Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (86,094 visits to this link)

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

thatGuyyy

Trevor should have been the antagonist

Recommended Posts

thatGuyyy

Seriously, how awesome would have that been? I could easily think of multiple storylines that could have worked if he was actually the enemy. Much better than the FBI/IAA/Merryweather bullsh*t

 

He would have made one of the best antagonists in the series. V's story was good untill Trevor arrived, it would have been much better if it was just Michael and Franklin up against Trevor. Even better, make Michael the main protag and Franklin a NPC

Edited by thatGuyyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkwar854

Trevor would be the best antagonist since tenpenny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

Seriously, how awesome would have that been? I could easily think of multiple storylines that could have worked if he was actually the enemy. Much better than the FBI/IAA/Merryweather bullsh*t

 

He would have made one of the best antagonists in the series. V's story was good untill Trevor arrived, it would have been much better if it was just Michael and Franklin up against Trevor. Even better, make Michael the main protag and Franklin a NPC

 

I totally agree. I despised Trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist, he would have been amazing. I would have preferred it to be Michael, Franklin and a Hispanic character as protagonists instead.

 

And yeah, that FIB/IAA/Merryweather stuff was just boring bullsh*t.

Edited by Official General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law.

Edited by Raavi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iProinsias

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.


I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law.

 

 

That's already in the story, in the form of Dave Norton.

Edited by iProinsias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staten

Trevor is an antagonist in GTA V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law.

 

 

That's already in the story, in the form of Dave Norton.

 

I'm talking protagonist and more in-depth with missions screwing up investigations, tampering with evidence, leading the department on a wild goose chase. The guy would also have his own, office in the FIB building and access to law enforcement personell and vehicles with all the perks that come with those. You could call in the troops whenever you would feel the need to do so, create diversions, roadblocks etc etc. Would be great for during and after story freeroam. Endless replay-ability.

Edited by Raavi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

Trevor is an antagonist in GTA V.

 

At very end for like 2 minutes. No, a proper antagonist for the duration of most of the game, like Dimitri Rascalov in GTA IV. Come on, use your brain man.

Edited by Official General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerukal

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.

Edited by Xerukal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

 

You don't like to pay attention to detail when reading posts I'm guessing ? Me and Raavi have both stated that we are not talking about being antagonist for a very short duration of the story, like 2 minutes at the end.

 

You probably won't be the last person on here to come wading into the thread stating the obvious which does not even apply to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Goldcard

Trevors mom should have been the antagonist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iProinsias

 

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law.

 

 

That's already in the story, in the form of Dave Norton.

 

I'm talking protagonist and more in-depth with missions screwing up investigations, tampering with evidence, leading the department on a wild goose chase. The guy would also have his own, office in the FIB building and access to law enforcement personal and vehicles with all the perks. You could call in the troops whenever you would feel the need to do so.

 

 

Yeah! GTAV had so much missing! Where are the aspects that let you grocery shop?! Or walk your pet ferret?! Or rape women?! Or download music to your smart phone?! Or kidnap people and hold them for ransom?! Or watch On Demand movies?! Or go to the opera?! Or see crimes in progress and report them to the police?! Or report the rampant amount of mountain loins in a given area and then watch wildlife control contain them?!

 

You're an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staten

 

Trevor is an antagonist in GTA V.

 

At very end for like 2 minutes. No, a proper antagonist for the duration of most of the game, like Dimitri Rascalov in GTA IV. Come on, use your brain man.

 

Right back at you; it seems that a huge part of the relationship between Trevor and Michael has passed you by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerukal

 

Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

 

You don't like to pay attention to detail when reading posts I'm guessing ? Me and Raavi have both stated that we are not talking about being antagonist for a very short duration of the story, like 2 minutes at the end.

 

You probably won't be the last person on here to come wading into the thread stating the obvious which does not even apply to the discussion.

 

Likewise, on that paying attention to detail part. You seem to love aggressively responding to people. See? I can make judgements and assumptions based on text responses, too!

 

Because I clearly stated that Ending A is the antagonist ending not the entirety of the antagonist story. Notice how I also emphasized "point of view". Meaning, you COULD, again, if you CHOSE to, view him as an antagonist as the story progresses. Considering his actions that constantly disrupt the (in comparison) "calm" flow of Michael and Franklin's crime activities.

 

In example, Michael wouldn't have had to hide out of LS for a time if Trevor didn't go off the rails and kidnap Madrazo's wife. He HURT Michael in this way. You could easily view this as an antagonistic action and add that action to Trevor's (hypothetical) "Antagonist counter".

