Is Steve Haines a good antagonist?

[Official General]

 

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.This would not have been a problem if the main theme of V was not touted as "the pursuit of the almighty dollar". On top of that, the imagery of luxury mansions, fast cars, sunny SoCal highlife was projected in advertisements of the game to symbolise this theme. When 90 percent of the game's heists are not paying you after buying into the main theme, most likely you're gonna complain about it. It's a legitimate complaint, what you're saying just sounds to me like another ready made excuse to explain away Rockstar's poor story writing. But I know from previous posts that you like V a lot, so I can only expect that from you.

 

At least Niko's accumulation of money was more consistent and in line with the gameplay, unlike V, where the time gap between getting paid for certain heists was massive. In V you earn a huge amount of money at the end of the game, which in my opinion was pretty pointless, because it rendered owning business or doing any side missions for money practically useless. Once you finished that last heist, there was virtually nothing to do outside the story for money that would have made sense, you'd just be restricted to leisure activities, random events (of which the best ones are only done once), and those largely stupid Strangers and Freaks missions.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Official General

[Fuzzknuckles]

"the pursuit of the almighty dollar".

But that's exactly what it is, you're chasing that money for the entire game. The pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

If it had been "the acquisition of the almighty dollar" then you might have had a point.

[Osho]

lol, that!

 

pursuit of the almighty dollar =/= typical rags to riches goal, at least, that's the impression I had initially. I think it was not meant to be like SA.

E:

Also, I strongly have this feeling that the next GTA will truly bring back the empire building, finally!

Edited February 29, 2016 by Osho

[UshaB]

Also, I strongly have this feeling that the next GTA will truly bring back the empire building, finally!

 

That's what I said....don't steal from meeeeeeeee!!!! Kiddin', but really though, that's what I feel like they'll be going for next round.

[Official General]

 

"the pursuit of the almighty dollar".

 

But that's exactly what it is, you're chasing that money for the entire game. The pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

If it had been "the acquisition of the almighty dollar" then you might have had a point.

 

Even if I agree with you on the basis of the technical nitpicking you have just demonstrated, I will reinforce my point further to say it still didn't feel to me for most of the game that I was pursuing the almighty dollar. If what you say is true, for me it just didn't work, it was poorly written and badly structured with regards to the gameplay. Being a lapdog for the Feds for boring government missions that the protagonists had no interest in, and not getting paid for most of them, does not feel like pursuing money and riches at all. Despite what Rockstar themselves said it was, if that's your idea of pursuing dollars, then no disrespect, I'm sorry to say your opinion on this particular subject leaves a lot to be desired. But hey, at least you're entitled to it. Edited February 29, 2016 by Official General

[Fuzzknuckles]

Thanks for allowing me my opinion this time, that's really appreciated. It's a shame that you had to then contradict yourself by telling me that the opinion I'm entitled to leaves a lot to be desired because it doesn't align with yours, but thanks anyway, it's appreciated that you've deigned to be so benevolent. It's good to know we have such charitable and genuinely friendly, accommodating and accepting people on the boards.

 

It's not technical nitpicking, it's a statement of fact. If you're incapable of dealing with it when people are able to nullify your statements, that's on you. But hey, you're entitled to that. I wouldn't try to take that away from you. It's all you've got.

 

From the moment you become involved with Haines you are literally pursuing the almighty dollar. You're chasing that money. That's the pursuit.

 

But hey, you're never going to accept any position that's contrary to yours, because you're just too damn proud to admit that you're... yep, wrong.

[Pedinhuh]

 

From the moment you become involved with Haines you are literally pursuing the almighty dollar. You're chasing that money. That's the pursuit.

 

Hey, ermm....I don't really want to start any confusion with you but, why do you think of that?

 

Right on the first encounter between Michael and Steve heines, Heines grabs Michael by the neck and makes it clear that he will be his dog for then on, and that if he doesn't cooperate he will end up in jail. I don't really see any pursuit of money in any of his missions, that was more the pursuit of not being in jail, kinda like what happened between Tenpenny and Cj in GTA:SA. And that's exactly what they got, they work for them without getting paid at all (exept for that Paleto Bay heist, but even then, the FIB got most of the profit from the score).

 

No offense here, I just want to know your point of view on this.

Edited February 29, 2016 by pedinhuh

[Official General]

Thanks for allowing me my opinion this time, that's really appreciated. It's a shame that you had to then contradict yourself by telling me that the opinion I'm entitled to leaves a lot to be desired because it doesn't align with yours, but thanks anyway, it's appreciated that you've deigned to be so benevolent. It's good to know we have such charitable and genuinely friendly, accommodating and accepting people on the boards.

 

It's not technical nitpicking, it's a statement of fact. If you're incapable of dealing with it when people are able to nullify your statements, that's on you. But hey, you're entitled to that. I wouldn't try to take that away from you. It's all you've got.

 

From the moment you become involved with Haines you are literally pursuing the almighty dollar. You're chasing that money. That's the pursuit.

