Is Steve Haines a good antagonist?

[Fuzzknuckles]

I think at the point that Haines hobbles himself, he starts to feel like a threat. A minor one, maybe, but more than he did before that moment. He's gives the impression of being a bumbling goon up to that point, but after that boot shot, he seems a bit more like someone that's completely invested in their plans. Clearly the issue for many is that he didn't fit into the photo-fit stereotypical bad guy template that had been used in previous installments. And as I've asked many times before, why on Earth does anyone want the same cookie-cutter bullsh*t from a game with every release? He might not seem like a standard psycho villain, but deep down he's a bad guy through and through. He's just playing the grey areas, rather than being an explicitly gang-tied standard-fare baddie.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Fuzzknuckles

[ChiroVette]

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.

 

Agreed 100%!

 

 

I think at the point that Haines hobbles himself, he starts to feel like a threat. A minor one, maybe, but more than he did before that moment. He's gives the impression of being a bumbling goon up to that point, but after that boot shot, he seems a bit more like someone that's completed invested in their plans. Clearly the issue for many is that he didn't fit into the photo-fit stereotypical bad guy template that had been used in previous installments. And as I've asked many times before, why on Earth does anyone want the same cookie-cutter bullsh*t from a game with every release? He might not seem like a standard psycho villain, but deep down he's a bad guy through and through. He's just playing the grey areas, rather than being an explicitly gang-tied standard-fare baddie.

 

I honestly believe that many of the staunch criticisms of V are coming from people in this forum who had expectations of a completely different game than IV. People were expecting V to play like a direct sequel to IV, but I think Rockstar heard a lot of the criticisms of IV, saw what they felt people liked in IV, took into account what people loved about the 3D era GTA games, and made a compromise or amalgamation of the different gaming philosophies.

 

There are two ways people criticize IV (not counting the rabid attacks of the game that seem overblown and out of proportion) but the more rational, calm, measured criticisms:

 

1. The first type of calm and measured criticisms also come from IV fans who feel that V is too over the top and too much of a wild-Hollywood action movie.

 

2. The second type of criticisms are coming from people who wanted V to be even more like San Andreas than it is, and wanted V to lean even further away from IV. My criticisms of the game (and I believe guys like Osho also feel this way) is that V isn't "quite enough" like San Andreas, and still retains a little too much of IV's feel in some areas for my tastes.

 

This is NOT to attack IV, only noting where much of the controversy is coming from, and to steer my post BACK on topic, Haines as an antagonist is the perfect illustration of this.

[SmileyBandito]

 

"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.

More like the FIB is chasing that money for the entire game. The whole "pursuit of the almighty dollar" theme is partially shattered by the FIB subplot. The trio is sorta blackmailed into doing all these heists for them, in an attempt to stage government sabotage. Half of the heists aren't out of self-interest.

 

1. Jewelry Store - Michael needs to reimburse Madrazo, although Franklin volunteers for the score.

 

2. Merryweather Heist - this one is out of Trevor's self-interest. But it's not really a run off the mill heist, rather the extraction of a... nuclear weapon. I have mixed feelings about this one. You don't get paid, and Michael & Franklin were pretty reluctant to do it because of Trevor's balls-to-the-wall behavior.

 

3. The Paleto Score - this one was awesome, easily one of my favorite missions in a GTA game. Classic small town, big score getaway. It was totally inspired by the Hollywood score in the 90's, with the juggernaut suits and all. Although it was setup by the FIB, it still felt like a real heist in and out.

 

4. Bureau Raid - probably the most forgettable heist. The set piece is kinda cool, with the building explosion. Definitely felt like the biggest "lapdog" mission in the entire game, but I was happy to find out it was the last job for the FIB. You could relate with Michael in that sense.

 

5. The Big Score - oddly enough, this heist was kinda lackluster compared to previous ones, despite being hyped up throughout the story. I think it was probably because we never get to see the inside of the Union Depository when Michael goes inside during the loud approach. The helicopter getaway was sorta fun, and as funny as it was seeing Lester use his RPG, it was pretty cheesy. I think this heist might've been rushed towards the end of the game's production or something. Just a theory.

