Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Anyone else felt that the antagonists were a bit empty?

57 replies to this topic
Girl_Next_Door
  • Girl_Next_Door

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2014
  • None

#1

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:25 PM

We have the corrupt panchy agent who got in the FIB due to his insecurities obviously.


We have Weston who's not really evil, just wealthy and stuck up.


Then stretch who is hardly ever seen yet he's an antagonist.

Wei cheng is actually ok, since he's from Trevor's storyline and trevor's storyline is the one I think is the most interesting of all 3.

  • DeafMetal likes this

feckyerlife
  • feckyerlife

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#2

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:30 PM

i always felt like the real antagonist are Michael or Trevor and everyone else is secondary antagonist. but R* did such a bad job with the story telling in the game, who knows what is correct


WhatsStrength
  • WhatsStrength

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#3

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:32 PM Edited by whatsstrength, 08 January 2014 - 04:33 PM.

I actually liked Steve Haines, at least in the sense that he played the part of being a douchebag really well and he was also funny at times.

 

Devin Weston is empty, I got nothing out of him. Just some uppity egomaniac.

 

The Chinese mob was a joke considering you never even saw Cheng Sr. and his son didn't really come across as evil.

 

I was happy to kill Stretch because all he did was rip into Franklin.

  • Ermacs and theGTAking101 like this

Deffpony
  • Deffpony

    Stay Golden Ponyboy

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007
  • None

#4

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:32 PM

I agree completely. I never felt like there was a real threat. 

  • theGTAking101 likes this

Zodape
  • Zodape

    Smartass

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#5

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:34 PM Edited by Zodape, 08 January 2014 - 04:38 PM.

Haines was a douche, but had potential. He could have been Tenpenny 2.0, only with the doucheness.

Not as great as the all-mighty Tenpenny, of course, but a good antagonist at least.

Maybe if R* made him a bigger threat towards the end of the story, I don't know.

 

Weston was okay, but not as the "main antagonist".

 

Stretch and Wei Cheng? Well, I have nothing to say about them since they barely appear during the story. They needed to appear more. That's it.

 

 

Still better antagonists than Sonny Forelli.


Osho
  • Osho

    Old School RPG'er

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • None

#6

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:34 PM

As rightly said above, antagonists are so flat as good as a cameo. They don't leave as such any strong impression to the players.
So I agree with you.

Detective Phelps
  • Detective Phelps

    F*ck the 4th amendment!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2013
  • United-States
  • Helpfulness Award [GTA V section - Reporting]

#7

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:46 PM

Weston and Haines were good antagonists, but Stretch was a terrible antagonist, he's only in a few missions.

I liked how Weston didn't pay F for the cars. Made him look like a douche.

Lil_B_The Basedgod
  • Lil_B_The Basedgod

    f*ck the mods

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2013
  • None

#8

Posted 08 January 2014 - 04:59 PM

I couldn't wait to kill Haines and Weston.
The whole time I was just like "man,f*ck these gay ass niggas"

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#9

Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:02 PM

We have the corrupt panchy agent who got in the FIB due to his insecurities obviously.


We have Weston who's not really evil, just wealthy and stuck up.


Then stretch who is hardly ever seen yet he's an antagonist.

Wei cheng is actually ok, since he's from Trevor's storyline and trevor's storyline is the one I think is the most interesting of all 3.

 

I completely agree with you. The antagonists in GTA V for most part were forgettable, uninteresting and left very little, if any impression on the game at all. I did not even have any real desire to see any of them dead, and if that happens, that means they must have been quite rubbish antagonists in my books. 

  • theGTAking101 likes this

dave4242
  • dave4242

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2013
  • None

#10

Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:38 PM

I couldnt wait to drop haines and weston. Worst kinds of asshole. And they were pretty memorable in my opinion. Dmitri is the best antagonist in gta history in my opinion though, closely followed by tenpenny.

RandomNoun
  • RandomNoun

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2012

#11

Posted 08 January 2014 - 05:46 PM

I didn't get why we're supposed to hate Haines. I thought he was a bit of a penis at first, but I think I gained some respect for his character when he

Spoiler
.


RiaJay21
  • RiaJay21

    Post-Post-Ironic

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2013
  • None

#12

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:09 PM Edited by RiaJay21, 08 January 2014 - 06:09 PM.

Long post ahead. Funny, it looked so much shorter when I was writing it.