 

But hey, you're never going to accept any position that's contrary to yours, because you're just too damn proud to admit that you're... yep, wrong.

 

Sorry Fuzz, I'm just gonna be straight now. I think your clutching-at-straws reasoning for explaining away Rockstar's messing up their own main theme of pursuing dollars in V, is just sugar-coated bullsh*t. Once again, always as ever you make excuses for them that seem sound on the outside, but in reality there is no substance to them. This is no different. If you say I'm wrong, then fine bro, but I'm very sure of my own opinion and I have no doubt many on here agree with it.

[Osho]

As Houser notes, the game's story arc won't feature the usual rags-to-riches tale that has become one of the series' trademarks.

"It's a completely different type of story this time," he said. "The three heroes are all playing out their own conflicting roles, and it makes for a deeper and more complex story than before. I'd like you to think of it as a new story, one that you've never experienced not just in games but in any other genre. I guess it sort of talks about how that beautiful West Coast, covered in these rainbows of hope, isn't really the paradise you'd imagine."

[Son of Zeus]

 

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.

This. He never feels threatening on a personal level because he's overacting most of the time, trying hard to sound intimidating but comes off as a cartoony bully more than anything else. Otherwise his VA does a decent job when not overacting, it's a shame he's let down by a weak script.

[Fuzzknuckles]

Once again, always as ever you make excuses for them that seem sound on the outside, but in reality there is no substance to them.

I'm not making excuses for them, I'm giving you my view of what you've raised. There's no defence of Rockstar here, just me explaining what I think.

 

So, again, you're wrong.

 

 

 

From the moment you become involved with Haines you are literally pursuing the almighty dollar. You're chasing that money. That's the pursuit.

 

Hey, ermm....I don't really want to start any confusion with you but, why do you think of that?

 

Right on the first encounter between Michael and Steve heines, Heines grabs Michael by the neck and makes it clear that he will be his dog for then on, and that if he doesn't cooperate he will end up in jail. I don't really see any pursuit of money in any of his missions, that was more the pursuit of not being in jail, kinda like what happened between Tenpenny and Cj in GTA:SA. And that's exactly what they got, they work for them without getting paid at all (exept for that Paleto Bay heist, but even then, the FIB got most of the profit from the score).

 

No offense here, I just want to know your point of view on this.

 

The money from the first heist with Haines is funneled into a subsequent job, and the pay out is withheld.

 

You're right, too, though. They're also working to keep themselves out of jail. But Haines, Weston, all subsequent missions after the initial, paid heist, see you chasing a pay out that isn't coming. A pursuit, you might say.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Fuzzknuckles

[TheOneLibertonian]

I think Haines had the potential to be a great antagonist, but he's just there to annoy the protagonists, and feels not threatening at all. Like Weston, and Madrazo, they are nothing but soft, and unthreatening threats to the protagonists. They are written horribly by the script, even the actors, despite their great performances, weren't enough for the weak script. Hopefully GTA VI would finally give us a threatening antagonist again. Like Tenpenny, and Dimitri.

[Whyohwhy]

 

 

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.

This would not have been a problem if the main theme of V was not touted as "the pursuit of the almighty dollar". On top of that, the imagery of luxury mansions, fast cars, sunny SoCal highlife was projected in advertisements of the game to symbolise this theme. When 90 percent of the game's heists are not paying you after buying into the main theme, most likely you're gonna complain about it. It's a legitimate complaint, what you're saying just sounds to me like another ready made excuse to explain away Rockstar's poor story writing. But I know from previous posts that you like V a lot, so I can only expect that from you.

 

At least Niko's accumulation of money was more consistent and in line with the gameplay, unlike V, where the time gap between getting paid for certain heists was massive. In V you earn a huge amount of money at the end of the game, which in my opinion was pretty pointless, because it rendered owning business or doing any side missions for money practically useless. Once you you finished that last heist, there was virtually nothing to do outside the story for money that would have made sense, you'd just be restricted to leisure activities, random events (of which the best ones are only done once), and those largely stupid Strangers and Freaks missions.

You've made some concrete assumptions about what GTA 5 is going to be just by watching trailers/adverts, which is ridiculous because by their very nature trailers are vague so as not to give too much away. Its not fair for you to blame the way Rock star advertised it because you'd made some framework in your head for the story that didn't allow for anything but chasing money when Rock star never said anything of the sort. The quote that Osho has provided above seems like pretty much what the end product turned out to be.

 

The game is totally about the pursuit of the American dollar, key word being pursuit. All 3 protags are after 'the big score' and even when they have to do sh*t for the FIB/Devin Weston its mostly about the money for them. Whether or not they attain it at that point is irrelevant; what matters is at the end they do get the money they were after.

