The BIGGEST Misconception

[Rjeev142]

I keep seeing threads about "which protagonist is gonna snitch" or "who do you think is the traitor in the group" so I felt that someone should address this. When Dan Houser said that you play as both the protagonist and antagonist, he probably didn't mean that one of the 3 playable characters turns against the other two. He most likely meant that you play as the protagonist, since you control the 3 main characters. But you also play as the antagonist because face it, this is gta, you play as a criminal in each game. If you look at it from that perspective, it means that you technically play as the protagonist and antagonist in every gta game but you never play as the main villain. While it could be possible that maybe one character turns against the other two, this only seems like speculation and it wouldn't make sense for Dan Houser to give out major spoilers about the plot like that in a pre-release interview.

[Gtafanbobo]

i agree 100%

[I<3GTAV]

Exactly!

[AdvanceTrak RSC]

good thought

[yonatan755]

You are right.

What gta game would be based on betrayls?

 

(being sarcastic)

[ill-thoughts]

i feel like im the only one who thinks we'll get to play as an actual villian.

[Hydro_PlayboyX]

you deserve

[Rjeev142]

You are right.

What gta game would be based on betrayls?

 

(being sarcastic)

Ok enjoy your copy of grand theft depression 5.

[killahmatic]

But you also play as the antagonist because face it, this is gta, you play as a criminal in each game.

But, antagonist = adversary of main hero or protagonist.

[funkybub]

Trevor seems like an antagonist; his personality. I just don't see them killing each other off

[MythicalNomad]

This is Rockstar games we're talking about, it's bound to be the person (if any) that we least expect. Maybe you'll even get a choice, I'm thinking Franklin of the three will probably betray them because you wouldn't expect him to be put in a position where he could betray them, or would for any reason. Sure, they'll have their disagreements, but I see Michael & Trevor getting on really well for some reason.

[Snake Without a Tongue]

Here, here!

[Skitzo100]

Agreed.

[bowling...?]

This can't be possible because the antagonist is the one that cause the problem for the protagonist or the main character whether he/she is good or evil.

[kesta195]

I think you are right, nevertheless I think it is EXTREMELY likely that the player will be given a choice as one of the protags to betray the other two. They did say there will be important choices and multiple endings and with the FIB playing a big part it's pretty much a cert.

[œaœa]

It's not fun playing the villain anyways.

[.kiwi_4]

Your idea is better than the betrayal expectation, but the antagonist is the main problem for the protagonist, whether he's good or evil. You're probably right, I think Houser was the one who was wrong with words.

[BullworthAcademy]

Exactly!

[Durden]

 

But you also play as the antagonist because face it, this is gta, you play as a criminal in each game.

But, antagonist = adversary of main hero or protagonist.

I was just about to post this. Not sure where you learned the word 'protagonist' from, but academic highschool English begs to differ with your interpretation of its meaning. He/she revolves around the negative energy of the narrative; the enemy of whom you play as. Basically what this guy said.

 

 

What do I take from Houser's statement? I take that there are a lot of idiots who believe:

 

A. Dan would spoil a major plot twist

B. The antagonist would be one of the protagonists

 

Even if there is a major betrayal in GTAV, the betrayer would not be a single entity. Not only would that be displeasingly predictable, but it would greatly divide up the charisma of the protagonists.

 

It doesn't take a professor to figure out that when Dan said that bit about the antagonist, he was merely referring to their conflict that they may occasionally find themselves in with one another (since they all possess the atribute of greed due to their line of work), and how they will come to resolve these conflicts since they don't share a forgiving, brotherly bond with one another like most friends do, seeing as they are only working together based on their line of work.

Edited January 15, 2013 by gionascm2

[Akaviri]

I can't see Franklin giving up the other two. My reasoning is that Franklin grew up as a gang member and would never have gotten where he is if he had even considered snitching on anybody. That sort of thing gets you killed quick. I think that will be a core value in Franklin, so I don't think he'd consider that an option even if he'd get leniency.

 

Trevor on the other hand, I'm not really sure. He seems like he'd be hard to cooperate considering he has nothing to lose. The only reason he'd snitch is to exact revenge on Michael for his snitching, but that makes Trevor just as much of a snake so I don't think he'd go through with that.

 

We know Michael has ratted out his former colleagues before, so I think he wouldn't have much of a moral conflict with doing it again. He seems like a selfish and cold-calculated person, that's why he has lasted his career. Considering he's got a family and wealth, he's got something to lose. He'd be the first to abort a sinking ship and do whatever it takes to preserve what he's got.

