Grand Theft Auto V: The Missing Plot (TLDR and Spoilers)

[olzhas1one]

First and foremost, I should say that I want to start a serious discussion with this topic about the narrative of GTA V. I don't want this to become another "gta v bad" circlejerk. So if you have nothing to add to this topic, please go to other threads.

 

Anyway, it's no secret that GTA V is considered to have the weakest plot in the series. But I see most people just write it off as "bad plot" and move on. However, whenever I play GTA V, that's not the feeling I get. I genuinely find the conflict between Micheal and Trevor interesting, I find the conversations Trevor and Michael have in their hangouts to be genuinely compelling, the family drama of Michael could've been a genius ludonarrative commentating on how the player negatively affects Michael, and Franklin's "out of the ghetto" story, while albeit cliched, could've also been a pretty decent side-story. So, all this makes me ask - where did this all go? Why is it that after the amazing GTA IV narrative we got, GTA V was so much more disjointed and misfocused, despite having a setup for what could've been one of the best narratives in gaming? 

 

I don't know if this idea has been expressed before (most likely it has), but I believe it's because the plot of GTA V was rewritten many, many times.

 

I may have misunderstood some of this information, if you believe I was wrong anywhere, feel free to correct me.

 

I've decided to find and collect what I find to be proof of this theory, both inside and outside the game. Let's start with the outside! 

Potential leads from pre-release news articles:

1. The Collider - November 9th 2012 article

https://collider.com/gta-5-grand-theft-auto-v-images/

There's a few oddities I found in this article that don't quite match up with what the game tells us:

Quote

Character 2 - Trevor, a former war veteran and a "drugged out psychopath". An experienced pilot.

Trevor is a former war veteran? That's a very odd way to say that he was in the army. The game makes it clear that Trevor did not participate in a war, he was dishonorably discharged from his service, the rest of his description aligns with the retail game characterisation, so where did this come from? Now, this could be chalked up as "just a journalist misquoting something", but then the article gives us this:

Quote

Like in GTA IV, players can make friends and hang out with certain NPCs, including Michael's wife Amanda and son Jimmy, Franklin's "crazy friend" Lamar, and Trevor's mate Ron. 

Ron for hangouts? That's strange, I never remember this being the case in the game, and I tried looking up friend conversations, and it seems that nobody else hangs out with Ron.

Doesn't quite reveal much, but I do believe that these are some strange differences to the main game. Did Ron have an even bigger role in an earlier draft of the script? Did Trevor being a war veteran actually have any impact that would differentiate his character? I personally feel that these could've been some serious plot cuts, but I don't know for sure.

 

2. The New York Times, Dan Houser interview - November 10th, 2012

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/arts/video-games/q-and-a-rockstars-dan-houser-on-grand-theft-auto-v.html

One of the many articles that reveals that one playable character in the game was supposed to be the antagonist:

Quote

Just at the conceptual level, the idea was three separate stories that you play in one game. The next bit was, let’s not have the stories intersect once or twice but have them completely interwoven. It felt like it was going to be a real narrative strength: you get to play the protagonist and the antagonist in the same story.

In the final game, the main antagonists are clearly outlined to be Steve Haines, a corrupt FIB agent, and Devin Weston, a rich entrepreneur and esoteric business man, so where did this "play the antagonist" stuff come from, or rather, went to?
Personally, I believe that Trevor was initially going to be the antagonist. I'll explain this later in the post. For now, let's keep digging.

 

3. Eurogamer article - November 9th, 2012

https://www.eurogamer.net/loads-of-grand-theft-auto-5-details-emerge

One part that I found strange is the description of Michael's story:

Quote

Michael; a retired bank robber in his early 40s who lives in a posh Rockford Hills (a Beverly Hill stand-in) estate with his spiteful trophy wife, bratty teenage daughter and 20 year old son. He's in the witness protection program, but still leads a luxurious life due to an "unconventional deal with the FIB." His money is running dry due to his wife's spending habits, so he inevitably returns to a life of crime.

This implies that the conflict between Michael and Amanda might have been slightly different? You can make the fair argument that this is marketing speak to avoid spoilers, but honestly, it's a rather strange way to avoid them. What would've been a more accurate description that wouldn't have spoiling too much, is to say:
"The conflict with his family result in Michael getting mixed up with some bad people and inevitably return him to a life of crime"

I don't know about you, but it is weird to me that they focus on Amanda's spending habits, which do actually play a part in Michael's family problems, but they aren't the catalyst for the plot like this article makes them out to be.

 

That's all I've managed to find for now that's of any interest. If you have any more examples of these odd inaccuracies from articles on the game, even if they are in other languages, feel free to share them and discuss them here.
Let's move on to the other part of the game

 

Beta and cut content:

There's a lot to unpack here. I'll be honest, I'm not too knowledgable on beta content, so if you know this stuff better, please make sure to help out.

So, the biggest proof of this theory is the audio from the devkit with GTA 5 that we were able to salvage.

