Is Steve Haines a good antagonist?

[Osho]

They did a pretty good job with him, since he isn't the main antagonist. He actually has more appearances in V than Dimitri in IV, and that's quite impressive considering that V's story is much shorter. So he definitely isn't underused.

Yeah. For a main antagonist Dimitri felt to me like a special appearance of a character who hardly made his presence felt -except in the late, ending parts- otherwise he didn't exist for majority of the story, and emerged only as a voice in phone conversations of very few missions after Niko & Roman left Broker.

On the other hand, Steve has a much more active role to play in the narrative, so he definitely wasn't underutilised in comparison to Dimitri.

Here's some interesting, Trivia:

Agent Haines bears many similarities to LSPD Officer Frank Tenpenny, the main antagonist of SA. Both Haines and Tenpenny are corrupt law enforcement officials who use their position to force the protagonist(s) to commit crimes on their behalf to further their own careers. However, unlike Tenpenny, Haines can get away with his crimes if the player chooses to assassinate either Michael or Trevor

[DangerZ0neX]

He has the ingredients to be a good antagonist, like a perfect chicken cheesesteak, but he is so undercooked with a lot of the spices abandoned that he gives anyone who play GTA V salmonella, just like an undercooked bland chicken cheesesteak.

 

Disclaimer: this is a joke, don't get your granny panties in a twist.

[Journey_95]

 

They did a pretty good job with him, since he isn't the main antagonist. He actually has more appearances in V than Dimitri in IV, and that's quite impressive considering that V's story is much shorter. So he definitely isn't underused.

Yeah. For a main antagonist Dimitri felt to me like a special appearance of a character who hardly made his presence felt -except in the late, ending parts- otherwise he didn't exist for majority of the story, and emerged only as a voice in phone conversations of very few missions after Niko & Roman left Broker.

On the other hand, Steve has a much more active role to play in the narrative, so he definitely wasn't underutilised in comparison to Dimitri.

Here's some interesting, Trivia:

Agent Haines bears many similarities to LSPD Officer Frank Tenpenny, the main antagonist of SA. Both Haines and Tenpenny are corrupt law enforcement officials who use their position to force the protagonist(s) to commit crimes on their behalf to further their own careers. However, unlike Tenpenny, Haines can get away with his crimes if the player chooses to assassinate either Michael or Trevor

 

lol no. Haines was a complete joke compared to Tenpenny. The latter you loved to hate, he was well voice acted (by f*cking Samuel L Jackson) and felt threatening.

 

Haines was an annoying highschool bully like others have already noticed (same with Devin Weston, they were basically the same), nothing more. He had a more active role than Dimitri but paled compared to him too. Screentime doesn't mean sh*t (but I agree that he should have appeared more).

Edited February 28, 2016 by Journey_95

[Fuzzknuckles]

lol no. Tenpenny was every Samuel L Jackson character rolled into one, but didn't stand out as a character in and of himself. He was just a pastiche of SLJ's greatest hits at that point.

 

Haines, despite being a godawful steaming sh*t of a man, is played to perfection Robert Bogue. He manages to pull out one of the most annoying, aggravating, dude-bro-with-a-job-title performances and really, to me, does a much better job of making you hate him than Sam Jackson and even Steven Ogg managed. I hate the character with every fibre of my being. And it's all down to that voice and the actor's delivery. He could have played it another way and made Haines feel a little more sympathetic, but instead creates this back-slapping latte-chugging FBI surfer asshole. Ugh, I would absolutely claw my way out of my own soul if it meant I got to destroy him in real life.

 

That alone, however, doesn't make him a good antagonist. Neither does his cowardice or his completely patronising way of talking to the trio.

 

What makes him a good antagonist is the feeling he stirs up inside you when you realise, for the first time, that you're not getting paid for what you do to him. It's the ultimate dick move, along with forcing you to work for him several times again.

 

While I don't think he's the best he's by no means the worst antagonist we've had. All GTA antagonists are ultimately forgettable, with none in particular that stand out for me with the possible exception of Toreno, And he's not even really an antagonist, he's a grey area for the most part. But damn, you don't forget James Woods' performance.

