Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Anyone else felt that the antagonists were a bit empty?

57 replies to this topic
darkdayz
  • darkdayz

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2013

#31

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:20 PM Edited by darkdayz, 08 January 2014 - 09:22 PM.

Antagonist isn't just purely narrowed down to someone who is bad and therefore all the main characters are antagonists. Everybody has that completely wrong, the protagonists are the lead roles, good or bad. The antagonists are opponents or enemies to the protagonists, that is how these things are defined. Very often in storytelling the antagonists actually are the good guys, Breaking Bad is an example of this. Trevor Michael and Franklin cannot be antagonists. It just seems that way because our protagonists (also like Breaking Bad) are anti-heroes.

  • ShadowDog94 likes this

BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    By: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#32

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:22 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. 

Lol :) yeah Everyone says that

RiaJay21
  • RiaJay21

    Post-Post-Ironic

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2013
  • None

#33

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:45 PM Edited by RiaJay21, 08 January 2014 - 09:46 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. 

 

 

Okay, I can accept that. Hence why I said 'arguably', because it's debatable, and as Random said, I simply felt that Michael made the rod for his own back. That doesn't mean I dislike him as a character, by the way, simply not true, but my personal feelings, upon first playing the game, were that Michael's temper definitely had a hand in the proceedings of the story. Cause and effect. You don't have to agree with it, and I can understand why you wouldn't, and yeah, I guess I do talk bullsh*t, but hey, I was just voicing what my initial thoughts were.

 

Just, for the record, I'm a girl. Save any future confusion. And to make things clear: I wasn't trying to sound deep or anything like that. Just, like I said, voicing an opinion. Which I appreciate is what you were doing, too.

 

And please don't think that I was assuming it's a bad thing, because I wasn't. If that was how it seemed. Or that it was a slant on Michael as a character, because it wasn't. Or ... anything, I don't know, not trying to ruffle feathers here. But then, I also don't equate 'antagonist' with 'evil', to be honest, but that's a whole other debate. I don't know, disregard it, if you will, I'm not really all that bothered.


PhilosophicalZebra
  • PhilosophicalZebra

    Eh.

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013
  • Canada

#34

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:54 PM

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

FYI, we did see Wei Chang. He's the guy taunting Michael in the mission Fresh Meat. He also calls Trevor post-ending of Bury The Hatchet.


AustinN
  • AustinN

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2014

#35

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:57 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.

 

Word. When I heard one of the gold requirements for that mission was killing him with a headshot, I thought "F**k that". I used a rocket launcher. Because THAT'S how Trevor would do it.

 

I'm personally quite fond of Devin Westin. He might not have been as intimidating as past antagonist, but I found his dickery and excessive self-confidence funny. You guys should check out his in game website sometime.

 

I didn't care for Steve Haines. There was nothing memorable about him. Usually when a character is a douche in this series they're at least funny about it, but Steve had nothing funny or cool about him.

 

His part was small, but I liked what little we saw of Wei Cheng. He's ruthless, and his gang plays a part in some of the most memorable missions of the game.

 

Stretch...Stretch you could take out of the game, and almost nothing would change. He's prime evidence for people who say that Franklin got the short end of the stick in story development. Hell, even Franklin is kind of surprised when Trevor suggests killing him along their other enemies.

  • SmoothGetaway likes this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#36

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:03 PM Edited by Official General, 08 January 2014 - 10:07 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. 

 

 

Okay, I can accept that. Hence why I said 'arguably', because it's debatable, and as Random said, I simply felt that Michael made the rod for his own back. That doesn't mean I dislike him as a character, by the way, simply not true, but my personal feelings, upon first playing the game, were that Michael's temper definitely had a hand in the proceedings of the story. Cause and effect. You don't have to agree with it, and I can understand why you wouldn't, and yeah, I guess I do talk bullsh*t, but hey, I was just voicing what my initial thoughts were.

 

Just, for the record, I'm a girl. Save any future confusion. And to make things clear: I wasn't trying to sound deep or anything like that. Just, like I said, voicing an opinion. Which I appreciate is what you were doing, too.

 

And please don't think that I was assuming it's a bad thing, because I wasn't. If that was how it seemed. Or that it was a slant on Michael as a character, because it wasn't. Or ... anything, I don't know, not trying to ruffle feathers here. But then, I also don't equate 'antagonist' with 'evil', to be honest, but that's a whole other debate. I don't know, disregard it, if you will, I'm not really all that bothered.

 

 

@ Ria

 

I do apologize, I came across as a bit too strong, and I had no idea you were a female too. I came hard because I wrongly assumed you were just another one of the boys. My bad, and please don't feel intimidated my posts, most of the time, it's a bit of verbal battling, nothing serious. 


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#37

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:04 PM

 

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

FYI, we did see Wei Chang. He's the guy taunting Michael in the mission Fresh Meat. He also calls Trevor post-ending of Bury The Hatchet.

