Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Trevor should have been the antagonist

70 replies to this topic
thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#1

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:45 PM Edited by thatGuyyy, 25 January 2014 - 11:47 PM.

Seriously, how awesome would have that been? I could easily think of multiple storylines that could have worked if he was actually the enemy. Much better than the FBI/IAA/Merryweather bullsh*t

 

He would have made one of the best antagonists in the series. V's story was good untill Trevor arrived, it would have been much better if it was just Michael and Franklin up against Trevor. Even better, make Michael the main protag and Franklin a NPC

  • Official General, 2281, Niobium and 1 other like this

darkwar854
  • darkwar854

    Ghetto Star

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2012

#2

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:51 PM

Trevor would be the best antagonist since tenpenny.


Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#3

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:57 PM Edited by Official General, 25 January 2014 - 11:59 PM.

Seriously, how awesome would have that been? I could easily think of multiple storylines that could have worked if he was actually the enemy. Much better than the FBI/IAA/Merryweather bullsh*t

 

He would have made one of the best antagonists in the series. V's story was good untill Trevor arrived, it would have been much better if it was just Michael and Franklin up against Trevor. Even better, make Michael the main protag and Franklin a NPC

 

I totally agree. I despised Trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist, he would have been amazing. I would have preferred it to be Michael, Franklin and a Hispanic character as protagonists instead. 

 

And yeah, that FIB/IAA/Merryweather stuff was just boring bullsh*t. 

  • Niobium likes this

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#4

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:57 PM Edited by Raavi, 25 January 2014 - 11:57 PM.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I  alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law. 

  • Niobium and matajuegos01 like this

iProinsias
  • iProinsias

    Chen Zhen

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013

#5

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:59 PM Edited by iProinsias, 25 January 2014 - 11:57 PM.

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I  alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law. 

 

 

That's already in the story, in the form of Dave Norton.


Staten
  • Staten

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Poetic Prowess [General Chat]

#6

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:01 AM

Trevor is an antagonist in GTA V.

  • Luna Lovegood, lizardman563 and atsjoonas like this

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#7

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:02 AM Edited by Raavi, 26 January 2014 - 12:05 AM.

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I  alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law. 

 

 

That's already in the story, in the form of Dave Norton.

 

I'm talking protagonist and more in-depth with missions screwing up investigations, tampering with evidence, leading the department on a wild goose chase. The guy would also have his own, office in the FIB building and access to law enforcement personell and vehicles with all the perks that come with those. You could call in the troops whenever you would feel the need to do so, create diversions, roadblocks etc etc. Would be great for during and after story freeroam. Endless replay-ability.


Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#8

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:04 AM Edited by Official General, 26 January 2014 - 12:06 AM.

Trevor is an antagonist in GTA V.

 

At very end for like 2 minutes. No, a proper antagonist for the duration of most of the game, like Dimitri Rascalov in GTA IV. Come on, use your brain man. 

  • Niobium likes this

Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#9

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:05 AM Edited by Xerukal, 26 January 2014 - 12:08 AM.

He can be both a protagonist and antagonist, depending on your point of view throughout the story. He does such horrible things that basically set him in the mood to be a "loose cannon" or "uncontrollable" lot of the group. Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

You could say the same for Michael, except he doesn't really give you much reason or any at all to view him as an antagonist throughout the story in the slightest. 

 

I love Trevor as a protagonist the most, though. Even if they made him a full on antagonist throughout the story, I think it would be out of his established character, in some ways. Unless of course, changing him to be a "full on" antagonist would also involve changing up his backstory/character to a degree. Then it might fit more. 

  • lizardman563 likes this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#10

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:09 AM

Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

 

You don't like to pay attention to detail when reading posts I'm guessing ? Me and Raavi have both stated that we are not talking about being antagonist for a very short duration of the story, like 2 minutes at the end. 

 

You probably won't be the last person on here to come wading into the thread stating the obvious which does not even apply to the discussion. 


Mr_Goldcard
  • Mr_Goldcard

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2013

#11

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:10 AM

Trevors mom should have been the antagonist.
  • theNGclan likes this

iProinsias
  • iProinsias

    Chen Zhen

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013

#12

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:11 AM

 

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I  alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law. 

 

 

That's already in the story, in the form of Dave Norton.

 

I'm talking protagonist and more in-depth with missions screwing up investigations, tampering with evidence, leading the department on a wild goose chase. The guy would also have his own, office in the FIB building and access to law enforcement personal and vehicles with all the perks. You could call in the troops whenever you would feel the need to do so.

