Jump to content
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Drug Wars
      2. Updates
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Blood Money
      2. Frontier Pursuits
      3. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      4. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. Bugs*
      2. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Classic GTA SA
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Classic GTA VC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Classic GTA III
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

    2. Forum Support

    3. Suggestions

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


Comrade Monke
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dante De Niro

He's the type of character who isn't a good or likeable person, but it's well written so you kinda sympathize with him. I think I could see Michael fiting in a Scorsese movie of some sort, idk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The_Ghost said:

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.


Actually I kinda find it funny that Arthur would kill a Braithwaites stable boy (when you could easily knock him out) for some horses but then later complain about Micah being bloodthiristy. Or the fact my dishonorable Arthur, who has done such horrible things, wants to kick Strauss out of camp for what? Lending people some money?
 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aquamaniac
23 hours ago, Ryo256 said:


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.

 

To be honest I couldn't care less after nearly 10 years of the release. I enjoyed both the story and online and the fact how much Michael polarizes shows that he is a well written character. After all it's just a game and I can't relate to any of the characters, most likely Franklin since he's closest to my age and into cars.

  • Like 1
  • Realistic Steak! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters

Tbf I’d much rather play as someone who’s mentally ill and legitimately doesn’t understand that killing people and stealing cars is wrong than another morally conflicted protagonist

  • WTF?! 1
  • KekCringe 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Monke
6 hours ago, Thelema93 said:

You should go see a doctor for that sh*t 

"If you don't like this character I like you are sick" 🤡

  • KekCringe 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

Tbf I’d much rather play as someone who’s mentally ill and legitimately doesn’t understand that killing people and stealing cars is wrong than another morally conflicted protagonist


That would pretty difficult to sell though. Not many people want to play someone that is....mentally handicapped. But I do kinda like Micah's approach, the whole "nothing matters so do whatever you want."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Michael he's my favorite protagonist in the HD era. I liked that he was both the kinda guy to setup his comrades to save his hide and also the kind of guy who would send the hostage in the Big One off with a gold bar. Makes him more interesting than the usual protagonist with a heart of gold type. 

 

Imo Michael genuinely cares for Franklin and sees him as the son he never has, it's the ones like Trevor and Brad who are mindlessly violent that he considers liabilities and wouldn't care to cut off. 

 

Michael with all his self depreciation and whining seems most relatable to me too! I like his relationship with his f*cked up family and despite getting drugged by his son and chested on by his wife he still cares and tries to do good by them in his own twisted way. His mentor student relationship with Franklin was quite unique imo. I liked his shenanigans with Trevor, I liked his relationships with Dave and Solomon. I liked how the heist crew members treat him like this legend and the contrast with how he feels about himself.

 

And I like his personality honestly, I'd like to watch movies and whine about life with Daddy M. f*ck the whole loyalty nonsense, of course Michael wasn't innocent when he betrayed Trevor but I can see his point of view too, he wanted to leave the crime life and Trevor and Brad wanted more scores and more chaos and maybe he could have told them nicely lmao but I dont see them listening to reason un like say Franklin who I honestly dont see Michael betraying despite what Devin says

  • Like 1
  • Best Bru 1

    JP0cYXG_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters
8 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:


That would pretty difficult to sell though. Not many people want to play someone that is....mentally handicapped. But I do kinda like Micah's approach, the whole "nothing matters so do whatever you want."


Im sure you could work something in that’s plausible like when you hear about kids literally being influenced by games like gta and then go out to commit crimes.

 

It’s just at this point I’m so worn out with every rockstar protagonist since IV trying to redeem themselves I’d be willing to take the lowest possible hurdle just to try something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MaddenedGhost
10 hours ago, Ryo256 said:


Actually I kinda find it funny that Arthur would kill a Braithwaites stable boy (when you could easily knock him out) for some horses but then later complain about Micah being bloodthiristy. Or the fact my dishonorable Arthur, who has done such horrible things, wants to kick Strauss out of camp for what? Lending people some money?
 

Why he does complain about Micah, he never claims to hate violence or crime, which kinda help batting an eyelid on the small little things. even him kicking Strauss out still doesn't feel that out of place compared to "oh I hate doing this" that leads to a mission where you have to kill everybody.

Edited by The_Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Why he does complain about Micah, he never claims to hate violence or crime


That wasn't my point though. Arthur does complain about Micah unnecessarily shooting people of Strawberry just because he wanted his guns. But in my example, he also unnecessarily kills a stable boy when he was stealing Braithwaithe horses. It's the ideals of Dutch not to kill innocent people, which John points out when they steal the first train. Micah does kill in cold blood, Arthur doesn't like it YET he also kills the stable boy in cold blood. Heck dishonorable Arthur kills in cold blood all the time yet he's complaining about Dutch/Micah.
 

