Antagonist are forgettable...

[American Viking]

What antagonist?

[B Dawg]

 

WTF is a Stretch??

 

A character in GTA V.

 

Stretch is a limousine in GTA.

[oCrapaCreeper]

Rockstar f*cked up the entire storyline just to add three protagonists and heists. Nothing else makes sense in the script

Well the script does makes sense after you think about it and connect everything throughout the whole game, but it's not exactly how people wanted Rockstar to approach the story. It was their first time playing with the idea of multiple characters, and they've been wanting to do it since San Andreas, so of course they would take a crack at it in their biggest game yet. A central antagonist that f*cks over M T and F from various angles probably would have been better, but it seemed that Rockstar wanted to play with the idea of each of the three characters having their own personal antagonists that also cross between eachother. Haines f*cks with Micheal in making him do his dirty work using Micheal's past as blackmail, Cheng f*cks with Trevor, Stretch (arguably the weakest of them all, might as well not have even been a character) f*cks with the Families, and Devin f*cks over all 3 by not paying them for his dirty work as well as trying to kill Micheal's family.

Edited February 20, 2015 by oCrapaCreeper

[Stephan90]

 

 

WTF is a Stretch??

 

A character in GTA V.

 

Stretch is a limousine in GTA.

 

 

and a character ... did you play the game?

[oCrapaCreeper]

 

 

 

WTF is a Stretch??

 

A character in GTA V.

 

Stretch is a limousine in GTA.

 

 

and a character ... did you play the game?

 

whooooosh

Edited February 20, 2015 by oCrapaCreeper

[The Green Sabre]

Seriously, Stretch is awful. What exactly does he do to warrant being an antagonist? He has such little impact and influence that I forgot he even existed until Lamar Down.

[Eurotrash]

 

Antagonists were always boring. As they should be, if they were pretty cool guys I wouldn't want to kill them now would I? Hence why Far Cry 4 sucks.

There is a difference between cool antagonist and intimidating antagonist.

 

Pagan min is very cool which is why it does suck to side against him.

 

But antagonists should be intimidating and evil, we should fear them and want them dead, they should NOT be boring. Gta needs 1 antagonist that is evil and we want to see dead. Not the 3 or 4 hollow characters gta v had.

 

Fair point, but GTA antagonists were always a bunch of douchebags with a tendency to bite off more than they can chew.

[Mista J]

Seriously, Stretch is awful. What exactly does he do to warrant being an antagonist? He has such little impact and influence that I forgot he even existed until Lamar Down.

Cuz bitniz, nigga.

[fac316]

This is why the story should've been two or one protag, for consistency, as with Niko and Dimitri, johnny and Billy, cj and tenpenny etc.

[Official General]

Antagonists were always boring. As they should be, if they were pretty cool guys I wouldn't want to kill them now would I? Hence why Far Cry 4 sucks.

 

Whoever the f*ck told you that ? How on earth do you come to such a bullsh*t conclusion ? That was never the case. The antagonists in GTA before V had always been exciting and thrilling experiences to go up against. You're just saying that to defend V's poor showing in antagonists, and to be frank, it's a very weak and laughable defense.

[hype5870]

I usually don't hop on the "how I would have done things better" since we're all here because we love this game, but I actually just refinished the story and was just thinking about this- when you wrap up all the antagonists at the end of the game they feel more like they're annoyances to you then pure antagonists. And I did think back to Officer Tenpenny, man that was satisfying when he got his! Someone else mentioned Far Cry's Pagan Min and I remembered Vas in FC3 was freaking terrifying! Yes, it's a bit watered down when you're talking three character's stories but not one of them feels all that intimidating, so in the end when you off them it's not quite as satisfying. And OP, even your avatar was a great example of Rockstar doing this well and John Marston arguably had 3 emotionally impacting antagonists.

[GN 92]

QUESTION

 

why so many haters come here to defend their opinion of how bad GTA V is?

 

and spend all their time here?

 

and post in every thread?

 

and say that everybody is wrong?

 

that V sucks?

 

why do you haters spend so many f*cking time in the V section?