 

I guess ... I didn't pay all that much attention at first, because I'm so used to experiencing media where there is no antagonist, or the protagonists are worse than any antagonist can possibly be and/or are incredibly self destructive. Which in some ways came across in V. I felt like all three protagonists, in their own ways, would have been at home in, say, a work of transgressive fiction. Or maybe I'm talking nonsense, I don't know. It's just what I'm used to, I guess.

 

That said, there was a point in the story where I felt completely at ease with the idea of killing Devin Weston. I had the endings spoiled for me during my first playthrough, so hell, I think I'd maybe only just met Weston. Yeah, it was right after 'I Fought The Law', I remember. But as the story progressed, and I was aware of the options I had, I was just thinking 'yeah, okay, I can live with that, no worries'. I didn't outright hate him at first, but yeah, he was an ass.

 

Haines was ... a different matter, I guess. He was kind of an ass, but I never really saw what the big deal was. So he threatens the character I'm supposed to side with and have been playing as - it didn't seem like the massive affront that it should have been. Arguably, though, he is the one making the protagonists jump through loops, stringing them along, with no real intentions of cutting any of them loose, so there's that.

 

Wei Cheng had more potential than he was given credit for. We'd already seen by the end of the game that he could be ruthless and employ pretty brutal methods if he wanted to, which seemed like a real threat. But it also seemed, just a little, as though he was a small fish in a big pond - with so much else going on, he got sidelined, in much the same way as Stretch did, actually. 

 

Which is the same as above. I think there definitely was potential for more to be going on in the background with Stretch and Franklin, but it kind of got lost after 'The Long Stretch', or possibly 'Hood Safari' up until right near the end of the game. 

 

That said, I don't think I'm looking at GTA V in the same critical light as I look at other things in. I don't entirely know why that is; not a rose tinted glasses type of deal, just that I've never found myself able to do it with games. Probably because I feel like I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Which is probably true.

  • Cutter De Blanc and Dr. Robotnik like this

Real_Badgirl
  • Real_Badgirl

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2013

#13

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:10 PM

I agree. GTA V did many things well, but it really fell flat in the antagonist department. I couldn't wait to kill Steve and Devin, but that's just because they both came across as such holier than thou I'm better than you type douchebags. Neither one of them were very threatening.

 

As for Wie Cheng and Stretch, they didn't even feel like antagonists because they only appeared in a few missions.


Girl_Next_Door
  • Girl_Next_Door

    Snitch

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2014
  • None

#14

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:18 PM

Another guess is that r* intentionally did not focus on antagonists, as the story really revolved on michael's treachery and past mistakes and trevor coming back being a threat. If only one of those 2 characters were playable, then we would have a fully developed antagonist and of course, without the ahppy ending but option A and B.


SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#15

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:24 PM

I loved taking out Westin in ending C. So satisfying, especially how T gives no f*cks about anything he offers Trevor. RPG'ing the ferris wheel car was fun too.

I forget who brings up Stretch (when they're figuring out loose ends) but Franklin replies with 'Stretch? We throwing him in to?' it sounds as if he is as surprised as we were. It's pretty cold how he just shrugs and says alright :cool:

I'm only considering him an antagonist because the game did.
  • RiaJay21 likes this

RiaJay21
  • RiaJay21

    Post-Post-Ironic

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2013
  • None

#16

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:25 PM Edited by RiaJay21, 08 January 2014 - 06:26 PM.

Another guess is that r* intentionally did not focus on antagonists, as the story really revolved on michael's treachery and past mistakes and trevor coming back being a threat. If only one of those 2 characters were playable, then we would have a fully developed antagonist and of course, without the ahppy ending but option A and B.

 

Yeah, the focus was definitely elsewhere. But honestly, I didn't mind that - the focus on Michael and Trevor's relationship is a definitely highlight for me. 

 

Arguably, Michael was his own antagonist, as sill as that might sound. I probably phrased that all wrong, but still. I mean, had he not:

 

Spoiler

 

The entire story wouldn't have been set in motion. Everything that happened throughout GTA V after a certain point would not have happened. It was a knock on effect, all because Michael lost his temper, really; and I could go further into that, but I'll probably end up embarrassing myself.

 

I think the real 'antagonist' of GTA was something more abstract. But I'm admittedly still trying to pin down what I think that is.