1 hour ago, The_Ghost said:

even him kicking Strauss out still doesn't feel that out of place 


No, it is out of place. Killing, robbing and threatening to kill people is much much worse than giving out loans to people. An honorable Arthur trying to redeem himself might work but a dishonorable Arthur has no place to call out Strauss.
 

1 hour ago, The_Ghost said:

"oh I hate doing this" that leads to a mission where you have to kill everybody.


Ah I mean well, I hate to say this but Arthur does this a lot. He doesn't like the idea of getting involved with Dutch's ideas close to Chapter 4 end and onward but he still goes along enough like when he doesn't want to get involved like with Eagle Flies ambushing the army but he helps out Dutch anyway by killing a lot of armymen which he didn't wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MaddenedGhost
10 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:


That wasn't my point though. Arthur does complain about Micah unnecessarily shooting people of Strawberry just because he wanted his guns. But in my example, he also unnecessarily kills a stable boy when he was stealing Braithwaithe horses. It's the ideals of Dutch not to kill innocent people, which John points out when they steal the first train. Micah does kill in cold blood, Arthur doesn't like it YET he also kills the stable boy in cold blood. Heck dishonorable Arthur kills in cold blood all the time yet he's complaining about Dutch/Micah.
 


No, it is out of place. Killing, robbing and threatening to kill people is much much worse than giving out loans to people. An honorable Arthur trying to redeem himself might work but a dishonorable Arthur has no place to call out Strauss.
 


Ah I mean well, I hate to say this but Arthur does this a lot. He doesn't like the idea of getting involved with Dutch's ideas close to Chapter 4 end and onward but he still goes along enough like when he doesn't want to get involved like with Eagle Flies ambushing the army but he helps out Dutch anyway by killing a lot of armymen which he didn't wanted to.

I suppose RDR2 does fall into this category a little then, I can't remember the stable boy you're talking about, I also didn't see it out of place for Arthur to kick Strauss out but that might be because all of my playthroughs of this game were with an honorable Arthur, so it was perfect.

 

The last point though, you're right, at one point in the game Arthur was weirdly following Dutch despite it being clear and obvious that he was up to no good, the last 2 chapters in particular suffer from this.

 

Still, my point still stands, the inconsistency is not nearly as bad as it is in GTAIV, the story follows one specific path with no change of dialogues or honor system to accommodate for the player's behavior. 

Edited by The_Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PsyWarVeteran

I hate all three of them:

 

A liar and a snake that will do anything to save his skin.

An irredeemable psycho that tries way too hard to shock people around him.

And Franklin, yes, just Franklin because there isn't anything compelling or noteworthy about the way his character is written.

 

Whenever I feel like I want to return to GTA V, the main characters and the story makes me stop and shake my head.

This is the only GTA I have played only once and never again.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The_Ghost said:

I suppose RDR2 does fall into this category a little then, I can't remember the stable boy you're talking about


8:20 mark onward.

 

 

3 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Still, my point still stands, the inconsistency it's not nearly as bad as it is in GTAIV, the story follows one specific path with no change of dialogues or honor system to accommodate for the player's behavior. 


Fair enough but I don't think Rockstar were in the groove back then to allow story to change based on player's behavior. If anything that started with RDR2 and the fact RDR2 still has a similar inconsistency (despite the honor sytstem implementation) as GTA IV then that speaks more about RDR2 than GTA IV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MaddenedGhost
5 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:


8:20 mark onward.

 

 


Fair enough but I don't think Rockstar were in the groove back then to allow story to change based on player's behavior. If anything that started with RDR2 and the fact RDR2 still has a similar inconsistency (despite the honor sytstem implementation) as GTA IV then that speaks more about RDR2 than GTA IV.

They might not have had the option to implement a dynamic change but I think Niko's character itself could've been modified a little to not sound contradictory compared to the player's actions, but yeah I kinda agree with the point you're making though.

 

Note: what I said doesn't take away from how great of a story GTAIV has even with these inconsistencies, it's leagues better than GTAV's story despite me favoring the latter in almost all other aspects.

 

Now, about the video above, is there actually no way to progress through without killing that dude? I see the little notification thing for the gold objective, so is it optional?

Edited by The_Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Now, about the video above, is there actually no way to progress through without killing that dude? I see the little notification thing for the gold objective, so is it optional?


Well I tried in my two playthroughs to do it without killing him and I couldn't find a way.