 

just bail, get the f*ck out with your high horse opinions

 

haters, feel free to quote me and explain your sorry ass selves

Edited February 21, 2015 by BOSS 302

[Stephan90]

This is why the story should've been two or one protag, for consistency, as with Niko and Dimitri, johnny and Billy, cj and tenpenny etc.

 

I think the problem is the amount of half assed, not dangerous and intimidating at all antagonists and not the number of protagonists. It would have been great if they had put in a couple of real bad ass antagonists like Officer Tenpenny who are a problem for all three protagonists as a collective and who play a bigger role and have a bigger background story.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Stephan90

[CarlitoDorito]

I hope the SP DLC has one evil bastard, the main bad guy who does bad things, messes up the characters lives and maybe kills one or more of their friends. Can't be scared of trevor either so he'd have to be quite mad. Not someone hiding behind a cartel like Madrazo though.

 

You can have a story without an antagonist though, I'm not sure V was meant to have one.

[Drunken Cowboy]

Did you pay any attention during option c?

 

It's explained why they are killing each others antagonists.

 

If you have to explain last minute why it's happening, there's no good reason for it happening.

[hype5870]

QUESTION

 

why so many haters come here to defend their opinion of how bad GTA V is?

 

and spend all their time here?

 

and post in every thread?

 

and say that everybody is wrong?

Some people are mad and feel personally wronged because they think the game they imagined was owed to them, just ignore those. Some people are here BECAUSE we love the game, and for years games weren't taken as art the way movies and books were. So now that we lovers of the game recognize that it is art, are critiquing it the way books and movies and paintings are. Hahaa just need to tune out the all caps keyboard tough guys

[Drunken Cowboy]

QUESTION

 

why so many haters come here to defend their opinion of how bad GTA V is?

 

and spend all their time here?

 

and post in every thread?

 

and say that everybody is wrong?

 

that V sucks?

 

why do you haters spend so many f*cking time in the V section?

 

just bail, get the f*ck out with your high horse opinions

 

haters, feel free to quote me and explain your sorry ass selves

 

The dude was asking legitimate questions because he was confused.

 

If we're just "haters", that presumes our distaste for V is irrational.

Feel free to defend their choice of antagonists.

[StarFyer]

Did you pay any attention during option c?

 

It's explained why they are killing each others antagonists.

Which was the smart thing to do.

[GN 92]

 

QUESTION

 

why so many haters come here to defend their opinion of how bad GTA V is?

 

and spend all their time here?

 

and post in every thread?

 

and say that everybody is wrong?

 

that V sucks?

 

why do you haters spend so many f*cking time in the V section?

 

just bail, get the f*ck out with your high horse opinions

 

haters, feel free to quote me and explain your sorry ass selves

 

The dude was asking legitimate questions because he was confused.

 

If we're just "haters", that presumes our distaste for V is irrational.

Feel free to defend their choice of antagonists.

 

 

I didn't "aim" anyone here

[poland stronk]

 

Rockstar f*cked up the entire storyline just to add three protagonists and heists. Nothing else makes sense in the script

Well the script does makes sense after you think about it and connect everything throughout the whole game, but it's not exactly how people wanted Rockstar to approach the story. It was their first time playing with the idea of multiple characters, and they've been wanting to do it since San Andreas, so of course they would take a crack at it in their biggest game yet. A central antagonist that f*cks over M T and F from various angles probably would have been better, but it seemed that Rockstar wanted to play with the idea of each of the three characters having their own personal antagonists that also cross between eachother. Haines f*cks with Micheal in making him do his dirty work using Micheal's past as blackmail, Cheng f*cks with Trevor, Stretch (arguably the weakest of them all, might as well not have even been a character) f*cks with the Families, and Devin f*cks over all 3 by not paying them for his dirty work as well as trying to kill Micheal's family.