[Whyohwhy]

 

They did a pretty good job with him, since he isn't the main antagonist. He actually has more appearances in V than Dimitri in IV, and that's quite impressive considering that V's story is much shorter. So he definitely isn't underused.

Yeah. For a main antagonist Dimitri felt to me like a special appearance of a character who hardly made his presence felt -except in the late, ending parts- otherwise he didn't exist for majority of the story, and emerged only as a voice in phone conversations of very few missions after Niko & Roman left Broker.

On the other hand, Steve has a much more active role to play in the narrative, so he definitely wasn't underutilised in comparison to Dimitri.

Here's some interesting, Trivia:

Agent Haines bears many similarities to LSPD Officer Frank Tenpenny, the main antagonist of SA. Both Haines and Tenpenny are corrupt law enforcement officials who use their position to force the protagonist(s) to commit crimes on their behalf to further their own careers. However, unlike Tenpenny, Haines can get away with his crimes if the player chooses to assassinate either Michael or Trevor

Yea exactly.That's why I can't grasp why people think so highly of Dimitri. He was standard fare for a GTA antag. There was literally nothing unique about him except for his corny name; Rascalov has gotta be one of the cheesiest names for a GTA character.

 

And like you guys have said, he was very very underused. After like 25 missions, he burns Romans apartment down. Then after another 30 missions or so he kidnaps Roman. Then after another 30 missions he betrays you again and you confront him. He could have been great but there was way too much padding in between his appearances.

 

And on a side note, why would I care that Roman gets kidnapped after more or less not seeing him for like 30 missions. Then why would I care about him getting married/getting killed when he doesn't turn up for another 30 missions or so. Maybe I've got it wrong and he does make appearances here and there, haven't played the game for like 5 years but it sure as hell felt like he didn't.

 

What it seemed like was that he was demoted to someone you could do the lame friend activities with after being such an integral part to the story for the first quarter of the game. I actually think he was a great character, and I even didn't mind his phonecalls; what I didn't like was how he almost disappeared from Nikos life for the majority of the game especially if you didn't wanna do the sh*tty friend activities with him.

[Journey_95]

lol no. Tenpenny was every Samuel L Jackson character rolled into one, but didn't stand out as a character in and of himself. He was just a pastiche of SLJ's greatest hits at that point.

 

Haines, despite being a godawful steaming sh*t of a man, is played to perfection Robert Bogue. He manages to pull out one of the most annoying, aggravating, dude-bro-with-a-job-title performances and really, to me, does a much better job of making you hate him than Sam Jackson and even Steven Ogg managed. I hate the character with every fibre of my being. And it's all down to that voice and the actor's delivery. He could have played it another way and made Haines feel a little more sympathetic, but instead creates this back-slapping latte-chugging FBI surfer asshole. Ugh, I would absolutely claw my way out of my own soul if it meant I got to destroy him in real life.

 

That alone, however, doesn't make him a good antagonist. Neither does his cowardice or his completely patronising way of talking to the trio.

 

What makes him a good antagonist is the feeling he stirs up inside you when you realise, for the first time, that you're not getting paid for what you do to him. It's the ultimate dick move, along with forcing you to work for him several times again.

 

While I don't think he's the best he's by no means the worst antagonist we've had. All GTA antagonists are ultimately forgettable, with none in particular that stand out for me with the possible exception of Toreno, And he's not even really an antagonist, he's a grey area for the most part. But damn, you don't forget James Woods' performance.

And I liked that, he did a great job as Tenpenny.

 

"Played to perfection"? he was ok I don't see what made him so special. , I didn't even really hate Steve Haines. He was just a nuisance who got on my nerves. The protags were the bitches for him for the majority of the story and I hated that. Especially since they just killed him at the end anyway.

 

And like Devin Weston thats a weak ass excuse to hate him. Oh no he didn't pay me, what an evil guy!

 

I don't think memorable characters like Sonny, Lance Vance, Tenpenny, Big Smoke and Dimitri are forgettable. They all did their joby well, unlike Haines and Weston who never felt threatening, never did any real harm to the protags etc.

