Sorry to reference an old post but:
First of all there is the issue of the escapist's own reviewers claiming the characters in the latest GTA are unlikeable and even that their actions cannot be believed or sympathised with, which I take issue with, especially with the excuses given, especially Trevor
Because the event was one that taught us a lot about the character, as well as how far you can go to prove your own point in a political sense, as what Trevor did, he had no problem with specifically because he knew it was something that exposed the truly horrible things that the government were doing to people under the guise of "protecting the public", which is specifically the same sort of thing that is discussed even in these forums quite often, Trevor was simply more proactive and perhaps less kind about proving his point.
Michael is certainly one of the most likeable characters in videogame history. When visiting the psychiatrist, he talks honestly about the truth of his actions, that he does what he does because it makes him feel alive, and that him suppressing that instinct was what was destroying his life, which is entirely true, and, when compared to the behaviour of Walter white, who repeatedly claimed his actions were in service of some higher cause
Franklin is a character who appears at least superficially similar to CJ, who was the poster boy for likeable GTA protagonists up to this point, however his attitude betrays so much more maturity, being determined to escape the "gangsta" lifestyle that pervades the area of LS that he was born in, to that end, his attempts to rid himself of the foolhardy companions that he associated with in his early life always seem to fall flat however, as he also maintains his loyalty to his friends, a quality that serves him well up to the end, where Lamar is there to help him in the final fight.
Trevor certainly seems to have inspired the most debate, as he certainly does the most reprehensible acts, and the word I hear bandied about a lot in reviews and discussion of the game and its characters is "irredeemable", which is a term that enrages me, for what does Trevor or the rest of them need to be redeemed for during their actions in the game? Michael does the most dishonest thing in the opening act of the game, betraying his close friend, but that is one that he puts right throughout the course of the game, helping kill the people that want Trevor killed, and Trevor himself has everyone he has personally aggrieved either dead or in such a position that they cannot act against him, therefore he is in the clear as of the end of the game.
So why do people seem to behave like there is some underlying necessity for the character's actions to need redemption or maybe that they do things that makes them somehow terrible people? In many ways their actions prove a certain honesty about their characters that a lot of people refuse to expose, even Jim Sterling seemed to approach this from a strange angle, claiming the characters were unrelatable, but he enjoyed playing them becausethey did "bad" things that caused a strange sense of enjoyment, for doing things that he seemed to find unpalatable, which is a strange attitude indeed.
seems to be one of the prevailing arguments I have heard against the actions of characters and the other events in GTA V, a game which I seemed to get more enjoyment out of than I apparently should have done, at least according to the people I have discussed this with.putowtin said:
First of all there is the issue of the escapist's own reviewers claiming the characters in the latest GTA are unlikeable and even that their actions cannot be believed or sympathised with, which I take issue with, especially with the excuses given, especially Trevor
torturing a man
Michael is certainly one of the most likeable characters in videogame history. When visiting the psychiatrist, he talks honestly about the truth of his actions, that he does what he does because it makes him feel alive, and that him suppressing that instinct was what was destroying his life, which is entirely true, and, when compared to the behaviour of Walter white, who repeatedly claimed his actions were in service of some higher cause
until the last episode, where he at least redeemed himself by admitting that he did what he did because he was good at it, and, like Michael, it made him feel alive
Trevor certainly seems to have inspired the most debate, as he certainly does the most reprehensible acts, and the word I hear bandied about a lot in reviews and discussion of the game and its characters is "irredeemable", which is a term that enrages me, for what does Trevor or the rest of them need to be redeemed for during their actions in the game? Michael does the most dishonest thing in the opening act of the game, betraying his close friend, but that is one that he puts right throughout the course of the game, helping kill the people that want Trevor killed, and Trevor himself has everyone he has personally aggrieved either dead or in such a position that they cannot act against him, therefore he is in the clear as of the end of the game.
So why do people seem to behave like there is some underlying necessity for the character's actions to need redemption or maybe that they do things that makes them somehow terrible people? In many ways their actions prove a certain honesty about their characters that a lot of people refuse to expose, even Jim Sterling seemed to approach this from a strange angle, claiming the characters were unrelatable, but he enjoyed playing them becausethey did "bad" things that caused a strange sense of enjoyment, for doing things that he seemed to find unpalatable, which is a strange attitude indeed.