 

Overall, I think the almighty dollar theme is deluded by the FIB's involvement. I'll be fair and play devil's advocate though: how would you write in 5 heists in the story that are all out of self-interest? If the trio really wanted money, a heist or two would set them for life. Not 5. The FIB subplot kept the heist motif afloat throughout the campaign, as much as I dislike the premise.

 

I'm kinda being a little biased though. I always picture a heist as a classic bank robbery. A heist is simply an elaborate robbery, and by that definition all of the heists in GTA V work competently.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Vinewood Villain

[Journey_95]

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.

Well for me it was the opposite. Tenpenny, Sonny, Dimitri all were threatening and good antagonists.

Steve Haines and Devin Weston were just an annoying nuisance (and pretty similiar too, its like Rockstar didn't even care) and highschool bullies. They were never a real threat, never did any real harm to the protags

Except of course not paying them lol

[combustion]

Another thing is that no matter how powerful the antagonists seem in the game, they all immediately become weak after the endings. Devin is showed to have an entire paramilitary organization in his control, after any ending, Merryweather loses it's permission to operate in USA and Steve easily shuts him up. Same applies with Steve, if Franklin kills Michael, Devin messages him that 'Steve is nothing without me, I'll take care of him.' indicating that Steve isn't powerful enough. Now these generally mean badly developed antagonists.

[ChiroVette]

Yeah, but the whole "pursuit of the almighty dollar" theme is partially shattered by the FIB subplot. aren't out of self-interest. The trio is sorta blackmailed into doing all these heists for the FIB, in an attempt to stage government sabotage. Half of the heists

 

No it isn't. Self-preservation is, by definition, self interest. And you guys seem to be confused by a game being about the almighty dollar and the game having OTHER concerns besides that. I honestly don't understand this criticism because most of the people taking V to task are complaining the game isn't deep enough. If the game was as ONE TRACKED as you are complaining it isn't, and the story's every plot were about money to the exclusion of all other concerns, then the lack of depth criticisms of the game would actually hold sway.

 

But it is the subplots and subtexts of the story that take the protagonists away from simple financial gain that add the depth that people ironically complain the game lacks.

 

 

 

 

1. Jewelry Store - Michael needs to reimburse Madrazo, although Franklin volunteers for the score.

 

 

 

Great! And this is the impetus for him getting back into the game. And, by the way, Michael actually is "pursuing the almighty dollar" in this score. However, he is doing it to pay off a debt to Medrazo. So what? If you are pursuing "the almighty dollar" it makes no difference if the reason you are seeking it is to stick in your bank account, pay for your kid's college, buy more boats and houses, go gambling in Vegas, or pay off a debt. You are still after the money!

 

 

2. Merryweather Heist - this one is out of Trevor's self-interest. But it's not really a run off the mill heist, rather the extraction of a... nuclear weapon. I have mixed feelings about this one. You don't get paid, and Michael & Franklin were pretty reluctant to do it because of Trevor's balls-to-the-wall behavior.

 

But regardless of the outcome, the gains sought are purely financial. Like I said in previous posts, "It's called fishing, not catching." Not to mention I think the heist is a great deal of fun.

 

 

3. The Paleto Score - this one was awesome, easily one of my favorite missions in a GTA game. Classic small town, big score getaway. It was totally inspired by the Hollywood score in the 90's, with the juggernaut suits and all. Although it was setup by the FIB, it still felt like a real heist in and out.

 

I agree about this one!

 

 

4. Bureau Raid - probably the most forgettable heist. The set piece is kinda cool, with the building explosion. Definitely felt like the biggest "lapdog" mission in the whole game, but I was happy to find out it was the last job for the FIB. You could relate with Michael in that sense.

 

 

 

I totally disagree! OMG the sheer gameplay variety alone in this one is worth the price of admission. The story of it, the rappelling down the building in the end, the hacking and info retrieval, not to mention the action-packed implementation with the helicopter crash, the gunplay. This is gaming at its best!