 

 

Yeah! GTAV had so much missing! Where are the aspects that let you grocery shop?! Or walk your pet ferret?! Or rape women?! Or download music to your smart phone?! Or kidnap people and hold them for ransom?! Or watch On Demand movies?! Or go to the opera?! Or see crimes in progress and report them to the police?! Or report the rampant amount of mountain loins in a given area and then watch wildlife control contain them?!

 

You're an idiot.


Staten
  • Staten

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Poetic Prowess [General Chat]

#13

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:12 AM

 

Trevor is an antagonist in GTA V.

 

At very end for like 2 minutes. No, a proper antagonist for the duration of most of the game, like Dimitri Rascalov in GTA IV. Come on, use your brain man. 

 

Right back at you; it seems that a huge part of the relationship between Trevor and Michael has passed you by. 

  • Jacob-B likes this

Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#14

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:14 AM Edited by Xerukal, 26 January 2014 - 12:20 AM.

 

Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

 

You don't like to pay attention to detail when reading posts I'm guessing ? Me and Raavi have both stated that we are not talking about being antagonist for a very short duration of the story, like 2 minutes at the end. 

 

You probably won't be the last person on here to come wading into the thread stating the obvious which does not even apply to the discussion. 

 

Likewise, on that paying attention to detail part. You seem to love aggressively responding to people. See? I can make judgements and assumptions based on text responses, too!

 

Because I clearly stated that Ending A is the antagonist ending not the entirety of the antagonist story. Notice how I also emphasized "point of view". Meaning, you COULD, again, if you CHOSE to, view him as an antagonist as the story progresses. Considering his actions that constantly disrupt the (in comparison) "calm" flow of Michael and Franklin's crime activities.

 

In example, Michael wouldn't have had to hide out of LS for a time if Trevor didn't go off the rails and kidnap Madrazo's wife. He HURT Michael in this way. You could easily  view this as an antagonistic action and add that action to Trevor's (hypothetical) "Antagonist counter". 

 

This is just the example or archetype for a behavior Trevor likes to repeat throughout the story. Basically, getting Michael and Franklin into sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of in the first place. Not to mention being a loose cannon (as stated) as it is. 

 

All ending A does is provide appropriate closure based on how you see it.

 

That's why people who love all 3 protagonists (or just like Trevor) view ending A as horrible. While people who dislike/hate Trevor view A as an adequate closure to their opinion on him throughout the story.  (Generalizing unintended. Opinions vary, obviously.)

  • hazard619, Staten, sivaG and 2 others like this

thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#15

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:17 AM Edited by thatGuyyy, 26 January 2014 - 12:18 AM.

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


 

 

I know what it means, it doesn't mean he was a good one you dumbf*ck. I'm just saying he would have been better suited as an antagonist

  • Niobium likes this

iProinsias
  • iProinsias

    Chen Zhen

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013

#16

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:20 AM

You also have to realize a lot of the "sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of" was because of Michael and his FIB connections.


 

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


 

 

I know what it means, it doesn't mean he was a good one you dumbf*ck. I'm just saying he would have been better suited as an antagonist

 

 

Yes, he was, you DUMBf*ck. Just because your literary knowledge is so limited you can't see that doesn't make it true.


thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#17

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:22 AM

 

 

Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

 

You don't like to pay attention to detail when reading posts I'm guessing ? Me and Raavi have both stated that we are not talking about being antagonist for a very short duration of the story, like 2 minutes at the end. 

 

You probably won't be the last person on here to come wading into the thread stating the obvious which does not even apply to the discussion. 

 

Likewise, on that paying attention to detail part. You seem to love aggressively responding to people. See? I can make judgements and assumptions based on text responses, too!

 

Because I clearly stated that Ending A is the antagonist ending not the entirety of the antagonist story. Notice how I also emphasized "point of view". Meaning, you COULD, again, if you CHOSE, view him as an antagonist as the story progresses. Considering his actions that constantly disrupt the (in comparison) "calm" flow of Michael and Franklin's crime activities.. 

 

In example, Michael wouldn't have had to hide out of LS for a time if Trevor didn't go off the rails and kidnap Madrazo's wife. He HURT Michael in this way. You could easily  view this as an antagonistic action and add that action to Trevor's (hypothetical) "Antagonist counter". 

 

This is just the example or archetype for a behavior Trevor likes to repeat throughout the story. Basically, getting Michael and Franklin into sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of in the first place. Not to mention being a loose cannon (as stated) as it is. 

 

All ending A does is provide appropriate closure based on how you see it.

 

That's why people who love all 3 protagonists (or just like Trevor) view ending A as horrible. While people who dislike/hate Trevor view A as an adequate closure to their opinion on him throughout the story. 

