JustRob Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) Because it means we will never see Michael or Trevor in a future GTA again. Maybe as an easter egg, but nothing more, and no live appearances. Because of this multiple ending bullsh*t they have to leave their fate ambiguous, and so they can never make an appearance again. Let's face it, option C is the perfect ending to the story. Did there REALLY have to be multiple endings? Edited March 9, 2019 by JustRob SM00V 0PERAT0R 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryTVisitor Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) Yeah, I agree. It feels like Rockstar really wanted to have the multiple ending thing return from GTA IV, but they didn't think of how to make it make as much sense. I mean, think about it, why on EARTH would Franklin kill his friends for people he has no respect for and isn't afraid of? You can just tell the two other endings were just hastily put in because instead of making the pathway to the endings a bit ambiguous like in IV, you literally just make the choice on your cellphone. Not to mention the fact that Franklin openly declines Haines' offer to kill Michael. Really endings A and B just feel rushed in to try and make the game have more stakes in an artificial way. Edited March 9, 2019 by Sonicdude grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zello Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) They could always do a prequel. Michael says he did his first heist outside of Carcer City in 1988. Maybe if they ever set a game in Carcer city and it's set in 1988 we'd cross paths with him. There's also when Michael and Trevor met which I think is more interesting 7:47 Michael and Trevor met in North Yankton while Trevor was running cargo across the border. I want to see that Flare gun accident. Edited March 9, 2019 by Zello Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSantader25 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 What would be the point of them returning though? R* only bring protagonists back when they want to kill them. I still liked the way they killed Johnny though. universetwisters and billiejoearmstrong8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamaniac Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 6 hours ago, JustRob said: Because it means we will never see Michael or Trevor in a future GTA again. Maybe as an easter egg, but nothing more, and no live appearances. Because of this multiple ending bullsh*t they have to leave their fate ambiguous, and so they can never make an appearance again. Let's face it, option C is the perfect ending to the story. Did there REALLY have to be multiple endings? I think we wouldn't see them anyway, for what purpose, they had their time. billiejoearmstrong8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM00V 0PERAT0R Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 It was extremely pointless and what confuses the hell out of me is how people cannot see that option c is the best choice. I was shocked when I first saw the forums response to this "choice". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schokoladeka Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 I hate the multiple ending too, for the same reason. Option C is where it's at. I think maybe Rockstar just wanted to show us that it isn't always a happy ending? But come on, I play video games to chill, to relax, to get away from it all. If I wanted to face reality, I'd go outside and work or do casual stuff. When I play video games I want happy endings (not that sorta way, haha). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GKZ Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 23 hours ago, JustRob said: Did there REALLY have to be multiple endings? yes, i love to see those f*ckers dying Zello 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6fangedcutthroatTV Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 On 3/8/2019 at 8:28 PM, JustRob said: Because it means we will never see Michael or Trevor in a future GTA again. Maybe as an easter egg, but nothing more, and no live appearances. Because of this multiple ending bullsh*t they have to leave their fate ambiguous, and so they can never make an appearance again. Let's face it, option C is the perfect ending to the story. Did there REALLY have to be multiple endings? "The fact that there are stars in sky sucks because it means orange juice may or may not be drank by people in the future. It's so ambiguous that no one can ever be allowed to drink orange juice again." That is what I read. I do agree that Option C is the correct ending. I, one for one, think that the multiple endings blew because it takes too much attention in the discussion around the game. It sets people against one another. It sucks, but it's pretty necessary, and it mirrors the world in a lot of ways. You know, Michael is like this one side of a set of arguments, the extreme. The reformed, redeemed, but now bored, mid life guy with kids living the dream. Sleeping happily. Then Trevor, he's the other extreme of a set of arguments at the contemporary for the game. The game is still pretty contemporary for the current day, too, so it's conveniently easy to see the two sides each are representing. Michael is the conservative, Trevor is the liberal. They are both pretty bad examples of what it actually means to be one of the