 

 

They did a pretty good job with him, since he isn't the main antagonist. He actually has more appearances in V than Dimitri in IV, and that's quite impressive considering that V's story is much shorter. So he definitely isn't underused.

Yeah. For a main antagonist Dimitri felt to me like a special appearance of a character who hardly made his presence felt -except in the late, ending parts- otherwise he didn't exist for majority of the story, and emerged only as a voice in phone conversations of very few missions after Niko & Roman left Broker.

On the other hand, Steve has a much more active role to play in the narrative, so he definitely wasn't underutilised in comparison to Dimitri.

Here's some interesting, Trivia:

Agent Haines bears many similarities to LSPD Officer Frank Tenpenny, the main antagonist of SA. Both Haines and Tenpenny are corrupt law enforcement officials who use their position to force the protagonist(s) to commit crimes on their behalf to further their own careers. However, unlike Tenpenny, Haines can get away with his crimes if the player chooses to assassinate either Michael or Trevor

Yea exactly.That's why I can't grasp why people think so highly of Dimitri. He was standard fare for a GTA antag. There was literally nothing unique about him except for his corny name; Rascalov has gotta be one of the cheesiest names for a GTA character.

 

And like you guys have said, he was very very underused. After like 25 missions, he burns Romans apartment down. Then after another 30 missions or so he kidnaps Roman. Then after another 30 missions he betrays you again and you confront him. He could have been great but there was way too much padding in between his appearances.

 

And on a side note, why would I care that Roman gets kidnapped after more or less not seeing him for like 30 missions. Then why would I care about him getting married/getting killed when he doesn't turn up for another 30 missions or so. Maybe I've got it wrong and he does make appearances here and there, haven't played the game for like 5 years but it sure as hell felt like he didn't.

 

What it seemed like was that he was demoted to someone you could do the lame friend activities with after being such an integral part to the story for the first quarter of the game. I actually think he was a great character, and I even didn't mind his phonecalls; what I didn't like was how he almost disappeared from Nikos life for the majority of the game especially if you didn't wanna do the sh*tty friend activities with him.

 

On that I agree. Dimitri could have used more apperances and I also disliked how Roman just disappeared in the second half of the story.

At least there were the good phone calls you could have with him after certain missions, he gives some interesting insight etc. (I didn't even know about them until my latest playthrough)

Edited February 28, 2016 by Journey_95

[Official General]

Antagonist ? I never even realised that Steve Haines was supposed to one until right at the end of the game. That says it all.

[SirPuga]

Steve seemed more like a pest than an antagonist. If he acted like he did in By the Book more he'd be more fearsome.

[ChiroVette]

 

 

Yea exactly.That's why I can't grasp why people think so highly of Dimitri. He was standard fare for a GTA antag. There was literally nothing unique about him except for his corny name; Rascalov has gotta be one of the cheesiest names for a GTA character.

 

Yeah Dimitri was nothing. But its obvious that all the characters of IV are forgettable and boring. Haines is a much better character hands down! Then again, that isn't saying very much when comparing him to Dimitri as so many are doing. Weston is also a great character. I love his assholic, douchy, yuppie rich-man attitude, And the scene with him in the trunk as Trevor drives him to his demise in Three Way as he begs for his life is classic! But then this thread is about Haines, not Weston. So I digress lol.

Edited February 28, 2016 by ChiroVette

[jatiger13]

lol no. Haines was a complete joke compared to Tenpenny. The latter you loved to hate, he was well voice acted (by f*cking Samuel L Jackson) and felt threatening.

One does not have to be threatening to be a good antagonist. Furthermore, I don't remember feeling threatened by Tenpenny any more than Haines.

 

Haines was an annoying highschool bully like others have already noticed (same with Devin Weston, they were basically the same), nothing more. He had a more active role than Dimitri but paled compared to him too.