 

 

5. The Big Score - oddly enough, this heist was kinda lackluster compared to previous ones, despite being hyped up throughout the story. I think it was probably because we never get to see the inside of the Union Depository when Michael goes inside in the loud approach. The helicopter getaway was sorta fun, and as funny as it was seeing Lester use his RPG, it was pretty cheesy. I think this heist might've been rushed towards the end of the game's production or something. Just a theory.

 

 

This was a huge highlight in the game. Like all the heists, I love both approaches, but definitely prefer the Loud Approach for the pure, hedonistic fun! I think the pace, writing, action, and strategy of this heist is absolutely brilliant!

 

 

Overall, I think the almighty dollar theme is deluded by the FIB's involvement. I'll be fair and play devil's advocate though: how would you write in 5 heists in the story that are all out of self-interest? If the trio really wanted money, a heist or two would set them for life. Not 5. The FIB subplot kept the heist motif afloat throughout the campaign, as much as I dislike the premise.

 

 

I couldn't disagree with you more about this. The governmental intrigue in this game was fantastic because the protagonists came face to face with inter-agency corruption, self interest of warring agencies, and the machinations of both paramilitary groups operating on US soil and the double-dealing government thugs that see citizens in their own nations as nothing more than fodder. I love it!

 

 

To be fair, I'm being a little biased. I always picture a heist as a classic bank robbery. A heist is simply an elaborate robbery, and by that definition all of the heists in GTA V work well.

 

Bias is fine. This is all about personal taste, so in the end, I cannot tell you what you should and should not like, only what I like and why.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Cheatz/Trickz]

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.

Tenpenny was totally different. He knew CJ personally, he knew all about the gangs and could manipulate him emotionally, tormenting him about his family etc. It created a much more personal twist in the story. Dimitri does this too, and as he's presented as an ally at first a trust is established, making it more personal when he does betray Niko.

 

Now look at Haines; just an annoying idiot with no personal or emotional ties to M, F or T. Other than wanting him to shut up, they're unfazed by him, they see him as a pest. Compare to previous games wherein the protagonists actually want their respective antagonists dead because of the real threat they pose from the get go.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Cheatz_N_Trickz

[ChiroVette]

 

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.

Tenpenny was totally different. He knew CJ personally, he knew all about the gangs and could manipulate him emotionally, tormenting him about his family etc. It created a much more personal twist in the story. Dimitri does this too, and as he's presented as an ally at first a trust is established, making it more personal when he does betray Niko.

 

Now look at Haines; just an annoying idiot with no personal or emotional ties to M, F or T. Other than wanted him to shut up, they're unfazed by him, they see him as a pest. Compare to previous games wherein the protagonists actually want their respective antagonists dead because of the real threat they pose from the get go.

 

 

Tenpenny is arguably the single best antagonist in GTA history. I am certainly not prepared to say that Haines is "sh*t" because he doesn't measure up to a character as well written as Tenpenny, not to mention voiced by Samual L Jackson. Yes, I have to agree, Tenpenny is awesome.

 

But Haines is fine. Just not in comparison to him. He is as good as Ryder, Smoke, Salvatore in III, etc.

 

I also don't think that Haines is nearly as good an antagonist as Catalina for either Fido or CJ. Lance is also better, and he isn't quite as good as Sonny Forelli, but that also isn't the point. I think he is better than any antagonist in IV. But even that isn't the point. Haines is fine.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Misunderstood]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Ryder is not an antagonist, man, no matter what Rockstar did. Ryder is just the best character ever created.

 

 

 

I'm not a Ryder fanboy. I swear, I'm not in denial, man, I swear.

 

 

[SmileyBandito]

Samuel L Jackson voicing Tenpenny just stole the show. Easily the best, most memorable GTA antagonist.

