So who is the "main" character?

[AirWolf856]

With 3 protagonists, the story becomes the main character.

 

 

[GarrowsKai]

I imagine it will go like this:

 

You're playing as Michael and you have three missions available, one of which is a 'main' mission (involving all three protags, a proper advancing the story mission as opposed to just running an errand for someone). You can do all three now, however once you do them there are no more available, that is because Franklin and Trevor have 'outstanding' mission which need to be done before the story can advance. You can continue on as Michael doing side missions etc. or switch to one of the other two. The game would not force the change outside of missions.

 

That 'main' mission I mentioned would be available for all three characters and you can choose who to start the mission with.

[Honest Bill]

lso they could easily find ways to become more efficient at exposing backstory. I mean the length of a full story game should easily be enough to get to know all three characters. RDR for example, you spent quite a lot of time with JM, but you diidn't really learn too much about him that you didn't know after the first few missions. You can add a little extra plot, setting and character in to each line of dialogue and in to each cutscene.

 

If every line puls it's weight, and every cutscene reveals something subtly about character. That's how the best writers do it. They give you extra little details that you might not even notice are character buidling. That's why some characters are particularly well developed and memorable, because every single tiny thing in the narrative reveals a little something.

 

[GarrowsKai]

I think some people are getting the concepts of having to be a certain character to progress the story round their necks.

 

I don't think it will be a case of "if only do Franklin's missions the story will stop until you have done the other's too" as that suggests 3 different story moving along at different paces and only match when all 3 characters missions are at a certain point i.e when the other two's missions have caught up.

 

It's much more likely that all the main missions can be triggered by any of the characters, but when the mission commences, the game will force you to play as only one of them. For example; free roaming as Michael, you trigger the next story mission. Cut scene enfolds and it turns out its something only Trevor can do. Then during that mission you cannot change character, only play as Trevor. Once it's over you can play as anyone anywhere and trigger the next mission as anyone.

 

This means that side stories can be character specific and go at their own pace. For example Franklin's side mission story could be related to his friend getting into trouble with gangs and be a separate story to the main one that you can do at your own leisure. Micheal's side missions could be a bent cop at the FIB blackmailing him to do his dirty work. Trevor's could be about controlling the gun and drug traffic through his area. The are all unrelated to the main story and can obviously only be triggered by their respective character.

 

I think anything more than that may end up confusing the player. If on each map Franklin gets R,D, H, Michael gets G, I, S and Trevor gets W,N,L it will leave the player thinking which one furthers the story. Do you need to play as Michael, Trevor or Franklin? Where as if each character has the same main story mission givers and only different side mission givers than it makes it much easier for the player to know which once will further the story and whic one is a character specific side mission.

I said a similar thing without seeing your post, however I disagree that any character can trigger all missions, I think for some you will have to switch before you can start.

 

I understand what you mean about confusion about which mission advances the story, but that could easily be fixed by having the mission start icons in two different colours. Say Green for the missions only one protag does (and therefore more likely to be a small 'errand' one as you said with Franklins friend or the FIB) and Blue could be for the main story missions involving two or more, and one that advances the over-arching story-line.

[shattered-minds]

I think some people are getting the concepts of having to be a certain character to progress the story round their necks.

 

I don't think it will be a case of "if only do Franklin's missions the story will stop until you have done the other's too" as that suggests 3 different story moving along at different paces and only match when all 3 characters missions are at a certain point i.e when the other two's missions have caught up.

 

It's much more likely that all the main missions can be triggered by any of the characters, but when the mission commences, the game will force you to play as only one of them. For example; free roaming as Michael, you trigger the next story mission. Cut scene enfolds and it turns out its something only Trevor can do. Then during that mission you cannot change character, only play as Trevor. Once it's over you can play as anyone anywhere and trigger the next mission as anyone.

 

This means that side stories can be character specific and go at their own pace. For example Franklin's side mission story could be related to his friend getting into trouble with gangs and be a separate story to the main one that you can do at your own leisure. Micheal's side missions could be a bent cop at the FIB blackmailing him to do his dirty work. Trevor's could be about controlling the gun and drug traffic through his area. The are all unrelated to the main story and can obviously only be triggered by their respective character.

 

I think anything more than that may end up confusing the player. If on each map Franklin gets R,D, H, Michael gets G, I, S and Trevor gets W,N,L it will leave the player thinking which one furthers the story. Do you need to play as Michael, Trevor or Franklin? Where as if each character has the same main story mission givers and only different side mission givers than it makes it much easier for the player to know which once will further the story and whic one is a character specific side mission.

