael, like Michael said, human stew is over the line.

 

Weston could easily have asked Trevor rather than Franklin, Trevor and Wade could have taken out Michael then, maybe his entire family?

Edited March 6, 2019 by Aquamaniac

[TheSantader25]

42 minutes ago, Aquamaniac said:

 

Weston could easily have asked Trevor rather than Franklin, Trevor and Wade could have taken out Michael then, maybe his entire family?

Weston was a sh*tty antagonist but one thing he wasn’t was being dumb enough to ask Trevor for his favor. He read it right. Trevor would never kill Michael and it would have been dumb to ask him. He would be probably dead himself a second later after asking such a favor. The fact that Trevor says how much he hates Weston in the mission "Pack man" does not help either. As witnessed in ending B he does not even help Franklin kill Michael. He literally saw Michael's mess in North Yankton and still couldn't make himself kill Michael. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by TheSantader25

[Aquamaniac]

35 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

Weston was a sh*tty antagonist but one thing he wasn’t was being dumb enough to ask Trevor for his favor. He read it right. Trevor would never kill Michael and it would have been dumb to ask him. He would be probably dead himself a second later after asking such a favor. The fact that Trevor says how much he hates Weston in the mission "Pack man" does not help either. As witnessed in ending B he does not even help Franklin kill Michael. He literally saw Michael's mess in North Yankton and still couldn't make himself kill Michael. 

Trevor could kill first Weston and then Michael, but killing Michael doesn't really fit either way.

[TheSantader25]

36 minutes ago, Aquamaniac said:

Trevor could kill first Weston and then Michael, but killing Michael doesn't really fit either way.

Trevor would kill Weston. But it would make no sense for Trevor to kill Michael because it's proven multiple times in the story that he does not want to do so. Especially his family. He loves Tracey and Jimmy. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by TheSantader25

[god speed]

Steve could convince Michael instead of Franklin to kill Trevor. Trevor killing Michael would only maybe make sense if he somehow learns Michael is prepared to betray him yet again, but Trevor definitely wouldn't kill his family.

[Aquamaniac]

2 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

Trevor would kill Weston. But it would make no sense for Trevor to kill Michael because it's proven multiple times in the story that he does not want to do so. Especially his family. He loves Tracey and Jimmy. 

 

You're probably right, so we can agree on killing Michael is a stupid ending anyways or the plot had to be different?

 

Not exactly related to the topic but not worthy an extra thread, do you think Weston could have replaced Maddrazo altogether and being a more developed antagonist? Michael then would have had destroyed a house belonging to Weston right at the beginning and the plot would have been slightly different.

[TheSantader25]

5 minutes ago, Aquamaniac said:

 

You're probably right, so we can agree on killing Michael is a stupid ending anyways or the plot had to be different?

 

Not exactly related to the topic but not worthy an extra thread, do you think Weston could have replaced Maddrazo altogether and being a more developed antagonist? Michael then would have had destroyed a house belonging to Weston right at the beginning and the plot would have been slightly different.

Killing Michael is the ending that makes the least sense. 

 

I think Madrazo shouldn't have turned into a Pussy. He could've been a far better antagonist. R* ruined his potential and also neglected cartels. 

[GKZ]

28 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

Killing Michael is the ending that makes the least sense. 

 

[TheSantader25]

I mostly meant it from a character standpoint. Not what is canon or not. Online is a mess full of plot holes. Hopefully it's not canon but yet again there's no evidence pointing otherwise. 

[captain jack sparrow]

michael is a sh*tty protagonist and a selfish asshole that deserves to die

Edited March 6, 2019 by captain jack sparrow

[6fangedcutthroatTV]

8 hours ago, captain jack sparrow said:

michael is a sh*tty protagonist and a selfish asshole that deserves to die

 

I disagree with your subjective statement. None of them deserve to die. The people who manipulate and control them deserved to die. The third way. You are politically aligned to the Left, yes?

