Antagonist are forgettable...

[Son of Zeus]

No, no, they aren't forgettable at all. We'll always remember them as the weakest and lamest 'antagonists' ever.

[The Green Sabre]

^ They're so forgettable and terrible that I can't help but to admire how R* managed to f*ck up something that they had five years to make spectacular. After Catalina, Big Smoke, Tenpenny, Dimitri, Billy, Bulgarin, Colonel Allende, and Edgar Ross, they should've had the experience needed to make some excellent villains, but they did the exact opposite.

Edited February 21, 2015 by The Green Sabre

[American Viking]

Out of Haines, Stretch, Weston, and Cheng...the only antagonist I felt was worthy of cold feet was Devin Weston for ripping Franklin off on them cars and messing with Michael's up and coming movie business. Sure Haines was a prick, Stretch nearly got Franklin and Lamar killed (although it gave us some of the only gang related missions in-game), but Cheng was just a man trying to expand Triad business into Blaine County who was halted by Trevor Phillips' reckless behavior and slaughtering of Cheng's business partners. What irks me the most about all four antagonists is how easy it is to kill them. It doesn't make a bit of sense. In GTA IV, it took Niko the entire game to find the whereabouts of Dmitri, and the only reason Niko found him is because of the offering to work together once more. And Darko, Niko had to earn and call in a lot of favors and make a lot of connections in order to find and kill Darko. But on GTA V, all four of the so-called antagonists are dropped like a bad habit in a supposedly "coordinated" attack that they pulled from their ass, all in a matter of minutes. I mean, I realize we were playing with DC superheroes but I had no idea they had Navy Seal training.

 

Also, what's with our protags taking out each other's enemies? It was corny for lack of a better word and not explained at all as to why they did it that way. You'd think each protag would want to kill their own cause of grief...guess not. By the time I had driven Weston out to the cliff to push him off, I was bored as sh*t. There was nothing remarkable or satisfying about the way we killed Weston. a two-minute lecture followed by an upward push on the analog stick. WOW!!! To be honest, I took much more pleasure in killing Aiden O'Malley in GTA IV because I had the opportunity to get creative with his death. Do I want to kick him off the cliff and pay tribute to 300, do I want to blast him with a shotgun and maybe get a flip out of him, or just introduce him to the good ol' pistol execution...that was fulfilling.

 

In closing, there should have been one antagonist in the entire game and that should've been Trevor Phillips. He caused more harm, more hardship, and more chaos than these other guys.

[Red DEAD]

Most memorable to me. Sonny Forelli. Nuff said...

 

Edited February 21, 2015 by Red DEAD

[Osho]

There isn't worth much to write about the story itself. The characters can only succeed at being memorable when the story has any motivation for you to relate and not nearly forget that they are even there at all. More missions would have helped a lot in recovering some lost enthusiasm on its own. There's simply nothing much about the story to be excited about - the way I was having soo much fun not only playing the story missions in 3D GTA's but also loved to listen to everything being said by characters everytime ( without wanting to skip cut scenes ) thus made them so much memorable.

How much the sh*tty characters f*cked up the story is subject to different opinions, but for me, the story, the protagonists, nor the antagonists are worth my time for replaying the game, as it is not at all interesting to play, and I really don't think the story DLC would really improve this situation either.

[BoringPedsDumbCops]

- Why have Franklin kill Cheng Sr.? Should have been Trevor killing him.

 

- Why have Michael kill Stretch? Should have been Franklin killing him.

 

- Why have the trio kill Devin Weston? Should have been Franklin killing him.

 

I'll tell you why.. The game design STINKS.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I can understand them killing off eachother's antagonists to tie up loose ends so nothing could be traced back, but it still would've been more meaningful if Franklin killed Stretch and Michael killed Wei Cheng.

 

However I think the way they're all killed in the same mission is a giant cluster f*ck compared to how antagonists were killed off in the past. It feels like one of the writers forgot about all the antagonists, suddenly remembering and came up with a solution in 5 minutes to get rid of them.