Dimitri was pretty forgettable though. When he would call Niko, I had usually forgot that he was still alive, it served as a reminder of his "presence". Even though he wasn't really present, therefore making him a weak character, imo. But he was definitely never an imposing threat, imo, mainly due to me not feeling like he really existed in the games world. He disappears for most of it. So take that drivel about him somewhere else.

 

 

 

 

Antagonist ? I never even realised that Steve Haines was supposed to one until right at the end of the game. That says it all.

Felt the same way about Dimitri Rascalov.

He wasn't really a threat to Niko, due to DR being in hiding for the vast majority of the story, so I didn't really feel a need to kill him.

Edited February 28, 2016 by jatiger13

[Algonquin Assassin]

Antagonist ? I never even realised that Steve Haines was supposed to one until right at the end of the game. That says it all.

My thoughts exactly. I remember on my first playthrough I wasn't even sure who the antagonist was or if there was more than one.

 

I mean I knew Weston was a dick, but didn't think of him of antagonist material and Haines was the same basically. I just thought he was an arrogant FIB asshole with a chip on his shoulder.

[Jerking For Soup]

Too similar to Agent 14 1/10

[Journey_95]

 

lol no. Haines was a complete joke compared to Tenpenny. The latter you loved to hate, he was well voice acted (by f*cking Samuel L Jackson) and felt threatening.

One does not have to be threatening to be a good antagonist. Furthermore, I don't remember feeling threatened by Tenpenny any more than Haines.

 

Haines was an annoying highschool bully like others have already noticed (same with Devin Weston, they were basically the same), nothing more. He had a more active role than Dimitri but paled compared to him too.

Dimitri was pretty forgettable though. When he would call Niko, I had usually forgot that he was still alive, it served as a reminder of his "presence". Even though he wasn't really present, therefore making him a weak character, imo But he was definitely never an imposing threat, imo, mainly due to me not feeling like he really existed in the games world. He disappears for most of it. So take that drivel about him somewhere else.

 

 

 

 

Antagonist ? I never even realised that Steve Haines was supposed to one until right at the end of the game. That says it all.

Felt the same way about Dimitri Rascalov.

He wasn't really a threat to Niko, due to DR being in hiding for the vast majority of the story, so I didn't really feel a need to kill him.

 

A good antagonist should be threatening. Tenpenny was a badass, even comparing the pussy Haines to him is an insult. Dude would have made the latter his bitch.

 

Dimitri betrayed you and burned you apartment, Roman's taxi depot and was after you so you had to go into hiding. Plus he kidnapped Roman. And at the end he can be responsible and kill Roman.

 

Meanwhile Haines made you work for him and didn't pay you.....but yeah sure he was better lol, true evil.

 

I mean I won't deny that Dimitri should have appared more but he was still a good antagonist. Haines may have appeared more but he didn't do much and just said the same old predictable sh*t.

 

And no I won't take this "drivel" anywhere else. This topic is not just about Haines but also about how he compares to the rest. DR wasn't in hiding at all, what are you talking about?

[Sonnу]

Is Steve Haines a good antagonist?

Sure he is. Just like any other character in this brilliant game!

You start to hate him since his very first appearance. Lol at people who think the antagoist must kill or kidnap someone in order to be good and hateful antagonist. Guys! Stone Snore Age is gone. Play the game and learn how to make awesome antag without him killing/kidnapping anyone. And, by the way, you say kidnapping Roman is a good reason to hate the kidnapper? Lol I was thankful to those Russians instead

[.Vooodu.]

I think Hanes is a great baddie. R* did a good job establishing him as a total douche that only cares about his own personal gains.

But really? Stretch is just a bitch...lol

[Pedinhuh]

People actually like Stretch as an antagonist? Wow. Just... wow.

Exactly, I mean he might be a treat to Lamar, and there's the banter between him and Franklin(through phone calls) but besides that, I don't really see what's there to like him as a antagonist, heck not even as a character, his VA wasn't that much convincing and lets not forget the fact that he appear in exactly TWO missions only: The one where they kill some random Ballas in a factory, and in his final appearance in the last mission...Where you kill him.

