Antagonists = Fail?

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

We already established this. The antagonists are a bunch of weak dorks that could've easily been killed but then we wouldn't have had a story... which would've been fine by me because the story was awful.

[CarlitoDorito]

So apart from the characters, the story, the police, the driving, the textures, the radio, the weapons, the wardrobe, the dlc, the map and the missions, is there anything people do like?

Edited October 5, 2014 by CarlitoDorito

[GTA V Is On PC]

I have a feeling that this topic will go on for about five or six pages, then get locked due to the same cycle of arguing.

 

I do agree on the fact that there wasn't enough development toward the antagonists. Some of the wicked people in Sandy Shores are worse than anyone who was even remotely an antagonist in the story.

 

 

In fact, pretty much the whole entire story was pretty lame.

 

Edited October 5, 2014 by GtaV Is Coming To Pc

[PhillBellic]

So apart from the characters, the story, the police, the driving, the textures, the radio, the weapons, the wardrobe, the dlc, the map and the missions, is there anything people do like?

I do like the Police/Emergency Vehicle models (liveries excluded). I'm happy that there are better car models.

 

Cheers.

[hsthompson]

Or the fact the word "antagonist" was even used.

[Undyne]

So apart from the characters, the story, the police, the driving, the textures, the radio, the weapons, the wardrobe, the dlc, the map and the missions, is there anything people do like?

Graphics.

[Frito-Man]

I think the real antagonist in V was the hatred between Trevor and Michael, the others are secondary

[The-Murphy-Chap]

Wasn't a big fan to be honest, I didn't like Nico Belic but I lived with, same with this I not fan of the main characters but I like Franklin maybe cause I was a fan of GTA SA ... But I would of love a Mexican boss main protangnist or someone trying to get into the cartel families and make it to the top.

[Billy Grey]

Best Antagonists in GTA in my opinion were Lance Vance and Sonny Forreli.

[theworldfamous]

I thought they were interesting. More interesting than your typical oh my god what a total evil bastard type villains.

 

Once again it seems exactly the things I like about it, what made V a fresh and interesting experience for me, is what makes a lot of people hate the game. The lack of an archetypical villainous antagonist was cool. It raises interesting questions, with more interesting answers than "aw, he's just an evil dick".

 

That kind of two dimensional story is really boring to me and why I don't like a lot of movies nowadays, a lot of fantasy and science fiction or a lot of game stories. They're just flat. It's just a description of a situation, a highly implausible one at that. Plausible scenarios aren't all that interesting, unless you use them to tell a different, more meaningful story. One that isn't a summary of events, but injects emotion, subjective experience.

 

Why I didn't like Lord of the Rings is because it never has that meaning. Frodo never becomes a person outside of his assigned role in the story. Most games work like this too. It's why you really don't give a sh*t about Sam Fischer or Aiden Pierce or Desmond Miles. Or Bruce Wayne or Lois Lane.

 

That's what the old books and movies have on a lot of entertainment today. That's why I still think about plots in Hitchcock movies I've seen years ago and totally forgot about some special effects crap I've seen last month.

 

But it seems that a lot of people do prefer their entertainment sanitized, clear cut and, dare I say, Americanised. Disnified. This is the good guy, that is the bad guy, out there is the world: go save it. No ambiguity allowed. It's even to the point where kids get mad if a story doesn't follow this rigid patterning. That must really suck, to have that little imagination.

 

Also explains why games try so hard to be gritty and gruff. That's the only way these flattened stories and characters can impress.

 

It's really sad and I make a point of it because it's dangerous. It feeds into a larger, society wide, development where public discourse is becoming more narrow with less eye for the many shades of grey there are. The news and politics are going in that direction too. More black and white, less room for questions, ambiguity, acknowledgment of our part in mistakes...all that.