Mr_Goldcard
  • Mr_Goldcard

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2013

#17

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:12 PM

We have the corrupt panchy agent who got in the FIB due to his insecurities obviously.


We have Weston who's not really evil, just wealthy and stuck up.


Then stretch who is hardly ever seen yet he's an antagonist.

Wei cheng is actually ok, since he's from Trevor's storyline and trevor's storyline is the one I think is the most interesting of all 3.


Are you really a girl?

DeafMetal
  • DeafMetal

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2012

#18

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:29 PM

Yep. I think they did what Spiderman 3 was trying to do: they put in way too many bad guys and ended up looking like they half-assed them since they have to share SOME screen time. At least some more phone calls or extra missions where you fight against their goons would have been nice. Sonny in VC was hardly seen but he'd phone Tommy frequently threatening him and asking for his money, and that worked great.


feckyerlife
  • feckyerlife

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#19

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:36 PM Edited by feckyerlife, 08 January 2014 - 07:38 PM.

Another guess is that r* intentionally did not focus on antagonists, as the story really revolved on michael's treachery and past mistakes and trevor coming back being a threat. If only one of those 2 characters were playable, then we would have a fully developed antagonist and of course, without the ahppy ending but option A and B.

thats exactly why i said that the true antagonist are Michael and Trevor. Option C couldve easily been the last mission after the Union Depository heist. And option A&B couldve of been the end game choice. R* f*cked up by having the 3 playable charcters, so they have to offer the all 3 live scenario. 

 

I can see the SP DLC being more of a filler for the middle of the game with more of a back story to the antogs. But the way the game sits now. M&T are the antagonists for sure.


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#20

Posted 08 January 2014 - 07:39 PM

Arguably, Michael was his own antagonist, as sill as that might sound. I probably phrased that all wrong, but still. I mean, had he not:

 

 

No disrespect, but that has got to be one of the most bullsh*t theories I've ever seen about GTA V protagonists on this forum. 

 

You certainly did phrase it wrong (whatever on earth you were trying to say). 


RandomNoun
  • RandomNoun

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2012

#21

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:32 PM Edited by RandomNoun, 08 January 2014 - 08:33 PM.

 

Arguably, Michael was his own antagonist, as sill as that might sound. I probably phrased that all wrong, but still. I mean, had he not:

 

 

No disrespect, but that has got to be one of the most bullsh*t theories I've ever seen about GTA V protagonists on this forum. 

 

You certainly did phrase it wrong (whatever on earth you were trying to say). 

 

The idea's pretty straight forward: Michael caused most of his problems through his own temper. Michael talks about it during counselling. He can't control himself. It was an element that was underplayed, but was one that could have been a lot more powerful.

 

Look at it like IV: Niko had it the same (though it was executed much better). His lust for revenge, his obsession with finding closure was what was destroying him. This is why letting Darko live and choosing 'Deal' was by far the best ending for the game: Niko changed. He learnt to let go. Of course, he had changed too late; he had done already too much damage.

 

Michael is supposed to be a man tormented, frustrated by his new, easy lifestyle. He's a caged animal: he wants back the glory days. Like Niko, if he'd let it go, left it in the past, things would have been different. Trevor symbolises, quite literally, Michael's ugly past coming back to find him when he gave in slightly to his cravings. You can think of Trevor like that, a symbol of Michael's self-destruction.

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, Rockstar do great jobs with their writing, but their stories are always pretty similar: a man haunted by a past he wants to forget.

 

Niko, John Marston, Cole Phelps, Max Payne, Michael De Santa ...


Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#22

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:35 PM

 

 

Arguably, Michael was his own antagonist, as sill as that might sound. I probably phrased that all wrong, but still. I mean, had he not:

 

 

No disrespect, but that has got to be one of the most bullsh*t theories I've ever seen about GTA V protagonists on this forum. 

 

You certainly did phrase it wrong (whatever on earth you were trying to say). 

 

The idea's pretty straight forward: Michael caused most of his problems through his own temper. Michael talks about it during counselling. He can't control himself. It was an element that was underplayed, but was one that could have been a lot more powerful.

 

Look at it like IV: Niko had it the same (though it was executed much better). His lust for revenge, his obsession with finding closure was what was destroying him. This is why letting Darko live and choosing 'Deal' was by far the best ending for the game: Niko changed. He learnt that to let go. Of course, he had changed too late; he had done already too much damage.