 

Completely lacks the logic from the 3D era and GTA IV/EFLC IMO.

[viperdk]

 

 

Also, what's with our protags taking out each other's enemies? It was corny for lack of a better word and not explained at all as to why they did it that way. You'd think each protag would want to kill their own cause of grief...guess not.

Obviously you weren't paying attention. After the boys took out the police and Merryweather cock snots (as Trevor likes to call them), Michael explained why they choose who they took out. Franklin wanted to take Stretch out and Michael said it was a bad idea. Best to keep known associates away from the targets. It was a smart move. Franklin killing Cheng for Trevor and Michael killing Stretch for Franklin was the best move. Trevor killing Haines made sense. While all 3 despised him, Trevor REALLY hated him. And Devin, well all 3 had the chance to kill him in the end, and did so together.

 

The antagonists were not the best ones. I thought they tried to make Haines be too much like Tenpenny. Stretch was a poor man OG Loc turned gang leader. They should have done without him. I liked Dave Norton. Wish they would have done something different with him, but whatever. Weston really was the only true antagonist IMO. Screwed Franklin and Lamar out of money, tried to screw Michael and Solomon out of their business, and tried to kill Michael's wife and kids.

 

Hopefully in the SP DLC update, or the next GTA game, things improve. They need to go back to what it was like with the PS2 era as far as antagonists, or model around GTA IV. IMO that game had some of the best antagonists.

Edited February 21, 2015 by viperdk

[American Viking]

 

 

 

Also, what's with our protags taking out each other's enemies? It was corny for lack of a better word and not explained at all as to why they did it that way. You'd think each protag would want to kill their own cause of grief...guess not.

Obviously you weren't paying attention. After the boys took out the police and Merryweather cock snots (as Trevor likes to call them), Michael explained why they choose who they took out. Franklin wanted to take Stretch out and Michael said it was a bad idea. Best to keep known associates away from the targets. It was a smart move. Franklin killing Cheng for Trevor and Michael killing Stretch for Franklin was the best move. Trevor killing Haines made sense. While all 3 despised him, Trevor REALLY hated him. And Devin, well all 3 had the chance to kill him in the end, and did so together.

 

 

Okay, but it still makes little sense. Everybody who is anybody knows that Franklin, Trevor, and Michael run together. Do you not think it would get traced right back to the protag who had the issue, it would. Don't try to cover for the poor ending.

[Niobium]

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.

 

what the f*ck

 

someone is grasping at straws here.

[The Green Sabre]

^ Seriously, I'm a little disgusted at the lengths that some people would go to defend R*'s shortcomings. Face it, they f*cked up royally in that regard. No one should be defending that, otherwise what sort of message would be sent to R*? R* needs to learn if there's to be improvements to future games.

[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.

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?

 

 

Bro, sorry but I think you're just scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, fact or no fact - it does not matter. The story obviously did have main set of bad guys, they were just weak, with poor writing for their scripts. Bad guys in a story are antagonists, that's what the definition of antagonist means, I don't see how much more clearly this can be explained. Saying V's story possibly had no antagonists is just downright ridiculous and laughable. If V was a game set in a Utopian society where everyone was peace-loving and friendly, then yeah I'd believe your theory, but lets be serious, this is GTA. The only plausible reason for you to say such silliness is because you wanna defend Rockstar. I have no issues you defending Rockstar, but at least make sense of it, don't come up with laughable bullsh*t.

 

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.

 

what the f*ck

 

someone is grasping at straws here.

 

 

@ nobum62

 

I said something similar like what you said earlier. Grasping at straws best describes that bullsh*t post.

[PhillBellic]

This story was one huge clusterfu*k.

[Eurotrash]

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.

 

Did someone say nerd rage?

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

 

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?

