I f*cking hate Michael, why do people love him so much?

[Comrade Monke]

He was EXACTLY what Niko described as "A Rat Doing An Impression Of A Man."

 

He is the definition of a traitorous, selfish, whining, annoying bitch.

 

Michael was the type of person that Niko hated. He bertrayed and used his friends for his own benefit and to escape consequences. Hell, even during ending B he offers Franklin to team up and go kill Trevor, in ending A he even does it with no remorse. 

 

I also hate playing as him, his family is annoying af and I hate the missions that feature it with a burning passion.

 

Also people are apparently comparing him to Tommy Vercetti? Wtf, Tommy was loyal to his friends and only kills people when they bertray him, he would have had Michael cemented and thrown into the water for his selfish and traitorous character.

 

I also don't get the hate for ending B. It's a little short yeah but killing that traitorous rat was f*cking fun. Michael had it coming to him and it makes a great parallel too. The guy who made his friends suffer is now the one getting bertrayed and killed. I know it's most likely not canon but story-wise it's better.

 

Don't get me wrong, Franklin and Trevor aren't something special, but at least they didn't bertray their friends, and they are also more fun to play as.

[DeltaV20]

a little weird way to tell that you chose ending B 

[Ryo256]

Well the first argument is that Niko might have a problem with Michael. But the issue is that Niko is not a good moral standard to judge characters by since he and Playboy X had a good relationship but after asking him to kill Dwayne, you can betray Playboy X for sake of your friend Dwayne. Similarly, he also just straight up assassinates Ray (who has been nothing but good to Niko, even finding Florian for him) just because Jimmy told him. It's tough position for Niko but he can betray people for sake of those he consider his family or those who are close to him. Niko just doesn't like psychos (like Faustin killing randomly) and petty traitors (like Dimitri who wanted power).

Michael betrayed Trevor and Brad because of his family. His options were that either everyone dies or he escapes with his family. Instead of everyone dying, he made a tough call and salvaged the situation with him and his family surviving. He wasn't happy about it like Dimitri would be so it's hard to judge Michael. Because we have rarely seen people betray others for the reason that Michael had, it has always been something selfish but before Michael had a family, he had no issue dying on the job. But when he got a family, he said to Trevor that he just couldn't afford to die for the sake of his love ones. I think Niko would have understood that. Although it's not a perfect argument because like I said, we never dealt with a situation where a character betrays someone out of a difficult situation, to protect his own family. So, maybe Michael deserves a traitor's death regardless, at least that's what Rockstar thought with Ending B.

Not to mention Brad was a scumbag and Trevor is a psycho (which is something Niko would definitely hate and hence why Ending A exists because that's another rule that GTA series follows, psychos and traitors must die). So Michael had a choice between horrible people and his family. So he picked his family. And this might be an excuse on his part but seeing how painfully he clings to them, I reckon he did the choice based on them as much as he did just to save his own skin sooo I dunno.

Ending B is flawed, not because Michael dies or it's short but rather it showcase a Franklin and Michael dynamic that isn't that explored in the story so it felt like it came out of no where. Other endings like A and C are underdeveloped too so it's nothing special. Personally I like Ending A just for the sake of killing Trevor (for which Michael does show remorse, especially if you meet him as Franklin in free roam afterwards), the emotional resolution (and the ending theme) just like you like Ending B for the sake of killing Michael so that's that. But honestly, I don't think any of the endings fully satisfy me.

As for why one might like Michael, well honestly, he wins only by default because he's the only V protagonist that is developed enough to be likeable. Trevor is too much and Franklin is too little. And people compare Michael to Tommy because of both being successful criminals living in a mansion but yeah, Michael is too washed up now to be compared to Tommy although one might wonder how he would be in his prime but it's hard to say, 3D era writing mostly left protagonists with little flaws so a flawed character like Michael wouldn't stand much of a chance against Tommy either way.