 

So no its not a legitimate complaint to say you don't get paid for most of the heists just by what the trailers depicted because Rockstar said at no point you're gonna be getting rich af before the end of the game. This could defeat the purpose of the pursuit of the almighty dollar; if the protags were to get rich in the first or second heist then the pursuit has finished and the game would become like every other GTA and be about someone betraying you. Then people would whine that its just like every other GTA and not about the pursuit of the dollar as advertised. THAT would be a legitimate complaint.

 

5 gives you enough money during the campaign to make it more than enjoyable. What getting rich at the end of the game does is make the post game much bettter than a game like Gta IV which had nothing to spend money on. In 5, you can buy, fully customise and store 20 or so cars not including the unique protag vehicles and acquire a huge, very costly arsenal but then you can also buy hangars and planes, boat docks/boats and properties. You can buy the tank and the buzzard as well which are both awesome.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

5 gives you enough money during the campaign to make it more than enjoyable. What getting rich at the end of the game does is make the post game much bettter than a game like Gta IV which had nothing to spend money on. In 5, you can buy, fully customise and store 20 or so cars not including the unique protag vehicles and acquire a huge, very costly arsenal but then you can also buy hangars and planes, boat docks/boats and properties. You can buy the tank and the buzzard as well which are both awesome.

 

Whereas in IV, by the time you reach the payout at the end of the story, you've already made a ludicrous amount of money (well, I had) and bought absolutely everything it's possible to buy. By the end game, there's simply nothing left to spend money on other than ammo and medical bills. In V, you at least have all the clothing and vehicles to choose from, the modding, optional businesses if you want some small everlasting missions to play, tons of activities to play that don't force you to perpetuate the life of a loser criminal... and can even leave the game behind in favour of messing with the creator and editor.

 

In one San An playthrough I had gamed the Inside Track so well, I had billions and... nothing to spend it on. That's probably why we never got the casino in V - what's the point in being a criminal from the hood that wants out of that life when you can just... go down the bookies and make a few well considered bets or win big on the black jack?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Fuzzknuckles

[ChiroVette]

The money from the first heist with Haines is funneled into a subsequent job, and the pay out is withheld.

 

You're right, too, though. They're also working to keep themselves out of jail. But Haines, Weston, all subsequent missions after the initial, paid heist, see you chasing a pay out that isn't coming. A pursuit, you might say.

 

 

To respond to this and your original point, the game itself is absolutely about the pursuit of the almighty dollar! There is no question about it. Does Michael also have the goal of staying out of jail by playing ball with the Feds? Absolutely. But he also uses every opportunity to make a f*ck-ton of money for the trio.

 

Proper use of the Stock Market combined with the heists can yield literally BILLIONS for the main characters. Hell, Michael starts out in a beautiful mansion. Lester moved Franklin into a gorgeous home in Vinewood Hills. Only Trevor seems completely immune to the trappings of the glitz and glitter of Los Santos, but even he ends up with billions with proper use of the game's tools.

 

To say this game isn't about the pursuit of money is a completely and total distortion of the facts. Everywhere you look there are incredibly expensive things, income properties as well as planes, high end cars, military vehicles, and even $10K bicycles all available on the website, purchases which you can fairly easily fund in the game.

 

You've made some concrete assumptions about what GTA 5 is going to be just by watching trailers/adverts, which is ridiculous because by their very nature trailers are vague so as not to give too much away. Its not fair for you to blame the way Rock star advertised it because you'd made some framework in your head for the story that didn't allow for anything but chasing money when Rock star never said anything of the sort. The quote that Osho has provided above seems like pretty much what the end product turned out to be.

 

The game is totally about the pursuit of the American dollar, key word being pursuit. All 3 protags are after 'the big score' and even when they have to do sh*t for the FIB/Devin Weston its mostly about the money for them. Whether or not they attain it at that point is irrelevant; what matters is at the end they do get the money they were after.

 

So no its not a legitimate complaint to say you don't get paid for most of the heists just by what the trailers depicted because Rockstar said at no point you're gonna be getting rich af before the end of the game. This could defeat the purpose of the pursuit of the almighty dollar; if the protags were to get rich in the first or second heist then the pursuit has finished and the game would become like every other GTA and be about someone betraying you. Then people would whine that its just like every other GTA and not about the pursuit of the dollar as advertised. THAT would be a legitimate complaint.

 

5 gives you enough money during the campaign to make it more than enjoyable. What getting rich at the end of the game does is make the post game much bettter than a game like Gta IV which had nothing to spend money on. In 5, you can buy, fully customise and store 20 or so cars not including the unique protag vehicles and acquire a huge, very costly arsenal but then you can also buy hangars and planes, boat docks/boats and properties. You can buy the tank and the buzzard as well which are both awesome.

 

 

This! Absolutely, 100% this!

