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

Comrade Monke
On 8/1/2022 at 9:32 PM, A Good Man said:

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

Tell me you didn't play any 3D era game without telling me you didn't play any 3D era game.

 

Michael is a rat that is juxtaposed with the other two walking parodies of GTA fans in order to create the joke that is the story of GTA 5. If that's what you consider deep, and not Tommy who had an actual personality, idk what to tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Comrade Monke said:

Tell me you didn't play any 3D era game without telling me you didn't play any 3D era game.

I've played all of them and realized the stories of those games are weak and shallow and the characters are not as developed as the HD Era ones. Truth be told, it was after GTA IV and V that I started to enjoy the series more than I ever did before.

 

5 hours ago, Comrade Monke said:

Michael is a rat that is juxtaposed with the other two walking parodies of GTA fans in order to create the joke that is the story of GTA 5. If that's what you consider deep, and not Tommy who had an actual personality, idk what to tell you.

 V trio is on another level compared to Tommy. I mean, let's be honest here, Tommy is nothing more than an Italian American Tony Montana.

Edited by A Good Man
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Monke
32 minutes ago, A Good Man said:

I've played all of them and realized the stories of those games are weak and shallow and the characters are not as developed as the HD Era ones. Truth be told, it was after GTA IV and V that I started to enjoy the series more than I ever did before.

Yeah I bet you only played the first two missions and skipped the cutscenes In them too because you have zero knowledge of the 3D era protagonists 

32 minutes ago, A Good Man said:

 

 V trio is on another level compared to Tommy. I mean, let's be honest here, Tommy is nothing more than an Italian American Tony Montana.

What not playing the actual game and only reading the GTA wiki does to a mf

If you played the 3D games you would realize Tommy is far more complicated than "Italian Tony Montana". So I suggest you finish vice city first (not just the story all the sub plots too), and then comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Comrade Monke said:

Yeah I bet you only played the first two missions and skipped the cutscenes In them too because you have zero knowledge of the 3D era protagonists 

Not really. I have beaten III, VC and SA, actually. I haven't completed VCS and LCS but I've played them, though.

 

33 minutes ago, Comrade Monke said:

What not playing the actual game and only reading the GTA wiki does to a mf

If you played the 3D games you would realize Tommy is far more complicated than "Italian Tony Montana". So I suggest you finish vice city first (not just the story all the sub plots too), and then comment.

Tommy is not a complex/complicated character at all, he's simple and one dimentional. I got a better suggestion for you, buddy: replay those games because you're clearly nostalgia-blinded. I bet you played them in your childhood and still think they are flawless. Well, I got news for you: the 3D era games are not perfect, they are overrated because people have fond memories of playing them in their childhood and miss those days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Monke
8 minutes ago, A Good Man said:

Not really. I have beaten III, VC and SA, actually. I haven't completed VCS and LCS but I've played them, though.

 

Tommy is not a complex/complicated character at all, he's simple and one dimentional. I got a better suggestion for you, buddy: replay those games because you're clearly nostalgia-blinded. I bet you played them in your childhood and still think they are flawless. Well, I got news for you: the 3D era games are not perfect, they are overrated because people have fond memories of playing them in their childhood and miss those days.

 

Bro I only got into the GTA series like 3 years ago, I didn't really play gta when I was young that much, i love the 3D games not because of nostalgia, but because I actually understand the story and like the game. I recently finished vice city again and I can honestly say it has one of the best stories out there. 

Quote

He's simple and one dimensional 

Pay more attention to the story next time you play vice city 

Edited by Comrade Monke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Comrade Monke said:

Bro I only got into the GTA series like 3 years ago, I didn't really play gta when I was young that much, i love the 3D games not because of nostalgia, but because I actually understand the story and like the game. I recently finished vice city again and I can honestly say it has one of the best stories out there. 

Nostalgia blindness is the reason most VC fanboys idolize the game so I thought it was your case lol. 

 

15 minutes ago, Comrade Monke said:

Pay more attention to the story next time you play vice city 

Nah, I don't think I'll ever play VC again. I'd rather replay IV + DLCs and V, they have A LOT more to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
dolphinsfan2016

I'm just a little late replying to this thread, but i just think that Michael was looking out for himself.