 

This is just the example or archetype for a behavior Trevor likes to repeat throughout the story. Basically, getting Michael and Franklin into sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of in the first place. Not to mention being a loose cannon (as stated) as it is.

 

All ending A does is provide appropriate closure based on how you see it.

 

That's why people who love all 3 protagonists (or just like Trevor) view ending A as horrible. While people who dislike/hate Trevor view A as an adequate closure to their opinion on him throughout the story. (Generalizing unintended. Opinions vary, obviously.)

Edited by Xerukal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatGuyyy

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. I'm just saying he would have been better suited as an antagonist

Edited by thatGuyyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iProinsias

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. I'm just saying he would have been better suited as an antagonist

 

 

Yes, he was, you DUMBf*ck. Just because your literary knowledge is so limited you can't see that doesn't make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatGuyyy

 

 

Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

 

You don't like to pay attention to detail when reading posts I'm guessing ? Me and Raavi have both stated that we are not talking about being antagonist for a very short duration of the story, like 2 minutes at the end.

 

You probably won't be the last person on here to come wading into the thread stating the obvious which does not even apply to the discussion.

 

Likewise, on that paying attention to detail part. You seem to love aggressively responding to people. See? I can make judgements and assumptions based on text responses, too!

 

Because I clearly stated that Ending A is the antagonist ending not the entirety of the antagonist story. Notice how I also emphasized "point of view". Meaning, you COULD, again, if you CHOSE, view him as an antagonist as the story progresses. Considering his actions that constantly disrupt the (in comparison) "calm" flow of Michael and Franklin's crime activities..

 

In example, Michael wouldn't have had to hide out of LS for a time if Trevor didn't go off the rails and kidnap Madrazo's wife. He HURT Michael in this way. You could easily view this as an antagonistic action and add that action to Trevor's (hypothetical) "Antagonist counter".

 

This is just the example or archetype for a behavior Trevor likes to repeat throughout the story. Basically, getting Michael and Franklin into sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of in the first place. Not to mention being a loose cannon (as stated) as it is.

 

All ending A does is provide appropriate closure based on how you see it.

 

That's why people who love all 3 protagonists (or just like Trevor) view ending A as horrible. While people who dislike/hate Trevor view A as an adequate closure to their opinion on him throughout the story.

 

 

A good antagonist shouldn't be subjective, it should be universally known who the antagonist is to every player. Just like how nobody would think of Dimitri or Tenpenny as protags, the same would apply to Trevor. Telling people Trevor is sort of an antagonist depending on your "views" is a cheap cop-out that doesn't mean anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerukal

Easy now. No need to be so aggressive.

 

Relax and easy on the insults.

 

EDIT: (Was replying to Proinsias)

 

Above: Of course. But I wasn't saying he would be a good antagonist. He'd be "sort of" an antagonist, if you wanted to look at it that way. If not, that's unfortunate. Nothing anyone can do. This is all wonderful hypothesis (that people love to get angry over, apparently).

Edited by Xerukal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

 

 

Ending A is basically the "antagonist" ending" to your "antagonist" point of view. Again, if you choose to see him as such.

 

 

You don't like to pay attention to detail when reading posts I'm guessing ? Me and Raavi have both stated that we are not talking about being antagonist for a very short duration of the story, like 2 minutes at the end.

 

You probably won't be the last person on here to come wading into the thread stating the obvious which does not even apply to the discussion.

 

Likewise, on that paying attention to detail part. You seem to love aggressively responding to people. See? I can make judgements and assumptions based on text responses, too!

 

Because I clearly stated that Ending A is the antagonist ending not the entirety of the antagonist story. Notice how I also emphasized "point of view". Meaning, you COULD, again, if you CHOSE, view him as an antagonist as the story progresses. Considering his actions that constantly disrupt the (in comparison) "calm" flow of Michael and Franklin's crime activities..

 

In example, Michael wouldn't have had to hide out of LS for a time if Trevor didn't go off the rails and kidnap Madrazo's wife. He HURT Michael in this way. You could easily view this as an antagonistic action and add that action to Trevor's (hypothetical) "Antagonist counter".

 

This is just the example or archetype for a behavior Trevor likes to repeat throughout the story. Basically, getting Michael and Franklin into sh*t that they didn't need to be a part of in the first place. Not to mention being a loose cannon (as stated) as it is.

 

All ending A does is provide appropriate closure based on how you see it.

 

That's why people who love all 3 protagonists (or just like Trevor) view ending A as horrible. While people who dislike/hate Trevor view A as an adequate closure to their opinion on him throughout the story.