Lastly, yeah Michael's missions do kinda suck. And well he's not too good on rampaging (although he is a professional criminal) either but people like to enjoy the world of Los Santos and Michael usually fit that roleplay demand because Trevor/Franklin sure ain't gonna go play golf,tennis or do yoga. His family does suck but kinda do get better (by GTA standards at least) but they are frustrated with Michael because the game assumes he is played as a rampaging killer that sleeps around with hookers/strippers (because that's how most players play the game according to Rockstar) so that explains their behavior with Michael but it is frustrating for the player that don't do that kinda playstyle.

Edited July 3, 2022 by Ryo256

[universetwisters]

It’s kinda interesting when people say Michael isn’t likable or a good person, as if a criminal is supposed to be either or!

 

I’m always for gta protagonists who aren’t good people, just because it’s funner to play as one. Think about Waingro from “Heat”, he’s an asshole and a terrible person. But he’d be a good gta protagonist because of that. I don’t wanna play as a bad guy who’s forced to do bad things to survive like Vic and Niko, nor do I want to play as a criminal who’s trying to redeem himself like Arthur in RDR2. If I’m gonna play a game like GTA, I want to control someone who’s not a good person. Not a role model. Not anyone who’s got a redemption arc. Michael is that.

 

I mean there is the whole “wah wah my family left me I’m gonna get them back and be a better husband” plot that was kinda thrown in there for the sake of a happy ending, but Michael came pretty close 

[Ryo256]

7 hours ago, universetwisters said:

I don’t wanna play as a bad guy who’s forced to do bad things to survive like Vic and Niko, nor do I want to play as a criminal who’s trying to redeem himself like Arthur in RDR2.

Yeah it seems that Dan Houser was stuck with two tropes, a reluctant criminal archetype (which only Trevor partially escapes) and the "age of crime/wild west is dying."

Maybe with him gone, we might get an actual criminal protagonist. Which is fine in its own but I do add that the reason we are used to criminal protagonists in R* games is that we don't usually get alternatives when it comes to a protagonist that can steal cars/horses off the street. So I personally like two seperate things, one as you says, a full-on criminal without any moral commentary attached and maybe a more neutral role (e.g like making Arthur into a bounty hunter that can choose to be a criminal but not in every playthrough so I can stay clean and not have my ears eaten off for all the bad I have done). Because truth be told, I'm tired of the amount of preaching R* been doing lately. It has become a broken record.



And honestly I know Claude, Tommy and CJ are criminals but their criminality isn't a big moral issue for the player. It's more like, you can go do fun stuff like gang war but oh, you are a criminal for that but that's okay, avoiding the police is just an casual activity now so have fun! We don't necessarily need criminality, just freedom over the open world, and full-on criminality as you said is one path to that freedom for the player, though I reckon it's not the only path to it.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Ryo256

[Darth_Cruiser]

His family stuff is annoying but he does have sarcastic charm that's why some people like him. He only betrays Trevor because Trevor was too dangerous and Michael had to keep his family safe

[Darth_Cruiser]

9 hours ago, universetwisters said:

It’s kinda interesting when people say Michael isn’t likable or a good person, as if a criminal is supposed to be either or!

 

I’m always for gta protagonists who aren’t good people, just because it’s funner to play as one. Think about Waingro from “Heat”, he’s an asshole and a terrible person. But he’d be a good gta protagonist because of that. I don’t wanna play as a bad guy who’s forced to do bad things to survive like Vic and Niko, nor do I want to play as a criminal who’s trying to redeem himself like Arthur in RDR2. If I’m gonna play a game like GTA, I want to control someone who’s not a good person. Not a role model. Not anyone who’s got a redemption arc. Michael is that.

 

I mean there is the whole “wah wah my family left me I’m gonna get them back and be a better husband” plot that was kinda thrown in there for the sake of a happy ending, but Michael came pretty close 

Rockstar created more complex characters with guys like Niko and Arthur. The redemption stuff is added to make them more complex. Would Arthur be as good a character is he was just a shallow generic badass cowboy? No. 

In the HD era rockstar improved from the 3d era characters who were just generic criminals without much depth. 

[Bigglo145]

I agree, that’s actually one of the reasons why i hate gta v. I only played through it about once or twice. 

