Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Trevor should have been the antagonist

70 replies to this topic
iProinsias
  • iProinsias

    Chen Zhen

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2013

#31

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:41 AM

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

The two dipsh*ts being...?


Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Old school

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#32

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:48 AM

Weston and Haines is who I was talking about.


SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#33

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:49 AM

Yeah I agree with the OP.

Trevor was far more suited as an antagonist and did things that could be seen that way (kidnapping Patricia) but, he didn't come close to antagonist status. It would have been cooler and at least in that situation, his shock and awe campaign work.

As it stands he's just another psycho in a world full of them.
  • nobum62 likes this

thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#34

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:50 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.

 

 

Your tampon is stinking up this thread, please leave :)


Zodape
  • Zodape

    Brilliant Gentleman

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#35

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:03 AM Edited by Zodape, 26 January 2014 - 01:04 AM.

Yes and no.

 

Trevor as an antagonist would have been something awesome. I agree with people who posted here, he could be on par with Tenpenny. Hell, maybe even beating him. And of course, better than Weston and Haines.

But I really enjoyed Trevor as a protagonist. R* took what could be a side character or an antagonist and turned him into the protagonist. Some kind of experiment that, despite being a failure or not, I always welcome. I would rather have them failing with something new that continuing doing the same old crap every day.

 

I would have loved him as an antagonist, but I want him to be more a protagonist. I want to play as him, and as that poll of your favourite character, many others in this forum want too. It's a shame we couldn't have a good antagonist, but that doesn't have anything to do with Trevor.

 

So yeah, I'll have to kindly disagree with the OP and many others. Trevor is my favourite protagonist in GTA since Claude. I understand why people hate him, but they gave you two other protagonists, not as controversial and that you may like playing as. This is the best way for Rockstar: take 3 completely different protagonists, for different people with different tastes. I don't want three identical characters in a single GTA because that should be the standar protagonist. The standard protagonist for GTA should be a criminal, and Trevor is as much of a criminal as Vercetti, so some people will have to accept that.


TirkaneX
  • TirkaneX

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014
  • None

#36

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:09 AM Edited by TirkaneX, 26 January 2014 - 01:10 AM.

At the begining of his story we can think he will be the antagonist.

 

When he go to north yankton, it's the same, torture ditto. I think the proportion is rather equal, too servile sometimes during the scrypted part of the game, but his annexe missions are rather trash.

 

Finally and definitively for me the best character to play. Antagonist that loves to play, but not enough to be THE bad guy. Who that can rival with the government and the lobbies? he would become a hero in this case, and therefore a protagonist.

 

Imho.


Deus Ex
  • Deus Ex

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2013
  • None

#37

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:10 AM Edited by Deus Ex, 26 January 2014 - 01:26 AM.

Trevor is a good protagonist. I wouldn't like to see him as antagonist.

 

Trevor is an antagonist in GTA V.

More like Villain Protagonist. 


chainsoar
  • chainsoar

    #1 Emblem Editor Hater 2014

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2013
  • England

#38

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:22 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. 

 

You mean aside from the way he uses Franklin like a f*cking errand boy throughout the entire storyline, not to mention treating a guy who, while admittedly completely insane, has always consistently cherished him as a brother, someone he would never dream of leaving behind?

 

He repeatedly wheedles Frank into being involved in his petty sh*t by whining about how much he's done for him and how Frank owes him, despite the fact that Franklin did most of the legwork himself, Michael just made the right introductions. Not to mention, Frank saved his skin from Martin Madrazo and the Chinese mobsters. If anything, Michael owes Frank more than he can repay.

 

As for Trevor, it's certainly understandable that Michael finds it difficult to be around him for too long at a time, but really, the self-justifying crap he spews forth in an attempt to explain why he stabbed his friends in the back, leaving them all to die or rot in prison just to save his own skin is surely enough to make you sympathise with Trevor just a little. Deep down Michael knows it's all lies, fabricated to make himself feel better about having f*cked over someone who saw him as the closest friend he'd ever had and was prepared to lay down his life for him. That's the issue - if Michael had asked Trevor to stay behind and die for him while he dragged Brad into an escape vehicle and got away, he would have done it. Instead, Michael deals behind his back to have Trevor killed and save himself.