 

Not trying to make GTA out to be the remedy to all this, but at least it's consistently trying something different. Present fallible or even downright failures as protagonists, antagonists you can emphatize with. They make games about old, bald dudes with drinking problems, not cool teenagers. They'll make a western game when nobody can be bothered and better yet, they make it a revisionist western and basically one big homage to Sam Peckinpah and the weirder sh*t in Leone's movies (go watch some of their lesser known films and you'll know what I'm talking about).

 

V doesnt have a clear antagonist because it's more of an ensemble story. You don't need one, because the real dynamic is between Michael and Trevor, and Frank to a lesser extent. Everybody else is just there to move the situation along and ramp up the pressures on Michael and Trevor.

 

Dave and Michael are joined at the hip because of North Yankton and neither of them managing to do anything worthwhile since.

 

Devon is to Michael what Michael is to Frank.

 

Trevor is remarkably close with both Tracy and the chubby kid. They confide in him so it's likely he was kind of a father figure to them in the past.

 

Stretch is to Frank what Trevor is, in a way, to Michael. An unwanted blast from a past they (half heartedly) try to move away from.

 

All in all then, it was a fun cast with interesting relations between them and a fun trip. I hope there's more story dlc coming because a lot of it can be fleshed out more. Like the relationship between Stretch, Lamar and Frank. Trevor and chef setting up their meth business. Stuff like that. But I also see why they didn't put all that in the main game, because the plot would sag.. Which it didn't. Pacing was really excellent for a game this long with this large a cast! That's an achievement in itself. Every character had their moment to shine and had some motivations and layers that made them a bit more interesting and relatable.

 

Of course it wasn't perfect...but with the sorry state of storytelling in games I really can't fault rockstar for anything here. There's nobody doing it (sprawling, epic crime story with a dose of humor) better...until there is there's not much to discuss.

 

Christ, these long posts are becoming a habit. Time to chop some orcs then.

[Official General]

I thought they were interesting. More interesting than your typical oh my god what a total evil bastard type villains.

 

Once again it seems exactly the things I like about it, what made V a fresh and interesting experience for me, is what makes a lot of people hate the game. The lack of an archetypical villainous antagonist was cool. It raises interesting questions, with more interesting answers than "aw, he's just an evil dick".

 

But it seems that a lot of people do prefer their entertainment sanitized, clear cut and, dare I say, Americanised. Disnified. This is the good guy, that is the bad guy, out there is the world: go save it. No ambiguity allowed. It's even to the point where kids get mad if a story doesn't follow this rigid patterning. That must really suck, to have that little imagination.

 

I hear you and in a way you have a valid point with this lack of an archetype villain antagonist, yes indeed that would have made for a refreshing and potentially exciting different approach in GTA. Oh yeah, it could have been, in fact, very cool. But the problem here is that I just didn't think the way Rockstar did it in V worked very well. Yes, there did not have to be clear antagonists from the start in the game, but much better characters than Haines and Weston could been created by Rockstar. Those two guys had nothing distinct or charismatic about them that made me think anything special, or raise interesting questions about them and their deeds. All I knew is that they were very bland, boring and greatly lacking in any kind of charisma that would have made them memorable characters. In addition, the theme of V's story was ruined by such a boring and uninteresting plot (FIB/IAA/Merryweather) that largely featured Haines and Weston - rather than make me raise more questions about them, I quickly wanted to see the back of them and move on to something more interesting and exciting in the story. Unfortunately for me, they were the story, well most of it anyway. Madrazo was a joke, lets not even discuss him.

 

Most GTA fans want the good guy-bad guy villain scenario in GTA you say ? Really ? Newsflash bro, GTA was never about being the good guy, you are the bad guy, you're just the bad guy who kills other bad guys (and sometimes good guys) to reach your goals or objectives. That is the whole reason why GTA has become so huge in popularity in the first place, it was the first video game ever to feature an anti-hero/bad guy protagonist that reveled in a gangster and criminal career. So in reality that pattern you described does not really exist in GTA, it never did. Claude, Tommy, CJ, Niko, none of these guys are 'good guys', of course not. I don't know what exactly you were reading into when playing GTA, but it seems you got your wires crossed. There was never really any typical pattern that followed in previous GTAs, they all had their unique structures and themes - and the antagonists in those games came as not just one, but other different people, some you'd not even always expect to be. I disagree strongly, GTA never followed no rigid patterning. V just did a weak job of it.

