The writers were in such a weird spot with Michael's kids. They clearly, desperately, wanted them to be teenagers but the "no kids" rule forced them to make the kids young adults instead. Like Michael angrily trying to save Tracy from le evil heckin men taking advantage of her would make sense if she were, say, 16. When she's in her 20s it just comes off as strange.
No self respecting father wants to see their daughter become a porn whore. Not even GTA fathers. In any case, she's still college age, and even gets into college by the end of the game. Not unusual at all that Michael is protective.
There's protective, and then there's "mutilating someone because your daughter's trying to ride his dick to the top." FWIW the GTA wiki gives her D.O.B. as 1991, making her 22 in the evens of GTA. Besides, my point was the kids still come off as being younger than they really are, and it feels like it's because the writers were hamstrung.
Is that really unrealistic given the way things went from 2013 onwards? Plus they spent half their lives in luxury so they probably didn't mature past when Michael took them all into witness protection with him.
I got the impression from GTA V that Michael wasn't really going out and committing crimes while living in his "witness protection" program. The implication I get was that Michael basically had a massive relapse into crime once Franklin got into his life.GTA V logic, why can't Michael just STEAL a car for Jimmy? Just take it to LS Customs and boom, free car. Even Jimmy alludes to it.
Where would he move to? They're in witness protection. Supposedly.
They're not *actually* in witness protection, though. That's just what Michael calls it.
That does explain why whats-her-name dumps Michael when he tries to attack her lover/yoga instructor, but like a week later he brains him with a laptop and she's like "let's give this another chance..."
AJ was still a loser by the end of the series, though. He was working for a porn company with no sign that his mental issues wouldn't just flare up again.
Interesting theory, I see how you've came to that but I think that's a stretch. They're just entitled Californian raised children whose father is a "retired" bank robber.
That does not surprise me. T2 was one of the FIRST to upcharge $70 for video games. NBA 2K21, now worth a few bucks. "Undervalued" means they'd charge more if they had the gall to without much backlash. People will still buy it because it's R*.
I've long been curious how people are going to react if (when) GTA Online 2 starts as bare boned as GTA Online did. That's not even factoring in not carrying over everything that was bought in GTA Online.
I cannot even tell if it's gamer entitlement or publishers underdelivering with their products. Why would people expect ALL their progress to transfer over to the next GTA? They had at least eight years of opportunity to use their exorbitant toys/cars/missions/whatever. If they would let them transfer everything 1:1, it'll be imbalanced and miserable from day 1.
People are dumb and think spending real money on something digital means they have it forever.
You could put an easter egg in where killing any black man instantly activates riot mode.