 

Even so, i do see that Option B was a rather fitting end; him getting betrayed, as he did to others.

 

Though, like someone else said; people like Niko (a nutcase homicidal criminal and war criminal) and Tommy (nutcase homicidal criminal) aren't exactly good moral compasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Monke
7 minutes ago, dolphinsfan2016 said:

I'm just a little late replying to this thread, but i just think that Michael was looking out for himself.

 

Even so, i do see that Option B was a rather fitting end; him getting betrayed, as he did to others.

 

Though, like someone else said; people like Niko (a nutcase homicidal criminal and war criminal) and Tommy (nutcase homicidal criminal) aren't exactly good moral compasses.

Tommy and Niko were loyal and moral, Niko hugely regretted his past actions and only killed the people who bertrayed him. Tommy also only killed people who tried to hurt him and always protected his associates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dolphinsfan2016
2 hours ago, Comrade Monke said:

Tommy and Niko were loyal and moral, Niko hugely regretted his past actions and only killed the people who bertrayed him. Tommy also only killed people who tried to hurt him and always protected his associates.

They might've followed a moral code, but neither were moral people.

 

Murdering, stealing and so on. That is not moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people like Michael? I did feel myself relating to him because of feeling like a miserable bastard but he suffered intensely from the horrible writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stock_Mercury

Apart from being a rat and a traitor, one thing I particularly find really annoying about him is that he self loathes so much and talks about how much he hates himself for certain reasons but won't do anything about it. Like all he does is whine and still gets annoyed when people show him how sh*t he is being to others. I swear the option to reject advice in his therapy sessions are more suited to his character. But still I chose option C cuz the dude is relatively normal in a place like Los Santos or Grand Theft Auto's America in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Payne said:

Do people like Michael? I did feel myself relating to him because of feeling like a miserable bastard but he suffered intensely from the horrible writing.

I did. I found him very likeable and relatable though idk what that says of me 👀 also the most interesting character in the game imo. Loved the more villainous protagonist after the usual heart of gold criminal types like CJ, Vic, Niko etc.

 

I was invested in seeing him get better with his family, seeing him live his dream life in the movie industry and he felt like a criminal I could root for ironically though he did this supposed reprehensible action ie snitching.

 

2 hours ago, Stock_Mercury said:

he self loathes so much and talks about how much he hates himself for certain reasons but won't do anything about it. Like all he does is whine and still gets annoyed when people show him how sh*t he is being to others

Relatable 😳 Whining is cathartic man... 

 

2 hours ago, Stock_Mercury said:

Apart from being a rat and a traitor,

I think Michael only gave up those he considered liabilities who wouldn't take kindly to him leaving the life and whose maniacal behaviour would get them in trouble eventually aka Trevor and Brad. I don't see him snitching on Franklin and Lester. During shootouts like the Paleto Bay (?) Michael shows more concern for Franklin's well being than his own almost and he never gave up Lester. 

 

Is it fair to sell out Trevor and Brad like that? Probably not. Do I empathize with Michael doing what he thought was the best for him and family? Yeah man. Though M is a hypocrite tbf he misses that life, still I don't think he's this monster or anything. But people hating him so much like the title suggests makes me think his character was done nicely, lol

  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I f*cking hate Michael, Trevor and Franklin. They're all bastards)

Yeah, finally. 20th post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/4/2022 at 1:39 AM, 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 

Thrown in there..? He's literally been trying to save his family since Ludendorf. Are you Trevor in disguise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2022 at 12:48 PM, universetwisters said:


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 

You can just ignore the story mode. There's literally a setting called sleep mode that let's you just be a bad guy. Or you could play Online, where your protag is an anti socialite with no set personality. Or you could play Claude, Toni, Trevor, Michael, Franklin, etc who are all really sh*tty people willing to do anything to get to the top. Hell, even Johnny, despite committing the sin of caring for people, is a terrorist who shoots up airports and let's innocent people die. Even CJ buried a dude under cement and can murder one of his girlfriends for a key card. As for Red Dead, to call Arthur a character lesser than John because a troubled outlaw who isn't all bad has been done before is.. laughable, almost. That's why the honor system exists, you can make your Arthur a bad guy if you want. Also RDR is not GTA, so..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters
4 hours ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

That's why the honor system exists, you can make your Arthur a bad guy if you want. Also RDR is not GTA, so..


