ll rdny ll Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I like the initial idea, and the one where we play as V's antagonist in the next game. What if: V end's with 'Big Bad' getting away. We watch a cutscene after the credits of him getting into a cab, and the cabbie says "Welcome to Las Venturas/San Fierro." When GTA V: Episode 1 comes out that will be the setting, we'll be playing as the Antagonist, but we aren't hunting down V's Protag. We're on the run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAIndonesia Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 There is a wishlist thread to post about things you want to see in the game. This thread is for general discussion only. Please use the wish list thread. LOCKED fail^ He's trying to act nice so he became a REAL mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durden Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 For once I'd love this to happen, the guy your supposed to kill survives, and flees to vice city / san fierro / las venturas, anywhere but liberty city. Then if the protag is well liked, they can re use, and if they want a new protag, they can still use the same antagonist! Or as guden suggested we play as the GTA V antagonist. The more I think of it the more I like it. I 'm sure he wasn't being serious, but it's a fantastic idea. Yeah, as we progress through the game it is revealed that the antagonist in the first game was really not a bad guy. He was just in the wrong place in the wrong time, and maybe he got involved with the wrong people. Kinda like in the EFLC how Johnny kidnaps Roman because he is being blackmailed, and his girl is at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B1T8 Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 nah, man. i have to disagree on this one. it would feel cliche and stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enjoithepain Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 it would give R* a reason to make GTA VI You forgo about the eras, though. GTAVI will be on next-gen, therefore it will mark a new era. And you know the rule -- no physically returning characters in different eras. I thought it wasn't a bad idea, but it just contradicts R*'s statement. Secondly, it would be very odd for R* to keep their protagonist. I personally wouldn't mind, but it's their 'signature thing', ya know? please shut up about the eras, R* can do whatever they want and change this "rule" so stop rejecting ideas because of the "eras" or "universe" rules...and btw I'm not directing this only at you, many other people do this and many people like myself are getting annoyed with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durden Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 it would give R* a reason to make GTA VI You forgo about the eras, though. GTAVI will be on next-gen, therefore it will mark a new era. And you know the rule -- no physically returning characters in different eras. I thought it wasn't a bad idea, but it just contradicts R*'s statement. Secondly, it would be very odd for R* to keep their protagonist. I personally wouldn't mind, but it's their 'signature thing', ya know? please shut up about the eras, R* can do whatever they want and change this "rule" so stop rejecting ideas because of the "eras" or "universe" rules...and btw I'm not directing this only at you, many other people do this and many people like myself are getting annoyed with it Well considering it came straight from Rockstar's mouth, it is what I am going to enforce. Sure, Rockstar can undoubtably change their 'eras' at any time they want; but until then, I am correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_SMOKEY_ Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I really like this Idea I would alter it a bit so that the protagonist dies, like in RDR and you finish the game playing as his son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokrie Dela Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I really like this Idea I would alter it a bit so that the protagonist dies, like in RDR and you finish the game playing as his son. just no. It's been done, and that'd now be lazy and cliched. Plus so many people compained about it in RDR/LAN, i dont want that in gta. The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Click here to view my Poetry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vormek Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 It would be cool to see something like Walter White in Breaking Bad. The first two seasons you really loved him but later on, as time progresses, you start to hate him because of the choices he's done. Protagonist becomes villain? Could be something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandTheftAuto 5SA Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 This would be awesome but I don't want to end up killing the protagonist from GTA 5. we should have a choice to let him live or kill him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blafernable-5 Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 imagine the game ending with the protagonist saying what he said in the trailer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanjeem Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 That sounds like quite an imaginative and rather cool Idea indeed. However I think it would be better If the main Antagonist died as everybody would just want to kill them and spill their blood really. However maybe if the Antagonist had an accomplice (Like a brother) who was also just as bad in doing harm to you as the main antagonist but maybe not so personal should die instead. If you see what I mean. So like Antagonist 1 get's killed, but his brother (Antagonist 2) manages to escape somehow in a chopper and is never seen again. This would leave the player wondering where he could have gone. Maybe after the story there are mini-missions where your gang could search for him by raiding rivals and killing them all but in the end never finding him. This would make a good excuse for him to re-appear in the next game. I just think killing the main bad guy in a game is always good, and then maybe the 2nd bad guy is like a scapegoat who you know is living and just gives you a target to hate and want revenge on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetman Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 be a good idea to lead on to in dlc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAVIViceCity Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Yeah I like that idea. Just like RDR when people thought he was dead so they assumed it was the ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akavari Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 There shouldn't be an antagonist in the form of one guy, at least not for the whole story. Maybe like the first half you could be after some crime boss as usual, but after you kill him and secure your reputation, the police become the antagonists. Then it'd be about avoiding the federal law and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_feed_the_troll Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I got this idea from the Misson Impossible thread, but since that's about the final mission itself this is more about the cutscenes and whatnot. For once I think it would be cool if our final enemy didn't actually die. Imagine after doing the last mission where you've blown up the guy's mansion or whatever thinking your foe is dead (maybe have a cutscene beforehand of the protagonist shooting him to make it convincing). The credits roll and everything's good until you get a weird phone call from who you think you just killed. Turns out he used a body double and infact fled LS before the final mission. GTA has never had a ending like that before and it would give R* a reason to make GTA VI a direct sequel to GTA V and if the protagonist is well liked they could use use him again as he hunts his foe down. I understand it's not to everyone's liking, but I thought I 'd throw it out there. Brilliant sir,brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_feed_the_troll Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Guess what,im drinking a monster energy right now EDIT:its the original green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwandilibro Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 To me, killing off antagonists, in a sense, offers a sort of closure for the game. Knowing that the person I just spent the entire game hunting down isn't even dead would just be insulting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanjeem Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 To me, killing off antagonists, in a sense, offers a sort of closure for the game. Knowing that the person I just spent the entire game hunting down isn't even dead would just be insulting to me. Yeah, Like all that work for nothing. I still go by what I said though, It would be cool to see maybe the second biggest antagonist escape so you could be like, I killed my main enemy in a bloodbath, but the other one still lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwandilibro Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 To me, killing off antagonists, in a sense, offers a sort of closure for the game. Knowing that the person I just spent the entire game hunting down isn't even dead would just be insulting to me. Yeah, Like all that work for nothing. I still go by what I said though, It would be cool to see maybe the second biggest antagonist escape so you could be like, I killed my main enemy in a bloodbath, but the other one still lives. Yeah, that wouldn't be as bad. It would be somewhat of a bittersweet ending. Knowing you got, let's say, the crueler, more violent of your two antagonists, but your double crossing, two timing dirtbag of a former friend who robbed you blind throughout three quarters of the game somehow gets away, and in his final appearance, you chase him on foot to his private jet and he flees away to Mexico or some other unreachable place. Cliche, I know, but it could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhus Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 It could be something far simpler. The protagonist sounds like a family, what if he grows more and more estranged from them during the course of the game. Going back to old criminal habbits and neglecting his wife and kids. The main antagonist could end up being an ordinary guy who she moves in with to start a new life. You could be given the choice to kill him in a jealous rage or let them live their life in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrcTOtheJ Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 To me, killing off antagonists, in a sense, offers a sort of closure for the game. Knowing that the person I just spent the entire game hunting down isn't even dead would just be insulting to me. Yeah, Like all that work for nothing. I still go by what I said though, It would be cool to see maybe the second biggest antagonist escape so you could be like, I killed my main enemy in a bloodbath, but the other one still lives. Yeah, that wouldn't be as bad. It would be somewhat of a bittersweet ending. Knowing you got, let's say, the crueler, more violent of your two antagonists, but your double crossing, two timing dirtbag of a former friend who robbed you blind throughout three quarters of the game somehow gets away, and in his final appearance, you chase him on foot to his private jet and he flees away to Mexico or some other unreachable place. Cliche, I know, but it could work. Yeah that would work better, I mean putting the final bullet in the brain of the Antagonist is what I've been doing for a better part of the game, it provides me with a sense of closure and makes it feel as if the game came full circle. About Typhus' idea, that sounds interesting, I'd let them live in peace personally, no reason to go ruining your one time wife's happiness some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazy_fool_X Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Put me in the "kill the antagonist" camp. To not be allowed to kill the main antag is a kick in the nads, considering the game usually centers around their downfall. I mean, if I wasn't allowed to kill Dimitri, or Tenpenny or any of the past antags, I would've been p'd off. If they let them escape only for them to pop up in a DLC, you can bet people will complain about having to pay extra for the actual ending. It wasn't fun when Alan Wake did it, it won't be fun if R* does it too. Saying that, if it was the secondary antagonist who escaped, who we had to chase and kill in the DLC, then I'd be all for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheesyJ Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 I would actually like to see some sort of different ending this time, as opposed to simply chasing the antagonist and killing him. It wouldn't have to be exactly what you suggested -although your idea is good- however anything different would be good in my eyes. The endings are usually good to the game, but there's only so many times we can go down the route of simply executing our antagonist at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now