 

Bro, sorry but I think you're just scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, fact or no fact - it does not matter. The story obviously did have main set of bad guys, they were just weak, with poor writing for their scripts. Bad guys in a story are antagonists, that's what the definition of antagonist means, I don't see how much more clearly this can be explained. Saying V's story possibly had no antagonists is just downright ridiculous and laughable. If V was a game set in a Utopian society where everyone was peace-loving and friendly, then yeah I'd believe your theory, but lets be serious, this is GTA. The only plausible reason for you to say such silliness is because you wanna defend Rockstar. I have no issues you defending Rockstar, but at least make sense of it, don't come up with laughable bullsh*t.

 

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.

 

what the f*ck

 

someone is grasping at straws here.

 

@ nobum62

 

I said something similar like what you said earlier. Grasping at straws best describes that bullsh*t post.

 

Exactly. Bad guys (antagonists) are the driving force behind the protagonists' motives. Without them they (R*) might aswell make stories about kittens, rainbows, lollipops and other kinds of sh*t.

 

I know some people go to great lengths to defend GTA V, but this is some of the most desperate defending I've ever seen.

 

The consensus has always been GTA V's antagonists are weak which is why it's a common point of discussion and I can't believe someone said that the antagonists should be boring.

 

If R* latch onto that mindset GTA VI's antagonists will be worse than GTA V's if that's even possible.

[PhillBellic]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

Bro, sorry but I think you're just scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, fact or no fact - it does not matter. The story obviously did have main set of bad guys, they were just weak, with poor writing for their scripts. Bad guys in a story are antagonists, that's what the definition of antagonist means, I don't see how much more clearly this can be explained. Saying V's story possibly had no antagonists is just downright ridiculous and laughable. If V was a game set in a Utopian society where everyone was peace-loving and friendly, then yeah I'd believe your theory, but lets be serious, this is GTA. The only plausible reason for you to say such silliness is because you wanna defend Rockstar. I have no issues you defending Rockstar, but at least make sense of it, don't come up with laughable bullsh*t.

 

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.

what the f*ck

 

someone is grasping at straws here.

@ nobum62

 

I said something similar like what you said earlier. Grasping at straws best describes that bullsh*t post.

Exactly. Bad guys (antagonists) are the driving force behind the protagonists' motives. Without them they (R*) might aswell make stories about kittens, rainbows, lollipops and other kinds of sh*t.

 

I know some people go to great lengths to defend GTA V, but this is some of the most desperate defending I've ever seen.

 

The consensus has always been GTA V's antagonists are weak which is why it's a common point of discussion and I can't believe someone said that the antagonists should be boring.

 

 

If R* latch onto that mindset GTA VI's antagonists will be worse than GTA V's if that's even possible.

 

I don't even want to imagine that future, to be honest.

[jp9865]

 

 

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.

Ok so it would make sense for them to explain it before its about to happen

 

I could picture it now.

 

Michael: Frank you can't take out Stretch, he knows who you are, the Ballas would hunt you down for payback.

Frank: ok man, you do it instead then. But not for another 6 missions. Let's ignore them and go do the UD heist.

 

It's explained in the mission.

what other time would you like it explained? The beginning of the game?

 

I think you misunderstood my point entirely!

 

It clearly explains why they kill EACH OTHERS antagonists, in the cutscene leading up to the mission.

Any other time wouldn't have made sense.

Edited February 21, 2015 by jp9865

[Dick Grayson]

Trevor should be an antagonist, he was established as a psychotic murderer before game launched and during his first appearance. He just has had perfect motive to kill Michael and if he wanted to also kill Franklin as it would be easy to explain because he is a person without brakes.