 

Honestly, I didn't connect with any of the protagonists of this story as I did with Niko. Niko was a multifaceted character with a lot of history. He had intrigue. He carried emotional baggage and had a horrifying past. The characters this time around have their charms, but in comparison to Niko Bellic, they're shallow in oh, so many ways. Franklin is likeable and his life is challenging enough to make me empathise with him, but even he doesn't have a great deal of depth. Michael is a self-absorbed, narcissistic traitor who has spent 9 years perfecting his excuses for betraying his partners.

 

And Trevor? Trevor is a psychotic, drug-addled maniac who is funny as hell but ultimately couldn't be trusted not to f*ck up the most basic of tasks. He's out of control, irrational, immature, selfish and arrogant. He believes in Illuminati lizard people and smokes meth in a sh*t-stained trailer in the middle of the desert. He attacks and kills people at random. He's a f*cking idiot.

 

So, the point of this little rant of mine, ultimately, I suppose, is that the suggestion that Trevor should have been the antagonist makes perfect sense to me in one respect - antagonists in the GTA series die at the end, paying the price for their behaviour. Trevor carries a HUGE debt, and it's only right that he should pay for it. The simple way of putting it is that no story can realistically ask its readers to believe a character can engage in the kind of behaviour he does and simply walk away from it unscathed.

 

And yes, this does mean that my user title is 100% serious.

  • SmoothGetaway and matajuegos01 like this

daliakiller
  • daliakiller

    weed farmer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2013
  • Brazil

#39

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:27 AM

They should have make and incredibly deep characther, f*ck three characters scheme.. it was a nice feature, awesome to switch between then in real time.. but seriously, if this 3 characters scheme continues, brace yourselves, there is lots of forced characters and emotions coming in gta series..


TirkaneX
  • TirkaneX

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014
  • None

#40

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:28 AM

chainsoar, fine pen.
  • chainsoar likes this

The Odyssey
  • The Odyssey

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Australia

#41

Posted 26 January 2014 - 02:04 AM

Isn't Trevor techically already the antagonist?

 

One of our protagonist, Michael, is put through hell by his insane best friend because he abandoned him 10 years ago to take care of his family. Throughout the storyline he's protecting his family and running away from Trevor but Trevor keeps following him around and threataning to kill him. Michael wants to silence him, but he can't because he was one of his best friends. 

 

That's a great formula for an antagonist to me. Oh, and he's an enraged psychopath who dresses and women and molests guys in pink pyjamas. 


chainsoar
  • chainsoar

    #1 Emblem Editor Hater 2014

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2013
  • England

#42

Posted 26 January 2014 - 02:35 AM

chainsoar, fine pen.

 

Thank you, that's very kind of you to say. Have a 'like'.


thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#43

Posted 26 January 2014 - 03:01 AM Edited by thatGuyyy, 26 January 2014 - 03:09 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. 

 

You mean aside from the way he uses Franklin like a f*cking errand boy throughout the entire storyline, not to mention treating a guy who, while admittedly completely insane, has always consistently cherished him as a brother, someone he would never dream of leaving behind?

 

He repeatedly wheedles Frank into being involved in his petty sh*t by whining about how much he's done for him and how Frank owes him, despite the fact that Franklin did most of the legwork himself, Michael just made the right introductions. Not to mention, Frank saved his skin from Martin Madrazo and the Chinese mobsters. If anything, Michael owes Frank more than he can repay.

