[JustRob]

I can't stand this game for one reason and that's the protagonist. Compared to CJ, Vic isn't that cool.

Why does he have to be "Mr. Responsible Good Guy" all the time? Out of all the GTA protagonists he's the only one who doesn't like crime and is so two-shoed.

I hate typical good guys like that. Tommy was so much better.

[A2 MFK]

Victor was used as a character because he shows how you can't get involved in crime and try to have a personal life. He never wanted to get into that stuff, this is shown because he was in the army to bring money home for his sick brother.

I'll agree he wasn't a great character for the game but for Rockstar to make a remake of Vice City they had a lot to live up to. It may have annoyed fans to bring in a completely new character, never seen in Vice City.

Rockstar wanted to combine the aspect of owning businesses from Vice City and turf controll from San Andreas. So the empier concept was arguably quite a good idea. But who could they have used that was relevent to vice city and had a position to run an empier?

Diaz was hated for being overweight, corrupt and generally unintelligent.

Lance was despised for betraying you in Vice city

And I doubt many people here would have wanted to be Umberto Robina

Its a t5radition in GTA that people who set you missiona do not become protagonists. With the exception of Toni Cipriani and by GTA 3 he had really let him self go.

Rockstar needed a character that was capble of causing the mayhem that the players like so they couldb't be one of those rich, obess mission setters, but on the other hand they couldn't be an antagonist inn another game like Lance or Diaz

Yes he wasn't a great character for the game but his death in Vice City just went to show that you can't have the responsibility of a drugs empire and mix it with family issues like Louise or his ill brother.

In a way his death reflects the film Scarface, which the game is baced off. Tony Montana double crosses Sosa and pays for it. Just as Vic double crosses Diaz and pays for it

[JustRob]

Vice City wasn't all that much to live up to. The whole game was pretty heavily based off Scarface, and the final mission is almost exactly the same as Scarface's climax.

I'm not saying Vic was a bad choice to go for (except he looked totally different in VC and was killed off in the intro, kind of a downer). But before VCS came about Vic was pretty much a blank sheet. They could have gone any way about it, they could have made him a badass psycho. Instead we get this responsible family guy, and Lance is even more stomped into the ground, being portrayed as nothing but a third wheel.

[SilentPL]

QUOTE (JustRob @ Wednesday, May 9 2012, 14:01)

They could have gone any way about it, they could have made him a badass psycho.

Toni was like that. They probably wanted Vic to be DIFFERENT than the other protagonists, especially the protagonist of 2nd PSP GTA game.

This post has been edited by SilentPL on Wednesday, May 9 2012, 14:29

[thecommander]

QUOTE (JustRob @ Wednesday, May 9 2012, 12:01)

Vice City wasn't all that much to live up to. The whole game was pretty heavily based off Scarface, and the final mission is almost exactly the same as Scarface's climax. I'm not saying Vic was a bad choice to go for (except he looked totally different in VC and was killed off in the intro, kind of a downer). But before VCS came about Vic was pretty much a blank sheet. They could have gone any way about it, they could have made him a badass psycho. Instead we get this responsible family guy, and Lance is even more stomped into the ground, being portrayed as nothing but a third wheel.

Lance is a third wheel in this game. Vic was in charge and Lance knew it. Vic taught Lance the business and he eventually earns his brother's respect and trust. So in VC we see Lance conducting his own business and becoming more in tuned with the underworld of the city. Lance and his personality changed a lot over the course of the year. Think of it as him becoming less "green". As for Vic, I think of him as a product of his environment. He got kicked out of the army and did whatever work was offered to him. As A2 MFK said, he had responsibilities, something that not a lot of other GTA characters had. Vic was one of the most grown up characters in GTA, along with Niko.
As for Vice City not being not that much to live up to. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with you on that.

[A2 MFK]

I agree with "thecommander" too many other protagonists were pretty much out casts, they had not much going for them in terms of relations ships, Sweet lost all respect for CJ twice, Ma Cipriani called the hit on Toni. And yes they came out stinking rich with some sort of mansion or estate amd a fleet of cars, but they were all alone to an extent.

Yes this is what some players wanted, they wanted a rich phyco with low moral, I mean if you want a family and a job, you buy Sims not GTA.

But as shown in the intro to Vice City you cant be a family man in that sort of orginisation. It can't be a coincidence that the only protagonist with "Family Values" was the one to be killed.

One thing I don't understand though, at the end of Vice City Stories, Vic is enraged that Lance suggests they continue the drugs trade, and even makes him promise to give it up. So why at the begining of Vice City was he doing a Magor drugs deal with the Forrelis? Vic had allies in the game like the Cubans but they were just a street gang, sure he had a few rivals like the Bickers and the Sharks but they were all small time so I don't understand why after swareing not to touch drugs again, he is then seen doing a deal with such a big orginisation thats not even native to Vice City?

No offence to Grove street, but criminal organisations like the Yakuza or the Mafia could flatten street gangs.

[BlackCorsair]

Vic was certainly a different stroke for different folks, but that is what makes him stand out from the rest. Not all protagonists need to be spycho. Pacino made cinema with Scarface, but he also portraited an amazing character with grown responsability in Carlito`s Way, the kind of character that Vic tends to shift more in direct comparasion (coincidentally, that movie was also part of the inspiration for VC, i.e the Malibu and Rosenberg).

While there are places in the storyline where I prefered he toned down the whole schooling around, plotwise he needed to. Nobody turns into criminal underworld lord in just a day, I understand the notion that we had to see him struggling with his morals, and while many believe it to be hypocrasy because he had less problems into killing people, he was in the army after all.

All in all, while I certainly prefer Tommy, I appreciate Rockastar`s avenue of giving us something of a different cloth. As far as "Vice City" not having much to live for...it did. That is like saying SA didn`t left big shoes to fill either when both are generally regarded the two biggest classics of the whole series so far, when you take in consideration aspects like sound design, plot, marketing, soundtracks, direct inspiration etc.

This post has been edited by BlackCorsair on Saturday, May 12 2012, 15:22