 

I wrote it in similar thread where I personally think that Heines and Norton should approach Michael instead than Franklin and tell him to setup a trap for Trevor AND Frank (as they both won't cooperate easily or at all) in exchange for all evidences they have on him and also freedom to do as he sees fit. It would be a great twist to see that Mike is again trading his life over his close friends. On the other hand Trevor should contact Franklin to know which side he will take on and eventually kill him before Michael and his family (again, Trevor doesn't f*ck around and does not need an excuse to go on murder spree). That's where player would step up and choose how each protagonist would approach situation thus playing different ending mission. It would be a new approach to same dull twist where antagonist just betrays main character at some point in the story for not a good solid reason (most of the times) and gets killed for that in the end (GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas, IV have this). It would be really thrilling (knowing about betrayal and even playing as "the bad guy") and realising that someone will have to die (ending C was probably placed just so people wouldn't bitch about dead main character they liked) and thus easy to remember. Those guys in ending C are side-characters really and I don't think this ending should be "canon" unless Rockstar decides so to establish it as the "true one".

 

Game that costed around 300 milion dollars and me, average guy making better ending than Houser himself. If someone tells me story in this game is well-thought then I will just laugh him off (although characters, their backstories, dialogues etc. are excellent). Also the bad guy should be someone charismatic and with good motive to kill the player as otherwise he is just boring and easy to forget after finishing the game. Trevor fits those requirements easily, people that die in ending C don't (they are more of annoyance to main characters than serious threat). Same thing goes on with Vaas from Far Cry 3 - he wants to kill player because he puts entire slave operations at risk, is crazy, is well developed character and is seen many times in the story actually doing something and usally something means endangering someone close to main character.

 

 

TL;DR: Yeah, I agree they are forgettable as they are side-characters and main story is just plain retarded because there are way better occasions to make up the finale.

Trevor wouldn't kill Franklin, Michael sure, but Franklin? The most Franklin has ever done to Trevor was laugh at him after Trevor fell on his face, but they made up quickly after that, infact, they seem to have a close friendship.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Now that I think about it, killing off...

 

 

Dr. Freelander

 

 

...was more rewarding than Ending C. Well, except Haines that twat deserved it. But he should have been involved in a chase or something rather than the more mundane way he went out.

[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?

 

Bro, sorry but I think you're just scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, fact or no fact - it does not matter. The story obviously did have main set of bad guys, they were just weak, with poor writing for their scripts. Bad guys in a story are antagonists, that's what the definition of antagonist means, I don't see how much more clearly this can be explained. Saying V's story possibly had no antagonists is just downright ridiculous and laughable. If V was a game set in a Utopian society where everyone was peace-loving and friendly, then yeah I'd believe your theory, but lets be serious, this is GTA. The only plausible reason for you to say such silliness is because you wanna defend Rockstar. I have no issues you defending Rockstar, but at least make sense of it, don't come up with laughable bullsh*t.

 

 

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.

what the f*ck

 

someone is grasping at straws here.

 

@ nobum62

 

I said something similar like what you said earlier. Grasping at straws best describes that bullsh*t post.

I don't need excuses, I don't need to defend the game. The whole rockstar defender thing is juvenile and your opinion is just that, yours, it means nothing. You find them forgettable, I'm sure other people love them, like the way people thought IV was awful, real people, not Internet people, there's a lot more of them, all of them wrong to me, like you are about V to me. You and others calling people defenders because they don't agree, is tragic. Calling people fanboys for saying they like something you don't, is something children do, the 12 year olds you believe the game was made for. Presenting your opinions as fact doesn't make them so.

 

I mean there was never really one specific antagonist who stood out as one, they didn't have much difference, didn't do anything bad to the 3, just telling you what to do and getting killed. You work with them until the end of the game! lol They're just another GTA mission giver. Devin comes across as the only antagonist, but right at the end, before that he's just another dick you're working for. The older games had better antagonists, people who came across as enemies, Devin and Steve Haines don't. Not standard GTA antagonists anyway, bad Mafia guy or Eastern european guy. So in a way, no, V didn't have one, not sure how that is defending, but who am I to question you huh bro?

Edited February 21, 2015 by CarlitoDorito

[poland stronk]

Trevor wouldn't kill Franklin, Michael sure, but Franklin? The most Franklin has ever done to Trevor was laugh at him after Trevor fell on his face, but they made up quickly after that, infact, they seem to have a close friendship.