 

@Chiro,

 

About the self-interest/self-preservation thing. I get that, and what you said makes sense: it's still technically self-interest because they're working in their own favor, to break free from the FIB's clutches and to save their own asses. And to be fair they still get paid leftovers from the FIB's stolen budget. But I just think it takes so much away from the characters when they're systematically taking orders from a corrupt agency. "Do this, do that. Here's the plan, blah blah blah. Sort it out." We all know they're not all that enthusiastic doing Haine's dirty work. But I recall them being enthusiastic over The Big Score. That was a heist they were personally interested in, not something the FIB got them involved in.

 

Their personal motivations (motivations irrelevant to the FIB plot) practically idle throughout the entire campaign as the FIB drama unfolds. This is just my opinion as always, but I just think the FIB bit takes a huge dump on the overarching narrative. A lot of resources are pumped into that subplot. I wish we got more background missions for the trio. Franklin's 'hood origins, or something with Tanisha. More of Trevor's arms dealing competition in Blaine County, maybe something to do with the cartel. That kind of stuff.

 

Back when I was watching the trailers for this game, I wasn't expecting a lighthearted action-soap opera revolved around shady government factions. I think the whole thing was a copout, and I feel like Rockstar had little reference material to work with. I still respect their decision to try something new, but it's definitely one of my least-favorite GTA stories.

 

TL;DR: The FIB plot was a crutch for the entire campaign.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Vinewood Villain

[ChiroVette]

I'm not a Ryder fanboy. I swear, I'm not in denial, man, I swear.

 

I am.

 

I'm very disappointed to this day that he was part of the whole C.R.A.S.H. conspiracy. He is still one of my favorite San Andreas characters. I almost would have preferred to kill Cesar...almost. Because I like him, too.

 

 

 

Samuel L Jackson voicing Tenpenny just stole the show. Easily the best, most memorable GTA antagonist.

 

Can't argue with this! 100% agree.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Jerking For Soup]

 

 

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.

Tenpenny was totally different. He knew CJ personally, he knew all about the gangs and could manipulate him emotionally, tormenting him about his family etc. It created a much more personal twist in the story. Dimitri does this too, and as he's presented as an ally at first a trust is established, making it more personal when he does betray Niko.

 

Now look at Haines; just an annoying idiot with no personal or emotional ties to M, F or T. Other than wanted him to shut up, they're unfazed by him, they see him as a pest. Compare to previous games wherein the protagonists actually want their respective antagonists dead because of the real threat they pose from the get go.

 

 

Tenpenny is arguably the single best antagonist in GTA history. I am certainly not prepared to say that Haines is "sh*t" because he doesn't measure up to a character as well written as Tenpenny, not to mention voiced by Samual L Jackson. Yes, I have to agree, Tenpenny is awesome.

 

But Haines is fine. Just not in comparison to him. He is as good as Ryder, Smoke, Salvatore in III, etc.

 

I also don't think that Haines is nearly as good an antagonist as Catalina for either Fido or CJ or Lance, and he isn't quite as good as Sonny Forelli, but that also isn't the point. I think he is better than any antagonist in IV.

 

CJ wasn't an antagonist.

 

Anyway, I agree with you, mostly. The only parts I don't agree too much with the "Haines is better than GTA IV and Smoke" points though. Smoke was a traitor, and most of the antags in IV were your old bosses. Faustin, Dimitri, Pegorino and Billy all are old bosses of the protagonist. Haines was a villain from the start, and it was obvious you'd kill the guy in the end. In IV, I didn't think for a second I'd have to kill old Pegorino.

[ChiroVette]

CJ wasn't an antagonist.

 

Anyway, I agree with you, mostly. The only parts I don't agree too much with the "Haines is better than GTA IV and Smoke" points though. Smoke was a traitor, and most of the antags in IV were your old bosses. Faustin, Dimitri, Pegorino and Billy all are old bosses of the protagonist. Haines was a villain from the start, and it was obvious you'd kill the guy in the end. In IV, I didn't think for a second I'd have to kill old Pegorino.

 

 

 

Hahahaha Sorry I worded that VERY badly!

 

I meant to say that Catalina as an antagonist for Fido AND for CJ (since she was an antagonist for both) but because of the run on sentence with Lance in there, it mucked my point.