(and if I'm not wrong, he didn't even had a gun to pose as a challenge to the player)

 

Totally underused, I don't even understand why R* bothered putting him in the game at all, unless they use him in a prequel DLC in the future.

[jatiger13]

DR wasn't in hiding at all, what are you talking about?

That's the only excuse I have for his absence. Why else is he gone for the majority of the story? I guess he's just that big of a pussy then.

 

Dimitri was an unbelievably weak antagonist, imo. Kittens are more threatening than that limp dick.

 

Plus, a major issue with IV.... why didn't Niko go after Dimitri after Roman's kidnapping? Dumb and bad writing.

 

 

 

-Dimitri betrayed you

-and burned you apartment, Roman's taxi depot

-and was after you so you had to go into hiding.

-Plus he kidnapped Roman.

-And at the end he can be responsible and kill Roman.

-Cliché

-Good, those were sh*tholes anyway

-Goons, although, Dimitri was never really after him. At least I didn't get that feeling. Plus, Niko wasn't really in hiding.

-Goons

-Goons

 

If anything, his goons are the threats, not Dimitri.

Edited February 28, 2016 by jatiger13

[Pedinhuh]

 

DR wasn't in hiding at all, what are you talking about?

That's the only excuse I have for his absence. Why else is he gone for the majority of the story? I guess he's just that big of a pussy then.

 

Dimitri was an unbelievably weak antagonist, imo. Kittens are more threatening than that limp dick.

 

Plus, a major issue with IV.... why didn't Niko go after Dimitri after Roman's kidnapping? Dumb and bad writing.

Maybe because he didn't know where he was?

Case in point, in the revenge ending Niko goes straight to kill Dimitri because he knew where he was.

 

And yes, Dimitri was a coward, that's his f*cking character right there because thats how he was meant to be, just like Devin Weston and even Steve Heines himself.

[ChiroVette]

 

Felt the same way about Dimitri Rascalov.

He wasn't really a threat to Niko, due to DR being in hiding for the vast majority of the story, so I didn't really feel a need to kill him.

 

 

Dimitri was a joke. I think that he was "supposed to" sound threatening because he had a cheesy accent. lol **yawn**

 

 

 

DR wasn't in hiding at all, what are you talking about?

That's the only excuse I have for his absence. Why else is he gone for the majority of the story? I guess he's just that big of a pussy then.

 

Dimitri was an unbelievably weak antagonist, imo. Kittens are more threatening than that limp dick.

 

Plus, a major issue with IV.... why didn't Niko go after Dimitri after Roman's kidnapping? Dumb and bad writing.

 

 

Most of Snore has pretty lackluster writing. The one great moment in the game was Three Leaf Clover, but that was just the mission. The writing in it, featuring more garbage drama from the McDreary family, was only worthy of hitting X (A) to skip the alleged story.

 

 

 

Is Steve Haines a good antagonist?

Sure he is. Just like any other character in this brilliant game!

You start to hate him since his very first appearance. Lol at people who think the antagoist must kill or kidnap someone in order to be good and hateful antagonist. Guys! Stone Snore Age is gone. Play the game and learn how to make awesome antag without him killing/kidnapping anyone. And, by the way, you say kidnapping Roman is a good reason to hate the kidnapper? Lol I was thankful to those Russians instead

 

 

Yeah the Rockstar writers really did a great job on Haines's story as well as the entire cast of V. As for kidnapping Roman, I remember feeling that one of the lights at the end of the tunnel in Snore's crapfest of a nonsense story was when Roman was kidnapped and for a little while, you don't have to hear his horrifyingly obnoxious voice in his needy, clingy, desperate need to go on a bromance playdate with "Cousin Niko." lol

[combustion]

The only reason why antagonists exist in the game is just to form bases for the endings. Steve wants Trevor dead. Devin wants Michael dead. Franklin is also given the option of killing them both and saving Michael and Trevor. This is extremely different from previous GTA games, where the antagonist is treated as a central character of the game. In V, they are just there. There, like a plot object to make way for a Hollywood-style cheesy ending.