 

He would. If Trevor is able to kill people who mock him because of his canadian accent then he wouldn't need any reason to do so with Franklin. Also he is a complete redneck and how those guys welcome people like Franklin in Sandy Shores? Not nicely to say the least.

 

I was also surprised that Lamar didn't care that much when Trevor hopped in the van in Urban Safari. I was rather expecting that he would tell him to f*ck off which would be a good reason to get T pissed at both Frank and LD.

 

What irks me the most about all four antagonists is how easy it is to kill them. It doesn't make a bit of sense. In GTA IV, it took Niko the entire game to find the whereabouts of Dmitri, and the only reason Niko found him is because of the offering to work together once more. And Darko, Niko had to earn and call in a lot of favors and make a lot of connections in order to find and kill Darko. But on GTA V, all four of the so-called antagonists are dropped like a bad habit in a supposedly "coordinated" attack that they pulled from their ass, all in a matter of minutes. I mean, I realize we were playing with DC superheroes but I had no idea they had Navy Seal training.

 

This. That's what showed that whole story was rushed, many opportunities for great missions, cutscenses and phonecalls skipped. Ending C shouldn't be in the game at all. It is far worse than A or B. It's far more easy to remember that in the last mission one of protags gets killed than... That.

Edited February 21, 2015 by poland stronk

[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.

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?

 

Bro, sorry but I think you're just scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, fact or no fact - it does not matter. The story obviously did have main set of bad guys, they were just weak, with poor writing for their scripts. Bad guys in a story are antagonists, that's what the definition of antagonist means, I don't see how much more clearly this can be explained. Saying V's story possibly had no antagonists is just downright ridiculous and laughable. If V was a game set in a Utopian society where everyone was peace-loving and friendly, then yeah I'd believe your theory, but lets be serious, this is GTA. The only plausible reason for you to say such silliness is because you wanna defend Rockstar. I have no issues you defending Rockstar, but at least make sense of it, don't come up with laughable bullsh*t.

 

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.

what the f*ck

 

someone is grasping at straws here.

 

@ nobum62

 

I said something similar like what you said earlier. Grasping at straws best describes that bullsh*t post.

I don't need excuses, I don't need to defend the game. The whole rockstar defender thing is juvenile and your opinion is just that, yours, it means nothing. You find them forgettable, I'm sure other people love them, like the way people thought IV was awful, real people, not Internet people, there's a lot more of them, all of them wrong to me, like you are about V to me. You and others calling people defenders because they don't agree, is tragic. Calling people fanboys for saying they like something you don't, is something children do, the 12 year olds you believe the game was made for. Presenting your opinions as fact doesn't make them so.

 

I mean there was never really one specific antagonist who stood out as one, they didn't have much difference, didn't do anything bad to the 3, just telling you what to do and getting killed. You work with them until the end of the game! lol They're just another GTA mission giver. Devin comes across as the only antagonist, but right at the end, before that he's just another dick you're working for. The older games had better antagonists, people who came across as enemies, Devin and Steve Haines don't. Not standard GTA antagonists anyway, bad Mafia guy or Eastern european guy. So in a way, no, V didn't have one, not sure how that is defending, but who am I to question you huh bro?

 

 

I'm not being childish, I'm just stating the truth. You clearly are defending Rockstar by conjuring up very lame excuses that V never really had antagonists. Other people on this thread are saying the exact same thing as I have, I can't be the only one seeing it. You are a certified and well-known V/Rockstar defender along with other certain names on here, but I don't hold that against you. There has to be opposing views and opinions in debate to make it an interesting one. My opinion is not presented as fact, it's just I'm more confident in the way I express it, if that hurts you, sorry but I can't do nothing about that.

 

I'd rather you just said : "I personally liked the antagonists in V, despite the fact that many people on here have criticized them. It was something different from what they normally do with antagonists in past GTAs and that intrigued me".

 

Not this : "Oh even though the antagonists in V were weak and could have been created better, it is perfectly understandable that Rockstar made it that way, because they were not really antagonists in the first place".