In this video, a lot of audio for Solomon's cut missions and cut Strangers and Freaks encounters can be heard, cut/changed lines from existing missions, and audio for the infamous Sharmoota Job.

 

However, Did Somebody Say Yoga audio shows shows the more serious and important changes in character relations: (timestamp 37:09)

• Jimmy is a lot more rude to Michael, and isn't afraid to openly insult him and berate him. Doesn't sound like the Jimmy from the retail game who's often held back in his insults and despite all the issues with his dad, 

still seems to have some sort of respect for him deep in his soul.

• Trevor is a lot more angrier and pressing towards Michael
• Michael tries to put on a fake "friendly" attitude towards Trevor, something he doesn't do in the game. Early on, he's very cold to Trevor and tries to avoid him. The way he acts in that cut audio is way different from his

characterisation in the final game

• Trevor also seems to be more rude to Michael's family. He blows up on Jimmy and screams at him, and deliberately scares Amanda, something I can't imagine retail-game Trevor doing. This could be the proof that Trevor was indeed supposed to be initially the antagonist, there's more proof in the final game that I'll go over later in the post as well.

 

And this is all just from a single mission. Just imagine how different the rest of the characters/plot was.

 

Then there's the Sharmoota Job. In the final game, Michael is against robbing Madrazo, despite Trevor trying to convince him to do it. It's likely that in the final game, Michael either sees robbing someone's home as beneath him or it having not enough money in it, with viewing the Union Depository heist more profitable, or wants to avoid more conflict with the Mexican cartel, take your pick. However, initially, Michael did infact agree to rob Martin, which seems very illogical, given the reasoning implied by the final game. What could've driven him in the inital plot to do this job?

 

I'll stop with the beta content here, if anyone has more examples of the plot rewrite using beta content, feel free to share it, and I'll add it here.

 

Underdeveloped relationships, oddities and other issues with the final plot:

Even if we wouldn't have the leaked audio from the beta, there's still plenty of proof within the main game.

 

1. Stretch and Franklin

The first example of this can be seen with Franklin and Lamar and their relationship with Stretch.

 

Stretch is obviously supposed to one of the main antagonists of the story, particularly of Franklin's. He sets up Franklin and Lamar with the deal on The Long Stretch, he tries to rip them off with Hood Safari deal, and he tries to get Lamar killed in Lamar Down.

But, it often feels that Stretch is more tacked onto the story, rather than an actual antagonist? He makes like one appearance and disappears for the rest of the game, yet the plot treats him as someone worthy of disposing in The Third Way

This phonecall in particular, that I stumbled upon recently, made me believe that Stretch was indeed going to play a bigger role. This call characterises him lot like Dimitri Rascalov from GTA IV in my opinion, constantly getting on Franklin's nerves and berating him, getting in his way and trying to tear him down out of spite. Clearly this phonecall was supposed to be triggered by Stretch instead of Franklin, but for some reason it was changed to be a "secret one".

 

2. Trevor and The Los Santos Triads

I strongly feel that Trevor's story with them might've been cut short. You may say that the O'Neil Brothers and The Lost conflict are a victim of this, but I don't feel so. They're already in full swing when we're introduced to Trevor and they're clearly meant to be side elements, since Trevor building his own "company" and trying to work with the Triads and Merryweather is clearly meant to be a more important plot-point to Trevor's character, after his attempts at figure out the past between him and Michael.  Anyway,  while we're forced to play as Trevor, the Triads are shown to be our main ally and we're gradually attempting to build up a meth empire with them, until suddenly the O'Neil brothers steal them from us. We destroy the O'Neil operation, this angers the Triads as they see Trevor now trying to interrupt their operation, a conflict is about to insue and... they're forgotten by the plot, suddenly? The only other time I remember them making an appearance past this point is when they kidnap Michael, after which they disappear again only to have their leader killed off in the third ending. Seems kind of off, isn't it, to sidetrack them so much?

 

3. Trevor as the antagonist

Finally, we get to the biggest point of this whole topic, and one that I've been thinking a lot about recently. In order to start this discussion, we have to make something clear. One thing that Rockstar has been trying to avoid in the GTA series is making the player kill innocent people. The stories usually go out of their way NOT to have you kill innocent people deliberately, they almost always make it a choice. In GTA 3, Darkel was cut because a lot of his missions involved you slaughtering innocent civillians, and the rampages that were remnants of Darkel, have been turned into exclusively killing gang members. In GTA 4, killing Cherise, a clearly innocent girl, is an option left to the player. The game doesn't force you to kill her. In TBOGT, you're not tasked with killing the Celebinator, you have to scare him. Yes, he's an asshole, but aside from that, he hasn't done wrong, and that's why the game is against you killing him. The cutscene with Michael killing the IAA janitor was cut from GTA V. There's probably more examples of this in the series, and if you know any more to solidify this point, feel free to mention them in the replies. Anyway, why am I even saying all of this?