 

The very thought that just because you don't get paid lavishly by the government for every thing you do meaning that this isn't about the pursuit of money is completely ludicrous. Especially when SO MANY other ways to make a fortune exist in this game. To say that V isn't about the pursuit of the almighty dollar when you have in game mechanisms in place to make BILLIONS for each character is madness.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[TheOneLibertonian]

I have to agree with Official General here. Personally despite all the defense on V's theme, I'll have to say that they contradicted the theme of pursuing the almighty dollar. The protags are instead are rats of the FIB for most of the heists without any personal involvement to the game's daring heists. I did like the idea of FIB involvement, but the implementation of the FIB's involvement is rather story breaking indeed. Things should have been kept to a minimum instead of sugar coating us with the rather distasteful involvement of the FIB within the story, like in previous GTA games.

[ChiroVette]

I have to agree with Official General here. Personally despite all the defense on V's theme, I'll have to say that they contradicted the theme of pursuing the almighty dollar. The protags are instead are rats of the FIB for most of the heists without any personal involvement to the game's daring heists. I did like the idea of FIB involvement, but the implementation of the FIB's involvement is rather story breaking indeed. Things should have been kept to a minimum instead of sugar coating us with the rather distasteful involvement of the FIB within the story, like in previous GTA games.

 

I disagree with this.

 

They work for the Feds only when they have to, and only because Michael did the Jewel Story heist, causing Norton to pull him into his world, which was a fantastic twist, adding a plethora of governmental intrigue to the already awesome story. The story could have survived without the government inter-agency plotlines, but was made much better with them. I love Lester's role in all of it as well, and how he is able to get the trio all the information they need to play the government stooges who though that they were the ones playing the trio.

 

The government themes in this game are truly a breath of fresh air from the series, and a departure from some of the incredibly boring themes in IV.

 

Rockstar really nailed the FIB, Merrywheather, and "other agencies" involvement in this game. I give Dan Houser a great deal of credit for the excellent implementation of a very daring plotline.

[combustion]

The only heist in the game done for personal benefits is the Merryweather Heist, but that didn't offer any reward. All the other heists were forced. The game advertised 'pursuit of the almighty dollar', yet only one of them actively pursued it (Trevor).

[Pedinhuh]

For me, There's still plenty of room for improvement, and the whole make "make a sh*t ton of cash to spend on whatever" gets undermined by this:

-You can buy cars and customize them, that's great ,but it would be 100% better if we could actually drive our cars around without the constant fear of losing them to a glitch or unrelated game feature(impound lot not working, missions scripts making the cars vanish), like it is with Online and the personal vehicles, customizing the character's default cars is cool because of that but it really would be much better if could change them to whatever vehicle we want to.
(Now, if atleast Benny's were in Single player...)

-You can buy plenty of clothes, awesome, now if only your character could actually keep wearing those clothes you've bought AND if the wardrobe option weren't so limited(Michael can't wear hats, Franklin can't wear chains and his wristband and watch are restrict to some outfits, Trevor can't go barefeet, etc...);

-You can cut your hair, but again the options are limited, better than nothing but I don't see what soo awesome about that, same applies for tattoos;
(this is just a pet peeve of mine I don't understand why so many people care for that);

-You can buy all sorts of weapons and attachments, until you realise that they really don't make any difference on shooting, only exception here is the extra scope for the Sniper Rifles and the grip for the Micro SMG, and then you realise that you only to shoot the cops ONCE in the head anyway(and apparently even shooting them at the feet will work too);

-You can buy and own business and make profit with them, awesome, but this feature is just there to make you spend more money(remember that it wasn't even meant to be in the game), and is a moot point at the end of the game because you are already a millionaire.
And why do I have to get nagged at my employees calling me to do menial tasks for them if I'm am the f*cking boss? Also, this feature could use much more love, like the empire business we owned back in GTA:VCS(what a great game that was);

-You can make millions with the stock market, YAAAYYYY!!! So let's just go ahead make a moot point of the whole pursuit of the almighty dollar with those crazy heists because we can become a millionaire right after the first heist, effectively making the whole point of the game...pointless.
(Same arguement applies to the Casino);

And how come we can't buy higher-end mansions, apartments and extra garages for Franklin, at LS or in the countryside at the very least, that one mansion he gets is cool and all, but if we can't actually get something meaningful to spend the money on, then why even bother?

Also, this is getting off-topic.

 

 

I have to agree with Official General here. Personally despite all the defense on V's theme, I'll have to say that they contradicted the theme of pursuing the almighty dollar. The protags are instead are rats of the FIB for most of the heists without any personal involvement to the game's daring heists. I did like the idea of FIB involvement, but the implementation of the FIB's involvement is rather story breaking indeed. Things should have been kept to a minimum instead of sugar coating us with the rather distasteful involvement of the FIB within the story, like in previous GTA games.

 

I disagree with this.

 

They work for the Feds only when they have to, and only because Michael did the Jewel Story heist, causing Norton to pull him into his world, which was a fantastic twist, adding a plethora of governmental intrigue to the already awesome story. The story could have survived without the government inter-agency plotlines, but was made much better with them. I love Lester's role in all of it as well, and how he is able to get the trio all the information they need to play the government stooges who though that they were the ones playing the trio.