 

You would have gained more respect by saying the former, but you clearly came across as saying the latter - that's where you embarrassed yourself in my opinion. And I reckon deep down you believe the former, but chose express the latter view and sugar-coat it with bullsh*t, no disrespect.

 

I hear your point in the second part of your last reply, but bro, they are antagonists at the end of the day. I can't add anything more to that. They antagonists and in my eyes, very weak, the weakest in the series.

 

 

I know some people go to great lengths to defend GTA V, but this is some of the most desperate defending I've ever seen.

 

Seriously, its laughable and embarrassing at the same time.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Official General

[CarlitoDorito]

 

I'm not being childish, I'm just stating the truth. You clearly are defending Rockstar by conjuring up very lame excuses that V never really had antagonists. Other people on this thread are saying the exact same thing as I have, I can't be the only seeing it. You are a certified and well-known V/Rockstar defender along with other certain names on here, but I don't hold that against you. There has to be opposing views and opinions in debate to make it an interesting one. My opinion is not presented as fact, it's just I'm more confident in the way I express it, if that hurts you, sorry but I can't do nothing about that.

 

I'd rather you just said : "I personally liked the antagonists in V, despite the fact that many people on here have criticized them. It was something different from what they normally do with antagonists in past GTAs and that intrigued me".

 

Not this : "Oh even though the antagonists in V were weak and could have been created better, it is perfectly understandable that Rockstar made it that way, because they were not really antagonists in the first place".

 

You would have gained more respect by saying the former, but you clearly came across as saying the latter - that's where you embarrassed yourself in my opinion. And I reckon deep down you believe the former, but chose express the latter view and sugar-coat it with bullsh*t, no disrespect.

 

I hear your point in the second part of your last reply, but bro, they are antagonists at the end of the day. I can't add anything more to that. They antagonists and in my eyes, very weak, the weakest in the series.

I didn't mean it's perfectly understandable that rockstar made it that way, just that there didn't seem to be one, just an opinion, not a rockstar defense thing. I really don't care what your opinion is, whether others say the same thing you do, loads of people bitched about IV, a lot of the things you mention about V, that doesn't make it true. No need for me to make excuses, it accomplishes about as much as this thread does. Again, the whole rockstar defender thing is childish, whether you try to be or not.

 

There is a difference between being more confident with opinions or constructive criticism, and shoving opinions in peoples faces, being really condescending to anyone who disagrees or says something that seems to irk you enough to comment on it being angry internet guy, you can discuss without being an ass. You compare them to IV's, and compared to IV's, can they even be called antagonists?

 

Also, what other names? i'm excited now

Edited February 22, 2015 by CarlitoDorito

[The Green Sabre]

^ So, you're just admitting that the antagonists do suck. Because quite frankly, they're minor annoyances at best. Give me Tenpenny or Dimitri over those chumps any day of the week.

[Alec Skorpio]

I've never thought the antagonists in GTA were that memorable tbqh. They tend to only show up a few times. The people that betray you always stick out more for me

 

I'll agree it was even more apparent in GTA V tho, but the antagonistic nature between M, T and F make up for it

[streetx1xracer]

Dmitri Rascalov was by far my favorite antagonist in a videogame. Gta 5, the only antagonist for me was Lamar (I'm not going to write an essay explaining why).

[Korpi]

They sure don't make 'em like Forelli, Tenpenny & Rascalov/Pegorino anymore.

Now these guys were/are what you call an antagonist.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Mar.K

[The Deadite]

GTA IV had the best antagonist's IMO. Second place would goto maybe GTA: Vice City, then GTA:SA.

[TheDeathRises]

Catalina? Like, for real? You barely saw the bloody bitch in the game. The only reason I remember her is because of San Andreas. V's antagonists are actually pretty memorable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about them in detail here.

[Official General]

Catalina? Like, for real? You barely saw the bloody bitch in the game. The only reason I remember her is because of San Andreas. V's antagonists are actually pretty memorable. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about them in detail here.

 

Loooool