Vice City Blues
By: Jerame Oates




Nothing has done better to push the video game industry outta puberty like the transformation of the Grand Theft Auto seris. A seris that started as a low-budget PC shoot em’ up, and suddenly made a complete U-turn. Not only as a game brand, but a giant break in convention. What we knew a game could amount to was changed dramatically, and now, thanks to its many wonders, gamers can stand tall for the first time and say ‘I lay on my ass all day, and I’m proud’, without being labeled a total idiot (notice I said total). Starting with GTA3, then moving on with the relatively new Vice City, it seems Rockstar just keeps shoving away at the gaming taboos and limitations, but are they loosing what was great from the beginning?

Ask any gamer what it is that draws them into GTA3 or VC, and you’re likely to hear a lot of the same thing: There’s just so much you can do (supposedly if you’re of age)! If it’s not driving around listening to the tripped-out period music, then it’s inputting the memorized cheat codes, and blasting innocent civilians into puddles of blood. Or heading for a good whoring, whatever. Point is, people cling to this awesome franchise, because there are very few restrictions, and no two players will go about it the same way. But what are doing when you’re not causing havoc, well, besides sleeping every once and a while? It’s mission time, and after the initial thrill wears off, that’s not always a welcomed diversion.

All the missions still run on a try and fail basis. You get toy/actual helicopters, motorcycles, slightly upped aiming control, and a couple added weapons, but you’re stuck with the same gradual progression of just knocking off a victim, to delivering crap in a decreasing time limit. The advancements in VC are mostly for kicks, which left me wanting more and more as the game went on. At some moment in time, I stopped running the errands, and just slaughtered innocents for fun--- something I could’ve done as well in GTA3, of course, excluding the vintage-style tropical shirt.

Rockstar, like so many other companies, is getting lazy. I’m not going to go on the record and claim that VC was a cash cow, but besides the time travel effect and the new characters with it, what did we get that wasn’t offered in GTA3? When they hit success with the their interactive formula in GTA3, it looks like they more or less stripped the game, and gave it a new pair of clothes. The most obvious example being the missions, and how stale they feel in comparison to the wild surprise we had last year with its predecessor. If Rockstar is trying to settle into a niche, it’s not working. For a company that’s been prided over its daring leaps in originality, settling wouldn’t be an idea plan.

I can only wonder what’s next for the seris, and if Rockstar’ll once again try to take a leap forward, and prove GTA3 wasn’t all they had in them. I’d hate to see the seris become a victim of constant tweaking to appease gamers who’ll buy the name, and let themselves get force fed leftovers. There’s just not enough swift and rapid change in VC. It may not have halted the crowds from buying the game up, but this kinda sequel only works for so long.

I can’t deny that VC is fun, and that I didn’t enjoy it, but I didn’t come out hours later feeling any different from the way I came out with GTA3. The seris needs movement--- shocking improvement. Some might say that you can’t significantly improve a seris that’s damn near perfect, but if Rockstar can create a game that’s damn near perfect; they can, as we’ve already seen, bitch-slap the word itself, and leave a another swelling red mark on video games: as entertainment, and as a pop culture revolution.

When you’re given everything, you always want more, and I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m selfish. I’d never badmouth a GTA title in my life, unless I knew it was worth it. I know this isn’t all Rockstar has. They blew it with State of Emergency, but with a better mission system--- managing gangsters of your own, manually turning on your bosses (Man, I’d love to backhand that Cortez during a cut scene), then they could show the world, in a sense, that they’re not one hit wonders.

The concept’s gone far enough. Keep the good, and get rid of the bad. I think I speak for at least one other person, when I say I don’t wanna play GTA (3): Vatican City anytime in the distant future. Believe me, it could cross that line...

Well I was agreeing to you until you started criticising Vice City. I think its a great game, and that people who dislike it are being rather unreasonable.

It was made in 12 months, and the results are amazing. Of course its unlikely to offer much innovation but I hate it when people get what they want, a sequel to GTA3 (and pretty swiftly too) and then criticise it.

Its certainly a better sequel than GTA2 was. I never felt GTA3 was that big a leap, I felt it was a step back in some cases, less freedom in the mission structure - which mean I never bought it (borrowed). What it did do it further realise the ambitious concept of a living breathing city where you can wreck havoc and I see the series establishing this 'vision' of sorts more fully in the future.

Every company needs franchises, not only to keep afloat, but to fund original projects. I may disagree with you but bravo for writing about an issue that is well worth discussing.

Keep up the good work Jerame.

- MoBy.

Good editorial.