[chuckberry04]

lol, I can't believe people are actually agreeing to this.. This makes no sence whatsoever.

 

Maybe you guys should look up what the meaning of 'antagonist' is. Most people who believe this probably don't want it to happen, just like the LV SF and LS believers.

 

The only thing I can come up with is the protagonist and antagonist in like 1 or several mission, or for some time-period in the game apart from a "main" protagonist.

[rader1]

You're not going to betray each other. Once the story mode is finished it makes no sense to be able to just switch between characters that have betrayed each other.

[Neo Arcadia]

 

But, antagonist = adversary of main hero or protagonist.

This god damn it.

 

The amount of people who don't know the definition for such a common word and sh*t out comments "yeah" and "agreed!" is making my brain bleed.

[MWC]

Ones man's friend is another's foe, and considering we have 3 main characters (protagonists) we control in this gta you can really expect anything to happen. You can relate this to GTAIV and the Stories, where we also played as the protagonists and antagonists (considering both niko,louis and johnny were the main protagonists we controlled but they were also the antagonists to each other).

[S1LV3R_W0LF]

Hum... my two takes on these:

 

1 - He just had to answer so he said what he thought would make people talk about without tell a lie.

 

2 - He had no idea what antagonist actually means.

 

Other then that I don't see any other logic explanation.

[Coral_City]

This is Rockstar games we're talking about, it's bound to be the person (if any) that we least expect. Maybe you'll even get a choice, I'm thinking Franklin of the three will probably betray them because you wouldn't expect him to be put in a position where he could betray them, or would for any reason. Sure, they'll have their disagreements, but I see Michael & Trevor getting on really well for some reason.

Maybe because they're two white dudes?

[73duster]

There are SO many different scenarios that don't have to involve "betrayal" or the death of any protagonist. These are themes we've seen throughout many different stories, and i think Rockstar is overdue for a change. I'd rather see how their friendship grows as they become dependent on each others skills. It might be an "us against the world" type of story, where there is no need to play out the overdone backtabbing by someone who turns out to be a rat.

I'm really liking this multiple protagonist route that Rockstar is taking, but i would be very disappointed if they did another story where one of the protagonists die towards the end, or becomes a turncoat.

[Rjeev142]

The meaning of the word antagonist does NOT need to be limited to its dictionary definition. It's a literary term and therefore, I believe it's meaning can vary depending on the context of a story. And why do so many people want a betrayal to happen? This would be so cliche of rockstar to include betrayal in gta 5.

 

Games made by rockstar within the last 5 years that involve betrayal:

Gta 4

The lost and damned

Red dead redemption

La noire

The ballad of gay tony

(I do not know about max payne 3)

 

As you can see, the idea of betrayal is becoming overused in rockstar storylines and in 4 of the 5 games I listed, betrayal leads to the downfall of a central character or protagonist. Gta 5 needs to be purged of any cliches and needs to be fresh.

[kjimboo]

I always thought this but didn't know how to put it into words, here.

[GlitzyTomb]

Max Payne 3 most definitely had betrayal.

 

In regard to GTAV...

 

I think it would be fantastic if that mystery fourth spot was the Villain and you could play as him. Either as a way of seeing that even the Villain has logical (if cold blooded) reasons for what he does...or just as a way of enjoying being a horrible person to the other three.

 

How many games really let you play a villain? Not a bratty rebel. A ****ing villain.

 

I also think that it would be quite interesting if based on decisions you make one or the other (Franklin or Trevor) betray you. It wouldn't even have to be an EVILLLLL move.

 

If you act too extreme, take too many risks, hurt too many innocents...Franklin sees you're too much like that gangster he hangs out with. He leaves because he doesn't want to end up dead or in prison.

 

If you do too much plotting, restrain him too much, etc. etc. Trevor could leave because he thinks you've lost your edge.

 

I'm sure the game will be fine whether or not there is any betrayal at all...but something like this could be pretty interesting because when it comes down to it the player might side with Michael and Whomever or against whoever betrayed them.

 

Perhaps there could even be a situation in which both Franklin and Trevor are dissatisfied and they both betray Michael. After all Michael got that witness protection from screwing someone else over...perhaps Trevor tells Franklin about that and they decide they're not going to let him (Michael) do it again.