The honor system is kinda thrown out the window when Arthur is suddenly all like “lol I’m a bad guy but I’m still gonna go out of my way to help the people who are now not in a good place because I got their husband killed”. Even in gta, it’s one thing to be a bad person in gameplay but this attitude of “I’m a bad guy but I still have a heart of gold” is way too overplayed. I wanna be a piece of sh*t like Toni 

 

4 hours ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

Thrown in there..? He's literally been trying to save his family since Ludendorf. Are you Trevor in disguise?


Tbh it’d be more interesting if Michael were to abandon his family to continue his life of crime. Didn’t one of the henchmen you can hire for a heist mention he did that?

 

Also you clearly didn’t read the part where I said that the whole part of his family getting back together was just to give the game a happy ending lol. Having Michael’s family out of the picture could’ve given him the motivation to go through with riskier heists as opposed to “I’m robbing to secure a future for my family” like what the f*ck is that sh*t lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, universetwisters said:


The honor system is kinda thrown out the window when Arthur is suddenly all like “lol I’m a bad guy but I’m still gonna go out of my way to help the people who are now not in a good place because I got their husband killed”. Even in gta, it’s one thing to be a bad person in gameplay but this attitude of “I’m a bad guy but I still have a heart of gold” is way too overplayed. I wanna be a piece of sh*t like Toni 

 


Tbh it’d be more interesting if Michael were to abandon his family to continue his life of crime. Didn’t one of the henchmen you can hire for a heist mention he did that?

 

Also you clearly didn’t read the part where I said that the whole part of his family getting back together was just to give the game a happy ending lol. Having Michael’s family out of the picture could’ve given him the motivation to go through with riskier heists as opposed to “I’m robbing to secure a future for my family” like what the f*ck is that sh*t lol

 

It's clearly not for you. That's just how his character is written. That's why there are V+ GTA games and protagonists and ways to play. Don't like that the characters aren't pure evil? Ignore the story or play another one, OR like I said, play Online. A lot of us like the complexity, and it's okay if you don't, but come on man, not every character has to be Claude or Toni.

 

He's robbing to secure a future for his family? Since when? He never does it for his family. In fact that's why he stops doing it, and then gets back into it when he grows tired of them. Michael is an abusive and sh*tty dad who only kind of turns himself around by the end and robs for fun and pleasure. 


As for Arthur, yeah that's just a part of Arthur's character. He's not a sociopath, he does have empathy and feels guilt. You can still make him massacre people in their homes, shoot teenagers and kidnap/torture random people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters
27 minutes ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

Don't like that the characters aren't pure evil? Ignore the story or play another one, OR like I said, play Online. A lot of us like the complexity, and it's okay if you don't, but come on man, not every character has to be Claude or Toni.


“Ignore the story if you dont want evil protagonists” lmao that’s not my point. My point is “why is rockstar suddenly insistent on making clearly bad characters have redeemable qualities?” These people clearly aren’t role models, let’s stop writing them like they are. Even Trevor, the most “evil” of V’s trip, suffers from this dilemma. He’ll gladly torture a guy in a mission and then turn around and start soapboxing to a guy who’s barely conscious about how torture is evil.