 

The government themes in this game are truly a breath of fresh air from the series, and a departure from some of the incredibly boring themes in IV.

 

Rockstar really nailed the FIB, Merrywheather, and "other agencies" involvement in this game. I give Dan Houser a great deal of credit for the excellent implementation of a very daring plotline.

 

He compared it with the whole series, not only IV but hey let's just keep bashing IV to get another thread locked, right?

In fact, how come you don't bash III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, CW and even Advance for not having a FIB arc as well????

[ChiroVette]

The only heist in the game done for personal benefits is the Merryweather Heist, but that didn't offer any reward. All the other heists were forced. The game advertised 'pursuit of the almighty dollar', yet only one of them actively pursued it (Trevor).

 

No, the best heist in the game was the Union Depository, and was a dream of Michael for a very long time.

 

And aside from that, who honestly cares if they were "forced?" They are fun, profitable, have incredibly well implemented stories behind them, and get move the game forward. With all the BILLIONS we get in this game, who really cares, for instance, that the Merryweather Heist has no financial gain? My initial reaction the first time I played the game after that mission was I laughed and thought, "lol Oh great no reward!" But still, what a fun ride!

 

The beauty of the Merrywheather heist is twofold:

 

1. It supports the whole "pursuit of the almighty dollar" theme fantastically. Regardless of the outcome, the intent was to make a huge pile of money. Think of it like this: Well, the theme of this game is "The pursuit of the Almighty Dollar." It isn't "Every Mission Nets You The Almighty Dollar.". As a fisherman might say, "Its called fishing, not catching." lol

 

2. The Merrywheather Heist, in addition to being one of the MANY great moments in this game illustrates the valid point that NOT all grand criminal schemes will reward you lavishly. Or stated another way, the moral is "In GTA crime, crime pays, but it doesn't always pay." Sometimes a plan goes wrong. Oh well.

[ChiroVette]

The thing I love about Steve Haines is he makes a FANTASTIC government stooge and a great antagonist. He is also an interesting character with regard to Michael's relationship with Norton.

 

He compared it with the whole series, not only IV but hey let's just keep bashing IV to get another thread locked, right?

In fact, how come you don't bash III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, CW and even Advance for not having a FIB arc as well????

 

You know what? Not for anything, but that was NOT a bash of IV. It was a one sentence comparison that was valid for the point I was making. If all you IV fans can come here and bash V, and make no mistake, that is precisely what many of you are doing, I can accept that. But I am not going to parse my words and be afraid to step on your feelings every time I have a viable comparison to make between the two, when supporting a position I am intrinsically espousing. Much of what makes V truly great and really shine is its departure from the paradigms intrinsic to GTA IV. And there are absolutely going to be some inevitable comparisons. You are just going to have to accept that.

 

If you can't see the difference between an off handed comparison that I made in that post and the bashing of IV (ala Snore, Niko jokes, Johnny K attacks, and whatever) then that's your problem. But if you are going to post your criticisms of this game, many of which are absolutely coming from your fan-support of IV then you had better be prepared for the inevitable comparisons. You can't have it both ways.

 

But any time you like, I will be more than happy to show you the difference between referencing IV as a comparison AND bashing the living sh*t out of it just for the pure, hedonistic fun of it.

 

This way you can compare the two styles juxtaposed for your convenience. lol

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[combustion]

 

The only heist in the game done for personal benefits is the Merryweather Heist, but that didn't offer any reward. All the other heists were forced. The game advertised 'pursuit of the almighty dollar', yet only one of them actively pursued it (Trevor).

 

No, the best heist in the game was the Union Depository, and was a dream of Michael for a very long time.

 

And aside from that, who honestly cares if they were "forced?" They are fun, profitable, have incredibly well implemented stories behind them, and get move the game forward. With all the BILLIONS we get in this game, who really cares, for instance, that the Merryweather Heist has no financial gain? My initial reaction the first time I played the game after that mission was I laughed and thought, "lol Oh great no reward!" But still, what a fun ride!

 

 

The Union Depository heist was forced, Michael had to do it. He had promised Trevor that they would rob the UD, which he lying said just to convince Trevor to hand out the stolen artifact. Trevor took it more seriously and in the end, Michael was forced to do the heist.

 

I like heists, both forced ones and the ones done out of personal interest, but having all the heists except one and forced to do makes the protagonists lap-dogs and mere 'dumb muscle' for the corrupt FIB division. This makes the trio no different from Niko, they all just follow orders from their superiors without questioning. Tommy did a heist entirely out of personal interest, so did CJ. Sure the heists pay alot, but it isn't exactly the 'pursuit of the almighty dollar' as advertised, being more like a passenger in someone else's (Steve) pursuit of the almighty dollar.

[Journey_95]

Thanks for allowing me my opinion this time, that's really appreciated. It's a shame that you had to then contradict yourself by telling me that the opinion I'm entitled to leaves a lot to be desired because it doesn't align with yours, but thanks anyway, it's appreciated that you've deigned to be so benevolent. It's good to know we have such charitable and genuinely friendly, accommodating and accepting people on the boards.