 

 

A good antagonist shouldn't be subjective, it should be universally known who the antagonist is to every player. Just like how nobody would think of Dimitri or Tenpenny as protags, the same would apply to Trevor. Telling people Trevor is sort of an antagonist depending on your "views" is a cheap cop-out that doesn't mean anything

  • Niobium likes this

Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#18

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:22 AM Edited by Xerukal, 26 January 2014 - 12:25 AM.

Easy now. No need to be so aggressive. 

 

Relax and easy on the insults.

 

EDIT: (Was replying to Proinsias)  

 

Above: Of course. But I wasn't saying he would be a good antagonist. He'd be "sort of" an antagonist, if you wanted to look at it that way. If not, that's unfortunate. Nothing anyone can do. This is all wonderful hypothesis (that people love to get angry over, apparently). 

  • sivaG likes this

Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#19

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:23 AM Edited by Official General, 26 January 2014 - 12:24 AM.

 

 

Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

 

You don't like to pay attention to detail when reading posts I'm guessing ? Me and Raavi have both stated that we are not talking about being antagonist for a very short duration of the story, like 2 minutes at the end. 

 

You probably won't be the last person on here to come wading into the thread stating the obvious which does not even apply to the discussion. 

 

Likewise, on that paying attention to detail part. You seem to love aggressively responding to people. See? I can make judgements and assumptions based on text responses, too!

 

Because I clearly stated that Ending A is the antagonist ending not the entirety of the antagonist story. Notice how I also emphasized "point of view". Meaning, you COULD, again, if you CHOSE, view him as an antagonist as the story progresses. Considering his actions that constantly disrupt the (in comparison) "calm" flow of Michael and Franklin's crime activities.. 

 

In example, Michael wouldn't have had to hide out of LS for a time if Trevor didn't go off the rails and kidnap Madrazo's wife. He HURT Michael in this way. You could easily  view this as an antagonistic action and add that action to Trevor's (hypothetical) "Antagonist counter". 

 

This is just the example or archetype for a behavior Trevor likes to repeat throughout the story. Basically, getting Michael and Franklin into sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of in the first place. Not to mention being a loose cannon (as stated) as it is. 

 

All ending A does is provide appropriate closure based on how you see it.

 

That's why people who love all 3 protagonists (or just like Trevor) view ending A as horrible. While people who dislike/hate Trevor view A as an adequate closure to their opinion on him throughout the story. 

 

 

How did I respond aggressively ? I just pointed out something you overlooked in regards to your response. Spin it all you want, Trevor was not a proper, true antagonist because you still have to play as him, and you still can choose to play as him after the story.

 

I'm talking about a traditional GTA antagonist that is an NPC and that is clearly the antagonist for most of the game. It's really not that hard to see what we're getting at here.

 

@ Staten

 

I know the damn story. Trevor was not a true antagonist for most of the game, and that is the kind of antagonist I have in mind, not some complex, do-it-yourself character analysis sh*t. Once again, it's not hard to see what I meant. 


thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#20

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:23 AM Edited by thatGuyyy, 26 January 2014 - 12:27 AM.

You also have to realize a lot of the "sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of" was because of Michael and his FIB connections.


 

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


 

 

I know what it means, it doesn't mean he was a good one you dumbf*ck. I'm just saying he would have been better suited as an antagonist

 

 

Yes, he was, you DUMBf*ck. Just because your literary knowledge is so limited you can't see that doesn't make it true.

 

Too bad literary knowledge is largely subjective you pseudo-intellectual dumbass

  • SwingingSpidey likes this

iProinsias
  • iProinsias

    Chen Zhen

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013

#21

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:25 AM Edited by iProinsias, 26 January 2014 - 12:27 AM.

 

A good antagonist shouldn't be subjective, it should be universally known who the antagonist is to every player. Just like how nobody would think of Dimitri or Tenpenny as protags, the same would apply to Trevor. Telling people Trevor is sort of an antagonist depending on your "views" is a cheap cop-out that doesn't mean anything

 

 

Says who? Have you watched "The Departed"? The true antagonist is completely ambiguous.


 

You also have to realize a lot of the "sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of" was because of Michael and his FIB connections.


 

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


 

 

I know what it means, it doesn't mean he was a good one you dumbf*ck. I'm just saying he would have been better suited as an antagonist

 

 

Yes, he was, you DUMBf*ck. Just because your literary knowledge is so limited you can't see that doesn't make it true.

 

Too bad literarary knowledge is subjective you pseuo-intellectual dumbass

 

 

 

No, it isn't, moron. You're either knowledgeable or you aren't. Literary OPINION is subjective, not KNOWLEDGE, you f*cking idiot.