Edit: @The_Ghost
 


Okay, it seems you can hogtie him at 1:28 time mark. (Though it seems gold objective is how you supposed to do the mission i.e killing him) 

But this is interesting, I guess I found a way to improve the honor playthrough.

Edited by Ryo256
Found a video.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homicidal Hipster

I personally love Michael. His acting, his wit, his sarcasm. The guys a great thief and a terrible family man. He was a rather ambitious undertaking. Being the first gta protagonist with a family. And they nailed it imo. And he's got some hilarious lines. " I hear Stockholm syndrome is very nice this time of year" "Nama go f*ck yourself" Michael and Trevor contrast each other perfectly. The madman and the risk averse. The way they bounce off each other and the chemistry between the actors make the story very enjoyable for me. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LucidLocomotive
On 7/3/2022 at 2:54 PM, Ryo256 said:

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.

To be fair, even if all you did was play the main story missions, Michael is still a rampaging killer compared to the average person so that aspect never really took me out of the game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LucidLocomotive said:

To be fair, even if all you did was play the main story missions, Michael is still a rampaging killer compared to the average person so that aspect never really took me out of the game


But that's not the only complaint the family has of him. Amanda's cheating is supposed to be a response to the player hooking up with prostitutes/stripper (in fact narratively, first time Michael cheat on Amanda is with a stripper according to her). Other is that you run over peds which Jimmy complain about even if you drive like a sane man the entire game.

It's nothing unique to GTA V though, GTA IV assumes Niko did date Kate (even though most players don't) and GTA:SA assumes that CJ sucks at driving (even if you are on your 20th playthrough and can now drive flawlessly).

Edited by Ryo256
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LucidLocomotive
8 hours ago, Ryo256 said:


But that's not the only complaint the family has of him. Amanda's cheating is supposed to be a response to the player hooking up with prostitutes/stripper (in fact narratively, first time Michael cheat on Amanda is with a stripper according to her). Other is that you run over peds which Jimmy complain about even if you drive like a sane man the entire game.

It's nothing unique to GTA V though, GTA IV assumes Niko did date Kate (even though most players don't) and GTA:SA assumes that CJ sucks at driving (even if you are on your 20th playthrough and can now drive flawlessly).

Yeah that’s fair I would just say though, with the cheating thing I’m pretty sure it’s implied that Michael cheated before the events of the game. At least, the event that initially led Amanda to retaliate and start cheating, definitely isn’t implied to have been done by the player but earlier 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, LucidLocomotive said:

Yeah that’s fair I would just say though, with the cheating thing I’m pretty sure it’s implied that Michael cheated before the events of the game. At least, the event that initially led Amanda to retaliate and start cheating, definitely isn’t implied to have been done by the player but earlier 


When you reunite the family, Amanda will tell the kids to check the house for any cheap women.

Edited by Ryo256
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Honestly I find it troubling when I see people trying to judge fictional (or real) criminals for betraying other criminals. I mean, so what if Michael betrayed Trevor and Brad? It's not like they were good people, is it? These are criminals who kill and rob for the hell of it. Not exactly people you want not being screwed over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, E Revere said:

Honestly I find it troubling when I see people trying to judge fictional (or real) criminals for betraying other criminals. I mean, so what if Michael betrayed Trevor and Brad? It's not like they were good people, is it? These are criminals who kill and rob for the hell of it. Not exactly people you want not being screwed over.


Yeah but there is something you must consider to understand why people don't like their GTA protagonist to have such negative traits.

It is because originally, the games had a simple fun mechanic: To use someone's car without any issue. To justify this scenario, our protagonists were made into criminals, car jackers and everything that comes attached. But in early GTA games, the protagonists, regardless of being criminals, were still portrayed to be the "hero", criminals with gold hearts that stops the big baddy, creates a more just criminal organization in a corrupt world and put down psychopaths and traitors who go too far.

The whole emphasis that you are criminal therefore you should expect betrayal and bad endings is a recent development (HD era) IMO. Some people don't like to be seen as playing as the people that they were once told to kill in previous games. They still want to play the 'hero', the criminal that, in a way, does nothing malicious and if they do commit crime then it is for the rule of cool. Therefore, in the shoes of OP, why wouldn't he prefer the flawless cool Tommy over the broken realistic Michael? Why wouldn't he judge what he sees as an 'inferior' version of GTA protagonists?

Edited by Ryo256
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:

But in early GTA games, the protagonists, regardless of being criminals, were still portrayed to be the "hero", criminals with gold hearts that stops the big baddy, creates a more just criminal organization in a corrupt world and put down psychopaths and traitors who go too far.