[Ryo256]

1 hour ago, The Artist said:

Rockstar created more complex characters with guys like Niko and Arthur.

Sorry but I feel like you just made a strawman argument there for poor old @universetwisters.

It's not like we don't appreciate HD era protagonists for their complexity but it's the same archetype since Niko. The whole "We are remorseful criminals but we don't want to be, just forced into it." narrative is getting too tiresome for some of us. It was Dan's one trick pony at this point.

 

Quote

The redemption stuff is added to make them more complex.

Yes but in case of Michael, it does come off as problematic because his family is pretty awful and he continues to be a criminal (in fact straight out accept that he wants the chaos in his last therapy session). So I dunno, seems like his family reconciliation arc feels a bit tacked on for some of us.
 

Quote

Would Arthur be as good a character is he was just a shallow generic badass cowboy? No.

That's just strange leap in logic in my opinion. Just because Arthur doesn't get a redemption arc, he is automatically reduced to a shallow generic badass cowboy? Is Arthur really just his redemption arc? I don't think so. Even  if you try to reduce him to just a shallow generic badass cowboy, Arthur can still be a very good character. And while redemption arc for him does add to him but sadly even the redemption arc itself was generic. ESPECIALLY considering that it was already done in a better way with John Martson in RDR1. So yeah, some of us prefer Arthur without redemption, in fact I would even say that honored Arthur doesn't even need a redemption. 

 

1 hour ago, The Artist said:

In the HD era rockstar improved from the 3d era characters who were just generic criminals without much depth. 

Again, a strawman argument. Just because we don't like Dan's repetitive writing in HD era does not mean we want 3D era writing. Just because we don't like the repetition does not mean we don't appreciate its noble examples like Niko and John. We just don't want same ol' same ol' archetype. Let some criminals face the consequences, let some get away and be successful, let some find redemption and die, let some find redemption and live, let some be happy, let some be miserable.  Mix it up a little ya know?

Edited July 4, 2022 by Ryo256

[universetwisters]

59 minutes ago, The Artist said:

Rockstar created more complex characters with guys like Niko and Arthur. The redemption stuff is added to make them more complex. Would Arthur be as good a character is he was just a shallow generic badass cowboy? No. 

Im not saying Arthur’s a bad character, I’m just saying that I don’t want to be spoonfed that what I’m doing ingame is wrong as I go about doing it. Like if I wanna be a big bad debt collector, then why do I have to go out of my way to help some debtors widow just because I’m coughing up blood? 
 

Just like previous threads about this, I always refer people to this topic about Johnny in TLAD. Yea, he’s already kinda shifty with ripping off Ray’s money and keeping it for himself, but what if he was an actual bad guy? What if he was the one who set Billy up to be arrested so he could remain president, and Brian was only targeted because he was calling him out on his bullsh*t?

 

Has Rockstar done a truly criminal protagonist? Unless you count Johnny and Michael, no, and even they have their shoehorned happy ending arcs. I doubt real life crack dealers would care much about the neighborhoods they destroy and families they ruin with their drugs enough to go out of their way to help them get off of drugs, nor do I believe someone desperate enough to carjack and mug people to make ends meet would have the foresight to convince themselves “one last job and then I’m going straight”.

 

I’m not saying these characters are bad, they’re really good! I’m just saying I don’t think they work in an open world setting as well as we’ve thought. I don’t want to see someone portrayed as a criminal to be a role model, I don’t want someone who’s been doing bad things since before the start of the game to suddenly have a redemption arc, none of this crap. If I wanna play as a criminal, I wanna play as a criminal. I wanna play as someone who’s desperate enough to steal, murder, and even betray others to climb up in the world. Maybe if they have multiple choices in VI they could have some like that, I dunno. I just wanna come home from working 40 hours a week and be a bad guy on the computer 

[The-Ghost]

Michael was the type of person that Niko hated...

 

Nice, I like Michael even more than I did before now.