 

It's not technical nitpicking, it's a statement of fact. If you're incapable of dealing with it when people are able to nullify your statements, that's on you. But hey, you're entitled to that. I wouldn't try to take that away from you. It's all you've got.

 

From the moment you become involved with Haines you are literally pursuing the almighty dollar. You're chasing that money. That's the pursuit.

 

But hey, you're never going to accept any position that's contrary to yours, because you're just too damn proud to admit that you're... yep, wrong.

I don't see it. They weren't "pursuing" the almighty dollar at all

 

They were just being the bitches of the FIB, thats it. And getting involved in some ridiculous "war" between the FIB and IAA + Merryweather, silly even for GTA standards.

 

Basically all the heists were NOT done for the money but to to help the FIB. And considering Rockstar's bullsh*t PR talk of the protags doing the heists to set themselves up for life etc. it was just lame and disappointing

 

The whole heist theme was completely wasted.

 

So he is wrong because he disagrees with your interpretation? lol nice one

Edited February 29, 2016 by Journey_95

[DaWiesel]

The only heist in the game done for personal benefits is the Merryweather Heist, but that didn't offer any reward. All the other heists were forced. The game advertised 'pursuit of the almighty dollar', yet only one of them actively pursued it (Trevor).

You're forgetting the Big Score, which definitely was the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Don't remember any past GTA mission rewarding each protagonist with 30 million.

[ChiroVette]

 

The Union Depository heist was forced, Michael had to do it. He had promised Trevor that they would rob the UD, which he lying said just to convince Trevor to hand out the stolen artifact. Trevor took it more seriously and in the end, Michael was forced to do the heist.

 

I like heists, both forced ones and the ones done out of personal interest, but having all the heists except one and forced to do makes the protagonists lap-dogs and mere 'dumb muscle' for the corrupt FIB division. This makes the trio no different from Niko, they all just follow orders from their superiors without questioning. Tommy did a heist entirely out of personal interest, so did CJ. Sure the heists pay alot, but it isn't exactly the 'pursuit of the almighty dollar' as advertised, being more like a passenger in someone else's (Steve) pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

 

But your objection is unfounded, because even if ONE of the protagonists wanted to rob the Union Depository, then that was the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar. The awesome governmental intrigue of this game is a means to an end for the protagonists, and this is a very interesting and engaging departure from GTA IV's paradigm.

 

So obviously Trevor wanted this. Franklin OF COURSE wanted it because the score was huge. So now we have TWO protagonists of the three who wanted it on spec. The third protagonist, Michael, wanted it for two reasons: 1, mostly to make peace with Trevor, and 2, because of the score as well. ONE slightly reluctant protagonist does NOT make the heist forced. Nobody forced Michael into anything. He WANTED to appease Trevor and make a bundle in the process. Plus how does Michael describe himself?

 

As a great thief. So mildly reluctant or not, the score in this heist was literally what Michael was born for!

 

 

 

 

 

So he is wrong because he disagrees with your interpretation? lol nice one

 

Yes, that's how it works around here. If someone has a different interpretation to you, you are simply wrong as far as they're concerned.

 

I thought I'd try reversing it and seeing how it goes. He's still wrong, and by extension, so are you, because you agree with him.

 

 

lol This is a great parody of many people around here!

 

Unlike some, I know you were saying this tongue-in-cheek and as "forum social commentary." Ha. How awesomely Rockstar of you! Your point is also correct. "You are chasing the almighty dollar for the entire game."

 

Its funny how some people will see any deviation from that goal in missions, side quests, and other activities as "proof" that you aren't chasing money. Just because some missions are forced or have "other gains" doesn't mean that the inherent philosophy of the game isn't the accurately stated one.

 

As I said above, its called fishing not catching. Not to mention, how uni-dimensional would this game be if every single solitary mission were about the pursuit of money. That motif is not meant to mean that every nook and cranny of every single thing in the game is about that. However, this does not change the intrinsic philosophy of the game being that the preponderance of missions and story is absolutely about money.

 

So your point is accurate on top of your funny post.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Whyohwhy]

For me, There's still plenty of room for improvement, and the whole make "make a sh*t ton of cash to spend on whatever" gets undermined by this:

 

-You can buy cars and customize them, that's great ,but it would be 100% better if we could actually drive our cars around without the constant fear of losing them to a glitch or unrelated game feature(impound lot not working, missions scripts making the cars vanish), like it is with Online and the personal vehicles, customizing the character's default cars is cool because of that but it really would be much better if could change them to whatever vehicle we want to.

(Now, if atleast Benny's were in Single player...)

