When a game bursts onto the scene as, erm, violently as Grand Theft Auto 3 did last year, you leave people chomping at the bit waiting for a sequel. Some of you have been chomping at the bit so much, that there isn't any bit left. Not even a bit of bit. So, when it came time for the game to be released everyone here at Netjak had a review ready, or wanted to get one ready. Except me.
I figured I'd avoid playing the game because everyone would have written about it. But then Search & I figured that it'd probably be best to let everyone weigh in on the game who had an opinion. So here it is...Netjak's Colossal Dive into Debauchery and Vice.
Our round table of reviewers consists of a fairly diverse group of people, covering both genders and a fairly wide age gap. Some of the people participating are married and have kids. While we understand that every gamer of every age is probably really looking forward to this, you might wanna make sure you know what your elementary school kid is getting into before letting them just go throw themselves headlong into this game.
The ESRB put an "M" rating on this game for a reason. The reason probably has to do something with the fact that the game is named "Vice City", and that the central plot revolves around someone stealing the cocaine and cash you were scheduled to deliver, and you, Tommy Vercetti, having to go and get it back. Other than that, wholesome family fun time! For the most part, the plot isn't really there, say most of the reviewers, it's around enough to guide you through the game, but not there so much as it would be in an RPG, or even in the game as much as it was in GTA3.
So, to start the discussion off, I asked for everyone's first impressions of the game. I was curious to see if GTA: VC would have the same impact as GTA3 did. Most of the reviewers had good things to say about the game right off. Search loved the 80s flashback feel of the game, saying it reminded him of simpler times, days of mullets and Miami Vice. Laughing Target wasn't as positive, saying it didn't really feel too much different from GTA3 and the controls felt too "loose" for his liking. But Xeno, Blue, and the rest of the discussion agreed that the game felt fun right from the get go aside from some minor quirks, and had a good first impression of the game from the beginning.
Any time you can impress some of the toughest critics around from the get go, you've released a pretty good product. Since LT had mentioned the issue of controls, I asked about them next. Netnut says that they feel jerky, and LT agrees, especially in the parts of the game where you're on foot. LT seems to have a big problem with lining your character up to go up the stairs. The rest of the staff is divided, with Xeno not really having any issues with the controls. Xeno does say that controlling the boats totally sucks, a point which everyone heartily agreed upon, especially given the fact that you have to race other boats in parts of the game. Everyone also agrees that controlling the bikes is tough, and there are increased amounts of spinouts, most notably in the rain. So, kind of a mixed bag.
Half of us seem to think that controls are fine, the other half say that they have issues with them. Well, if the controls weren't dead on, what then, about the engine? Did the game's core still feel solid? If the graphics looked nice but the game moved at 2 frames a second, it wouldn't be an improvement. Xeno started by saying that load times were a lot smaller, and loads didn't happen as often as they did in GTA3. (I have to keep fighting the urge to say "the original". There were actually a bunch of GTA games for the PC, and they weren't all that good until GTA3.) LT, and Search both agreed, but Search added that the engine felt like it was trying to do too much, and it showed.
After this, everyone agreed that the game didn't feel as fluid as GTA3 did, and in addition, had bad things to say about the sun getting in your eyes. LT said that you'd notice that the levels weren't as good graphically because they were so much larger. Netnut disagrees slightly, saying that he likes the new brighter looking, more colorful Vice City, but still adds that it is more difficult to see things than before. One of the things that made that last version of GTA so good was the radio stations, and the variety of music you got.
In GTA: VC, Search66 probably said it best, GTA: VC only serves to separate itself further from the rest of the game world in terms of game music. Everyone loved the selection of music, although some of them didn't like certain stations. (Which is understandable...I'm not going to listen to every genre of music.) Not surprisingly, everyone agreed that the CD compilations that the GTA folks released of the game's music were lame. I have to agree. I think 1 video game souundtrack is pushing it sometimes, but 6 different CDs?! Your game's good...but it's not going to affect all aspects of my life so thoroughly that I need to have it with me wherever I go. But, strictly within the context of the game alone, if you liked the music in GTA3, you're only going to like the fact that they used the original artists in GTA: VC more.
Speaking of audio...and speaking...how 'bout them voice actors? Ray Liotta pulls off something in GTA: VC that he hasn't been able to do in any of his latest movie outings...be cool. A unanimous thumbs-up across the board for ol' Ray. Maybe he should consider a career change. Netnut also likes the new lines of random dialogue the passersby are given. Search66 has minor issues with the porn stars not shutting up. Lee Majors voicing for Mitch Baker is pretty good, says everyone involved, and Netnut also notes that the mouth movement actually matches the words in the game, and all in all is very impressed with the way this aspect of the game worked out.
Time to check out the "Auto" aspects of Grand Theft Auto. As you probably know by now they've added motorcycles into the game, but did they have to take out a bunch of other cars to do it? Xeno says no, and that she likes the wider variety of cars. LT says that it seems like there are less car types in the game, but this could be attributed to his hatred of the cars of the 80s. Search, ever the 80s junkie, likes the selection of cars, as does Netnut, especially the golf carts and mopeds. Xeno says they have expanded the number of freelance missions, adding that you can now drive around delivering pizza among other things. If you thought Liberty City was a tough place to make your mark in, you're probably going to find Vice City a bit tougher.
The missions central to the plot seem to be a bit easier in the eyes of our staff, but that could be due to the fact that they're accustomed to the engine now, and have been through the same type of thing from the last GTA. However, everyone agrees that with the faster cop cars, that trying to go out on the street and "freelance" is more difficult than it was in GTA3. One of the things that the GTA series has always done right is the little things...humor in the missions, etc. Little things that bring you joy because it shows that the game developers care. LT doesn't like the way that the passersby will crowd around a dead body...while he's still running around with his Uzi. Netnut thinks that the game limiting you to only making cash by advancing the story limits the game's flexibility, but aside from that, everyone had good things to say about the little touches, mainly commenting on how the humor on the radio stations was as good as before, if not better. Xeno notes that there are more jumps, Netnut likes the ability to purchase property, and likes the new improvised weapons in the game. Nothing like a chainsaw to liven up a sequel.
So, how does Vice City fare in the shadow of its older brother? Well, every reviewer except one said that the game didn't quite match up with the original, with Netnut being the only exception. As a game on it's own, it stands out well, getting very high marks, but nearly everyone else felt like the "surprise value" wasn't there from the last incarnation of the game. You came in knowing what to expect, and it didn't thrill you as much. Well, there you have it...5 different opinions combined into one mainly positive review all around. Nearly everyone here likes the game...and is still playing it. Xeno notes that it's taken her just about 50 hours to go through the game. That, my friends, is what they call value. You rent a game that you can beat in 6 hours. You buy one that holds your attention for more than 50.
Hopefully, more designers will start to learn that lesson. A total of 5 thumbs up from the gang here at Netjak. If that's not enough of a reason to get this game now, then you either don't like games, or are probably still too young and impressionable to play it. Come back when you're older. =)