 

 

[Adminsaredicks]

Michael is prototypical rat and traitor. Im genuine asking why Trevor finds him as great friend, because he was meant to be killed for purpose to save Michaels ass.

 

His whole family is trainwreck, that speaks a lot. 

[Americana]

5 hours ago, universetwisters said:

If I wanna play as a criminal, I wanna play as a criminal.

 

When I was a kid I used to change player model to some hood, then I murered a bunch of people.

[universetwisters]

57 minutes ago, Ondr4H said:

Michael is prototypical rat and traitor. Im genuine asking why Trevor finds him as great friend, because he was meant to be killed for purpose to save Michaels ass.

Because Michael gave him a “purpose” which he tells Wade and Lamar in the missions where they go to Los santos and drive the truck with the cars respectively. That and Trevor thinks that people should stick together in the present despite what happened in the past idk Trevor’s stupidly written but its something like that 

[Retro_Causality]

he was by far the most interesting protag of V

[Adminsaredicks]

2 hours ago, universetwisters said:

Because Michael gave him a “purpose” which he tells Wade and Lamar in the missions where they go to Los santos and drive the truck with the cars respectively. That and Trevor thinks that people should stick together in the present despite what happened in the past idk Trevor’s stupidly written but its something like that 

Trevor is unreleastic character, he is most sane of all albeit portraied like he cannot even wiped his butt. Im asking why there is so much cringe and edginess in this one specific character, that act completely sane when story needs it.

 

Long story short, GTA V story is mess.

[universetwisters]

2 minutes ago, Ondr4H said:

Long story short, GTA V story is mess.

Honestly if the story was just Michael or even Franklin (chose between your role model teacher or the guy who’s known him for much longer and knows the skeletons in his closet) it wouldn’t even be that bad of a game 

[Adminsaredicks]

Just now, universetwisters said:

Honestly if the story was just Michael or even Franklin (chose between your role model teacher or the guy who’s known him for much longer and knows the skeletons in his closet) it wouldn’t even be that bad of a game 

That story will blow up waters, when they stick with bank robberies across San Andreas state and FIB goes after them. And characters have side missions involving actual crime.

 

Yes exactly like story was in RDR2.

[universetwisters]

7 minutes ago, Ondr4H said:

That story will blow up waters, when they stick with bank robberies across San Andreas state and FIB goes after them. And characters have side missions involving actual crime.

 

Yes exactly like story was in RDR2.

Too many cooks (protagonists) spoil the broth 

[Zello]

He was the first character shown so people like him. I like him too because of that.

[Aquamaniac]

On 7/3/2022 at 8:54 PM, Ryo256 said:

Michael betrayed Trevor and Brad because of his family. 

 

Trevor should have been killed, what was the plan for Brad if things worked as intended, I can't remember and am not sure if the game even tells it? So depending on that is debatable if Michael betrayed Brad.

[Ryo256]

12 hours ago, Ondr4H said:

Im genuine asking why Trevor finds him as great friend

Well that's a geniune Rockstar writing issue.

Why does Trevor like Michael?
Why does Michael like his family?
Why does Franklin like Tanisha?

Heck I was even asking during RDR2 why Arthur like most of the gang members so much. 

Sure the games will tell you but rarely does it show you anything (to convince you of these bonds).

 

2 hours ago, Aquamaniac said:

Trevor should have been killed, what was the plan for Brad if things worked as intended, I can't remember and am not sure if the game even tells it? So depending on that is debatable if Michael betrayed Brad.

Actually I'm pretty sure, Michael wanted both of them dead. Since it was either everyone dies or just Michael survives, not Michael and Brad survives.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Ryo256

[The Tracker]

9 hours ago, universetwisters said:

Honestly if the story was just Michael or even Franklin (chose between your role model teacher or the guy who’s known him for much longer and knows the skeletons in his closet) it wouldn’t even be that bad of a game 

 