 

> Michael robs for fun and pleasure and not for his family

 

Sounds like lazy writing, especially now that, by that part of the story, he’s got a cushy movie studio job that he’s always wanted

 

>you can still make Arthur menace and torture random people

 

My point exactly. Why is Arthur nice to X parties but callous to another party as the plot demands? He’s fine with robbing people in random encounters but kicks Strauss out for doing the same thing? I’m not saying Arthur’s a poorly written character, I just think it’s interesting that rockstar tries to write him into the role of some criminal trying to fight his wrongs before he passes and then you can just turn around and be completely awful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, universetwisters said:


“Ignore the story if you dont want evil protagonists” lmao that’s not my point. My point is “why is rockstar suddenly insistent on making clearly bad characters have redeemable qualities?” These people clearly aren’t role models, let’s stop writing them like they are. Even Trevor, the most “evil” of V’s trip, suffers from this dilemma. He’ll gladly torture a guy in a mission and then turn around and start soapboxing to a guy who’s barely conscious about how torture is evil.

 

> Michael robs for fun and pleasure and not for his family

 

Sounds like lazy writing, especially now that, by that part of the story, he’s got a cushy movie studio job that he’s always wanted

 

>you can still make Arthur menace and torture random people

 

My point exactly. Why is Arthur nice to X parties but callous to another party as the plot demands? He’s fine with robbing people in random encounters but kicks Strauss out for doing the same thing? I’m not saying Arthur’s a poorly written character, I just think it’s interesting that rockstar tries to write him into the role of some criminal trying to fight his wrongs before he passes and then you can just turn around and be completely awful

 

Well I said "can" not that you have to. I didn't kill or rob many people in my first or second playthrough of RDR2 at all, and thus it felt completely natural to me. I could see how you don't like the Strauss thing, it makes much more sense from a high honor standpoint. 

 

I really don't see why Michael robbing for fun and pleasure is lazy. It's literally apart of his character. He has always been like that and there are tons of criminals like that. It is a core aspect of his character. But hey, at this point I can't exactly explain it to you, so it's all up to your own views, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters
5 minutes ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

 

Well I said "can" not that you have to. I didn't kill or rob many people in my first or second playthrough of RDR2 at all, and thus it felt completely natural to me. I could see how you don't like the Strauss thing, it makes much more sense from a high honor standpoint. 


I know it’s not necessary but the fact that it’s an option is what makes it weirder, like even in the Scarface game it wouldn’t let you kill random pedestrians. I think the Strauss thing makes less sense from a low honor standpoint tho like “how dare you rip these people off even though I’m basically doing the same thing”

 

Michael robbing for fun and pleasure isn’t lazy writing in itself, imo it just becomes apparent when he’s going through all these hoops to get his family back and be a better husband/father and then just comes out with “let’s do one more big robbery for the lulz”. It’s like the writers were really going for some family drama movie and then had to be reminded at the last minute that they were making a GTA game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

not every character has to be Claude or Toni.


That's the thing @universetwisters isn't saying everyone needs to be the same. Just that recently the trends of protagonists (morally conflicted ones) have been getting tiring. A few straight-forward criminal protagonists might be refreshing. Although, honestly speaking, people's love (or dare I say, obsession) of complexity is not gonna let that happen in future Rockstar games but it's nice to dream I guess........

Also I would love to play GTAO when taking a break from most Rockstar games that have nagging moral commentary if it wasn't for its multiplayer issues (like long matchmaking time and griefers/hackers) so I wouldn't count that as a viable option. 

Edited by Ryo256
  • Best Bru 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters
16 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:

Also I would love to play GTAO when taking a break from most Rockstar games that have nagging moral commentary if it wasn't for its multiplayer issues (like long matchmaking time and griefers/hackers) so I wouldn't count that as a viable option. 


What I used to do was start solo sessions and do club management stuff etc and everything was fine until my stock started overflowing and I had to go to a public lobby to get it sold and I keep getting murdered by a 10 year old with a flying delorean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ryo256 said:


That's the thing @universetwisters isn't saying everyone needs to be the same. Just that recently the trends of protagonists (morally conflicted ones) have been getting tiring. A few straight-forward criminal protagonists might be refreshing. Although, honestly speaking, people's love (or dare I say, obsession) of complexity is not gonna let that happen in future Rockstar games but it's nice to dream I guess........

Also I would love to play GTAO when taking a break from most Rockstar games that have nagging moral commentary if it wasn't for its multiplayer issues (like long matchmaking time and griefers/hackers) so I wouldn't count that as a viable option. 