 

-You can buy plenty of clothes, awesome, now if only your character could actually keep wearing those clothes you've bought AND if the wardrobe option weren't so limited(Michael can't wear hats, Franklin can't wear chains and his wristband and watch are restrict to some outfits, Trevor can't go barefeet, etc...);

 

-You can cut your hair, but again the options are limited, better than nothing but I don't see what soo awesome about that, same applies for tattoos;

(this is just a pet peeve of mine I don't understand why so many people care for that);

 

-You can buy all sorts of weapons and attachments, until you realise that they really don't make any difference on shooting, only exception here is the extra scope for the Sniper Rifles and the grip for the Micro SMG, and then you realise that you only to shoot the cops ONCE in the head anyway(and apparently even shooting them at the feet will work too);

 

-You can buy and own business and make profit with them, awesome, but this feature is just there to make you spend more money(remember that it wasn't even meant to be in the game), and is a moot point at the end of the game because you are already a millionaire.

And why do I have to get nagged at my employees calling me to do menial tasks for them if I'm am the f*cking boss? Also, this feature could use much more love, like the empire business we owned back in GTA:VCS(what a great game that was);

 

-You can make millions with the stock market, YAAAYYYY!!! So let's just go ahead make a moot point of the whole pursuit of the almighty dollar with those crazy heists because we can become a millionaire right after the first heist, effectively making the whole point of the game...pointless.

(Same arguement applies to the Casino);

 

And how come we can't buy higher-end mansions, apartments and extra garages for Franklin, at LS or in the countryside at the very least, that one mansion he gets is cool and all, but if we can't actually get something meaningful to spend the money on, then why even bother?

 

Also, this is getting off-topic.

 

 

 

 

I have to agree with Official General here. Personally despite all the defense on V's theme, I'll have to say that they contradicted the theme of pursuing the almighty dollar. The protags are instead are rats of the FIB for most of the heists without any personal involvement to the game's daring heists. I did like the idea of FIB involvement, but the implementation of the FIB's involvement is rather story breaking indeed. Things should have been kept to a minimum instead of sugar coating us with the rather distasteful involvement of the FIB within the story, like in previous GTA games.

I disagree with this.

 

They work for the Feds only when they have to, and only because Michael did the Jewel Story heist, causing Norton to pull him into his world, which was a fantastic twist, adding a plethora of governmental intrigue to the already awesome story. The story could have survived without the government inter-agency plotlines, but was made much better with them. I love Lester's role in all of it as well, and how he is able to get the trio all the information they need to play the government stooges who though that they were the ones playing the trio.

 

The government themes in this game are truly a breath of fresh air from the series, and a departure from some of the incredibly boring themes in IV.

 

Rockstar really nailed the FIB, Merrywheather, and "other agencies" involvement in this game. I give Dan Houser a great deal of credit for the excellent implementation of a very daring plotline.

 

He compared it with the whole series, not only IV but hey let's just keep bashing IV to get another thread locked, right?

 

In fact, how come you don't bash III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, CW and even Advance for not having a FIB arc as well????

I agree with you there could be a lot of improvements to 5 but imo what 5 SP DOES have is still overall better than any GTA before it. I'll talk a little about the points you made;

 

- Yea car insurance, being able to chsnge the default car and tracking need to be in SP couldn't agree with you more. Losing your car can be a bitch but it was bad in previous games too, cars would often get lost by starting missions. And worst of all, you couldn't flip cars over. This alone makes driving recklessly way more doable in 5 than previos games where soooo many times I lost cars that I liked because of the lack of this feature.. Especially San An which had jumps all over the place where you could so easily land upside down.

 

I like in 5 that your car doesn't disappear until you get in another vehicle outside of missions which is better than nothing and that you can armor your cars to the Max so they don't blow up for a long, LONG time. You have to drive your cars back to the garage to keep them which is the same as before. It can be annoying if you want to switch characters though.

 

- Yea I hate when protags change their clothes randomly. The clothing options are slightly restricted like you said but there's still so many clothes to choose from compared to previous games that it completely overshadows minor issues like that for me.

 

- Tattoos and hair customisation I suppose are cool to have but I don't really bother with it myself.

 

- Weapon customisation like silencers and flashlights are awesome imo. Silenced shotguns really are amazing. IV didn't even have silencers if I remember correctly. I love the different tints/finishes as well and I'd much rather have them than not. And let's not forget that there's a much better, wider selection of weapons than any other GTA so it's not just the weapon mods that you can spend money on but there's so many weapons to buy.

 

- Properties could have been handled way better, I wish you could buy more safehouses but even the property missions add so much to the experience while I'm doing the rest of the stuff to get 100%. I especially like the Downtown Cab co missions, they're way better than the taxi missions you can do for Roman in IV. Plus you can do them in any car, not just Romans pimpmobile.

 

- Making billions on the stock market is not obviously apparent for everyone. Only like 1% of players would probably figure it out without reading about it somewhere. I see it as more of an option for people replaying the game to get money quick and for that, it's great.