Talking about this, this reminds myself that I always wanted GTA V's story to be something like Breaking Bad, the first arc just had everything for it to be like it, a main cast consisting of a book smart man in a mid-life crisis and a young street criminal trying to make a name for himself, where they develop a mentor-mentee relationship in a form of crime they found themselves how to make profits of like no other (In the case of GTA V, bank robberies), where in the process they find themselves having problems with cartels, the government and even their own families, heck, it even has the early 2010's south-western setting for it. People always associate GTA V with the movie Heat, but I always found even more resemblance with the AMC show, and I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it just happens to show how much of an actual crime story the game felt when it just started, anyway, whether they didn't know how to continue with the story, lost interest, or simply got burned out of making a good narrative because of the criticisms GTA IV got, the reality is that they just missed an oportunity, maybe if they got rid of Trevor (Or made him an actual psychopath with an antagonistic role), lowered down on the satire, and involved actual crime as the core of the storyline, we would have got, at least, a decent crime tale, instead we have a B-Plot Michael Bay movie that tries to be something it isn't. 

 

Sometimes I like to think they were writing GTA V the same time as RDR2, and that's why they're night and day in terms of narrative effort. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by The Tracker

[Ryo256]

39 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

 where they develop a mentor-mentee relationship..

Yeah but the part of how the relationship started, with Franklin showing up for that "drink offer" (the most sarcastic character not recognizing that sarcasm) at Michael's mansion after the latter almost killed him. Yeah, I'm not sure if there was much room for good narrative after that.
 

 

39 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

whether they didn't know how to continue with the story, lost interest, or simply got burned out of making a good narrative because of the criticisms GTA IV got, the reality is that they just missed an oportunity, maybe if they got rid of Trevor (Or made him an actual psychopath with an antagonistic role), lowered down on the satire, and involved actual crime as the core of the storyline, we would have got, at least, a decent crime tale, instead we have a B-Plot Michael Bay movie that tries to be something it isn't. 

I think GTA V needed more old school narrative rather than being inspired by movies and TV shows. Franklin be the inspiring young go-getter like CJ was but needed mentorship (which current Franklin is too smartass for and rarely gets taught anything to be honest), Michael needed to be in actual mid-life crisis so he would actually go chase crime rather than forced into it and Trevor needed more depth and wisdom rather than just being a cringe crazy edgy wierdo. Put em together for sake of commiting crime and end with them winning against all odds. Simple as that, the game was marketed like that, it needed to stay like that. And if you look at some of the marketing stuff like the gameplay video, you actually see the Ending C scene while trio is looking at the Blitz Heist van exploding rather than Devin's car, meaning it was probably like how I thought it would be but they changed it midway. Heck they even changed RDR2 (e.g check how Dutch says "There is no such thing as civilized." in 2nd trailer compared to how he does in game).

It seems Rockstar always think of an old but gold style narrative and then change it because someone up top thinks they need to try something new just for the sake of something new. So instead of Franklin (who had a trailer with a hood-themed song) being a gangster even for a second, we got him just whinning about running away from it but hardly doing anything in place of it. Because him preaching against old gang mentality is supposed to be unique or something.
 

 

39 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

Sometimes I like to think they were writing GTA V the same time as RDR2, and that's why they're night and day in terms of narrative effort. 

Truth be told, GTA V does feel more lighthearted and even funny WHEN compared to RDR2. But usually I don't buy this point because people been saying that even before RDR2 was released but I think you are right about them doing narrative of both games at same time. They may have intentionally changed GTA V's story just to seperate it from RDR2 in retrospect. Ending B at least does seems like it was cut from the same cloth but someone again up top may have told Dan to give us an Ending C so, you know, stuff didn't get build-up properly like that Franklin/Michael dynamic in Ending B which may have been closer to what you were expecting, a story about a mentor and his boy.

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Ryo256

[The Tracker]

3 hours ago, Ryo256 said:

Yeah but the part of how the relationship started, with Franklin showing up for that "drink offer" (the most sarcastic character not recongizing that sarcasm) at Michael's mansion after the latter almost killed him. Yeah, I'm not sure if there was much room for good narrative after that.