I recently played GTA 1 and the protagonist was not at all a good guy. You're just working for a mafia guy who goes as far to tell you to kill his mom and brother in some missions. 2d universe had the original gameplay mechanics and because of the protagonist not being a good person it was normal.

 

Claude is very similar to a 2d universe protagonist as being silent and not caring about anything but following orders even if it meant killing his associates however he wanted revenge from catalina. Slowly the protagonists became good people and were focused more on revenge but the gameplay mechanics of the original games stuck in to the point where they're now contradictory to the story.

 

I think they did a good job at writing Trevor: a crazy psychopath but at the same time he cares about his friends. It never felt wrong to kill innocent people and cause rampages with trevor unlike other protagonists. I wonder how the protagonist will be in the next game

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grov71 said:

I recently played GTA 1 and the protagonist was not at all a good guy. You're just working for a mafia guy who goes as far to tell you to kill his mom and brother in some missions. 2d universe had the original gameplay mechanics and because of the protagonist not being a good person it was normal.

 

Claude is very similar to a 2d universe protagonist as being silent and not caring about anything but following orders even if it meant killing his associates however he wanted revenge from catalina. Slowly the protagonists became good people and were focused more on revenge but the gameplay mechanics of the original games stuck in to the point where they're now contradictory to the story.


Yes but again, the reason you are in that kind of premise is just to justify the car-stealing mechanic. Originally GTA series was supposed to be an anti-criminal game where you chase down criminals. 

axAEY7A.png

Source.

While you always do crime (and crime is evil), you were never really beaten on the head for working for the mafia or anything. It's been about being cool and not limited by rules rather than being "not good."

 

2 hours ago, Grov71 said:

I think they did a good job at writing Trevor: a crazy psychopath but at the same time he cares about his friends. It never felt wrong to kill innocent people and cause rampages with trevor unlike other protagonists. 


Perhaps but still, Trevor is a walking commentary on its respective player's style. Trevor lives in a dirty trailer, he scares most of his allies to stay with him, he ruins lives (Floyd), his own friend wants him dead and has deep mommy issues, reminding the player constantly that Trevor is some monster. Ending A exists because Rockstar believes that if you play like a maniac in a video game, you should face consequences. While some people applauses Rockstar for doing the "bad guys meet bad end" philosophy, I think it's not strange at all that there are some that don't like the moral commentary of Rockstar. Sometimes most people just want to play a game where they can steal cool cars and shoot people without being made to feel bad about it.
 

 

2 hours ago, Grov71 said:

I wonder how the protagonist will be in the next game


Due to sucess of Arthur Morgan, I reckon that next game will have a even more morally-conflicted protagonist. And while people do find Trevor to be a breath of fresh air, Michael is still considered to be more successful among the fanbase who is relatively way more morally-conflicted than Trevor so again, next game is gonna be heavy on moral commentary I think.

Edited by Ryo256
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Monke
2 hours ago, Ryo256 said:


 

 


Due to sucess of Arthur Morgan, I reckon that next game will have a even more morally-conflicted protagonist. And while people do find Trevor to be a breath of fresh air, Michael is still considered to be more successful among the fanbase who is relatively way more morally-conflicted than Trevor so again, next game is gonna be heavy on moral commentary I think.

If they do something like this, I hope they at least do it in a Niko Bellic-esque way that is still badass and not just an old guy who complains about his son playing games too loud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Monke
6 hours ago, Ryo256 said:


Yeah but there is something you must consider to understand why people don't like their GTA protagonist to have such negative traits.

It is because originally, the games had a simple fun mechanic: To use someone's car without any issue. To justify this scenario, our protagonists were made into criminals, car jackers and everything that comes attached. But in early GTA games, the protagonists, regardless of being criminals, were still portrayed to be the "hero", criminals with gold hearts that stops the big baddy, creates a more just criminal organization in a corrupt world and put down psychopaths and traitors who go too far.

The whole emphasis that you are criminal therefore you should expect betrayal and bad endings is a recent development (HD era) IMO. Some people don't like to be seen as playing as the people that they were once told to kill in previous games. They still want to play the 'hero', the criminal that, in a way, does nothing malicious and if they do commit crime then it is for the rule of cool. Therefore, in the shoes of OP, why wouldn't he prefer the flawless cool Tommy over the broken realistic Michael? Why wouldn't he judge what he sees as an 'inferior' version of GTA protagonists?

Yeah what you are saying is pretty much my problem with the GTA 5 story.

