- Primary Subject: Grand Theft Auto VI (GTA 6)
- Key Update: A critical argument suggests GTA 6 should abandon branching narrative endings to avoid the "canonical revisionism" seen in GTA V.
- Status: Opinion (Not officially confirmed).
- Last Verified: January 20, 2026
- Quick Answer: GTA 6 should ditch player-led "Kill A or B" endings to ensure a single, strong canonical story that respects player immersion without future lore retcons.
Grand Theft Auto sounds like an excellent elevator pitch. An in-game free roam map based on popular American cities, filled with satire and comedy writing, is an easy recipe to market. When you add a compelling criminal story on top, now that’s the good stuff.
In the intricacies of street gangs and mafia families, where life-or-death scenarios prevail, every player's choice matters. Well, that is, until the writers say it doesn’t. GTA V’s last mission puts users in an uncomfortable position, deciding who lives, who dies, and who tells the story.
Poetically playing as Franklin, who was also the first member of the trio we met, we are presented with three choices after the last heist meddled with the wrong superiors. Kill Michael, our mentor; kill Trevor, our friend, or the most popular option, ask for your “Death Wish”, disobeying direct mafia and FIB orders.
Going straight to war against the armies of Devon Weston, Steve Haines, Wei Cheng, and Stretch, this third option restores normality for all parties involved, leaving an open road for future franchise returns like the recent Michael cameo on GTA V’s last DLC.
The problem doesn’t lie in the fun fork in the road and the ending possibilities; it lies in Rockstar Games' revisionist publishing, which confirms Death Wish as the canonical ending for Grand Theft Auto V through several GTA Online updates.
Instead of letting players decide only to tell them they’re wrong to their faces, all options should give players the illusion of choice, only to funnel back into the same 100% protagonist survival rate.
If you chose to kill either lead, it would only be revealing of the player’s mentality and approach, fracturing in-game relationships while giving the trio another option for banter. I could clearly hear timeskip Trevor or Michael going back and forth about the time Franklin tried to kill them. This respects the player’s decision while still canonizing the intended ending.
When players are given story options that can easily be redacted, the script loses weight and relevance. It detracts from the immersion when you can autocorrect ‘free will’ to fit your narrative.
This creative indecisiveness from the writers turns into player anxiety about completionism, leading to a search for every nook and cranny of a story path with every decision in the game. While fascinating on paper, it’s a nightmare of a shared media experience.
Grand Theft Auto’s replayability should lie in its open world and Online mode. To avoid lore gymnastics, GTA 6 should always circle back to the exact same story path with more or less resources, options, or collateral damage, just like Heists used to work in Los Santos.
Less money, fewer weapons to get out of a pickle, longer escape routes, more difficult enemies, anything other than non-canonically killing side or main characters. I do not want to see a single Kill A or Kill B prompt unless it truly doesn’t matter. And I’ll sue Rockstar myself if I ever see “GTA 6 All Endings Explained” online.
Plus, Rockstar still has to deal with their Bonnie & Clyde’s last chapter since killing both Jason and Lucia would make for a pretty lousy post-game. Their inevitable tragedy should be the vehicle for canonical choices only; no more betrayal or loyalty options.
Shock value What If’s should be left to DLCs, spin-offs, or fan-made material, not an actual alternative to see in-game only to be corrected by the developers' backseat gaming hovering over your shoulder saying, “Umm, actually.” Get out of here.
For more like this, stick with us here at Gfinityesports.com, the best website for gaming features and opinions.