 

I always like to think he was desperate, so he forced his way into Michael with some random excuse, which would be understable if not for what kills Franklin for me, which is exactly the main complaint many have with him here, they want us so much to sympathize with him "Getting out of the hood and truly making a name for himself" but they don't even show us enough of his environment and day-to-day issues for us to care, 80% of his dialogue in early missions is him whining about how much his current life is going nowhere, how the people close to him are nothing but idiots, how much money issues he is having, but we almost don't know nothing about them, heck, even the gameplay serves against him when he has a semi-supercar and a current (for the game's time) generation smartphone. It would have been great if they showed us his life in an actual low-point that we could appreciate, the main problem with GTA V's story is that they show us so much, but at the same time, so little, we almost don't have a moment where we can actually get to see the roots of the characters conflicts, with Franklin they should have started with him actually working for the hood, when they could've showed us an environment full incompetency, failures, idiots, and in general, the harsh reality of the gang life, all to then start working from Simeon, earning sh*tty in-game pay, eventually losing it, getting kicked out of Denise's house, and in the end get to feel the way Franklin life isn't truly going anywhere, where we get to see where all his niggling is coming from, Idk, connect with him, but nope, instead we have this shell of a character that doesn't really know what he wants, because we see him complaining up to the end of the game with little to none character development whatsoever. 

 

And you see, this is another issue with most current Rockstar games, they have all these characters complaining about something, but then the gameplay tell us a very different story, you see Niko complaining about Roman's debts, but where are all those debts exactly? You can play with John having the lowest-honor possible, but then the next mission you see him disgusted by the actions of some lower-tier outlaws, you see the Van der linde gang desperate about how much money they need, yet with all the in-game money possible, they'll still be whining for more, and we better don't talk about GTA V. It seems R* plans all these interesting concepts and systems into their gameplay, but then they throw it all over our faces when we start playing the story, and this, right here, is exactly what NakeyJakey was talking about. Rockstar DOESN'T know what they want when it comes to the themes of their games, connecting the videogame stuff with the narrative, they don't know if they want the story work for the gameplay, or have the gameplay working for the story, and this is one of the main things that worry me the most about GTA VI. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by The Tracker

[Ryo256]

47 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

I always like to think he was desperate, so he forced his way into Michael with some random excuse,

Yeah except if you look at the part where Lamar tells Franklin to get a haircut at his house's doorstep, Franklin responds with a "wat?" and that's same wat he throws when Michael explains that he wasn't serious about the drink. So haha, I don't think he used the drink as an excuse, he geniuinely believed the guy who was pulling a gun on his head, that he is inviting him for a drink. I think there was another way Franklin and Michael were supposed to be meet and Michael would offer him for a drink in a more....sensible way. But Rockstar being Rockstar thought that would be too reasonable and re-wrote the scene, got hit by a deadline and rushed it into this....stupidity we got.

 

51 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

but they don't even show us enough of his environment and day-to-day issues for us to care

I think they did try with the Lamar's fail schemes and Tonya/JB using Franklin and all. But I agree about the car and phone about him, he isn't really that bad off as the story tell us. In fact, it's so rushed that I was expecting in my first playthrough that they would at least show how working for Simeon is and either he is a terrible boss or Franklin isn't satisfied with the pay check but no, what we got is that he is quickly got fired because of Lamar/Michael. Like, slow down and actually create some foundation for Franklin as you said but GTA V rushes too much and its 69 mission count hardly fixes anything. And funny part is they just shove the whole "you gotta respect where you came from" narrative back down Franklin's throat anyway so what's the takeaway? The game talks about the gang being full of idiots yet you must respect them? Because that's how GTA SA went? Gotta follow the old book except the part where Franklin was claiming to be above it all? So yeah, Rockstar writing in general is a strange one and usually I think it stems from the whole "Let's build a narrative, rewrite it a dozen times, OH deadline is close, let's just repeat/rush through the rest of the story and call it quits." routine so Roman's debt stays, Dutch still needs money and dishonorable RDR protagonist is still disgusted with dishonored acts till the end.

[universetwisters]

3 hours ago, The Tracker said:

even the gameplay serves against him when he has a semi-supercar and a current (for the game's time) generation smartphone.