Notice how sometimes Trevor behaves around innocent people. In some of his encounters, he is shown tying up a business man to a pole on the beach. In another, he's chasing a random civillian. He punches and abuses Wade and Floyd, and later in the game, even ends up killing Debra and Floyd, two clearly innocent people. These are examples of what I believe what are supposed to be villianistic characterisation of Trevor, and what Dan Houser forgot to write out of the game after changing the antagonists. Considering what the GTA games usually go about this, it seems pretty odd to have a protagonist kill and abuse clearly innocent people.

 

Another thing worth mentioning is that I've seen long, long ago a Russian YouTube video claiming that Trevor's death is supposed to be the canon ending, their argument was that Michael's ending tried to guilt-trip you with showing that Michael's movie was succesful, that Tracey went to college and overall, shows Michael as a very happy guy. Another, at the time that seemed odd to me, claim that the ending credits showing the factory symbolizing the ugliness of your act, compared to the beatiful climactic shot of night-time Los Santos in Trevor's death ending. And, their explanation for the existance of The Third Way was that it was necessary so people wouldn't complain about being locked out of extra content past completion. I was confused at the time, but, after so many years and finding out more info about GTA V, it actually does seem to make sense. 

 

So what do we have in the end?

 

• Cut dialogue clearly showing Trevor as more antagonistic than he is in the final game
• Remnants of Trevor's antagonistic behavoiur that goes against GTA's design philosophy for protagonists
• 2 endings, one which a guilt-trip clearly saying "this was the wrong choice" and other being tacked on for purely gameplay purposes (As I've learned more about game design and releasing a game of my own, I can agree with this statement)

 

It makes me almost certain that Trevor was meant to be an antagonist, and he could've been a really great one, at that. Think about it:

 

Abused in his childhood and always being an outcast, Trevor struggled to find his place in the world. He becomes outraged and releases his anger outwards, which prevents him from being accepted in the world. He becomes a criminal and partners with Michael and Brad, and even though he's a very capable criminal, his psychotic behavoiur pushes Michael away, causing him to betray Trevor. Trevor, on the other hand, is deeply affected by Brad's and Michael's supposed death, as he was the only real friend he had. He spends 13 years in even more anger, bitterness and sadness, further pushing him down his psychopathy. And then he finds out that all those 13 years he lived with a lie, he finds out that Michael, the only person he was honest with, the only person he trusted, set them both up, killed Brad and wanted him dead. His world is completely shattered, Trevor is out of options. He doesn't know what to do and lashes out at Michael and his family when he sees them. Eventually, he tries to make amends with Michael, but his mental issues lock him in a perpetual cycle of violence, hate and anger, continually pushing people away. Trevor ends up scaring Franklin off as well, and in the end, gets betrayed by his only friend once again, even after trying to fix everything, and gets killed. And keep in mind the person I am describing is supposed to be an antagonist.

 

And Trevor's tragic story would've intertwined with Michael's story about him betraying his friends to save his family and himself, to become a good citizen and seek redemption. This narrative could've been a very complex and serious story, asking some mature questions like "is redemption worth of betrayal", "what does it mean to be loyal" and so, so much more. A narrative that could've been even more serious than GTA IV, but never was. You can still see it this story in the final game, but it's not as easy to make out and is handled in such a bad way that it becomes a jumbled mess.

 

And another question that I ask, why was this story abandoned?

Was a brainless blockbuster really a better alternative? Did gamers simply not want and didn't care for more mature narratives in videogames? These are the questions I ask and I invite you to discuss them in this topic.

Edited August 13 by olzhas1one

[wise_man]

To think again it's rather odd how much side character arcs are like cut in half: Stretch, the Triads, Madrazo, Simeon, etc. Never noticing it until now that their stories feel more like "scrapped and modified" than "rushed". It could be the same creative issue with Whedon-Snyder JL in 2017, maybe T2 involved or not at all, who knows? IIRC Franklin's trailer also includes few scenes not present in the story, it even feature Gerald (the online character, CMIIW) so it's possible that parts of his stories are cut. 

 

Also, is there the second part of that cut dialogue video? the last seconds implies there's more, but I cannot find any link.

 

Anyway, really good topic, more discussion needed here.

[olzhas1one]

1 hour ago, wise_man said:

Also, is there the second part of that cut dialogue video? the last seconds implies there's more, but I cannot find any link.

I'm afraid that's probably all that was able to be salvaged. I'd like to be wrong but honestly I don't have my hopes up.

 

1 hour ago, wise_man said:

Anyway, really good topic, more discussion needed here.

Yeah, I'm afraid not a lot of people would take interest, considering how long it took to get a single reply. Though, I'm personally more interested not in discussing what was changed in the story, but why was it changed. Thinking about it this narrative could've been very hard to craft, but, if it were given the right amount of time and care, something Rockstar definitely could've done, it could have worked. There's a lot of mysteries surrounding this question, and for every explanation you come up with you can find evidence contradicting it.