 

 

It makes sense but barely. I liked sneak peaks about main story being three seperate lives of Michael Franklin and Trevor branching together in particular moments. We were told that Michael would be consumed with his mid-life crisis and problems with the past - and his story is actually pretty good, about doing dirty work for federal agents as he has reminded them about himself after first heist, it makes sense. But problem is other protags get involved in his problems too much. I liked the cutscene where Michael told Franklin that he has problem with his old friend - Trevor, he said something between the lines that he has to play on two fronts, FIB and this crazy psychopath that makes really interesting story with possibilites to feature other characters but instead we are given something totally different with forced participations of other protags and ridiculous work for Steve and Weston (can't remember what apart from stealing cars because it was boring and didn't make much sense to me). I suppose Heinses was supposed to be like Frank Tenpenny but the jobs he gives to the trio are nothing near what crooked cop/agent would give and Devin Weston is complete douche (with private army so that he wouldn't be considered as complete clown). But I liked the idea that in the end there was light for Mike - becoming a movie producer.

 

It was said that Franklin would be facing new reality as a guy who got stuck in 90s and is trying to find out how to survive in 2013 gangster world. So I understood that he would be Rockstar's take on bringing to GTA V a black guy so people who miss CJ (me included) would be satisfied. In the actual game we get only 5 missions about Ballas-Families. He is more like a support character for M and T doing some random work in their vicinity. There is almost no father-son relation between him and Michael only at the beginning. Also Simeon got only 3 missions so my question is: why they placed him in this game in the first place? The way they handled him was good but too early on he got rid as was Michael introduced (probably so people would experience character switching without going on with the story). Also in Lamar Down I was like "What the hell, some stupid bitch breaks into Franklin's house, he calls Lester and is on his way to rescue Lamar? Shouldn't he call Stretch or someone who knows what is going on?" Lester annoyed me really on this. He is supposed to be hacker and brain of every heist but instead he exists as poor excuse to point out where everything is. So no interaction is made between characters, no mission where main character is searching for someone else as we already have all info we need. Even stupid following suspicious vehicle or searching house just "get over there, don't ask why, I have cameras everywhere".

 

We were also told Trevor was supposed to be some sort of redneck with weird and crazy things to do on countryside, a typical stuff for previous GTAs like turning people into hotdogs - that kinda stuff. Instead he is constantly harassing both Michael and Franklin instead of minding his own business - and I hoped after he realised that Michael is not really dead that he would try to hunt him down for answers featuring missions about interrogating people who may know about Michael whereabouts and stalking him, but instead he finds where he lives from phonebook and pays no attention to the drugs he is supposed to sell - sure he was preparing for departure to LS but after he found out Michael he could return and from time to time pay him a visit. Also I think that how he approached Franklin and met Lamar was simply forced - he is not the type of person who would like to get accustomed with black gangsters but rather shoot them.

 

And the best part - heists were supposed to link all three stories together as each character with their problems need money. But half of them are done for Steve Heinses (What? Shouldn't he incorporate Michael to more sane stuff and try to hide their relationship from Trevor? Shouldn't he call Michael for dirty work like killing witnesses and invastigators, helping him sell some guns and fixing problems with some shady businesses instead of assaulting random places like IAA building?).

 

I really hoped that if the game is rich in details and tasks to do, then it would also have excellent story but after introducing all main characters everything went downhill after Trevor met Michael often missing opportunities to fullfill promises given in game previews.

Edited February 21, 2015 by poland stronk

[Stephan90]

wow that's just heavy. I need to sleep a night over it.

[Official General]

You can have a story without an antagonist though, I'm not sure V was meant to have one.

 

Come on, you need not make excuses for Rockstar, the antagonists in V were poorly done, just leave it at that. It's embarrassing when those defending Rockstar say this stuff. I have no issue with you defending them, just avoid saying this bullsh*t.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Official General

[GN 92]

I think you guys should smoke a blunt and drink some beer, and just chill, stop the insults and all that stuff

[Algonquin Assassin]

I feel 1 of the reasons the antagonists are so weak is actually due to the multiple protagonists. What we have is essentially 4 antagonists for 3 protagonists and it becomes a big mess when they come and go like a revolving door.