 

 

V doesnt have a clear antagonist because it's more of an ensemble story. You don't need one, because the real dynamic is between Michael and Trevor, and Frank to a lesser extent. Everybody else is just there to move the situation along and ramp up the pressures on Michael and Trevor.

 

Okay fine, but it leads to the same point again I made earlier. Many people thought it was sh*t and uninteresting (on here at least, including me). It just did not work for a lot of people, hence why V's story received much criticisms on here. Ok Michael abandoned Trevor and co. after a big score, he did not see them for years, Trevor felt hurt, big deal, what's so deep and interesting about that ? I was not interested in the dynamics of Michael and Trevor's back and forth b*tching, I did not care to know more about it, it gave me a f*cking ear ache. To be honest, the whole was more annoying than anything else. If Franklin had played a much bigger role, maybe things might have been more interesting, but he did not, so that was not the case.

 

 

All in all then, it was a fun cast with interesting relations between them and a fun trip. I hope there's more story dlc coming because a lot of it can be fleshed out more. Like the relationship between Stretch, Lamar and Frank. Trevor and chef setting up their meth business. Stuff like that. But I also see why they didn't put all that in the main game, because the plot would sag.. Which it didn't. Pacing was really excellent for a game this long with this large a cast! That's an achievement in itself. Every character had their moment to shine and had some motivations and layers that made them a bit more interesting and relatable.

 

I agree with you here, yeah the story could be fleshed out more, a whole lot more, especially on Franklin's side of things, along with Lamar and Stretch. I really would have liked to have seen more of Stretch in the game, he'd have made a much better antagonist than the brief moment he was given in V - some longer,intricate plot that involved the street gangs, drugs, the hood etc. I think your making excuses for them now, they most definitely should have put that stuff in the game - it certainly would have made it more playable and interesting for many, especially someone like me who found the Michael/Trevor dynamic and FIB stuff boring. The pacing and structure of the game's story was terrible. Franklin definitely did not shine in this game, and he was a protagonist, he hardly featured for most of it. Other characters which would have been interesting or exciting like Lamar, Stretch, Simeon, Oscar, we saw very little of. Sorry, I don't know how you can say all that. But if you really enjoyed it like that, then all the better for you, and more sadder and disappointing for me.

[DopeFresh]

Yes the antagonists in this game sucked. What they should of done is had trevor be the npc antagonist, and let us play as lamar, franklin, and michael. The game had a good story till we played as trevor. Once we got to LS with trevor the story went to sh*t.

[Nick930930]

The games focus wasn't necessarily about our 3 characters vs. an antagonist. It was more about the 3 characters vs. their own problems and eachother and using the heist to bring them all together in the end.

 

I think you guys are looking at the story in the wrong way. It's not traditional in the sense most video games are in terms of story development. I mean look at "The last of us." That story didn't necessarily have a main antagonist. There was one character for a chapter that seemed like a villain, but he wasn't THAT significant.

[Jvaz615]

The games focus wasn't necessarily about our 3 characters vs. an antagonist. It was more about the 3 characters vs. their own problems and eachother and using the heist to bring them all together in the end.

 

I think you guys are looking at the story in the wrong way. It's not traditional in the sense most video games are in terms of story development. I mean look at "The last of us." That story didn't necessarily have a main antagonist. There was one character for a chapter that seemed like a villain, but he wasn't THAT significant.