[R_DeSanta]

I think Trevor is still clearly meant to be an antagonist, at least inherently. I think they made him deliberately more charismatic and at certain moments more calm in the story however, a common trope done in movies with villain characters, in order to make the viewer (or in this case player) warm up to them initially.

You can tell Michael always feared Trevor returning to his life, initially believing he’s dead but deep down realizing he might be still out there somewhere. In Casing The Jewel Store for example, when Michael is on the roof he asks Lester if he’s kept up with Trevor since after what happened in North Yankton, to which Lester responds he kept up with him for a while but hasn’t heard from him in years. Michael desperately tries to convince himself Trevor must have died somewhere in the last few years, but you can tell he sounds really nervous speaking about it, almost like he’s in denial. Same at the beginning of Mr. Phillips, when Dave Norton warns him that if Trevor finds it he’s alive he’ll be in deep trouble, to which Michael again kind of nervously responds he must have died already. Michael was always scared of and for Trevor, because Trevor is an unpredictable psychopath.

Regardless of all the ‘Trevor is loyal, he’s a good person, he’s not deranged’ arguments people make about Trevor’s character, there’s this one particular scene that really confirmed everything.

Remember in Fame Or Shame when Trevor entered the room, Michael immediately stood in front of Jimmy to protect him? Isn’t that very telling?

 

On 8/13/2022 at 12:24 PM, olzhas1one said:

Another thing worth mentioning is that I've seen long, long ago a Russian YouTube video claiming that Trevor's death is supposed to be the canon ending, their argument was that Michael's ending tried to guilt-trip you with showing that Michael's movie was succesful, that Tracey went to college and overall, shows Michael as a very happy guy. Another, at the time that seemed odd to me, claim that the ending credits showing the factory symbolizing the ugliness of your act, compared to the beatiful climactic shot of night-time Los Santos in Trevor's death ending. And, their explanation for the existance of The Third Way was that it was necessary so people wouldn't complain about being locked out of extra content past completion. I was confused at the time, but, after so many years and finding out more info about GTA V, it actually does seem to make sense. 

 

I actually agree that ending A should be the canon ending.

This is what I picked up on specifically regarding Trevor and why ending A makes sense. In By The Book, when Michael and Dave from the FIB are driving to the party in Chumash, Dave reveals he knew Trevor has been alive for years. He found out about Trevor’s whereabouts when he found a letter addressed to Brad to the federal prison system, which gave a PO box in Sandy Shores. Dave and the FIB trainees decided to write him back letters and e-mails pretending to be Brad, so that Trevor would believe Brad was still alive and in a federal prison, and everything could still go as planned. Dave also didn’t decide to tell Michael about it, because he didn’t want Michael panicking about Trevor being in the same state (Michael’s biggest fear). It also explains why Dave knew about the possibility of Trevor finding out when Michael had that whole ‘you forget a thousand things everyday’ moment with the Vangelico robbery being broadcasted on the TV. Trevor has been monitored by Dave from the FIB for years at that point, that’s why Dave had it under control.
 

I also think Dave Norton and eventually Steve Haines were literally keeping Trevor from the death penalty as long as he remained useful to them. Trevor’s clearly a wanted man, Steve literally tells Trevor in By The Book ‘he’s the guy keeping him out of the gas chamber’, and in a phone call with Michael and Dave after The Wrap Up, Dave tells Michael Trevor had to be taken out because he knew about everything Trevor has been up to, from the Merryweather stuff (the events of The Merryweather Heist, Minor Turbulence and Derailed) to the Chinese gangsters (referring to Cheng), and the general insanity he describes (referring to Trevor being officially classified mentally unstable by the psychologist in the airforce, or probably referring his off-screen behavior or all the murders and crimes and other psychotic instances he already committed before the events or the main story). After Lamar Down, Steve and Dave (who’s visibly more reluctant) ask Franklin to kill Trevor, because according to them Michael can’t do it since Trevor won’t let him near, and I think they’re asking Franklin to kill him specially because that would be easier covered up than have him imprisoned or executed via death penalty. So ending A is basically Trevor finally being put down after years of it actually being supposed to happen, Dave is the only reason Trevor was able to live as long as he did. Trevor had to be put down eventually, it was literally eventually ordered.

 

Also, the ending song matches the situation perfectly. It describes Trevor and Michael’s relationship, and the music fits the situation and atmosphere.

’Don’t come close, I don’t want you to see my face’ (Referring to Trevor’s shame and possibly his off the grid lifestyle)

‘Most people would release you’ (Michael and Trevor have the same enemies at some point, but Trevor is still more wanted)

’People don’t change, they only get old’ (Trevor’s final thoughts about Michael)

’In all your life, you’ll never live down what you can’t forget, so forget it’

(Trevor telling Michael that regardless of whether he’s dead, Trevor and the whole situation will haunt Michael forever)

’Flick it away then our time flies, brining disease to the surface’

‘So if I let you back in close, will you hurt me?’ (Trevor knowing deep down Michael will hurt him again)

 

And also, the location where Trevor eventually gets put down (the oil fields in El Burro Heights) is the same location as the cutscene in Dead Man Walking where Michael finally tells Franklin about Trevor and the FIB deal, and where Franklin even suggests Michael to kill Trevor. It kind of comes full circle.