 

There are non complex characters in games everywhere. Michael and Franklin and Trevor aren't even morally conflicted in the slightest, they're all awful people from a fairly recent GTA/Rockstar game, at the very least you could MAYBE say Trevor's loyalty is morally a good thing or that Michael wanting to go straight makes him a good person if you really stretch it, but.. yeah, you're stretching it. RDR2 is different because RDR was already a complex IP, as has GTA been since VC with characters like Lance Vance. I really don't understand this problem at all; it just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining about popular characters with complicated morals.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

Michael and Franklin and Trevor aren't even morally conflicted in the slightest


Your statement is wrong IMO. Because you said they aren't morally conflicted in the slightest, remember that because I can show you an example of Trevor being conflicted. Remember this little mission?

MtC6LNE.gif

Now I can give you more examples but you said not in the slightest so IMO I have done enough. But the issue is not necessarily with the protagonists though, it can also just be the moral commentary we are sick of. The fact Ending A and B exists because GTA V is potentially giving the player the choice to condemn the actions of Michael and Trevor respectively. Even Franklin argues with Lester (During assassination missions) on the idea of killing people as a just cause because it would be dishonest since he just enjoys putting a bullet in a fool's head, not because of some facade.
 

13 minutes ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

Michael wanting to go straight makes him a good person


I didn't make that argument. What we are simply saying that we want simple Rockstar protagonists that enjoy being criminals then you have to go back to 3D era. Current choice of protagonists are not good enough and there are many of us that agree with that idea even if you don't. Because HD universe do have a lot of Rockstar's moralizing everything and presenting consequences of crimes ever since Niko and John blessed us with their presence. And quite frankly, we are sick of it. But I don't necessarily need a change of franchise to suit a group of fans that want a more refreshing take but we have a point of view that needs to be clarified. 

Edited by Ryo256
  • Like 1
  • Best Bru 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:


Your statement is wrong IMO. Because you said they aren't morally conflicted in the slightest, remember that because I can show you an example of Trevor being conflicted. Remember this little mission?

MtC6LNE.gif

Now I can give you more examples but you said not in the slightest so IMO I have done enough. But the issue is not necessarily with the protagonists though, it can also just be the moral commentary we are sick of. The fact Ending A and B exists because GTA V is potentially giving the player the choice to condemn the actions of Michael and Trevor respectively. Even Franklin argues with Lester (During assassination missions) on the idea of killing people as a just cause because it would be dishonest since he just enjoys putting a bullet in a fool's head, not because of some facade.
 


I didn't make that argument. What we are simply saying that we want simple Rockstar protagonists that enjoy being criminals then you have to go back to 3D era. Current choice of protagonists are not good enough and there are many of us that agree with that idea even if you don't. Because HD universe do have a lot of Rockstar's moralizing everything and presenting consequences of crimes ever since Niko and John blessed us with their presence. And quite frankly, we are sick of it. But I don't necessary need a change of franchise to suit a group of fans that want a more refreshing take but we have a point of view that needs to be clarified. 

 

Trevor is an immigrant himself and so he empathizes, making it at least somewhat selfish. Also, that example is so minor. But alright, I get it, there's no arguing, carry on.

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

12 minutes ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

 

Trevor is an immigrant himself and so he empathizes, making it at least somewhat selfish.


Let me quote a wise man for you:
 

27 minutes ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

yeah, you're stretching it


 

Spoiler

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :jkek:



 

Quote

Also, that example is so minor.


Well that's the thing, you said:

 

Quote

.....Trevor aren't even morally conflicted in the slightest


So a minor example is all I need to counter that. And like I said, I have more arguments and examples but you don't need a dynamite to break glass when a small hammer is enough....