 

As for Trevor, it's certainly understandable that Michael finds it difficult to be around him for too long at a time, but really, the self-justifying crap he spews forth in an attempt to explain why he stabbed his friends in the back, leaving them all to die or rot in prison just to save his own skin is surely enough to make you sympathise with Trevor just a little. Deep down Michael knows it's all lies, fabricated to make himself feel better about having f*cked over someone who saw him as the closest friend he'd ever had and was prepared to lay down his life for him. That's the issue - if Michael had asked Trevor to stay behind and die for him while he dragged Brad into an escape vehicle and got away, he would have done it. Instead, Michael deals behind his back to have Trevor killed and save himself.

 

Honestly, I didn't connect with any of the protagonists of this story as I did with Niko. Niko was a multifaceted character with a lot of history. He had intrigue. He carried emotional baggage and had a horrifying past. The characters this time around have their charms, but in comparison to Niko Bellic, they're shallow in oh, so many ways. Franklin is likeable and his life is challenging enough to make me empathise with him, but even he doesn't have a great deal of depth. Michael is a self-absorbed, narcissistic traitor who has spent 9 years perfecting his excuses for betraying his partners.

 

And Trevor? Trevor is a psychotic, drug-addled maniac who is funny as hell but ultimately couldn't be trusted not to f*ck up the most basic of tasks. He's out of control, irrational, immature, selfish and arrogant. He believes in Illuminati lizard people and smokes meth in a sh*t-stained trailer in the middle of the desert. He attacks and kills people at random. He's a f*cking idiot.

 

So, the point of this little rant of mine, ultimately, I suppose, is that the suggestion that Trevor should have been the antagonist makes perfect sense to me in one respect - antagonists in the GTA series die at the end, paying the price for their behaviour. Trevor carries a HUGE debt, and it's only right that he should pay for it. The simple way of putting it is that no story can realistically ask its readers to believe a character can engage in the kind of behaviour he does and simply walk away from it unscathed.

 

And yes, this does mean that my user title is 100% serious.

 

 

Seems like your hate for Michael is a bit unjustified. He had two options

 

1) Get killed/life in prison along with his team, leaving your family behind for the sake of 'loyalty'

2) Accept an offer to get your criminal record wiped clean, get millions, and a chance to move out of a sh*thole

 

What option would you choose if you had a family? Who would leave their family just to be loyal to some criminals?

 

If any family man chose option A than he's even more f*cked up than Trevor

  • nobum62 likes this

JustOneMonth
  • JustOneMonth

    Griefer? Better Call Saul!

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2013
  • Brazil

#44

Posted 26 January 2014 - 03:25 AM Edited by JustOneMonth, 26 January 2014 - 03:29 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.

 

Yes, he was, you DUMBf*ck. 

 

Relax, you both are dumbf*cks.

Ah, a place with mature people indeed.

OP, we should still get some parts with him to play, and having an option to kill him with multiple missions, developing a feud.. I liked the FIB character part, game should have 4 characters IMO, fib guy as the 4th playable being the inicial antagonist of the crew, so much potencial imo.


DiEgOw_CrAzY
  • DiEgOw_CrAzY

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 May 2013

#45

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:43 AM

I was thinking about this today. 

They could have done something like this: 

The game wold be exactely the same until the jewlery heist, then they show up Trevor f*cking Ash and Killing Jhonny, just like It is, then he sends Wade to LS to look for Mike, After that, we play as Mike and Frank again. After various missions Trevor shows up at Michael's and the game would be pretty much the same, but we only play with Mike and Frank, but they would have more missions each. Trevor would be an NPC. But after the Last Heist (The Big One), Trevor would try to kill them. So we would do some more missions, then, Frank and Mike woulb have to face and deal with Trevor in a Epic mission to kill him. Trevor would be the best antagonist ever, just the way he is.


nobum62
  • nobum62

    Douchebag who owns a chromed Furore GT

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada

#46

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:49 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. 

 

You mean aside from the way he uses Franklin like a f*cking errand boy throughout the entire storyline, not to mention treating a guy who, while admittedly completely insane, has always consistently cherished him as a brother, someone he would never dream of leaving behind?