Edited August 16 by R_DeSanta

[Americana]

The problem is that Rockstar made every single character in this story a joke - this is the main reason for me.

 

Rockstar could have made Grand Theft Auto V a lot more serious crime game, but they decided not to.

[olzhas1one]

1 hour ago, R_DeSanta said:

I think Trevor is clearly meant to be an antagonist, and also die regardless. I actually came to this realization in my recent playthrough, paying attention to the story with mission dialogue and details. I think they made him deliberately more charismatic and at certain moments more calm in the story however, a common trope done in movies with villain characters, in order to make the viewer (or in this case player) warm up to them initially.

You can tell Michael always feared Trevor returning to his life, initially believing he’s dead but deep down realizing he might be still out there somewhere. In Casing The Jewel Store for example, when Michael is on the roof he asks Lester if he’s kept up with Trevor since after what happened in North Yankton, to which Lester responds he kept up with him for a while but hasn’t heard from him in years. Michael desperately tries to convince himself Trevor must have died somewhere in the last few years, but you can tell he sounds really nervous speaking about it, almost like he’s in denial. Same at the beginning of Mr. Phillips, when Dave Norton warns him that if Trevor finds it he’s alive he’ll be in deep trouble, to which Michael again kind of nervously responds he must have died already. Michael was always scared of and for Trevor, because Trevor is an unpredictable psychopath.

Regardless of all the ‘Trevor is loyal, he’s a good person, he’s not deranged’ arguments people make about Trevor’s character, there’s this one particular scene that really confirmed everything.

Remember in Fame Or Shame when Trevor entered the room, Michael immediately stood in front of Jimmy to protect him? Isn’t that very telling?

 

 

I actually agree that ending A is the best ending, but it’s probably not canon seeing as ending C has been hinted multiple times in GTA Online as the canon one.

However, this is what I picked up on specifically regarding Trevor and why ending A makes sense. In By The Book, when Michael and Dave from the FIB are driving to the party in Chumash, Dave reveals he knew Trevor has been alive for years. He found out about Trevor’s whereabouts when he found a letter addressed to Brad to the federal prison system, which gave a PO box in Sandy Shores. Dave and the FIB trainees decided to write him back letters and e-mails pretending to be Brad, so that Trevor would believe Brad was still alive and in a federal prison, and everything could still go as planned. Dave also didn’t decide to tell Michael about it, because he didn’t want Michael panicking about Trevor being in the same state (Michael’s biggest fear). It also explains why Dave knew about the possibility of Trevor finding out when Michael had that whole ‘you forget a thousand things everyday’ moment with the Vangelico robbery being broadcasted on the TV. Trevor has been monitored by Dave from the FIB for years at that point, that’s why Dave had it under control.
 

I also think Dave Norton and eventually Steve Haines were literally keeping Trevor from the death penalty as long as he remained useful to them. Trevor’s clearly a wanted man. In GTA Online, in the police station where you create your character on the desk is a mugshot of Trevor next to some fingerprints and a picture of him from Prologue. Not only that, Steve literally tells Trevor in By The Book ‘he’s the guy keeping him out of the gas chamber’, and in a phone call with Michael and Dave after The Wrap Up, Dave tells Michael Trevor had to be taken out because he knew about everything Trevor has been up to, from the Merryweather stuff (the events of The Merryweather Heist, Minor Turbulence and Derailed) to the Chinese gangsters (referring to Cheng), and the general insanity he describes (referring to Trevor being officially classified mentally unstable by the psychologist in the airforce, or probably referring his off-screen behavior or all the murders and crimes and other psychotic instances he already committed before the events or the main story). After Lamar Down, Steve and Dave (who’s visibly more reluctant) ask Franklin to kill Trevor, because according to them Michael can’t do it since Trevor won’t let him near, and I think they’re asking Franklin to kill him specially because that would be easier covered up than have him imprisoned or executed via death penalty. So ending A is basically Trevor finally being put down after years of it actually being supposed to happen, Dave is the only reason Trevor was able to live as long as he did. Trevor had to be put down eventually, it was literally eventually ordered.

 

Also, the ending song matches the situation perfectly. It describes Trevor and Michael’s relationship, and the music fits the situation and atmosphere.

