Quite a few mentions of the 80s setting, music etc. I agree that it was done well, but again I can't see why this would elevate a moderate improvement over III into the best in the franchise's history. Red Dead Redemption perfectly captured the Western feel but it would have been a rather empty shell without the great gameplay to support it.
It was the best GTA game becuse it was pure fun.
There was no dating, or phone calls, or going to the gym to work out. All the missions were well-done driving and shooting mayhem.
Other than that, it was the well-done 80's setting, the voice acting by Ray Liota, and the fact that by the end of the game you're living in a Miami Vice mansion with a helicopter pad you a good portion of the city, and you're giving missions to yourself. :)
Dire_Weasel
One or two missions aside, dating was completely optional in SA: I never bothered with it, as there were 100 other fun things I could do.
I never understood the negative reaction to the gym element. Once CJ was maxed out, there really wasn't any need to go back as long as you ate sensibly. And it's not like it was for nothing: you became stronger and could sprint for longer.
Both Tommy and CJ end up very rich and in control of serious real estate. Both were colourful characters and all-around douchebags, but whereas Tommy only looked out for himself, CJ was also concerned for his family and neighbourhood. Does a single-minded quest for power and fortune really make for such an appealing protagonist and plot? I personally liked CJ's rags-to-riches story better, but the way I see it there was a progression from GTA III all the way to Red Dead Redemption of increasingly nuanced plot and deeper, more likeable characters.
The missions were leaps and bounds better both in terms of design and sheer variety. Vice City also featured the brilliant property mechanic which unlocked optional, yet brilliant missions (the Malibu and Film Studio missions are some of the best in the series). I don't remember any characters from Grand Theft Auto III. Vice City was filled with interesting and often insane characters (I'll never forget the scene when Tommy enters the office and finds Rosenberg snorting cocaine or when Diaz kills pigeons with a shotgun at his mansion). A cIassic rise-to-power story. Neon-lit art deco 80's Miami. The soundtrack. The sex. The drugs. Scarface. Miami Vice. Need I go on?
UpInFlames
VC's missions were an improvement over III, but SA built upon both games and added more to the mix. Some of the new content worked, some didn't, and that probably made SA a little inconsistent compared to VC, but like another poster said it's the sum of its parts, and I thought SA's best moments like the casino robbery were worth putting up with some of the crappier parts.
The cast of the III-VC-SA "trilogy" were so over the top and two dimensional they make Brucie Kibbutz seem like Atticus Finch.
Btw, SA was fun but it pissed me off for one reason: I went out of my way to win those territory wars in Los Santos. It was extremely fun and an epic experience (glitches pissed me off a bit buy I prevailed). Then it happened. There is a late mission in the game that erases all that progress. WHY? They could have at least told me so I wouldn't have bothered in the first place
GunSmith1_basic
That annoyed me too, but ultimately it served its purpose of making the player feel what CJ must have felt when the crooked cops yanked him out of Los Santos and left him in the middle of nowhere. In one flash you lost everything you'd been working hard to gain.
Log in to comment