 

He repeatedly wheedles Frank into being involved in his petty sh*t by whining about how much he's done for him and how Frank owes him, despite the fact that Franklin did most of the legwork himself, Michael just made the right introductions. Not to mention, Frank saved his skin from Martin Madrazo and the Chinese mobsters. If anything, Michael owes Frank more than he can repay.

 

As for Trevor, it's certainly understandable that Michael finds it difficult to be around him for too long at a time, but really, the self-justifying crap he spews forth in an attempt to explain why he stabbed his friends in the back, leaving them all to die or rot in prison just to save his own skin is surely enough to make you sympathise with Trevor just a little. Deep down Michael knows it's all lies, fabricated to make himself feel better about having f*cked over someone who saw him as the closest friend he'd ever had and was prepared to lay down his life for him. That's the issue - if Michael had asked Trevor to stay behind and die for him while he dragged Brad into an escape vehicle and got away, he would have done it. Instead, Michael deals behind his back to have Trevor killed and save himself.

 

Honestly, I didn't connect with any of the protagonists of this story as I did with Niko. Niko was a multifaceted character with a lot of history. He had intrigue. He carried emotional baggage and had a horrifying past. The characters this time around have their charms, but in comparison to Niko Bellic, they're shallow in oh, so many ways. Franklin is likeable and his life is challenging enough to make me empathise with him, but even he doesn't have a great deal of depth. Michael is a self-absorbed, narcissistic traitor who has spent 9 years perfecting his excuses for betraying his partners.

 

And Trevor? Trevor is a psychotic, drug-addled maniac who is funny as hell but ultimately couldn't be trusted not to f*ck up the most basic of tasks. He's out of control, irrational, immature, selfish and arrogant. He believes in Illuminati lizard people and smokes meth in a sh*t-stained trailer in the middle of the desert. He attacks and kills people at random. He's a f*cking idiot.

 

So, the point of this little rant of mine, ultimately, I suppose, is that the suggestion that Trevor should have been the antagonist makes perfect sense to me in one respect - antagonists in the GTA series die at the end, paying the price for their behaviour. Trevor carries a HUGE debt, and it's only right that he should pay for it. The simple way of putting it is that no story can realistically ask its readers to believe a character can engage in the kind of behaviour he does and simply walk away from it unscathed.

 

And yes, this does mean that my user title is 100% serious.

 

 

Seems like your hate for Michael is a bit unjustified. He had two options

 

1) Get killed/life in prison along with his team, leaving your family behind for the sake of 'loyalty'

2) Accept an offer to get your criminal record wiped clean, get millions, and a chance to move out of a sh*thole

 

What option would you choose if you had a family? Who would leave their family just to be loyal to some criminals?

 

If any family man chose option A than he's even more f*cked up than Trevor

 

 

yeah... besides why would you be loyal to an insane man who always wakes up from hangovers and kills innocent people in his underwear?

 

also, during the conversation with lester and trevor when they were checking out the U.D., lester said that brad was an asshole. so that might be enough for micheal to choose the option of "Accept an offer to get your criminal record wiped clean, get millions, and a chance to move out of a sh*thole".


thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#47

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:51 AM

I was thinking about this today. 

They could have done something like this: 

The game wold be exactely the same until the jewlery heist, then they show up Trevor f*cking Ash and Killing Jhonny, just like It is, then he sends Wade to LS to look for Mike, After that, we play as Mike and Frank again. After various missions Trevor shows up at Michael's and the game would be pretty much the same, but we only play with Mike and Frank, but they would have more missions each. Trevor would be an NPC. But after the Last Heist (The Big One), Trevor would try to kill them. So we would do some more missions, then, Frank and Mike woulb have to face and deal with Trevor in a Epic mission to kill him. Trevor would be the best antagonist ever, just the way he is.

 

Trevor was pretty terrifying as a protag, imagine how much worse it'd be if you were on his bad side

 

Would have been epic


Brandonn96
  • Brandonn96

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#48

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:03 PM

Trevor essentially was an Antagonist, he tried to kill the only consistent Protagonist of the game like 4 times, by defininition he is an Antagonist


SmoothGetaway
  • SmoothGetaway

    I got respect for reality

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2011
  • None

#49

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:10 PM

^^^

By that definition Michael could be an antagonist, to Trevor.