[Fuzzknuckles]

As said before, the key to a good antagonist is that they give you some kind of reaction, whether that be

 

"I hate this guy"

"This guy is a basic bitch"

or even

"ROFLOLOMG THIS IS SOME FUNNY sh*t".

 

If they managed any of those, it worked and he's a good antagonist. Tenpenny didn't do this for me, and neither did Big Smoke. The various antagonists in IV didn't do this for me, either. But Haines and Weston, both, made me think pretty dark thoughts about how much I hated them both. Not because I was their lapdog, but because they were just loathsome c*nts. I'm used to being a lapdog in GTA games, that's the way it's always been. You're a boy scout on bob-a-job week, doing the most tedious or fantastical requests for scum bags who, basically, own you. Why this is now a problem just because of a few letters on the back of their jacket is beyond me.

 

If someone would like to prove me wrong on this, I'm ready. Ready for you to be wrong.

 

Haines and Weston both give the player a sense of needing to end them, I feel, and that right there is what makes them good characters, even if they're poorly written or poorly acted, if they illicit some emotion or reaction, they are good.

[ChiroVette]

As said before, the key to a good antagonist is that they give you some kind of reaction, whether that be

 

"I hate this guy"

"This guy is a basic bitch"

or even

"ROFLOLOMG THIS IS SOME FUNNY sh*t".

 

If they managed any of those, it worked and he's a good antagonist. Tenpenny didn't do this for me, and neither did Big Smoke. The various antagonists in IV didn't do this for me, either. But Haines and Weston, both, made me think pretty dark thoughts about how much I hated them both. Not because I was their lapdog, but because they were just loathsome c*nts. I'm used to being a lapdog in GTA games, that's the way it's always been. You're a boy scout on bob-a-job week, doing the most tedious or fantastical requests for scum bags who, basically, own you. Why this is now a problem just because of a few letters on the back of their jacket is beyond me.

 

If someone would like to prove me wrong on this, I'm ready. Ready for you to be wrong.

 

Haines and Weston both give the player a sense of needing to end them, I feel, and that right there is what makes them good characters, even if they're poorly written or poorly acted, if they illicit some emotion or reaction, they are good.

 

I agree with you about Haines and Weston, though I think the writing and acting for them is fine. lol Love the jaded, government-thug persona of Haines and the washed up Bureau-bitch living off his past glories of Norton.

 

I disagree with you about Tenpenny and Smoke, though. I really wanted to kill Tenpenny for the whole game. But I did feel a kind of pang of regret about Smoke in the end. My first time through the game, when CJ and Smoke faced off on the top floor of the drug lab, there was a fleeting moment where I thought they would resolve their differences, despite Smoke's role in CJ's Mom's death. It even seemed like CJ was almost hesitant and wanted an excuse or reason to forgive his old friend, but in the end, Smoke had to die.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

 

Haines and Weston both give the player a sense of needing to end them, I feel, and that right there is what makes them good characters, even if they're poorly written or poorly acted, if they illicit some emotion or reaction, they are good.

 

I agree with you about Haines and Weston, though I think the writing and acting for them is fine. lol Love the jaded, government-thug persona of Haines and the washed up Bureau-bitch living off his past glories of Norton.

 

I disagree with you about Tenpenny and Smoke, though. I really wanted to kill Tenpenny for the whole game. But I did feel a kind of pang of regret about Smoke in the end. My first time through the game, when CJ and Smoke faced off on the top floor of the drug lab, there was a fleeting moment where I thought they would resolve their differences, despite Smoke's role in CJ's Mom's death. It even seemed like CJ was almost hesitant and wanted an excuse or reason to forgive his old friend, but in the end, Smoke had to die.

 

Oh, to be clear, I wasn't saying they were badly written or acted, I believe the opposite in fact. That was more a disclaimer for those about to rush in and say they were badly written or poorly acted. Overall, I think they're both very well played, in as much as the performances are what illicit that reaction. Had they been played less... douchey... I don't think they'd have had the impact they had.

 

RE: Tenpenny - the thing for me, really, was that I like Samuel L Jackson as an actor, for the most part, so having him play this character that is so unlikeable didn't work for me. Jackson's one of those actors that people are always happy to see on screen, it seems, and so I was in a way secretly rooting for him to redeem himself in some way. Not that I ever expected that to happen, of course, but because of him being this guy I like in other roles, and Tenpenny feeling like such a mish mash of previous roles, I kind of... liked him. I didn't feel upset or angered by his actions, I just thought "Oh Sam, there you go again, being Sam Jackson as Sam Jackson in Grand Theft Auto: Sam Andreas."

 

Smoke was just a pathetic fat dick head, IMO.His most memorable moment is eating a burger in a drive by. Not f*cking over the protag or anything like that. Just being a tedious comic relief character.

 

But that's just my take.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Fuzzknuckles

[The Dedito Gae]

People keep saying that Haines didn't feel like a threat yet he didn't do much else than Tenpenny did to CJ, both characters send the protagonist to do his dirty work and they seem powerless to get rid of him.