 

Also, bear in mind, that I don't like IV at all (not a dig, just making a point) so I have to allow for the possibility that my perception of the characters, in retrospect from 8 years ago, is colored somewhat by that. So if, as a IV fan, you are saying that Pelogrino, Fausto, and Dimitri are better, since I have little recollection of them from 2008, I will gladly concede the point to someone who is obviously more familiar with that cast than I am now.

 

You are right, by the way. In rethinking it, Smoke is a better antagonist than Haines.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Pink Pineapple]

 

"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.

 

 

That's an awful excuse.

 

The official announcement of the game states, "Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar". The V graphic is designed to look like currency. The back of the game case has printed on it "a series of daring and dangerous heists that could set them up for life". In the game trailers, they show an armored truck getting hit and a jewelry store getting robbed.

 

After showing us all of that which makes it seem like we're doing it to get rich, it turns out that most of the time we're just doing stuff for other people because we're forced to. That's misleading bullsh*t and there's no good reason to defend it.

[ChiroVette]

 

 

"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.

 

 

That's an awful excuse.

 

 

That's good.

 

Because I didn't offer an excuse. Simply because there is nothing to excuse. The Government Intrigue parts of the game are not storyline arcs that require excusing. They are there to add excellently crafted, beautifully written, and well implemented variety to the game.

 

Look, I don't mind all the IV fans attacking V in the forum. We're all GTA fans and opinions will vary. That's fine. But I have to be honest and say that you lose a little intellectual credibility when you guys label so many plausible explanations as excuses.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[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.

 

 

That's an awful excuse.

 

The official announcement of the game states, "Grand Theft Auto V focuses on the pursuit of the almighty dollar". The V graphic is designed to look like currency. The back of the game case has printed on it "a series of daring and dangerous heists that could set them up for life". In the game trailers, they show an armored truck getting hit and a jewelry store getting robbed.

 

After showing us all of that which makes it seem like we're doing it to get rich, it turns out that most of the time we're just doing stuff for other people because we're forced to. That's misleading bullsh*t and there's no good reason to defend it.

 

But you are rich by the end of the game.

 

You chase the dollar, you eventually get it.

 

 

Why aren't you all getting this? IF YOU GET LOADS OF MONEY REALLY SOON IN THE GAME, IT NULLIFIES YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

 

Having loads of money early on isn't the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Getting paid really easily isn't the pursuit of the almighty dollar. That's just getting paid for doing work. The real pursuit of these almighty dollars is in the sh*t these guys go through in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

They are constantly chasing the dollar, they are constantly in pursuit of it and at the end, right at the end, they get a sh*tload of it. The end.

 

Like IV is a revenge tragedy, about searching for that special someone, which... DUN DUN DUN. YOU FINISH THE GAME WITH. If you get revenge somewhere in the second act, then spend the rest of the game pissing about doing errand boy missions for various dullards, it's not a game about revenge, is it?

 

How isn't this clear?

 

YOUR REWARD FOR COMPLETING THE GAME IS THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR YOU HAVE SPENT THE PREVIOUS 40+ HOURS PURSUING.

[ChiroVette]

But you are rich by the end of the game.

 

You chase the dollar, you eventually get it.

 

 

Why aren't you all getting this? IF YOU GET LOADS OF MONEY REALLY SOON IN THE GAME, IT NULLIFIES YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

 

Having loads of money early on isn't the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Getting paid really easily isn't the pursuit of the almighty dollar. That's just getting paid for doing work. The real pursuit of these almighty dollars is in the sh*t these guys go through in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

They are constantly chasing the dollar, they are constantly in pursuit of it and at the end, right at the end, they get a sh*tload of it. The end.

 

Like IV is a revenge tragedy, about searching for that special someone, which... DUN DUN DUN. YOU FINISH THE GAME WITH. If you get revenge somewhere in the second act, then spend the rest of the game pissing about doing errand boy missions for various dullards, it's not a game about revenge, is it?

 

How isn't this clear?