OT: Can you imagine getting calls from Trevor all taunting and maniacal? Remembering how he responds to the O'Neil's and the Chinese, I bet it would be good.

Phoenix_Poop
  • Phoenix_Poop

    Player hater or hater player, or what?

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2013
  • Sweden

#50

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:29 PM

I agree like everyone else, Trevor would make an amazing antagonist. It would be better, because he was with Michael in the prolouge mission, so the player would know Trevor Inside out. He would be an amazing antagonist. 


Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#51

Posted 26 January 2014 - 02:39 PM Edited by Gta_V_Fan_101, 26 January 2014 - 02:39 PM.

I kinda agree but also disagree.

 

Trevor would be an awesome antagonist. Imagine a badass like him as an antagonist. He would taunt Michael, hold his family hostage. Maybe even kill 'em.

 

But, I don't think that he would have fit in because of his loyalty. I mean that, all the antagonists that we have now aren't loyal and are treacherous scumbags. Trevor isn't either of those. For me, he is and always will be protagonist material.

 

If you go to Reddit and other sites, you get to see that millions of people believe that Trevor is the best protagonist in the whole series. This place is literally the only place where I see that people hate Trevor. 

 

Let's face it though, half the people who hate Trevor hate him because he killed Johnny when actually he was doing him a favour by ending his misery. The other half hate him because he killed Floyd and Debra, two characters who we know nothing of. Debra was just introduced in that one mission where she gets killed and all we knew about Floyd was that he had a cousin, he worked in a port and that he stole a pencil in elementary school. 


Alec Skorpio
  • Alec Skorpio

    Bitcher and Moaner

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2004
  • None

#52

Posted 26 January 2014 - 03:02 PM Edited by liquidussnake119, 26 January 2014 - 03:05 PM.

Nah

 

Trevor was the best and most sympathetic character in the story, IMO.

Mike should have been the antagonist.  He actually fits all of the "classic GTA" antagonist traits.  Selfish, No Remorse, WIlling to kill anyone to get what he wants, betrays or uses all of his friends, etc. etc.


Charles Phipps
  • Charles Phipps

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2011

#53

Posted 26 January 2014 - 03:31 PM Edited by Charles Phipps, 26 January 2014 - 03:31 PM.

No, that's dumb.

Trevor is the comic relief and too stupid to be the antagonist. He's very intelligent but self-sabotaging.

Besides, he's there so players can justify doing all manner of psychotic ****.

 

We also wouldn't have gotten Hipster rampage otherwise.


Bonnano
  • Bonnano

    i hate the mexican that screams "f*ck me in the ass"

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2013
  • North-Korea

#54

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:10 PM

Let's face it though, half the people who hate Trevor hate him because he killed Johnny when actually he was doing him a favour by ending his misery.

There's also Official General who hates him solely for his personal hygiene. 

  • Gta_V_Fan_101 likes this

chainsoar
  • chainsoar

    #1 Emblem Editor Hater 2014

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2013
  • England

#55

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:23 PM

I kinda agree but also disagree.

 

Trevor would be an awesome antagonist. Imagine a badass like him as an antagonist. He would taunt Michael, hold his family hostage. Maybe even kill 'em.

 

But, I don't think that he would have fit in because of his loyalty. I mean that, all the antagonists that we have now aren't loyal and are treacherous scumbags. Trevor isn't either of those. For me, he is and always will be protagonist material.

 

If you go to Reddit and other sites, you get to see that millions of people believe that Trevor is the best protagonist in the whole series. This place is literally the only place where I see that people hate Trevor. 

 

Let's face it though, half the people who hate Trevor hate him because he killed Johnny when actually he was doing him a favour by ending his misery. The other half hate him because he killed Floyd and Debra, two characters who we know nothing of. Debra was just introduced in that one mission where she gets killed and all we knew about Floyd was that he had a cousin, he worked in a port and that he stole a pencil in elementary school. 

