It's all about perspective

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

There seems to be a lot of talk about the concept of one protagonist actually being the antagonist, based on what Dan Houser stated in the November previews. But think about it, none of them can be the main antagonist because it's all about perspective.

 

Example: The trio go on a hiest, and Franklin takes the whole payday for himself, thus ripping off Michael and Trevor. Franklin did it for the sake of being able to get out of the ghetto, and make something of himself before the hood causes his death- so you get a detailed look at the reasoning behind his decision, in the hope that you sympathise with him. But from Michael and Trevor's perspectives he's simply a traitor who did nothing but think about himself instead of the group. In turn meaning that from Franklin's pespective, Michael and Trevor are the antagonists. Whereas from Michael and Trevor's perspectives Franklin is the antagonist.

 

We saw something similar to this with the diamond deal fiasco in IV. At the diamond deal, Johnny ripped off Ray, making Niko view him as being in the wrong. Whereas when you saw it from Johnny's view, Ray's further punishment of the Lost felt very unjust.

 

So basically, if one of them is an antagonist, it makes the one of, if not both, the other two since they'll each be viewing each other as an antagonist. In turn, it would feel very unbalanced if Rockstar were to do this, so if there even is a main antagonist it's unlikely to be one of the trio.

[Patriot_Action]

You're not really clarifying an already confusing discussion. I don't know the Houser quote off-hand, but it was something about players playing as "both the protagonist and the antagonist," which people chose to interpret as "one of the protagonists is secretly, or will eventually become, the bad guy and turn on the other two." While there is no guarantee this is entirely incorrect (until we play the game), many people see it as a very narrow, subjective (and inaccurate) interpretation of what was actually said. I think people are more comfortable with the characters simultaneously doing good and bad things with questionable morals, which really isn't new for a GTA game.

[TAVittorio24]

I agree fully. What I got from housers statement was you can be antagonist and protagonist. Meaning throughout the game these 3 will be butting heads. They are all ultimately out for themselves. Other than one turning on the group I feel they each have their own enemy, they have collectively an enemy. Although secretly, if anybody was to f*ck over the group, I'd feel it'd be Michael. He's my favorite, but theres something sinister bout him.

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

You're not really clarifying an already confusing discussion.

If what I said confused you, I'll put it simply: If Michael and Trevor are against one another, Michael will see Trevor as an antagonist, whereas Trevor will see Michael as an antagonist.