Edited by Ryo256
  • Best Bru 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

universetwisters
2 hours ago, FewPoleCat42 said:

 

There are non complex characters in games everywhere. Michael and Franklin and Trevor aren't even morally conflicted in the slightest, they're all awful people from a fairly recent GTA/Rockstar game, at the very least you could MAYBE say Trevor's loyalty is morally a good thing or that Michael wanting to go straight makes him a good person if you really stretch it, but.. yeah, you're stretching it. RDR2 is different because RDR was already a complex IP, as has GTA been since VC with characters like Lance Vance. I really don't understand this problem at all; it just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining about popular characters with complicated morals.


tbh depth doesn’t always equal “good”. Like Trevor could’ve been a deep character if he didn’t soapbox about perceived injustices despite his craziness. And his random encounters raise a few eyebrows; Trevor is able to return a stolen bicycle to its rightful owner even though he steals cars on a regular basis? Get outta here with that sh*t lol. Rockstar could’ve had a perfect depiction of some dude who’s batsh*t insane and then at the last minute they threw in some banal sh*t to make him “likable”.

 

You mentioned Lance Vance; a fine example of a deep character even by III era standards. Some dude always overcompensating to make up for being overshadowed by his brother and later tommy who decided to sell the latter out because of self-defined lack of respect that was passed on from his brother. A very good character imo, even if he were a protagonist. But if he were written by today’s rockstar (I.e. rockstar since VCS), they would’ve made Lance a weirdo like “yea I’m a bad guy but I also have a heart of gold, I tip 70% and will help strangers in the street”.

 

Of course Red Dead is a complex IP and it’s not entirely fair to compare it to GTA, but you can’t deny that the both of them have this weird dynamic where the main character, despite being a criminal, is more reluctant about being a criminal than openly embracing it. It was fine with Vic and Niko because they were the first of their kinds, but when nearly every gta protagonist has a weird moral compass like that it just gets really annoying, unrealistic, and lazy since the writers feel like they’re filling in a template when it comes to the protag’s motivations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael is the least worst to me. I don't care for Franklin at all, and Trevor is quite literally trailer trash and too edgy for my liking. I don't really like the character much. More so his lifestyle; his house, location, cars, money, etc. It's more fitting of GTA to me than another boring hood story or some intentionally unlikable psychopath. Nonetheless, the three of them are my least favorite in the series. The embodiment of a good character to me is Niko. He has his flaws, and isn't really a good person. But he has depth. He's not perfect, but he's not all bad either. He's human and that's what made his story enjoyable. He embodies most real people, because most people aren't great. They can be great, especially to many people in their lives, but they're mostly flawed and quite frankly be pieces of sh*ts and hypocrites too. Not only that, most characters in GTA IV are actually like that. It's great writing, something GTA V lacks almost completely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, universetwisters said:


tbh depth doesn’t always equal “good”. Like Trevor could’ve been a deep character if he didn’t soapbox about perceived injustices despite his craziness. And his random encounters raise a few eyebrows; Trevor is able to return a stolen bicycle to its rightful owner even though he steals cars on a regular basis? Get outta here with that sh*t lol. Rockstar could’ve had a perfect depiction of some dude who’s batsh*t insane and then at the last minute they threw in some banal sh*t to make him “likable”.

 

You mentioned Lance Vance; a fine example of a deep character even by III era standards. Some dude always overcompensating to make up for being overshadowed by his brother and later tommy who decided to sell the latter out because of self-defined lack of respect that was passed on from his brother. A very good character imo, even if he were a protagonist. But if he were written by today’s rockstar (I.e. rockstar since VCS), they would’ve made Lance a weirdo like “yea I’m a bad guy but I also have a heart of gold, I tip 70% and will help strangers in the street”.

 

Of course Red Dead is a complex IP and it’s not entirely fair to compare it to GTA, but you can’t deny that the both of them have this weird dynamic where the main character, despite being a criminal, is more reluctant about being a criminal than openly embracing it. It was fine with Vic and Niko because they were the first of their kinds, but when nearly every gta protagonist has a weird moral compass like that it just gets really annoying, unrealistic, and lazy since the writers feel like they’re filling in a template when it comes to the protag’s motivations.

 


tfw the games you are complaining about make the argument for you:

1e63r7B.png

The fact that Lester had to make this argument is evidence enough to tell you that GTA V does nag you about morality. It is also probably why Lester fits in GTAO more because we don't have those issues.

  • KEKW 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.