’Don’t come close, I don’t want you to see my face’ (Referring to Trevor’s shame and possibly his off the grid lifestyle)

‘Most people would release you’ (Michael and Trevor have the same enemies at some point, but Trevor is still more wanted)

’People don’t change, they only get old’ (Trevor’s final thoughts about Michael)

’In all your life, you’ll never live down what you can’t forget, so forget it’

(Trevor telling Michael that regardless of whether he’s dead, Trevor and the whole situation will haunt Michael forever)

’Flick it away then our time flies, brining disease to the surface’

‘So if I let you back in close, will you hurt me?’ (Trevor knowing deep down Michael will hurt him again)

 

And also, the location where Trevor eventually gets put down (the oil fields in El Burro Heights) is the same location as the cutscene in Dead Man Walking where Michael finally tells Franklin about Trevor and the FIB deal, and where Franklin even suggests Michael to kill Trevor. It kind of comes full circle.

As I said in OP, you can definitely see this story in the final game but it's so sidelined and messy that it's just hard to take notice of it.

 

What I'm more interested is why did they sideline this part of the plot. I've checked some old GTA 4 reviews, most of them seem to be praising the story, so it's not like gamers didn't like a more serious approach to storytelling. And it's definitely not because people though the mission design was boring. TBoGT has really fun mission design (even better than GTA 5 imo) yet the story is just as interesting and grounded as is the rest of GTA 4.

 

Why do you think they did this? It just seems so odd to me.

[R_DeSanta]

49 minutes ago, olzhas1one said:

As I said in OP, you can definitely see this story in the final game but it's so sidelined and messy that it's just hard to take notice of it.

 

What I'm more interested is why did they sideline this part of the plot. I've checked some old GTA 4 reviews, most of them seem to be praising the story, so it's not like gamers didn't like a more serious approach to storytelling. And it's definitely not because people though the mission design was boring. TBoGT has really fun mission design (even better than GTA 5 imo) yet the story is just as interesting and grounded as is the rest of GTA 4.

 

Why do you think they did this? It just seems so odd to me.

Maybe they did it on purpose, to really make the player think about the deal and about what actually happened in the last 9 years. I also feel like a lot of the let’s say this ‘hidden’ story has elements that took place off-screen, and are left to the player’s interpretation for the most part.

 

Also, making Trevor as openly and immediately aggressive and ruthless as he was portrayed to be in the beta version (including the dialogues of the video in the OP) wouldn’t really make sense with the rest of the story imo, when you really think about it. I feel like in the game version we have now since Trevor seemed calm and somewhat amicable when meeting Michael again, Michael decided to give him a chance to see if he could solve the issues that Trevor’s sudden return caused in ways that didn’t involve his inevitable death. If he remained as aggressive and deranged as in the beta (particularly that original Fame Or Shame dialogue) Michael would have killed Trevor or have him killed way sooner. Because as I mentioned it seems that despite his fear of Trevor, Michael still has some genuine friendship relationship with him but because he turns so extremely violent and ruthless as the story progresses, the ‘hidden’ storyline becomes more obvious. (‘He’s a time bomb Dave, and you f*cking know it’ - Michael to Dave about Trevor in By The Book)

 

One thing I do really think is disappointing is that they cut the dialogue from Bury The Hatchet, in the video from the OP. Because especially the part where Trevor mentions Michael’s ‘decade in the sun’ and when Trevor says he’ll raise Jimmy himself, gave me chills. That alone would really have brought this ‘hidden’ story to the forefront a bit.

Edited August 16 by R_DeSanta

[olzhas1one]

14 minutes ago, R_DeSanta said:

Maybe they did it on purpose, to really make the player think about the deal and about what actually happened in the last 9 years. I also feel like a lot of the let’s say this ‘hidden’ story has elements that took place off-screen, and are left to the player’s interpretation for the most part.

 

Also, making Trevor as openly and immediately aggressive and ruthless as he was portrayed to be in the beta version (including the dialogues of the video in the OP) wouldn’t really make sense with the rest of the story imo, when you really think about it. I feel like in the game version we have now since Trevor seemed calm and somewhat amicable when meeting Michael again, Michael decided to give him a chance to see if he could solve the issues that Trevor’s sudden return caused in ways that didn’t involve his inevitable death. If he remained as aggressive and deranged as in the beta (particularly that original Fame Or Shame dialogue) Michael would have killed Trevor or have him killed way sooner. Because as I mentioned it seems that despite his fear of Trevor, Michael still has some genuine friendship relationship with him but because he turns so extremely violent and ruthless as the story progresses, the ‘hidden’ storyline becomes more obvious. (‘He’s a time bomb Dave, and you f*cking know it’ - Michael to Dave about Trevor in By The Book)

 

One thing I do really think is disappointing is that they cut the dialogue from Bury The Hatchet, in the video from the OP. Because especially the part where Trevor mentions Michael’s ‘decade in the sun’ and when Trevor says he’ll raise Jimmy himself, gave me chills. That alone would really have brought this ‘hidden’ story to the forefront a bit.