 

By the way, it's "pseudo", not "pseuo", DUMBASS.


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#22

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:26 AM

 

 

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I  alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law. 

 

 

That's already in the story, in the form of Dave Norton.

 

I'm talking protagonist and more in-depth with missions screwing up investigations, tampering with evidence, leading the department on a wild goose chase. The guy would also have his own, office in the FIB building and access to law enforcement personal and vehicles with all the perks. You could call in the troops whenever you would feel the need to do so.

 

 

You're an idiot.

 

Please refrain from slinging insults at other members. If you don't agree with one's opinion, fine but react ad rem and civil. If you are not capable of doing this refrain from posting as a whole.


Staten
  • Staten

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2011
  • None
  • Poetic Prowess [General Chat]

#23

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:27 AM Edited by Staten, 26 January 2014 - 12:27 AM.

@ Staten

 

I know the damn story. Trevor was not a true antagonist for most of the game, and that is the kind of antagonist I have in mind, not some complex, do-it-yourself character analysis sh*t. 

 

 

While Trevor doesn't fit your idea of what an antagonist is, the fact remains that he was an antagonist.
 

  • sivaG likes this

Xerukal
  • Xerukal

    Kind ol' Trev

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2013
  • None

#24

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:29 AM Edited by Xerukal, 26 January 2014 - 12:32 AM.

How did I respond aggressively ? I just pointed out something you overlooked in regards to your response. Spin it all you want, Trevor was not a proper, true antagonist because you still have to play as him, and you still can choose to play as him after the story.

 

I'm talking about a traditional GTA antagonist that is an NPC and that is clearly the antagonist for most of the game. It's really not that hard to see what we're getting at here.

I knew what you meant. I attempted to provide an alternative to your demand of a "fully fleshed out" Trevor antagonist. This alternative proposition wasn't satisfactory. But it was an alternative nonetheless. One that should be appreciated more because it requires an open mind to fully embrace. Subjectivity isn't that bad as long as you don't try and pass it off as objectivity. Which I tried my best not to do. 


thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#25

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:30 AM

 



 

Says who? Have you watched "The Departed"? The true antagonist is completely ambiguous.

 


 

 

No, it isn't, moron. You're either knowledgeable or you aren't. Literary OPINION is subjective, not KNOWLEDGE, you f*cking idiot.

 

By the way, it's "pseudo", not "pseuo", DUMBASS.

 

 

GTA antags should not be subjective, thats my point

 

And get off your period, you're embarrasing yourself


Ray
  • Ray

    I don't practice Santeria, I ain't got no crystal ball

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2013
  • United-States

#26

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:32 AM

Guys, if you want to argue can you please do it through PM so this thread can get back on track?

woggleman
  • woggleman

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012
  • None

#27

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:32 AM

I for one enjoyed playing as him so know I would not want that. GTA needed a rural kind of protagonist because the rural meth is a big aspect of modern crime.


Official General
  • Official General

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

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#28

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:33 AM

 

How did I respond aggressively ? I just pointed out something you overlooked in regards to your response. Spin it all you want, Trevor was not a proper, true antagonist because you still have to play as him, and you still can choose to play as him after the story.

 

I'm talking about a traditional GTA antagonist that is an NPC and that is clearly the antagonist for most of the game. It's really not that hard to see what we're getting at here.

I knew what you meant. I attempted to provide an alternative to your demand of a "fully fleshed out" Trevor antagonist. This alternative proposition wasn't satisfactory. But it was an alternative nonetheless. 

 

 

I can live with that response. At least you clearly acknowledged your oversight, even though it was deliberate.

 

@ Staten

 

Okay, I stop right here. You're amazingly deep intellectually, and so smart. There you go, be happy  :sarcasm:


iProinsias
  • iProinsias

    Chen Zhen

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013

#29

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:36 AM

 

 



 

Says who? Have you watched "The Departed"? The true antagonist is completely ambiguous.

 


 

 

No, it isn't, moron. You're either knowledgeable or you aren't. Literary OPINION is subjective, not KNOWLEDGE, you f*cking idiot.

 

By the way, it's "pseudo", not "pseuo", DUMBASS.

 

 

GTA antags should not be subjective, thats my point

 

And get off your period, you're embarrasing yourself

 

 

 

Haha, am I? Because using a "pseuo-intellectual" insult like that is just pathetic. "Oh, you don't agree with me and you're male? You must be on your period!" f*cking idiot.


TheOtherRyan
  • TheOtherRyan

    The American Dream

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#30

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:39 AM

I agree. I would take Trevor as the primary antagonist over the two dipsh*ts we currently have anyday.

  • Niobium likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users