A valid point but you could also argue that the main antagonist of TLOU was society and what it had become in the aftermath of the outbreak. In my opinion, in a game like GTA, the antagonist drives the story just as much as the protagonists and in V, it failed. They had a great opportunity with Madrazo and squandered it. Weston, Haines, Cheng and Stretch were horrible. Stretch seems like Rockstar needed a villain for Franklin at the end and just said "Uh, how about that Stretch guy we showed in one mission?"

[woggleman]

The Last of Us was a new game which was why the story didn't catch hate. GTA has traditionally done major antagonists and as much as people say they want new things if a franchise doesn't do the same thing over and over again people get angry.

[Jimbatron]

I thought they were interesting. More interesting than your typical oh my god what a total evil bastard type villains.

 

Once again it seems exactly the things I like about it, what made V a fresh and interesting experience for me, is what makes a lot of people hate the game. The lack of an archetypical villainous antagonist was cool. It raises interesting questions, with more interesting answers than "aw, he's just an evil dick".

 

That kind of two dimensional story is really boring to me and why I don't like a lot of movies nowadays, a lot of fantasy and science fiction or a lot of game stories. They're just flat. It's just a description of a situation, a highly implausible one at that. Plausible scenarios aren't all that interesting, unless you use them to tell a different, more meaningful story. One that isn't a summary of events, but injects emotion, subjective experience.

 

Why I didn't like Lord of the Rings is because it never has that meaning. Frodo never becomes a person outside of his assigned role in the story. Most games work like this too. It's why you really don't give a sh*t about Sam Fischer or Aiden Pierce or Desmond Miles. Or Bruce Wayne or Lois Lane.

 

That's what the old books and movies have on a lot of entertainment today. That's why I still think about plots in Hitchcock movies I've seen years ago and totally forgot about some special effects crap I've seen last month.

 

But it seems that a lot of people do prefer their entertainment sanitized, clear cut and, dare I say, Americanised. Disnified. This is the good guy, that is the bad guy, out there is the world: go save it. No ambiguity allowed. It's even to the point where kids get mad if a story doesn't follow this rigid patterning. That must really suck, to have that little imagination.

 

Also explains why games try so hard to be gritty and gruff. That's the only way these flattened stories and characters can impress.

 

It's really sad and I make a point of it because it's dangerous. It feeds into a larger, society wide, development where public discourse is becoming more narrow with less eye for the many shades of grey there are. The news and politics are going in that direction too. More black and white, less room for questions, ambiguity, acknowledgment of our part in mistakes...all that.

 

Not trying to make GTA out to be the remedy to all this, but at least it's consistently trying something different. Present fallible or even downright failures as protagonists, antagonists you can emphatize with. They make games about old, bald dudes with drinking problems, not cool teenagers. They'll make a western game when nobody can be bothered and better yet, they make it a revisionist western and basically one big homage to Sam Peckinpah and the weirder sh*t in Leone's movies (go watch some of their lesser known films and you'll know what I'm talking about).

 

V doesnt have a clear antagonist because it's more of an ensemble story. You don't need one, because the real dynamic is between Michael and Trevor, and Frank to a lesser extent. Everybody else is just there to move the situation along and ramp up the pressures on Michael and Trevor.

 

Dave and Michael are joined at the hip because of North Yankton and neither of them managing to do anything worthwhile since.

 

Devon is to Michael what Michael is to Frank.

 

Trevor is remarkably close with both Tracy and the chubby kid. They confide in him so it's likely he was kind of a father figure to them in the past.

 

Stretch is to Frank what Trevor is, in a way, to Michael. An unwanted blast from a past they (half heartedly) try to move away from.

 

All in all then, it was a fun cast with interesting relations between them and a fun trip. I hope there's more story dlc coming because a lot of it can be fleshed out more. Like the relationship between Stretch, Lamar and Frank. Trevor and chef setting up their meth business. Stuff like that. But I also see why they didn't put all that in the main game, because the plot would sag.. Which it didn't. Pacing was really excellent for a game this long with this large a cast! That's an achievement in itself. Every character had their moment to shine and had some motivations and layers that made them a bit more interesting and relatable.