My problem is not so much that they didn't make Trevor the antagonist, though that would've genuinely been cool. My problem is that they don't focus on the more interesting plot of Michael and Trevor's relationship. It feels really sidelined and rushed to me. It would be better if we got more missions like Bury the Hatchet and less heists. It would make the story more meaningful and the heists that would remain would feel much more grandiose in comparison to a bombastic thing happening every 3 missions in the final game. It just gets tiring.

[R_DeSanta]

9 minutes ago, olzhas1one said:

My problem is not so much that they didn't make Trevor the antagonist, though that would've genuinely been cool. My problem is that they don't focus on the more interesting plot of Michael and Trevor's relationship. It feels really sidelined and rushed to me. It would be better if we got more missions like Bury the Hatchet and less heists. It would make the story more meaningful and the heists that would remain would feel much more grandiose in comparison to a bombastic thing happening every 3 missions in the final game. It just gets tiring.

I think I get what you mean. I think they did this maybe because Franklin wasn’t really as involved in the whole situation between Michael and Trevor; Michael vaguely told him about it like twice, without details. And like you also said in your OP, I feel like Franklin’s general character could have been way more.

 

I was actually recently thinking about it recently, and you know what I thought would be a good solution to a more expansive storyline? Lamar as a 4th protagonist.

Now I know this is very unpopular, because a lot of people thought 3 protagonists was already (too) many, but I think there are a lot of parallels between Michael and Trevor, and Franklin and Lamar, because Michael and Franklin are similar to each other, and the same goes for Trevor and Lamar (especially) and also their friendships have things in common. I know that Lamar was originally supposed to replace Franklin in The Third Way, but I actually imagine he’d make a good 4th protagonist. That way there’s be more of a balance in the story.

Edited August 16 by R_DeSanta

[olzhas1one]

28 minutes ago, R_DeSanta said:

I think I get what you mean. I think they did this maybe because Franklin wasn’t really as involved in the whole situation between Michael and Trevor; Michael vaguely told him about it like twice, without details. And like you also said in your OP, I feel like Franklin’s general character could have been way more.

 

I was actually recently thinking about it recently, and you know what I thought would be a good solution to a more expansive storyline? Lamar as a 4th protagonist.

Now I know this is very unpopular, because a lot of people thought 3 protagonists was already (too) many, but I think there are a lot of parallels between Michael and Trevor, and Franklin and Lamar, because Michael and Franklin are similar to each other, and the same goes for Trevor and Lamar (especially) and also their friendships have things in common. I know that Lamar was originally supposed to replace Franklin in The Third Way, but I actually imagine he’d make a good 4th protagonist. That way there’s be more of a balance in the story.

I'm not so sure about him being an entire protagonist but having an even bigger role in the plot? Sure. He's another one of those characters that disappears and then reappears suddenly. The game devotes so much of the early game to developing him, and once Franklin and Michael's actions cause "sh*t to hit the fan"... Lamar is just gone. He reappears in like, what, 3 later missions? Pack Man, Lamar Down and The Third Way? I can definitely see Lamar being involved in that mission where you steal the 2 sportscars for Devin Weston from street racers.

 

But you keep speculating about "what the plot could've been" while I try to ask why they changed it. It can't be the actor contracts, since they have a lot of dialogue and Lamar was reintroduced in GTA:Online. I doubt it was time restraint, not initially, since we know GTA V had builds compiled as early as 2009 which means they must've had the story written out. There's only 2 explanations as I see it:

 

1. They simply ran out of space for the game. This has happened in the industry before, the first Deus Ex game had a lot of content cut simply because they couldn't fit the entire game on a single CD back in the day. My 360 copy of GTA V came on 2 discs, and required an installation, something my other Xbox games didn't do. Probably has to do with the fact om how big the game was for it's time, as my Xbox didn't even have enough space to store it.

 

2. Dan Houser's "artistic vision" got in the way. The 3 delays and crunch proves it, because he probably changed the game's plot halfway through. Why would you delay and crunch so much if it's dead and set? Considering how I heard a story that Dan demanded a mountain moved in RDR2 and that added a whole lot of more time to the devcycle, I could definitely see some employees showing Dan that they finally figured out how to bake complex physics into animations, Dan saw that and was like "damn, so cool! I gotta add that everywhere" so he threw together more missions where buildings and big objects constantly crumble and collapse to show it off which severely hampered the narrative.

 

I imagine the reality is somewhere in between.

Edited August 16 by olzhas1one

[R_DeSanta]

3 minutes ago, olzhas1one said:

I'm not so sure about him being an entire protagonist but having an even bigger role in the plot? Sure. He's another one of those characters that disappears and then reappears suddenly. The game devotes so much of the early game to developing him, and once Franklin and Michael's actions cause "sh*t to hit the fan"... Lamar is just gone. He reappears in like, what, 3 later missions? Pack Man, Lamar Down and The Third Way? I can definitely see Lamar being involved in that mission where you steal the 2 sportscars for Devin Weston from street racers.