 

The protagonists went from cool to f*cking amazing to sort of cool to great and then everything was f*cked up in 5

 

Claude- guy who does some bad things but is doing it for the purpose of bringing down the Colombian Cartel that corrupts the city with SPANK and kill catalina, the woman who left him for dead

 

Tommy- loyal and trustworthy man that helped people who trusted him and even forgave Lance despite Lance being an obstacle. He only killed the people that attempted to turn him into a puppet and hurt him.

 

CJ- while he definitely isn't my favorite and I hate the way he complains all the time, he still does some genuine good like stopping Tenpenny 

 

Even in GTA 4, which was one of the most "serious" and dark rockstar stories, it was still badass and fun to play as Niko, he was dark but in a still badass way. Despite having done bad things, he still is a loyal man who only kills traitors. 

 

 

 With GTA 5 tho they abandoned that as well and f*cked up the story. At a certain point in the game it feels like it's parodying itself. Why would I wanna play as Michael? He is the traitor this time, I am actually playing as the type of dude that I killed in Vice City and GTA 4. And seriously after Trevor is introduced the story becomes a straight up pointless joke.

  • Like 2
  • Best Bru 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Comrade Monke said:

With GTA 5 tho they abandoned that as well and f*cked up the story. At a certain point in the game it feels like it's parodying itself. Why would I wanna play as Michael? He is the traitor this time, I am actually playing as the type of dude that I killed in Vice City and GTA 4. And seriously after Trevor is introduced the story becomes a straight up pointless joke.


Yeah, when I saw the trailers for GTA V, I was expecting an old-school traditional GTA game. After GTA IV and RDR1, a return to more 3d-era style games. We were promised three protagonists that would fit the player who finished previous games and were successful (Michael being like Tommy), the player who associated with gangs (Franklin being like CJ) and the generally rampaging/chaotic players (Trevor).

Instead we got a descontruction and criticism of every player-type. You calling the game a parody isn't far off. There is a dialogue between Micheal and Jimmy where he talks about "I always thought I was the good guy" and then Jimmy tells him off. That is a criticism of Tommy fans, that you thought you were a good guy being criminal but in reality, you are like Michael whose family hates him and him being successful makes him miserable. Franklin is a criticism of CJ fans of how he taunts Lamar for doing gang-related stuff and how the gang is actually stupid that takes advantage of Franklin. Trevor is this mommy-issue-mess of a character that ruins everyone's life around him, is a criticism of players that have fun rampaging without reason.

After the desconstruction and moral commentary by GTA IV and RDR1, we should have went for a more straight-foward, doing cool crimes and winning type of story instead of what we got in GTA V. I don't know why they pushed the same sh*t but clearly the success of IV and RDR1 really drove them to continue and Dan kept writing the same stuff since IV. But it was a waste of effort IMO, because they shoved in Ending C anyway that honors the traditional GTA narrative despite mocking it. And also because everyone praises and remember GTA V for Ending C since it goes over most people's heads that this game in fact insults traditional GTA fans in a way by calling them out.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Monke
18 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:


Yeah, when I saw the trailers for GTA V, I was expecting an old-school traditional GTA game. After GTA IV and RDR1, a return to more 3d-era style games. We were promised three protagonists that would fit the player who finished previous games and were successful (Michael being like Tommy), the player who associated with gangs (Franklin being like CJ) and the generally rampaging/chaotic players (Trevor).

Instead we got a descontruction and criticism of every player-type. You calling the game a parody isn't far off. There is a dialogue between Micheal and Jimmy where he talks about "I always thought I was the good guy" and then Jimmy tells him off. That is a criticism of Tommy fans, that you thought you were a good guy being criminal but in reality, you are like Michael whose family hates him and him being successful makes him miserable. Franklin is a criticism of CJ fans of how he taunts Lamar for doing gang-related stuff and how the gang is actually stupid that takes advantage of Franklin. Trevor is this mommy-issue-mess of a character that ruins everyone's life around him, is a criticism of players that have fun rampaging without reason.

After the desconstruction and moral commentary by GTA IV and RDR1, we should have went for a more straight-foward, doing cool crimes and winning type of story instead of what we got in GTA V. I don't know why they pushed the same sh*t but clearly the success of IV and RDR1 really drove them to continue and Dan kept writing the same stuff since IV. But it was a waste of effort IMO, because they shoved in Ending C anyway that honors the traditional GTA narrative despite mocking it. And also because everyone praises and remember GTA V for Ending C since it goes over most people's heads that this game in fact insults traditional GTA fans in a way by calling them out.

Yeah tbh that's another reason I like ending B. Like you went for the "if you are bad you should expect bad consequences" thing like you said, at least ending B fits that narrative. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Tommy and most of the 3D Era protagonists, Michael is a deep and fully developed character.

  • Like 1
  • KekCringe 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.