 

Antagonists created for the sake of an ending tend to be underdeveloped, uninteresting and they annoy you with their partial character development. They were probably created during a tea-break in a Wednesday. Calling Stretch an antagonist is just like calling Little Weasel (from San Andreas) a main antagonist. Calling Wei Cheng an antagonist is just like calling Snakehead (again from San Andreas) an antagonist. They are not, and are merely used for filling the story. That's the same case with this game, the antagonists are just there.

 

So, you can't really consider Haines, Weston, Joseph or Cheng as proper antagonists. Sure, they go against the protagonist, but they are not true villains and like I said before, exist for an ending. This just shows this s**tty story writing and a it's massive step back from previous games which had great antagonists like Tenpenny, Sonny Forelli, Big Smoke, Catalina, Vinnie, Bulgarin, Mendez, Peg etc.

[Official General]

Steve seemed more like a pest than an antagonist. If he acted like he did in By the Book more he'd be more fearsome.

Exactly this.

 

I saw him as more of a big pest than anything else. He certainly annoyed me, but it was much less to do with his character and mainly because I was so bored with dealing with the FIB and doing their missions, and I knew that anytime he called, it would mean more FIB lapdog bullsh*t I had to endure. Therefore, he didn't feel like an antagonist to me. I never even chose ending C, I just chose to kill Trevor, so effectively he was not an antagonist to me in the end.

 

@ jatiger13

 

Felt the same way about Dimitri Rascalov.

He wasn't really a threat to Niko, due to DR being in hiding for the vast majority of the story, so I didn't really feel a need to kill him

I thought Dimitri was a very good antagonist for a number of reasons, one of which you stated here. I really hated the fact that Dimitri tricked Niko into killing Faustin for no reason, (which I felt so bad about) also betraying Faistin in the process. Then he double-crosses Niko by getting the Russian Mob to turn on him and mark him and Roman for death, and getting Roman kidnapped and nearly killed. Then on top if it all, Dimitri displays incredible levels of cowardice by hiding from Niko, and taunting him over the phone. Yeah Dimitri is a big coward, pussy and all that, but what made me so badly wanna kill him is that he had the audacity to still taunt and threaten me on the phone, and hide from me at the same time. All those things just inflated my drive to Dimitri tenfold, I got no feeling like this with any main V antagonist, except Trevor, who wasn't truly an antagonist anyway. Edited February 28, 2016 by Official General

[DaWiesel]

 

They did a pretty good job with him, since he isn't the main antagonist. He actually has more appearances in V than Dimitri in IV, and that's quite impressive considering that V's story is much shorter. So he definitely isn't underused.

Yeah. For a main antagonist Dimitri felt to me like a special appearance of a character who hardly made his presence felt -except in the late, ending parts- otherwise he didn't exist for majority of the story, and emerged only as a voice in phone conversations of very few missions after Niko & Roman left Broker.

On the other hand, Steve has a much more active role to play in the narrative, so he definitely wasn't underutilised in comparison to Dimitri.

Exactly, Steve Haines actually plays a bigger role in V's storyline than Dimitri in IV's, but I still prefer Dimitri as an antagonist because of IV's ending to be honest. However if Steve Haines would have been the main antagonist, he would definitely have been better than Dimitri, I'm sure. But R* still did a good job with him, he didn't need to betray the trio to make me hate him and that's a very positive thing, since I was getting bored of betrayals.

 

 

DR wasn't in hiding at all, what are you talking about?

That's the only excuse I have for his absence. Why else is he gone for the majority of the story? I guess he's just that big of a pussy then.

Yeah, he was hardly threatening. If he at least would send some assassins after Niko from time to time. I mean Madrazo was a weak antagonist, but he at least would sent some killers after M and T if they would go to LS while they were in exile.

Edited February 28, 2016 by DaWiesel

[Badman_]

Stretch is a good character IMO. A missed opportunity to make a great antagonist for Franklin and Lamar.