 

YOUR REWARD FOR COMPLETING THE GAME IS THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR YOU HAVE SPENT THE PREVIOUS 40+ HOURS PURSUING.

 

 

I have to reiterate my utter astonishment for the objection to the government intrigue parts of the game on the grounds that it basically adds too much variety to the game, which comes on the heels of so many V-critics here complaining about the...um...lack of variety in V.

 

I won't go as far as to call anyone a hypocrite, but there is a little cognitive dissonance here. The Government Intrigue parts of the game are an excellent diversion from the pursuit of financial gain at times, and at other times, they are a means to that very end.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Official General]

Lol I love this forum. I really do. You know your own opinions on GTA carry credibility and a lot of weight when the other forum member's opinion mirror your own - and also shoot down opposing opinions in the process !!

Edited February 29, 2016 by Official General

[SmileyBandito]

Fuzz, you gotta replace your caps button with a stress ball or something man.

[theGTAking101]

He was better than the other clowns we got that are seen once then killed a while later, that's for sure. Compared to the antagonists from previous GTAs, he's not amazing, but he's easily the best out of this game.

 

I think if he was around more, and if he tried to kill you himself, then he'd be better. I also don't like the way you kill him, no confrontation. You just snipe him while he's on a Ferris Wheel, what kind of dramatic execution was that?

Edited February 29, 2016 by theGTAking101

[ChiroVette]

Fuzz, you gotta replace your caps button with a stress ball or something man.

 

lol I used to do the same thing. I still do sometimes, but lately I have made a concerted effort to use underlining and bold fonts to accentuate words or a point rather than all caps for words or sentences. I will say that in Fuzz's defense, it isn't the same as typing in all caps when you use caps strategically to make a point.

 

Hey, how about that Steve Haines? Isn't he an awesome antagonist?

[Pink Pineapple]

Having loads of money early on isn't the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Getting paid really easily isn't the pursuit of the almighty dollar. That's just getting paid for doing work. The real pursuit of these almighty dollars is in the sh*t these guys go through in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

They are constantly chasing the dollar, they are constantly in pursuit of it and at the end, right at the end, they get a sh*tload of it. The end.

 

 

Why are you saying anything about having loads of money early on and getting paid really easily? You can plan and execute heists that don't end up going as planned. Maybe you fail. Maybe the place you're robbing has less money than you expected. Maybe you get a big payload and it gets stolen from you by a rival crew.

 

"The pursuit of the almighty dollar" makes it seem like you're going after money for yourself. GTA V doesn't really feel like that. It feels more like doing things you're forced to do to get other people off your back. Sure, doing so may involve going after money, but to call that "the pursuit of the almighty dollar" is misleading.

[ChiroVette]

 

Having loads of money early on isn't the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Getting paid really easily isn't the pursuit of the almighty dollar. That's just getting paid for doing work. The real pursuit of these almighty dollars is in the sh*t these guys go through in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

They are constantly chasing the dollar, they are constantly in pursuit of it and at the end, right at the end, they get a sh*tload of it. The end.

 

 

Why are you saying anything about having loads of money early on and getting paid really easily? You can plan and execute heists that don't end up going as planned. Maybe you fail. Maybe the place you're robbing has less money than you expected. Maybe you get a big payload and it gets stolen from you by a rival crew.

 

"The pursuit of the almighty dollar" makes it seem like you're going after money for yourself. GTA V doesn't really feel like that. It feels more like doing things you're forced to do to get other people off your back. Sure, doing so may involve going after money, but to call that "the pursuit of the almighty dollar" is misleading.

 

 

Pineapple, before this escalates and degenerates into what I think it is threatening to devolve into, can you consider the possibility that this is just how "it feels to you," and not a universal fact of some sort? Because while I am NOT asking you to parse every single post with "in my opinion," or "this is how I feel," when you respond in the manner you did, there is the possibility that you are trying to express not an opinion, but some objective fact that we are not seeing, but somehow you do.

 

That can, at the very least, come off condescending, though I doubt you mean it that way.