 

 

How did I respond aggressively ? I just pointed out something you overlooked in regards to your response. Spin it all you want, Trevor was not a proper, true antagonist because you still have to play as him, and you still can choose to play as him after the story.

 

I'm talking about a traditional GTA antagonist that is an NPC and that is clearly the antagonist for most of the game. It's really not that hard to see what we're getting at here.

 

@ Staten

 

I know the damn story. Trevor was not a true antagonist for most of the game, and that is the kind of antagonist I have in mind, not some complex, do-it-yourself character analysis sh*t. Once again, it's not hard to see what I meant.

Edited by Official General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatGuyyy

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. I'm just saying he would have been better suited as an antagonist

 

 

Yes, he was, you DUMBf*ck. Just because your literary knowledge is so limited you can't see that doesn't make it true.

 

Too bad literary knowledge is largely subjective you pseudo-intellectual dumbass

Edited by thatGuyyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iProinsias

 

A good antagonist shouldn't be subjective, it should be universally known who the antagonist is to every player. Just like how nobody would think of Dimitri or Tenpenny as protags, the same would apply to Trevor. Telling people Trevor is sort of an antagonist depending on your "views" is a cheap cop-out that doesn't mean anything

 

 

 

Says who? Have you watched "The Departed"? The true antagonist is completely ambiguous.

 

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. I'm just saying he would have been better suited as an antagonist

 

 

Yes, he was, you DUMBf*ck. Just because your literary knowledge is so limited you can't see that doesn't make it true.

 

Too bad literarary knowledge is subjective you pseuo-intellectual dumbass

 

 

 

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.

Edited by iProinsias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

 

 

You're all idiots who don't know what "anti-hero" means.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hate trevor as a protagonist, but as an antagonist he would've been brilliant. I alsowould have loved one of those dirty FBI characters (with all the perks of being FBI included) to be a protagonist instead of trevor. Would bring a whole new depth to the story, with one guy working for and simultaneously working against the law.

 

 

That's already in the story, in the form of Dave Norton.

 

I'm talking protagonist and more in-depth with missions screwing up investigations, tampering with evidence, leading the department on a wild goose chase. The guy would also have his own, office in the FIB building and access to law enforcement personal and vehicles with all the perks. You could call in the troops whenever you would feel the need to do so.

 

 

You're an idiot.

 

Please refrain from slinging insults at other members. If you don't agree with one's opinion, fine but react ad rem and civil. If you are not capable of doing this refrain from posting as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staten
@ Staten

 

I know the damn story. Trevor was not a true antagonist for most of the game, and that is the kind of antagonist I have in mind, not some complex, do-it-yourself character analysis sh*t.

 

 

While Trevor doesn't fit your idea of what an antagonist is, the fact remains that he was an antagonist.

 

Edited by Staten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerukal

How did I respond aggressively ? I just pointed out something you overlooked in regards to your response. Spin it all you want, Trevor was not a proper, true antagonist because you still have to play as him, and you still can choose to play as him after the story.

 

I'm talking about a traditional GTA antagonist that is an NPC and that is clearly the antagonist for most of the game. It's really not that hard to see what we're getting at here.

I knew what you meant. I attempted to provide an alternative to your demand of a "fully fleshed out" Trevor antagonist. This alternative proposition wasn't satisfactory. But it was an alternative nonetheless. One that should be appreciated more because it requires an open mind to fully embrace. Subjectivity isn't that bad as long as you don't try and pass it off as objectivity. Which I tried my best not to do.

Edited by Xerukal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatGuyyy

 

 

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray

Guys, if you want to argue can you please do it through PM so this thread can get back on track?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
woggleman

I for one enjoyed playing as him so know I would not want that. GTA needed a rural kind of protagonist because the rural meth is a big aspect of modern crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Official General

 

How did I respond aggressively ? I just pointed out something you overlooked in regards to your response. Spin it all you want, Trevor was not a proper, true antagonist because you still have to play as him, and you still can choose to play as him after the story.

 

I'm talking about a traditional GTA antagonist that is an NPC and that is clearly the antagonist for most of the game. It's really not that hard to see what we're getting at here.

I knew what you meant. I attempted to provide an alternative to your demand of a "fully fleshed out" Trevor antagonist. This alternative proposition wasn't satisfactory. But it was an alternative nonetheless.

 

 

I can live with that response. At least you clearly acknowledged your oversight, even though it was deliberate.

 

@ Staten

 

Okay, I stop right here. You're amazingly deep intellectually, and so smart. There you go, be happy :sarcasm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iProinsias

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.