 

I would've loved more involvement of the Triads. Hopefully we get more of that stuff in the dlc.


hellyeah3:16
  • hellyeah3:16

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2013

#38

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:30 PM

All Three Antagonists were a HUGE step down from Dimitri. Devin Weston had the most potential out of the three. I think he should've killed Amanda but I guess that would've been too dark.

RiaJay21
  • RiaJay21

    Post-Post-Ironic

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2013
  • None

#39

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:38 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. 

 

 

Okay, I can accept that. Hence why I said 'arguably', because it's debatable, and as Random said, I simply felt that Michael made the rod for his own back. That doesn't mean I dislike him as a character, by the way, simply not true, but my personal feelings, upon first playing the game, were that Michael's temper definitely had a hand in the proceedings of the story. Cause and effect. You don't have to agree with it, and I can understand why you wouldn't, and yeah, I guess I do talk bullsh*t, but hey, I was just voicing what my initial thoughts were.

 

Just, for the record, I'm a girl. Save any future confusion. And to make things clear: I wasn't trying to sound deep or anything like that. Just, like I said, voicing an opinion. Which I appreciate is what you were doing, too.

 

And please don't think that I was assuming it's a bad thing, because I wasn't. If that was how it seemed. Or that it was a slant on Michael as a character, because it wasn't. Or ... anything, I don't know, not trying to ruffle feathers here. But then, I also don't equate 'antagonist' with 'evil', to be honest, but that's a whole other debate. I don't know, disregard it, if you will, I'm not really all that bothered.

 

 

@ Ria

 

I do apologize, I came across as a bit too strong, and I had no idea you were a female too. I came hard because I wrongly assumed you were just another one of the boys. My bad, and please don't feel intimidated my posts, most of the time, it's a bit of verbal battling, nothing serious. 

 

 

No, no worries - I generally tend to be a passive person (and honestly, don't like to offend if I can help it, was concerned in case I had), and had already figured that my second post wasn't worded well, which probably led to some confusion. As for that, I thought as much, so again, it's fine; it's really nothing new, so no worries. And I can do battle if you'd like? Haha - like I say, just didn't want to offend, and already knew my post wasn't all that great, got a little over-enthusiastic instead of thinking my point through more fully. :) 

  • Official General likes this

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#40

Posted 09 January 2014 - 01:44 AM

I don't think the game was meant to have traditional antagonists. They took a left turn with the kind of story they told. I liked it but some didn't.


killahmatic
  • killahmatic

    JB

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2008
  • None

#41

Posted 09 January 2014 - 02:54 AM

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 didn't like him either but I will agree that Trevors mission's were at least the best of the three.

 

Steve Haines was an asshole so I was more than happy to kill him, but in the end there was no big antagonist to take down, which was OK, because this game was more about pulling off heists than facing off against someone. 


Yakito
  • Yakito

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#42

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:00 AM

They were so uninteresting and flat that I wasn't even sure who I was fighting.


TheFoxRiverFugitive
  • TheFoxRiverFugitive

    Sly Fox

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#43

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:03 AM

 

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

FYI, we did see Wei Chang. He's the guy taunting Michael in the mission Fresh Meat. He also calls Trevor post-ending of Bury The Hatchet.

 

I knew about the phone call but I completely forgot about him showing up in Fresh Meat. Guess that further attributes to how forgetful the guy is.


ChrisMathers3501
  • ChrisMathers3501

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2008

#44

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:56 AM

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.

Antagonist doesn't mean "bad guy."

Antagonist means "opposes the protagonist."

 

Protagonist doesn't mean "good guy."

 

Protagonist means "character who carries the largest part of the story."

  • SmoothGetaway likes this

MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012
    Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)

#45

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:15 AM

GTA V is the first GTA where I wasn't even sure who the antagonists were.That's not a good sign. Do either of them stack up against Dimitri and Pegorino I mean seriously? I don't see how they do.

 

Hell I'd consider Tenpenny to be one of the most overrated characters in the series and even he makes them look like jokes.

  • Official General likes this

SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#46

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:17 AM Edited by SmoothGetaway, 09 January 2014 - 04:20 AM.

@ChrisMathers

Exactly.

It kind of explains how pretty much every character in GTAV is an asshole.

But! We have our favorite assholes that we root for in the story. Protagonists are our favorite assholes.

On the other side we have assholes like Steve Haines, or (for some) Michael/Trevor.

BBQ RIBS
  • BBQ RIBS

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2013

#47

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:48 AM Edited by BBQ RIBS, 09 January 2014 - 04:49 AM.

Last time I checked, your name wasn't Martha.

 

OP is impersonating this lady:

http://erin-elisabet...enage-boys.html

http://hamstertje.de...rt.com/gallery/


GtaIvFanboy
  • GtaIvFanboy

    I Have a Foot Fetish

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2013

#48

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:50 AM

Steve Haines and devon have both grown on me their both such annoying Douche bags i love them!! and i Call Everyone Slick Now the rest were just really under Developed. 


Choco Taco
  • Choco Taco

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011

#49

Posted 09 January 2014 - 05:49 AM

The antagonists should have been better.

 

The story should have been better.

 

Trevor should have been toned down.  He was too over the top.