[Official General]

@ DaWiesel

 

You do have a point about Dimitri not having assassins to send after Niko, I'd have love to have experienced that in IV in similar fashion to what Madrazo did to Michael and Trevor in V. However to be fair to IV, Roman's home was burnt down by Dimitri's goons, and Dimitri did orchestrate Roman's kidnapping and attempted murder by Bulgarin's men. There was some strong element of deadly intimidation and threat from Dimitri after his fall out with Niko, you can't say there wasn't.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

i liked steve haines. in fact he is one of my favorite antags of the gta series. while he was not perfect there is one redeeming quality of his that has not been talked about here. he shot himself in the leg just to let the crew get away. i mean he had balls to do that. how about everybodys favorite antagonists? tennpenny dimitri or any other antagonists shoot themselves? hell no they coward like babys. like people said dimitri was too scared to do anything he had his goons do it all. who kidnapped roman? johnny not even anybody affiliated with dimitri. he also did not kill roman just some unnamed goon. tennpeny was similar except he had more appearances i think. he had plenty in the beggining then a couple in the second area and then a few in the third area. heck i think mike toreno should have been the main antagonist. he was creepy and you never new what you would do for him or what he would do to you. anyways back on track with steve he was a funny unique and awsome antagonist. and the way he died sucked. he did not have a chance to fight back. i actually felt bad when i killed him. i knew it had to be done because i did not want to kill m or t. i would have loved to have had a boss fight with him at the amusement park. anyways yes he is a great antagonst to me at least.

[ChiroVette]

Stretch is a good character IMO. A missed opportunity to make a great antagonist for Franklin and Lamar.

 

Stretch is a fine character, and a fine antagonist. Look, ANY GTA character I have ever seen could have more development and more missions. Its called gamer-greed, and is a good thing. Obviously wen something is awesome, like GTA V, SA, III, VCS, and LCS, you want more! Of course we want more. But Stretch was only ever meant to be a minor character, nothing more. What's more, Franklin could have dispatched him at any time, but the point is he was too busy with the heists and being Michael's protege.

 

I think people are getting faked out by his presence in the final mission, which in and of itself, is meaningless. Its just when Franklin and the boys decided to deal with him. Nothing more.

[Misunderstood]

I disagree. I don't know enough about Stretch to know if he's a good GTA character or not. There's nothing wrong with making him a minor character but they could have easily, very easily, took care of Stretch earlier in the game. Because they didn't, when you get to the final mission, you forget who Stretch is because he hasn't been in it for the past 45 missions. His appearance in the final mission is not meaningless. I don't know what happened. Maybe Rockstar just wanted a villian for F just to have one or maybe they forgot about Stretch and decided to throw him in, but either way, I find him to be and underdeveloped character. I do not think F was sooooo busy that he couldn't kill Stretch after he betrays them or after D's ambush with T. Again, it's not even that he's a bad character. It's just that I literally do not see him enough in the story.

[WavyWeazel]

 

Stretch is a good character IMO. A missed opportunity to make a great antagonist for Franklin and Lamar.

 

... Obviously wen something is awesome, like GTA V, SA, III, VCS, and LCS, you want more! Of course we want more. ...

 

 

Uh, no. Not the case here. In this case, people just want more because we got next to nothing to begin with. Not because Stretch was some amazing character that we just can't get enough of.

 

It's less "we want more!" and more "give us something. anything. please!"

Edited February 28, 2016 by Weazur

[Cheatz/Trickz]

Precisely, I want more story for V because there's a possibility it can still be fixed (with some good DLC).

Edited February 28, 2016 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[cp1dell]

What makes him a good antagonist is the feeling he stirs up inside you when you realise, for the first time, that you're not getting paid for what you do to him. It's the ultimate dick move, along with forcing you to work for him several times again.

This is one of the things I liked about V. Everyone complains about how you don't get payed for a large majority of the missions, but it's because none of the people you were working for were paying you. A lot better than the previous games where you somehow magically obtained money for doing missions. Like picking Revenge in GTA IV and still getting the money you would have gotten if you picked the Deal. That's one of the jarring things in IV, where Niko constantly refers to how him and Roman are barely scraping by yet here you are racking up thousands of dollars somehow just because.