[captain jack sparrow]

6 hours ago, HelloMyNameIsHuman said:

 

I disagree with your subjective statement. None of them deserve to die. The people who manipulate and control them deserved to die. The third way. You are politically aligned to the Left, yes?

everyone has a right to their opinion and you have the right to love the c ending

however you have no right to act like everyone should think is the best

the fact that i love option b is just my opinion i don't act like everyone should think is the best

[Rotorhead359]

19 hours ago, perennial said:

Steve could convince Michael instead of Franklin to kill Trevor. Trevor killing Michael would only maybe make sense if he somehow learns Michael is prepared to betray him yet again, but Trevor definitely wouldn't kill his family.

When Steve asked Franklin to kill Trevor, Franklin asked why he wouldn't have Michael do it, and Steve explained Trevor would suspect Michael plotting to kill him and would probably kill Michael first. But Trevor would have no reason to suspect Franklin until it was too late.

[god speed]

57 minutes ago, AirWolf359 said:

When Steve asked Franklin to kill Trevor, Franklin asked why he wouldn't have Michael do it, and Steve explained Trevor would suspect Michael plotting to kill him and would probably kill Michael first. But Trevor would have no reason to suspect Franklin until it was too late.

I am aware Steve and Dave approached Franklin rather than Michael in the end of 'Lamar Down' because "Trevor won't let him near." Instead of confronting Trevor directly the scenario perhaps could have been written so that Michael chooses a more indirect method. It still would IMO be better than have Franklin as a third wheel which is why most players opt for ending C instead.

[6fangedcutthroatTV]

8 hours ago, captain jack sparrow said:

everyone has a right to their opinion and you have the right to love the c ending

however you have no right to act like everyone should think is the best

the fact that i love option b is just my opinion i don't act like everyone should think is the best

 

There we go, I considered that - at the end of the day. we're subjective

[Aquamaniac]

21 hours ago, perennial said:

I am aware Steve and Dave approached Franklin rather than Michael in the end of 'Lamar Down' because "Trevor won't let him near." Instead of confronting Trevor directly the scenario perhaps could have been written so that Michael chooses a more indirect method. It still would IMO be better than have Franklin as a third wheel which is why most players opt for ending C instead.

It would made more sense if Weston asked Franklin to kill Trevor and the FIB to kill Michael, Trevor is a notorious criminal, the FIB could have hunted him down on their own and nobody would have asked. Michael at the end of the game is a reknown movie producer and Steve could not kill him without legal problems, so he would have asked Franklin.

 

Westin could have offered Franklin a lot of money for killing Trevor and possibly a high tier job at Merryweather, Franklin would be routhless enough for killing Trevor for this reason. I think Franklin is rather indifferent of Trevor.

 

Steve could have offered Franklin no legal persecution for him and Trevor as long as Trevor leaves the city, would made more sense for Franklin as killing Michael for no reason only because Westin wants it and Michael might witness against Steve rather than Trevor, for whatever reason. So Franklin would have sacrificed Michael for the sake of Trevor and himself, this would made much more sense and fits Franklins character better, would also fit the plot that at the end the traitor Michael is betrayed by Steve and possibly Agent Norton, Franklin being only their tool.

 

Trevor messed much around with Merryweather so that Westin had also enough reason to get Trevor killed, of course the plot had to be slightly different. I think Westin should have taken over Madrazzos part, do you want me to elaborate my thought on this?

Edited March 8, 2019 by Aquamaniac

[captain jack sparrow]

what i don't understand it's why do people don't understand that michael was the bad guy

[Nik0 Bellic]

5 minutes ago, captain jack sparrow said:

what i don't understand it's why do people don't understand that michael was the bad guy

 

This is gta, of course protagonist are bad guys

(S)

[Aquamaniac]

2 minutes ago, captain jack sparrow said:

what i don't understand it's why do people don't understand that michael was the bad guy

Well all GTA protagonists are bad guys. The problem is Franklin has no reason to kill Michael, at least not behalf of Westin. As I wrote, Steve/Norton could force Franklin into killing Michael since Michael might rat them out to the IAA, while Trevor has an intrinsic motive to possibly kill Michael he would not do so on behalf of Westin or the feds. Ending B is poor, both in terms of gameplay and logics, the car chase is much shorter as I remembered and the rest is lame, A has at least a decent car chase.