 

Michael is supposed to be a man tormented, frustrated by his new, easy lifestyle. He's a caged animal: he wants back the glory days. Like Niko, if he'd let it go, left it in the past, things would have been different. Trevor symbolises, quite literally, Michael's ugly past coming back to find him when he gave in slightly to his cravings. You can think of Trevor like that, a symbol of Michael's self-destruction.

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, Rockstar do great jobs with their writing, but their stories are always pretty similar: a man haunted by a past he wants to forget.

 

Niko, John Marston, Cole Phelps, Max Payne, Michael De Santa ...

 

 

 @ Random

 

I hear what you are saying, but that still not a good example he used. Many characters in Rockstar's games recently have struggled with demons and haunted by their past. That don't equate to thme being their own actual antagonists. He just tried too hard to sound real deep with his analogy and it just sounded dumb in my opinion. 


ChrisMathers3501
  • ChrisMathers3501

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2008

#23

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:40 PM

Weston and Haines were sh*t.  It felt good to waste them and end their continuing existence.

 

Cheng I just barely remember.

 

And Stretch was actually a funny guy in that ONE mission he was in.  He ended up being a bad guy and got dead.  It just goes to show that Franklin's story wasn't as fleshed out as it should have been, but like I said before, I'm pretty sure that was done deliberately so that the DLC could do the job.


Journey_95
  • Journey_95

    Playa

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#24

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:44 PM

the antagonists were just bad

probably the worst in any GTA game I mean come on Rockstar

we had real bad guys like Sonny Forelli, Lance Vance, Tenpenny, Dimitri, Billy Grey

and in GTA V we have Haines and Weston
WTF


BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    aka: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#25

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:47 PM

For Sure Devin From the Start was an antagonist,he doesnt feel flat same was Steven,and Devin is a Rich f*ck and controlling a Private Army,i love the way option c was ended,it was the Most Diverse Ending in a game.we kill the whole of Merryweather,then Stretch,Then Weng,then The 3 Protags went for Devin.It was basically the best collaborations of Protagonists in gaming history.

Fun Fact:The Trunk pushing of Devin was technically when we controlled the trios simulatenously on screen

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#26

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:02 PM

Still felt more menacing in terms of the power they yield, than the bent cop in SA.

 

Also, Haines pissed me off more and more as the game drove forward, with his smug arrogance and general presence, and the more and more I couldn't wait to put the motherf*cker down; which all in all, is a feeling a games antagonist should provide me - and that it did. Also, the voice actors did an excellent job; I didn't feel like I was facing off Samual L Jackson or any other celebrity.


IDredMan
  • IDredMan

    Dred

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 May 2013
  • None

#27

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:05 PM

I wouldn't call them antagonists.

You have to remember, you play as 3 criminals that have reached national threat level.

Devin Weston and Steve Haines are the norm for these guys, they're the people they normally come across.

However, they made a big deal out of them because they went out of their ways to either screw over the trio or kill them. More than anyone else.


ShadowDog94
  • ShadowDog94

    Gaming since '94

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2012
  • Ireland

#28

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:08 PM

The antagonists in this game are merely annoyances. They don't feel like actual threats compared to some of the other ones.

  • Official General and Choco Taco like this

Official General
  • Official General

    You gotta always carry heat in these Vice City streets

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010

#29

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:10 PM

The antagonists in this game are merely annoyances. They don't feel like actual threats compared to some of the other ones.

 

Yep, that was exactly how I saw them.

 

My own personal 'antagonist' in the game was Trevor for me. He's the only person I can say that I really wanted to kill in the game. 


feckyerlife
  • feckyerlife

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#30

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:20 PM Edited by feckyerlife, 08 January 2014 - 09:20 PM.

I wouldn't call them antagonists.

You have to remember, you play as 3 criminals that have reached national threat level.

Devin Weston and Steve Haines are the norm for these guys, they're the people they normally come across.

However, they made a big deal out of them because they went out of their ways to either screw over the trio or kill them. More than anyone else.

the protags are more less anti hero's


 

The antagonists in this game are merely annoyances. They don't feel like actual threats compared to some of the other ones.

 

Yep, that was exactly how I saw them.

 

My own personal 'antagonist' in the game was Trevor for me. He's the only person I can say that I really wanted to kill in the game. 

 

lol i felt like that about Michael, but both times i finished the game he had the most money so i never killed him lol





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users