two, and they each are yearning to have a bit more of what the other has in their lives, so the lines are blurred, which is exactly how a character should be developed. Trevor is so clingy, needy, aggressively so but still is nevertheless, because he does not have that, not even his mother. When he tries deludamol (get it? Delude A Mole?), we see his torment there, the things he may be doing all of those drugs to feel. Michael, he wants to get back into the swing of it, he's complacent about where he is now, or even just bored. We get to see a lot of the inner workings of Michael, how he feels. The sessions with Isiah Friedlander are robust. They both end up getting what they wished for, in a great example of being careful about that sort of thing, that carries the story to the lesson they learn. It is so GTA to have them giggle and everything be dandy after massacring a bunch of people together. Option C is correct because it is Never okay to leave people left behind, which is exactly what Michael did to Trevor. However, Trevor is not so hard to abandon after a while, he is the extreme of all of the things that a liberal society does not take serious enough. Michael is absolutely all of the things that a conservative society has to fear as well. But they are people, each of them seeking some help - one of them cognitively, one of them blindly. I like to think my Trevor was reformed after the story. Cleaned up, maybe got some cameos on some TV shows out in Vinewood or something. I like to think my Michael has retired for good now. I like to think they are both friends along with Franklin. The one who was able to see sense of it all, and put it together. Franklin saw the fork in the road and went straight. He knew every problem they had was rooted in a few individuals who would, any of them, one day be having this same talk with someone else, with him the target of an A, B conversation. Franklin saw the writing on the wall, and chose to C their way out, no longer to churn the meat and bone of men against one another. With the two men that were like a view of the future for him. What two absolutely sad ways he could end up, and any number of ways in between. Like everyone like them before them. Franklin saved those two, those two saved Franklin. I like to think Franklin worked it out with Tanisha. She was a good girl, and my Franklin didn't need to want for anything at the end of the story, my Franklin is definitely doing big things after option C. Of course, the option was called "Deathwish". You know, once you knock out all those guys, in heavily populated places, no doubt covered by surveillance... I mean, someone's going to come around to ask questions about that. BurnettVice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik0 Bellic Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 (edited) One of the endings is canon, but we don't no which one it is, if we see trevor again then that'll at least mean frank chose to kill michael or saved both of em, or we can see him in the past Edited March 11, 2019 by Nik0 Bellic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D9fred95 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 C is canon if only because it has the most closure to the story. Seriously, if R* actually thinks ending A & B are good endings for a story like V's then I'm guessing the writing team was out to lunch at the time they were made. There's also the fact that Ron says Trevor "went all Vinewood" when you buy a hanger in GTAO, by which point the timeline was at 2015ish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik0 Bellic Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, D9fred95 said: C is canon if only because it has the most closure to the story. Seriously, if R* actually thinks ending A & B are good endings for a story like V's then I'm guessing the writing team was out to lunch at the time they were made. There's also the fact that Ron says Trevor "went all Vinewood" when you buy a hanger in GTAO, by which point the timeline was at 2015ish. It dorsnt have to be a happy ending anyway, gta 4 didn't have a happy ending, sa did, vc did a little, i donno what to say about 3 Edited March 11, 2019 by Nik0 Bellic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burger_mike Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 On 3/8/2019 at 8:28 PM, JustRob said: Because it means we will never see Michael or Trevor in a future GTA again. Maybe as an easter egg, but nothing more, and no live appearances. Because of this multiple ending bullsh*t they have to leave their fate ambiguous, and so they can never make an appearance again. Let's face it, option C is the perfect ending to the story. Did there REALLY have to be multiple endings? Why wouldn’t we? Just because the endings are there doesn’t mean they are canon, they are a “what if” kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D9fred95 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 18 hours ago, Nik0 Bellic said: It dorsnt have to be a happy ending anyway, gta 4 didn't have a happy ending, sa did, vc did a little, i donno what to say about 3 It's not just that endings A & B are sad, they also are very anti-climactic. You literally just chase Michael and Trevor for about a few minutes before they die. Ending C is so much more chaotic and cinematic and thus more satisfying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