 

Of course it wasn't perfect...but with the sorry state of storytelling in games I really can't fault rockstar for anything here. There's nobody doing it (sprawling, epic crime story with a dose of humor) better...until there is there's not much to discuss.

 

Christ, these long posts are becoming a habit. Time to chop some orcs then.

Great post, don't stop the long ones if they are if this quality.

 

I would cite Game of Thrones as a great example of what I think R* were aiming for. It's a collection of morally dubious characters, but a few despicable examples aside there are few obvious out and out bad guys (in the relative sense of the word). They have however made them very different personalities, which makes the conflicts engaging.

 

I still feel that characters like Weston, Cheng and Madrazo needed more build time in their conflict with the protagonist trio (whether that makes the the "bad guy" or not) but I agree in principle with what you are saying here.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Jimbatron

[Maniac Trevor]

I personally like the endings for GTA V. You know why? IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT!

 

/thread

[A.O.D.88]

The chief culprit behind the severe underdevelopment of the story, protagonists, and antagonists is GTA Online! Rockstar's hideous, rabid foaming at the mouth obsession with the online is what sucked proper and vital developmental resources away from Single-Player.

 

In other words, Online drove a train through the potential masterpiece that we could have had.

Edited October 6, 2014 by A.O.D.88

[CarlitoDorito]

The chief culprit behind the severe underdevelopment of the story, protagonists, and antagonists is GTA Online! Rockstar's hideous, rabid foaming at the mouth obsession with the online is what sucked proper and vital developmental resources away from Single-Player.

 

In other words, Online drove a train through the potential masterpiece that we could have had.

Is this another conspiracy theory?

[A.O.D.88]

 

The chief culprit behind the severe underdevelopment of the story, protagonists, and antagonists is GTA Online! Rockstar's hideous, rabid foaming at the mouth obsession with the online is what sucked proper and vital developmental resources away from Single-Player.

 

In other words, Online drove a train through the potential masterpiece that we could have had.

Is this another conspiracy theory?

 

 

No, it's simply the reason why story mode is so underdeveloped and severely lacking in content.

Edited October 6, 2014 by A.O.D.88

[Undyne]

I personally like the endings for GTA V. You know why? IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT!

 

/thread

Elaborate.

[Maniac Trevor]

 

I personally like the endings for GTA V. You know why? IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT!

/thread

Elaborate.No need to. The story revolved around the lives of the trio and their problems in their life. Each character had its own demons and a life they once knew changed. I personally thought the writing in GTA V was different compared to previous GTA games. Dan Houser knows how to write a perfect story and with V he did.

 

If any of the antagonists should've been a major one, it should've been Dave Norton in my opinion. If I chose the way the mission "The Wrap Up" began, Dave should've got away and should've planned to have Michael, Trevor and Franklin wanted for the crimes they committed. Dave Norton should've been rolled off that cliff, not Devin Weston in the last mission if you chose option C.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Maniac Trevor

[CarlitoDorito]

I like the story, it's not a story so bad that it compares to call of duties non-stories. I don't understand why it matters so much. Then again, i'm neither a writer nor a critic so i wouldn't know.

[matajuegos01]

Best Antagonists in GTA in my opinion were Lance Vance and Sonny Forreli.

and you, cutie

 

oh and by the way call of duty had a better story than this.

Edited October 6, 2014 by matajuegos01

[Pavle]

I thought Madrazo was gonna be the antagonist since he I met him.

 

 

 

plot twist

He is later nicer to Trevor.

Mostly because Trevor does something to his ear.

 

 

[CarlitoDorito]

 

Best Antagonists in GTA in my opinion were Lance Vance and Sonny Forreli.

and you, cutie

 

oh and by the way call of duty had a better story than this.

 

Did saints row 3 have a better story too?

Edited October 6, 2014 by CarlitoDorito