I couldnt agree more. The article was good and then got BETTER when you started to criticize Vice City. Grand Theft Auto 3 was great, a new type of game that stretched the limit by having whores and being able to murder people on the street. But Vice City only brought GTA3 and a Samurai sword. Well thats not it, but thats how I was left. All in all it didnt do much for me and good editorial. ((Agrees with all points made in ed))

I do agree that Vice City is pretty much the same ol' same o'l with slight improvements. Taking place in the 80s is a good idea. It's so cool to be driving around shooting people while listening to Michael Jackson or Gary Numan or Iron Maiden and other great 80s music. Motorcycles are a welcome to the game expecially the harley davidson one. Overall, I felt they could've done better.

People must realise that this is a sub game, based on the concepts of GTA3 it was a game based on wants of the mainstream, it ISN'T GTA4. I thought it was an excellent game for what it was...wait it IS an excellent game (sales figures say so )

Whilst your editorial made some noteworty points I disagree this time, lol Rockstar are anything but lazy.

Jerame, I agree on some of your points. Sure, VC was basically GTA3 with a few added goodies, but since when does that make it a bad game? Okay, let me rephrase that: a "stripped game with a new pair of clothes."

Kingdom Hearts: Final Mix is a perfect example of rereleasing games: Final Mix is basically the original game with a new difficulty setting, several new weapons, and about 20 new equip items. If I followed your logic, I should say that Squaresoft and Disney are getting lazy for rereleasing the same game again. VC is basically GTA3's prologue, with several add-ons that were not available when GTA3 came out. Sure, it's the same people, but in a living, breathing city. To me, that, along with the unheard of development time of a single year, make GTA:VC one of the most amazing games I have ever had the chance to play.

I disagree with some, but not all of what you're saying Jerame. I agree that Vice City was basically GTA3 with a few extras, but to say that it was just a rehash of GTA3 is just being ignorant. As Kyo said, it was a game based on what the mainstream wanted. They delivered to a "t." I mean, anyone who has played the game has to admit that running around hacking up innocent civilians and blowing cr@p up is tons of fun. Rockstar set out to make another game that would sell, and they did. Omasitor also makes several good points. Vice City had much more to offer in terms of vehicles, a few new weapons, new police tactics, etc. And as many people have said, for a game that was made in 12 months, they did one hell of a job.

Nice editorial, though. I must admit, you made some good points.

You are right in what you are saying Jerame but you are being too harsh because Vice City IS a good game. It may be GTA 3 tweaked but it is still an enjoyable game to play regardless of it being a add on.

This you could say is a stop off point till GTA 4 which will be newer better and badder. As Moby said a year=Vice City is pretty darn good in my books.

Enjoyable nonetheless

Flikmeister Signing off.....

GTA: Vice City had so much more to offer than GTA3...sure maybe there wasnt as many missions but you could buy property, heist stores, ride a motorcycle (ahh...prings back memories of GTA1 for PS1) Vice city was designed so that you could do almost anything imaginable at any given time...althought if you could blow up buildings and stuff.....i mean while NOT on missions that would be pretty cool too....i thought it was a great game.

Its bad enough that you bought up a topic thats been dead for 6 months,and you seem to be making a habit of doing it, but to bring it back and then write exactly what other people have already writtten was pretty pointless.Why couldnt you posr in a current topic, which would have benefitted more from the post?

hey Arab, lighten up on the newbies, all youve been doing is complaing about what they do wrong, so what if they open up an old topic, theres no rule against it, besides your new yourself, just lighten up man. Anyway

I believe exactly what Jermane is saying, GTA VC left me feeling empty, sure the helicopters, and motorcycles, and improved soundtrack were great. But With those additions, i think Rockstar totally over looked the main reason most of us play games, and its the storyline. The storyline for Vice City was absolutely horrible compared to the storyline of GTA III. In GTA III you were a new guy on the streets, fresh out of prison, and thrown into the dark world of the Mafia. You worked your way up from driving around a hitmans prostitute, to betraying the Mafia, and killing their leader, then moving on the Yakuza, killing their leader for a high rolling real estate dealer, but still working for the Yakuza's ((and thats where Kingdom Hearts came out so i didnt play it anymore)).

With Vice City, you worked your way up, but you were already a high ranking crime lord, just in Liberty City, not Vice City. And the storyline its self for Vice City...pshh! Get back your drugs, and the money, you could have done it in a lot lesser missions then there were. The plot was very drawn out compared to GTA III. But i guess Vice City was made for the as i call "GTA Gamers"


Bottom line: GTA III was much better in terms of storyline, city, and gameplay values. Vice City was just III with a sugar coating for wanna-be gamers.