 

And where did Trevor earn the right to play God?

 

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”


Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#56

Posted 26 January 2014 - 05:55 PM Edited by Gta_V_Fan_101, 26 January 2014 - 05:55 PM.

 

I kinda agree but also disagree.

 

Trevor would be an awesome antagonist. Imagine a badass like him as an antagonist. He would taunt Michael, hold his family hostage. Maybe even kill 'em.

 

But, I don't think that he would have fit in because of his loyalty. I mean that, all the antagonists that we have now aren't loyal and are treacherous scumbags. Trevor isn't either of those. For me, he is and always will be protagonist material.

 

If you go to Reddit and other sites, you get to see that millions of people believe that Trevor is the best protagonist in the whole series. This place is literally the only place where I see that people hate Trevor. 

 

Let's face it though, half the people who hate Trevor hate him because he killed Johnny when actually he was doing him a favour by ending his misery. The other half hate him because he killed Floyd and Debra, two characters who we know nothing of. Debra was just introduced in that one mission where she gets killed and all we knew about Floyd was that he had a cousin, he worked in a port and that he stole a pencil in elementary school. 

 

And where did Trevor earn the right to play God?

 

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

 

Johnny was a methhead. He had nothing to live for anymore. His life is now meaningless. Trevor just put him out of his misery. 


thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#57

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:17 PM

I kinda agree but also disagree.

 

Trevor would be an awesome antagonist. Imagine a badass like him as an antagonist. He would taunt Michael, hold his family hostage. Maybe even kill 'em.

 

But, I don't think that he would have fit in because of his loyalty. I mean that, all the antagonists that we have now aren't loyal and are treacherous scumbags. Trevor isn't either of those. For me, he is and always will be protagonist material.

 

If you go to Reddit and other sites, you get to see that millions of people believe that Trevor is the best protagonist in the whole series. This place is literally the only place where I see that people hate Trevor. 

 

Let's face it though, half the people who hate Trevor hate him because he killed Johnny when actually he was doing him a favour by ending his misery. The other half hate him because he killed Floyd and Debra, two characters who we know nothing of. Debra was just introduced in that one mission where she gets killed and all we knew about Floyd was that he had a cousin, he worked in a port and that he stole a pencil in elementary school. 

 

I dont see why Trevor should still be loyal to Michael after what he did to him. Trevor could have easily been against Michael for backstabbing him and everyone else


Gta_V_Fan_101
  • Gta_V_Fan_101

    My posts are brought to you by Chuckola Cola Drinks.

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2013
  • Bahrain

#58

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:27 PM

I dont see why Trevor should still be loyal to Michael after what he did to him. Trevor could have easily been against Michael for backstabbing him and everyone else

He didn't kill Michael because Michael was the only person left in this world for him. This also proves Trevor's loyalty to his best friend. 


killahmatic
  • killahmatic

    JB

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2008
  • None

#59

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:33 PM

Seriously, how awesome would have that been? Much better than the FBI/IAA/Merryweather bullsh*t

 

Nah, then I'd most likely have no choice but to kill one of them off, which I'd prefer not to do.

 

I personally liked the Merryweather story, it just would've been better had they focused on Devin Weston and his Merryweather army instead of making 4 different antagonists. It would've been one hell of a battle to the end. It could've completely changed the story and its missions. Heists didn't live up to their hype, other than the final heist on 'obvious' approach. 


thatGuyyy
  • thatGuyyy

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2014

#60

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:37 PM

 

I dont see why Trevor should still be loyal to Michael after what he did to him. Trevor could have easily been against Michael for backstabbing him and everyone else

He didn't kill Michael because Michael was the only person left in this world for him. This also proves Trevor's loyalty to his best friend. 

 

 

Most people wouldnt be loyal to a person who tried to get them killed, the storyline didnt make much sense. It would make alot more sense for Trevor to have a vendetta against Michael for what he did to him





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users