When I read Tycho's curt dismissal of Vice City, it seemed a good time to put my thoughts about the game down on paper.
Tycho is dismissive of its popular appeal; ie, the fact that it is hugely popular with all gamers, especially casual ones, and probably in part because its structure lends itself to casual play. I recently read an article wherein casual gamers discussed new PS2 releases (it was, if you must know, on a mountain biking forum). Someone was rating XIII, but pointed out he'd nearly finished it in a couple of weeks, and Vice City had taken him a couple of months and - as in implicit assumption - Vice City must therefore be better.
Vice City is an interesting beast. It has a well constructed plot, that often has several strands running at once (depending on the order you chat to bosses). It has a more cinematic feel than GTA3, possibly best signalled by giving the player character a voice and role, and its plot features several heavy pop-culture references (to films and TV shows such as Taxi, Miami Vice, and Scarface). At the same time, though, it immediately encourages experimentation. Almost any car is free to jack. The bridges to the mainland (which accounts for about 50-60% of the physical area the game covers) are blocked until halfway through, but even so, there's enough stuff to play with. It's quite possible to load it up, play for an hour with no discernable goal, and the thrill of random violence might well appeal to many casual gamers.
(Also of note: GTA3 begins in the industrial district, with largely rubbish vehicles to steal. Vice City begins in the beach and leisure areas, with the quickest, neatest, most stylish vehicles - many sports cars and motorbikes. Later in the game, the "duller" areas open. In terms of balance, this is clever - because evading the cops in a family sedan is harder than in a Countach. Also, though, it plays up the "fun" factor more. In GTA3, you earn the fun stuff. In Vice City, the keys to the toybox are laid out in front of you).
Then, when you're bored of that, you could take one of the many plot missions. There are a certain set of missions that comprise the "main story", and it's possible to advance very far in these with very little extra experimentation and exploration. To get the final two, though, I believe the player is required to have a "60% complete" rating according to the stats screen.
Now, the completion percentage does not just relate to the essential plot missions; it also relates to all the bonus missions, to finding the 100 hidden packages around the city, to completing the 36 unique jumps and 20 rampages that lie scattered. The hidden packages are a prime example of the need for experimentation: some require some investigative footwork to find; others demand inch-perfect superbike jumps.
Oh, and you have to acquire all the property in the game to contribute to that 100% rating. Now, some property will give you income, and some just functions as extra safe houses, helipads and garages. The acquisition of property is quite a neat feature, because (as well as giving you more hideouts from the police, so you don't have to backtrack so far to save or evade the law), it also gives the player a feel of rising in status; I began in a beachside hotel, but now I've got a Condo and a mansion, two helicopters, and four garages to my name. I feel like a "bigger" criminal.
And that's before I mention the subgames - stealing a taxi will allow one to play taxi driver and earn money for as long as you want; it's like Crazy Taxi, basically, built into the game.
And so it's quite easy to get diverted from the main plot. All these little bonus features also reward "pick up and play"; through experimentation or simple errors, the player advances towards completion - not through persistence, skill or logic, the two attributes that feature strongly in more "hardcore" games.
Also, what is "complete?" I'd argue the game is complete essentially when the story is finished to the player's satisfaction. You can still drive around, mess around when you've got that real 100%; does it make one feel any better? It's unfair to deride other games for their shorter length when such an open-ended nature is not their goal. XIII is more stylish, more cinematic, and has a far better executed plot than Vice City every could have; it achieves its goals admirably. Length is not a guarantee of quality - Final Fantasy VII was returned by the dozen because it was just too turged for the 90s Playstation generation, hooked by Wipeout, to cope with. I feel a similar fate will befall Knights of the Old Republic. What Vice City has is a subtle balance: it is epic in scale but not in plot; it has variety on its side. It's also a long game full of short sequences, rather than a long game full of long, drawn-out missions where one slip spells game over. I can't think of a mission yet that's lasted more than about 15-20 minutes at best. So rather than being properly "long", it just consists of more short-things stuck together than most games.
Don't get me wrong; I love the open-endedness; I love the fact that the game rewards having fun; I also love the fact that, depending on the time I have, I can either have a serious go at plot missions, or just try and nail one more jump. Or maybe find something new I never knew about. At the same time, it's almost too pick-up-and-play. It gets the casual-gamer kudos because of this, and also because of its trademarks - recognizable licensed soundtrack; mature language/plot and graphic (if cartoonish) violence; glamorized, senseless violence. None of these make the game better - how many times do games have M- or 18-ratings that turn out to be their only unique feature? And, conversely, how many wonderful games are passed over because snobbish gamers complain they look too childish?
Tycho's point is fair; there is more to gaming than GTA. Indeed, there is more to the pinnacle of gaming than GTA. No question, Vice City is one of the best games I've played, but it comes into my top ten or twenty, not my top three. It just happens to be one of the few times brilliance has slapped the casual gamer - for whom the PS2 or Xbox is something to do before going out or in idle moments, not something to invest time into - in the face. No casual gamer would pick up Ico, Rez, Knights of the Old Republic and their ilk on a whim; too complicated, too surreal, where's the guns? And yet it's here that the real treats of gaming lie.
I can understand the casual praise for Vice City; I can understand the hardcore praise too. It's not a be all and end all, and it makes sacrifices (frame rate, graphics) to achieve its goals. To dismiss it from on high, when one has experienced its peers, its betters, is unfair; I've played many games few have and adored them, but that's to my benefit; I need not harp on about it being their loss. It's a stylish, brilliant crossover, and it takes what the original game tried on the PC so long ago to a logical and excellent conclusion.
Posted by tajmahal at January 14, 2004 07:54 PM