 

I don't want to give Rockstar credit where it isn't due but, where at first this seems like it works against Franklin's poverty, I think it's a subtle wink at people who, despite living in poverty or paycheck to paycheck, they still have incredibly modern things. I used to have a manager who had a brand new fully loaded Kia that was at constant risk of being repossessed because he wasn't making enough to pay the monthly payment. I had another coworker who would complain about not having enough money to pay for groceries and stuff but she had a brand new iphone. And do remember that, with a sporty sedan and brand new phone, Franklin starts the game with only 300 to his name I believe? 

 

I don't think it was intentional, like Rockstar didn't sit down and think "we want Franklin to be on the brink of poverty yet living beyond his means". If he had a crappy Chevy Citation or Honda Civic with miscolored door panels and on the verge of blowing a head gasket, that'd be a lot more believable. But it's not too unrealistic. 

 

But yea, if Franklin were the main singular protagonist, hopefully they wouldve given him the fancy motorcycle and big mansion in less than an hour from when you start playing as him

[Donald Lov]

On 7/4/2022 at 8:39 AM, universetwisters said:

I

 

 I don’t wanna play as a bad guy who’s forced to do bad things to survive like Vic and Niko, nor do I want to play as a criminal who’s trying to redeem himself like Arthur in RDR2.

 

 

This to me is the most offputing element of Rockstar's writing. If you make a story that revolves around commiting serious crime, don't make the protagonist internally conflicted, all morally ambigious and sh*t. There can be no question about moral ambiguity in regard to a person who murders for a living(unless there is a redemption arc of sorts that follows). That's why Niko Bellic as a character always fell through for me. "War is some crazy sh*t'' and then "Hold up, let me fake an interview with some lawyer who I don't know and then kill him, because some crazy-ass Irish dude will pay me for it.'' It just feels ridiculous, especially when juxtaposed to the otherwise absurd world that the characters inhabit.

[IzzyBlues]

Didn't Michael do what he did solely for his family? Trevor and Brad were psycho's who basically had nothing to lose but Michael had a family and that was much more important.

 

He is a rat, sure, but to say that he betrayed the both of them just so he could save himself is a bit much. You have to cut Michael some slack here.

[The-Ghost]

4 hours ago, Notorious_Jack said:

This to me is the most offputing element of Rockstar's writing. If you make a story that revolves around commiting serious crime, don't make the protagonist internally conflicted, all morally ambigious and sh*t. There can be no question about moral ambiguity in regard to a person who murders for a living(unless there is a redemption arc of sorts that follows). That's why Niko Bellic as a character always fell through for me. "War is some crazy sh*t'' and then "Hold up, let me fake an interview with some lawyer who I don't know and then kill him, because some crazy-ass Irish dude will pay me for it.'' It just feels ridiculous, especially when juxtaposed to the otherwise absurd world that the characters inhabit.

That is my biggest problem with Niko Bellic, he would rant about how he doesn't want any of the violence and crime yet he'd still go on a rampage after that, even if not in-mission, the fact that I have that option as a player makes his whole stance on "violence and crimes are bad" thing really contradictory to me, unlike RDR2 for example where there's at least the honor system and the change in dialogues that sorta reflect your play style in and out of missions.

 

I went on a playthrough for GTAIV not that long ago and each time I heard Niko complain about doing anything criminal I am like "yeah but you don't really seem to mind it all that much, do you now", and it is mainly why I disagree with GTAIV's story being the masterpiece that people make it seem to be, it would have been if I am as a player not able to do things that go against the different dialogues and narrative in the story.

 

Don't get me wrong though, GTAV's story way more flawed and I think it's way down on the list when it comes to the stories, but it is flawed with how inconsistent and separated everything else is rather than how contradictory the missions are to the characters.

GTAV's story feels like a bunch of writers were sitting in a room and they went about creating the story by throwing ideas as they go rather than having a structured narrative, which could explain why the missions themselves are fun, but they seem so disconnected from each other.

 

At least that's what I think anyway.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by The_Ghost