 

As someone said Stretch only makes 1 appearance in the game, but isn't seen again until ending C. Wei Cheng is treated a bit better, but not by much. As for Weston and Haines I've never really felt hey were any sort of threat and had no reason to want to end their existence like I did with Sonny, Tenpenny, Dimitri, Billy etc.

 

I guess there's a reason that the consensus is that GTA V's antagonists are weak as piss because they are.

[Official General]

I feel 1 of the reasons the antagonists are so weak is actually due to the multiple protagonists. What we have is essentially 4 antagonists for 3 protagonists and it becomes a big mess when they come and go like a revolving door.

 

As someone said Stretch only makes 1 appearance in the game, but isn't seen again until ending C. Wei Cheng is treated a bit better, but not by much. As for Weston and Haines I've never really felt hey were any sort of threat and had no reason to want to end their existence like I did with Sonny, Tenpenny, Dimitri, Billy etc.

 

I guess there's a reason that the consensus is that GTA V's antagonists are weak as piss because they are.

 

Most definitely, I agree. I don't know that Eurotrash guy can make such an idiotic comment saying that GTA antagonists are supposed to be 'boring'. Before V, I wanted to so badly kill all the main antagonists in the previous main GTA games so bad. Like someone earlier said, Haines and Weston felt more like an annoyance rather than someone you'd want to badly kill - that to me is nowhere near what an antagonist should be like. V clearly failed in this area for me at least.

 

 

I think you guys should smoke a blunt and drink some beer, and just chill, stop the insults and all that stuff

 

Bro, here's a word of advice. You're not funny, and no one is impressed or taken in by your generic, dry humor. More importantly, no one is listening. Either you can join in the debate, or don't comment on here, go and 'chill' with other people who would like to smoke blunts and drink beer with you. It's a great idea right ?

 

Thanks.

[GN 92]

 

I think you guys should smoke a blunt and drink some beer, and just chill, stop the insults and all that stuff

 

Bro, here's a word of advice. You're not funny, and no one is impressed or taken in by your generic, dry humor. More importantly, no one is listening. Either you can join in the debate, or don't comment on here, go and 'chill' with other people who would like to smoke blunts and drink beer with you. It's a great idea right ?

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Ok man I'm heading the Gen Chat section, if anyone wanna follow me the way out, let's go

[Spaghetti Cat]

Agree with MVC that 3 protags means we got a watered down antagonists. There should have probably been an overall bad guy for all three. Guess that was either Weston or Haines, but as others have said, don't really pose that much of a threat. A neat idea would be that Lester turns on all three after the last heist and the trio has to finish him off, dodging tubes of anal lube the whole time or something. On second thought no, they're just all weak sauce. Really wish Madrasso was the big bad, but ugh...

[Kill Frenzy!]

Sonny Forelli, Lance Vance, Officer Tenpenny, Big Smoke, Dimitri Rascalov, Ricardo Díaz, Ray Bulgarin, Ray Boccino, Catalina where great Antagonists.

 

GTA V actually doesn't have antagonists, non in particular, only Steve Haines, FIB, CIA, Merryweather and the Chinese.

Edited February 21, 2015 by KillinFr3nzy NL

[CarlitoDorito]

 

 

You can have a story without an antagonist though, I'm not sure V was meant to have one.

Come on, you need not make excuses for Rockstar, the antagonists in V were poorly done, just leave it at that. It's embarrassing when those defending Rockstar say this stuff. I have no issue with you defending them, just avoid saying this bullsh*t.

You can have a story without one, that's not defending its a fact. I didn't mention the ones in V, nor did I say they're good or bad, just that maybe it doesn't have one, nobody is really shown as the big bad guy, apart from devin for about 5 minutes.

 

If someone isn't saying they were really bad, maybe mentioning IV's or all the other GTA games, making sure to say R* are lazy or whatever, it's defending right?

[The Green Sabre]

I think the main reason the main antagonists suck ass is because of the shortness of the game. Seriously, the shortness crippled the game's ability to develop the characters, especially with three protagonists and four antagonists that all desperately need development. It didn't help when some of the precious space for missions is taken up by buying masks and boiler suits, which for some asinine reason count as missions.