 

But you keep speculating about "what the plot could've been" while I try to ask why they changed it. It can't be the actor contracts, since they have a lot of dialogue and Lamar was reintroduced in GTA:Online. I doubt it was time restraint, not initially, since we know GTA V had builds compiled as early as 2009 which means they must've had the story written out. There's only 2 explanations as I see it:

 

1. They simply ran out of space for the game. This has happened in the industry before, the first Deus Ex game had a lot of content cut simply because they couldn't fit the entire game on a single CD back in the day. My 360 copy of GTA V came on 2 discs, and required an installation, something my other Xbox games didn't do. Probably has to do with the fact om how big the game was for it's time, as my Xbox didn't even have enough space to store it.

 

2. Dan Houser's "artistic vision" got in the way. The 3 delays and crunch proves it, because he probably changed the game's plot halfway through. Why would you do that if it's dead and set? Considering how I heard a story that Dan demanded a mountain moved in RDR2 and that added a whole lot of more time to the devcycle, I could definitely see some employees showing Dan that they finally figured out how to bake complex physics into animations, Dan saw that and was like "damn, so cool! I gotta add that everywhere" so he threw together more missions where buildings and big objects constantly crumble and collapse to show it off which severely hampered the narrative.

 

I imagine the reality is somewhere in between.

I think it’s very likely the plot has changed multiple times, this is often the case in the story development of games. Especially since it’s a long story with multiple characters and missions. Also things like physics and the map play a huge part in this.

 

I also think plot wise maybe they changed certain parts of the story because they felt like it was inconsistent or relied too much on off-screen occurrences.

[cp1dell]

Nice to see someone else thinking the same about Trevor. I've always thought the same thing because of that quote from Dan Houser, and the alternate "Fame or Shame" cutscene dialogue (listed as "Did Somebody Say Yoga" for some reason in the video). Trevor's character changes a lot the moment he arrives in Los Santos, especially compared to how he is in his first few missions in Blaine County. The beta cutscene dialogue though seems to keep his "original" characterization intact, and always made me think that he was going to be bigger threat to Michael and his family originally.

 

But I guess we'll never really know. Strange how none of the actors ever really spoke about what was cut, or what changed in the story. Compared to RDR2's cast who have spoken here and there about dropped plotlines and characters.

[olzhas1one]

On 8/18/2022 at 6:08 AM, cp1dell said:

Strange how none of the actors ever really spoke about what was cut, or what changed in the story.

Didn't Shawn Fonteno and Gerald Johnson talk about some early plot points? I don't remember what exactly they said but I do remember them talking about it.

[D T]

That quote from Houser regarding "playing the antagonist" always stuck with me as well. I remember thinking at the time it sounded like too big of a spoiler to be true. I don't doubt Trevor was supposed to be a bit more intimidating earlier in development, especially with how the Rush casting call mentioned Ron was supposedly terrified of him, but I'm sure it was never meant to be a totally black and white thing. I suppose all three characters are antagonistic towards each other at certain key moments.

 

I always got the feeling Ending A was canon; not because Trevor was the bad guy, but to show living a relentlessly honest lifestyle has no place in modern society. Michael doesn't deserve to live because he was the better man, he deserved to live because he had more to lose. A family. One that he stepped on everyone else to achieve. It's a gift he didn't really deserve but something worth living for nonetheless. I don't get the feeling Trevor was ever meant to be someone who was inherently evil, just someone who was too far gone as a result of being rejected by the world around him. We were supposed to feel like sh*t at the end and realize we were just as monstrous as Trevor, just in a different way. That's the ending I think the writers were always going for, and perhaps softening Trevor made it a bit more digestible for a broad audience.

[Zello]

2 minutes ago, D T said:

That quote from Houser regarding "playing the antagonist" always stuck with me as well. I remember thinking at the time it sounded like too big of a spoiler to be true. I don't doubt Trevor was supposed to be a bit more intimidating earlier in development, especially with how the Rush casting call mentioned Ron was supposedly terrified of him, but I'm sure it was never meant to be a totally black and white thing. I suppose all three characters are antagonistic towards each other at certain key moments.

 

I always got the feeling Ending A was canon; not because Trevor was the bad guy, but to show living a relentlessly honest lifestyle has no place in modern society. Michael doesn't deserve to live because he was the better man, he deserved to live because he had more to lose. A family. One that he stepped on everyone else to achieve. It's a gift he didn't really deserve but something worth living for nonetheless. I don't get the feeling Trevor was ever meant to be someone who was inherently evil, just someone who was too far gone as a result of being rejected by the world around him. We were supposed to feel like sh*t at the end and realize we were just as monstrous as Trevor, just in a different way. That's the ending I think the writers were always going for, and perhaps softening Trevor made it a bit more digestible for a broad audience.

When Michael pulls the Trigger ending A makes much more sense and the cutscene flows much better.

[universetwisters]

I feel like the whole “playing as the antagonist” is more marketing drivel than any indication of anything more hidden beneath. But then again, Trevor is kinda the antagonist as per Michael’s pov so idk