Talk:Grand Theft Auto: Vice City/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The Houser Brothers' tribute to the "grooviest era of crime" was an instant classic well worthy of being brought all the way to featured status, and I would be delighted to help this article along that journey. My last GA review took far too long, which I will do my best not to repeat. Its a long article, however, so it still may take a bit. Comments to follow in chunks as I have the opportunity to review sections of the article. Indrian (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead and Infobox

 * ✅"The game's plot is based on multiple real-life events in Miami such as Cuban, Haitian and Biker gangs, the 1980s crack epidemic, the Mafioso drug lords of Miami and the dominance of glam metal" - Some of these are events, but most of them are not. A different noun or combination of nouns is required.
 * ✅In addition to the influence of the real Miami, it might be nice to note some pf the prime fictional influences like Scarface and Miami Vice.
 * ✅The lead feels a little short for an article of this size, and I am not sure it is quite comprehensive. Its probably okay for GA, but if you plan to go on to FA, I would perhaps beef it up with a few more sentences focused on the "Development" and "Controversies" sections.
 * ✅The Infobox identifies Obbe Vermeij and Adam Fowler as the programmers for the game, but the credits list them as technical directors and identify a different man as the lead programmer. While, this may be a limitation of our infobox style guidelines, it would probably not be accurate to say that Vermeij or Fowler contributed much, if any, code to the project.
 * ✅So genres are tricky with video games since they are not often very well defined, especially in more modern games, but the infobox lists the game as a "third-person shooter," while the lead does not. I am not sure that genre really applies, as even though the shooting in the game is done in the third person, it is really not the primary mechanic of the game.  I'm not going to fail the article over whether this stays in or not, but perhaps it should be reconsidered?

Looking good so far. Moving on to round 2. Indrian (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay and Plot

 * As a general note for this and other sections, the article often refers to "players." As this is a single-player game, using "player" makes more sense and avoids giving the impression that multiple players are sharing the game world at the same time.  I am trying to correct these as I go, but do be mindful in case I miss any.
 * Likewise, I have noticed several instances of the Queen's English ("armour," "recognise"). While the Housers and the blokes at DMA/Rockstar North are British, Rockstar and Take-Two are both American companies, so I guess its a tossup.  I started changing these, but changed my mind and left them as they are since so many of the leading creators are British.  This is not so much a critique as it is a comment on something that may come up during a peer review or FA.
 * ✅I don't believe the wanted levels are explained well, with the parentheses coming across as awkward and the "example" coming without a description of basic behavior. The article should convey the manner in which wanted levels increase and the nature of the change in AI behavior as the wanted level goes up (greater numbers, more advanced foes, etc.).
 * ✅Right now combat information is split between the beginning and end of the section, with auto aim and damage info up top and weapon information and first-person aiming at the bottom. The section should be rewritten to unify this info.
 * ✅"In the process of finding leads, Tommy meets Ricardo Diaz (Luis Guzmán), who hires him." - Hires him for what?
 * ✅"before reassuring Ken, who arrives and is shocked by events, that everything is fine." - This feels a little tacked on. Perhaps it could be reworked as its own sentence?
 * Thanks for that, . I tried to address your concerns. – Rhain  ☔ 23:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working my way through. Here is the final round of comments. Indrian (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Development

 * ✅"Core development began in early 2002, and lasted about nine months." - I am not sure what "core development" is supposed to mean in this context.
 * ✅"Rockstar North began to develop Grand Theft Auto: Vice City in late 2001, around the time of Grand Theft Auto III's release. Core development began in early 2002, and lasted about nine months. After the development of the Windows version of Grand Theft Auto III, the development team discussed creating a mission pack for the game which would add new weapons, vehicles and missions. - Might be nice to vary the wording a little through here.
 * ✅"The team was appealed by the challenge of creating the game's soundtrack" - When I do a review, I generally make grammatical tweaks myself unless I am unsure what the writer is attempting to convey. "Appealed" is definitely not the right verb here, but I'll leave it for you to choose a better one.
 * ✅I am not sure if this is the place to do this, or if another section would be better, but one interesting aspect to the voice acting is that they had a horrible experience with many of their stars, particularly Ray Liotta, which is why there have been few celebrity voices in subsequent GTA games. Jacked goes into sometime detail on this.  I won't fail the article if this does not get in for the GA, but if this goes to FA it should definitely be included.

Commercial Performance

 * ✅"It was the highest-selling game of 2002 in the United States, and had sold 5.97 million units by June 2004, and 8.20 million units by December 2007." - That seems like a lot pf phrases tacked on with ands for one sentence.
 * ✅"The game's sound was awarded" - Awkward wording.

Legacy

 * ✅This section seems awfully short for such a popular and influential title. If you could beef it up a little that would be nice.  Again, for GA it probably does not need too much more, but it is well short of FA at the moment.

And that's finally it. Pretty small issues overall, so I will officially put this nomination while the rest of the issues are attended to. Indrian (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your comments. Apologies for taking so long to respond; I wanted to wait until I knew I had some free time before addressing the larger issues. I've tried to address all of them; let me know if there's anything else. Thanks! – Rhain  ☔ 05:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great. I notice that in the last day or so an anonymous editor has claimed certain elements of the plot summary are inaccurate.  Its been way too long since I played the game for me to remember plot details, so I don't have any idea if he is right or not.  It sounds like it may just be a problem of the anon looking for more detail and the summary being technically accurate, but before I promote this I just want to make sure there is no problem here.  Just let me know. Indrian (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up on that; seems like it was a simple wording issue that got a little lost in translation during the article rewrite. I've corrected the inaccuracy. Thanks again for your review. – Rhain  ☔ 20:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking a bit to get back to this: I wanted to wait until I had the time to do one more copy edit.  After making a few minor changes, I am satisfied the article meets the GA criteria.  Well done! Indrian (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)