I said a similar thing without seeing your post, however I disagree that any character can trigger all missions, I think for some you will have to switch before you can start.

 

I understand what you mean about confusion about which mission advances the story, but that could easily be fixed by having the mission start icons in two different colours. Say Green for the missions only one protag does (and therefore more likely to be a small 'errand' one as you said with Franklins friend or the FIB) and Blue could be for the main story missions involving two or more, and one that advances the over-arching story-line.

That's a good idea. I think so long as they make it clear how to progress the story because if say it's only Michael, it can get annoying going through the other two first to find that out.

 

I think they do need to vary the structure somewhat, so maybe it would be good every now and then a set up where each character needs to do something before the story continues. For example at a meet they Michael has to acquire some high spec cutting tool, Trevor has to get some guns and Franklin has to steal a particular get away car. Then you can do each of those missions at any pace you like in any order you like, and once everyone has got the said items the story can continue from there. But if they did that set-up over and over it can get tedious. I do think that they will keep it varied and not follow a set formula though to keep it fresh though.

[GarrowsKai]

I think some people are getting the concepts of having to be a certain character to progress the story round their necks.

 

I don't think it will be a case of "if only do Franklin's missions the story will stop until you have done the other's too" as that suggests 3 different story moving along at different paces and only match when all 3 characters missions are at a certain point i.e when the other two's missions have caught up.

 

It's much more likely that all the main missions can be triggered by any of the characters, but when the mission commences, the game will force you to play as only one of them. For example; free roaming as Michael, you trigger the next story mission. Cut scene enfolds and it turns out its something only Trevor can do. Then during that mission you cannot change character, only play as Trevor. Once it's over you can play as anyone anywhere and trigger the next mission as anyone.

 

This means that side stories can be character specific and go at their own pace. For example Franklin's side mission story could be related to his friend getting into trouble with gangs and be a separate story to the main one that you can do at your own leisure. Micheal's side missions could be a bent cop at the FIB blackmailing him to do his dirty work. Trevor's could be about controlling the gun and drug traffic through his area. The are all unrelated to the main story and can obviously only be triggered by their respective character.

 

I think anything more than that may end up confusing the player. If on each map Franklin gets R,D, H, Michael gets G, I, S and Trevor gets W,N,L it will leave the player thinking which one furthers the story. Do you need to play as Michael, Trevor or Franklin? Where as if each character has the same main story mission givers and only different side mission givers than it makes it much easier for the player to know which once will further the story and whic one is a character specific side mission.

I said a similar thing without seeing your post, however I disagree that any character can trigger all missions, I think for some you will have to switch before you can start.

 

I understand what you mean about confusion about which mission advances the story, but that could easily be fixed by having the mission start icons in two different colours. Say Green for the missions only one protag does (and therefore more likely to be a small 'errand' one as you said with Franklins friend or the FIB) and Blue could be for the main story missions involving two or more, and one that advances the over-arching story-line.

That's a good idea. I think so long as they make it clear how to progress the story because if say it's only Michael, it can get annoying going through the other two first to find that out.

 

I think they do need to vary the structure somewhat, so maybe it would be good every now and then a set up where each character needs to do something before the story continues. For example at a meet they Michael has to acquire some high spec cutting tool, Trevor has to get some guns and Franklin has to steal a particular get away car. Then you can do each of those missions at any pace you like in any order you like, and once everyone has got the said items the story can continue from there. But if they did that set-up over and over it can get tedious. I do think that they will keep it varied and not follow a set formula though to keep it fresh though.

I think we will see some mission like that, where each protag has a specific task that is itself a mission. I think if we don't see things like that then R* will have missed a brilliant trick with the 3 protags thing.

[James K]

It's not 3 stories with a protagonist each. It's one story with 3 protagonists. Rockstar were very specific about that. You won't be able to play through the whole thing as one character. each character arch will be tightly connected and part of the same story.

Hmmm, so you're saying that it would be something like this:

 

I play 2-3 missions as Michael then after that, the game makes me switch to Trevor to continue the plot.....then the game makes me switch back to Michael to continue the plot.....then to Franklin and so on?

Basically. You'll do missions that pertain to a certain protag, and missions that involve two or all of them.

So if that is the case, then we do we get to do the side missions? If I want do some side missions as Franklin, I would have to wait til it is "his turn" before I can play them?

 

That would suck, it seems like the pacing in the game would be really fast.

C'mon OP what damn year you're in we knew this thing that we can switch characters in a free roam. Don't you ever bother to search this kind of topic?

Sorry if my language is abit rude op