 

So allow me to say that TO ME, it does not feel the way you described. I welcome the government intrigue parts, because I believe that it is a great plot addition AND is a viable break from "the pursuit of money" that pervades a lot of the rest of the game.

 

You don't agree with this, and that's fine.

 

By the way, more than the post I quoted above, I am cautioning you about statements like this because of the road they could lead us all down yet again:

 

 

 

 

 

That's an awful excuse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by ChiroVette

[Official General]

I have to reiterate my utter astonishment for the objection to the government intrigue parts of the game on the grounds that it basically adds too much variety to the game, which comes on the heels of so many V-critics here complaining about the...um...lack of variety in V.

 

I won't go as far as to call anyone a hypocrite, but there is a little cognitive dissonance here. The Government Intrigue parts of the game are an excellent diversion from the pursuit of financial gain at times, and at other times, they are a means to that very end.

There is nothing to be astonished about. Many people simply thought corrupt government agent stuff that dominated V's story was wack, boring, and just not very interesting. The fact that it's supposed to add to variety in the game won't do anything to change this or make it better.

 

I'm glad you like it, all the better for you, you were fully satisfied and pleased with it (albeit easily), and went away a more than happy customer.

[ChiroVette]

 

I have to reiterate my utter astonishment for the objection to the government intrigue parts of the game on the grounds that it basically adds too much variety to the game, which comes on the heels of so many V-critics here complaining about the...um...lack of variety in V.

 

I won't go as far as to call anyone a hypocrite, but there is a little cognitive dissonance here. The Government Intrigue parts of the game are an excellent diversion from the pursuit of financial gain at times, and at other times, they are a means to that very end.

There is nothing to be astonished about. Many people simply thought corrupt government agent stuff that dominated V's story was wack, boring, and just not very interesting. The fact that it's supposed to add to variety in the game won't do anything to change this or make it better.

 

I'm glad you like it, all the better for you, you were fully satisfied and pleased with it (albeit easily), and went away a more than happy customer.

 

 

Wow. Okay, I agree with everything you said here! I really can't add anything to it, because while we will likely never agree on this part of the plot, I admire the tolerance you are showing.

[Cheatz/Trickz]

The "pursuit of the almighty dollar" theme was badly presented, no matter how many excuses are created for it.

 

"But no! At the end you are rich! You have pursued the dollar and you have it!" Yeah, that's true, it happened in every game in the series.

[ChiroVette]

The "pursuit of the almighty dollar" theme was badly presented, no matter how many excuses are created for it.

 

You are confusing opinions and observations with excuses. There is no excuse necessary, because those of us who find it satisfying are not STUPID idiots who have no taste in games.

 

You find it unsatisfying. You find it badly presented. I wholeheartedly disagree. And there are no excuses being presented here, only a different opinion than yours.

[cp1dell]

 

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.

Tenpenny was totally different. He knew CJ personally, he knew all about the gangs and could manipulate him emotionally, tormenting him about his family etc. It created a much more personal twist in the story. Dimitri does this too, and as he's presented as an ally at first a trust is established, making it more personal when he does betray Niko.

 

Now look at Haines; just an annoying idiot with no personal or emotional ties to M, F or T. Other than wanting him to shut up, they're unfazed by him, they see him as a pest. Compare to previous games wherein the protagonists actually want their respective antagonists dead because of the real threat they pose from the get go.

 

Ah yes, Steve Haines - the threat-less pest that could completely f*ck up Michael's life and his whole witness protection deal.

 

Also, unrelated to the quoted post, I find it pretty disappointing that a lot of these complaints about V literally stem from the marketing for the game. Makes me wonder if you guys wouldn't be so biased if your whole argument wasn't: "They lied about what it was about, therefor I don't like the game."

Edited February 29, 2016 by cp1dell

[Pink Pineapple]

those of us who find it satisfying are not STUPID idiots who have no taste in games.

 

That's an opinion.

[Blue]

GTA V's story was probably worse than VCS'. Don't get me wrong. But going on-topic, Steve Haines was a darned douchebag who cared about himself way to much.

I dislike him for that reason.

 

Obviously.