MiamiViceCity
  • MiamiViceCity

    The Harwood Butcher

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012
    Most Obsessive Name Changer 2016 (My unofficial GTAF annual award)

#50

Posted 09 January 2014 - 07:01 AM

The antagonists should have been better.
 
The story should have been better.
 
Trevor should have been toned down.  He was too over the top.


No. He should've been a supporting character instead IMO.

BLOOD-MOND
  • BLOOD-MOND

    By: Blood-Is-in-Diamond or BiiD

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • None

#51

Posted 09 January 2014 - 07:09 AM

Yeah Trevor was too over-the-top for a GTA game but that what make him unique and bring a new thing to the series but next-gen GTAs we shouldnt get a crazy guy again Ever,kept it to a traditional Criminal i.e. Niko,Luis,Franklin.Although Steven Ogg did a great job.

HaythamKenway
  • HaythamKenway

    Mister Doctor

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2012
  • Czech-Republic

#52

Posted 09 January 2014 - 09:48 AM

V's core conflict was between Michael and Trevor. Haines and Weston were, sort of, like Pegorino and Big Smoke to that main conflict.

 

I liked it that way. Apart from Michael's plot that was my favorite thing about V's story - how it was untraditional for GTA series.

 

I think both Haines and Weston were interesting characters and R* did a good job at them, but yeah, that Triad boss and Stretch deserved flashing out. Again, we come full circle and suffer from underdevelopment of Trevor and Franklin, since both Haines and Weston were more or less Michael's antagonists.


ChrisMathers3501
  • ChrisMathers3501

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2008

#53

Posted 09 January 2014 - 10:05 AM

The antagonists should have been better.

 

The story's not over.  We're still waiting for the DLC.

 

Trevor was the best character ever.

Fixed.


Lil_B_The Basedgod
  • Lil_B_The Basedgod

    f*ck the mods

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2013
  • None

#54

Posted 09 January 2014 - 11:20 AM

The fact that Steve Haines is a stupid bitch should be more than enough of a reason to shoot him in the f*cking face. When he grabbed mike by the throat I was like "imma f*ck him up"
If R* didn't allow us to kill him, that would've been a big ass middle finger...

IntoGloryRide
  • IntoGloryRide

    Warmonger

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • None

#55

Posted 09 January 2014 - 12:37 PM

The fact that Steve Haines is a stupid bitch should be more than enough of a reason to shoot him in the f*cking face. When he grabbed mike by the throat I was like "imma f*ck him up"
If R* didn't allow us to kill him, that would've been a big ass middle finger...


I felt the same way after not being able to kill Rocco in TBoGT. With all the racist sh*t that guy spouted and ripping off your boss, you'd think he had no chance. Fortunately this was remedied in V, albeit with a different protag. What gets me about the antagonists in this game is that they should have been brought down by the proper characters. at least the way I see it, it would have felt much sweeter if Michael took out Haines. Same goes for Stretch with Franklin.
  • SCOOBASTEEB likes this

SCOOBASTEEB
  • SCOOBASTEEB

    Feed The Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2013
  • None

#56

Posted 09 January 2014 - 01:15 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.

Maybe Cheng Sr DLC ;)

 

I agree though, in 4 we didn't see Dimitri all the time, or even that much but the fact he always felt like he was round the corner pulling strings trying to kill you made me want to finish the game to see what we did to him.. Along with what he did before you get to LC. In this the only bad guy really is Michael. Law breaking crook that lied to his 'best' friends.


Dr. Robotnik
  • Dr. Robotnik

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2012

#57

Posted 12 January 2014 - 10:37 AM Edited by Dr. Robotnik, 12 January 2014 - 10:48 AM.

 

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. 

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.

 

 

This. I was fine with the antagonists being less developed, because I think the conflict between Michael and Trevor was always meant to take center stage. Trevor, as you said, is in part a living representation of Michael's past that he simultaneously hates, fears, and wants to go back to. For his part, Michael was Trevor's only friend.

 

That said, I would've preferred more direct appearances from Stretch, and the Triad subplot just wasn't paced well. It's set up early on, but only comes back into focus much later in the story when the player may have forgotten about it.

 

 


 

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. 

 

 I liked Haines to a certain degree, partly because I found him funny, and him choking Michael in his first scene came across as significantly more provoked than a lot of what Trevor did. If anything, I'd argue Trevor is the worse of the two, simply because he's much more actively harmful to people in general.


Budweiser Addict
  • Budweiser Addict

    That's, just, like, your opinion man

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2012

#58

Posted 12 January 2014 - 11:26 AM

So far I've done two playthroughs of the story and to start with I had an urge to kill Haines (not an overwhelming urge, I justed wanted his f*cking ass out of the story).

Then during my seconds playthrough Haines actually rubbed off to me to be one of the true good guys in this story. I mean yeah he tormented Mr K, but look at it like this: he stopped a large scale terrorist attack on the west coast and he shot himself in the foot (even when the IAA could have just as easily shot him dead) to get the chemicles away. If anything, Haines was a hero more than anything.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users