like the strategy guide for GTA III, the guide sometimes doesn't tell you the best way to complete a mission. Remember there are all kinds of ways to approach each mission in the game -- the guide only gives one option, and sometimes that isn't the easiest way to go. I'm about half way through Vice City so can't point to specifics, but one example from GTA III guide, the final mission, its much easier to finish the mission (and the game) if you just go to your hideout to get weapons first.

Worth the money for good pointers, but don't forget to use your imagination with these games -- that's what makes them so great.

This book has perfect strategies for every mission...The maps are very detailed, and locations for hidden packages are included, as well as side missions and complete lists of rewards you can get in the game. The only problem I had with this guide was that it does not contain cheat codes. Cheats can usually be located somewhere online, but I was still a little disappointed as the main reason I bought the book was for the cheat codes that they said were in there. However, don't let that stop you from getting the guide, it still help get you through the game really well and it has cool pictures too! Not to mention the full weapons and vehicles section, character profiles, and spoilers if you want them. Another success by BradyGames!

Vice City is such a great game that you have to wonder if any strategy guide could live up to it. Plus it is a fairly simple game to understand and play. Some games, like Metal Gear, require the guide, others, like Grand Theft Auto, don't really need it. Now, I've only skimmed through it. I love this game so much that I don't want to spoil it by giving away the upcoming missions and actions. It has a nice intro to the game, the characters, the weapons, and the cars. I find that after you finish a few missions, it is good to go back and look at what the guide says, just in case you missed something. I haven't. What it does have that I like a lot is maps to where all the weapons can be found, where the hidden packages are, where the rampages are, and where you can find body armor, police bribes, and life. (Call it cheating, but that is what I primarily use the guide for, plus this game is so much fun, even reading about it is fun) Those maps alone make the guide a valuable addition to your vice (you wouldn't believe where some of that stuff is hidden). Vice City is so great, you should buy this guide--just to have it.

This is surely the winter of Thomas Jefferson's discontent. His political credo of limiting the power of the federal government is invoked to restrict the rights of individual citizens against giant commercial entities and his defense of executive privilege is used to limit public and Congressional investigation into administrative wrongdoing. To make matters worse, he is attacked by present-day historians as hypocritical, petty, and perhaps worst of all -- trivial.

In James F Simon's What Kind of Nation, Jefferson comes off as all three in his battles over constitutional interpretation with his cousin and nemesis John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One of the blurbs on the jacket describe Simon as
"eminently fair". That would be accurate if the title of the book were "What Kind of Court". But taken as a study of the two men's contribution to the kind of nation the United States became, it is skewed. What Kind of Nation is the story of Marshall's contribution, but it is far from the full record of Jefferson's.

Simon, a law professor, is admirable in his clear, readable exposition of how Marshall expanded the powers of the US Supreme Court during his thirty-year stewardship. Nearly single-handedly Marshall established the court as co-equal with the executive and legislative branches of the federal government and superior to the individual states' courts. Both Marshall and Jefferson were political partisans who bent legal ideology to suit their own pragmatic objectives, but Marshall was unquestionably better at it. For example, Marshall was a loyal if unenthusiastic supporter of the Alien and Sedition Acts which Federalist judges used to make political dissent a crime. Yet thirty years later he stage-managed the acquittal of Aaron Burr on charges of treason brought by Jefferson's administration that were based on very real grounds. There were certainly political differences and personal animosity between the two, but matching them off as the primary antagonists in a struggle to shape the future of the nation is artifical. The court was Marshall's forum and its power and well-being his prime concern. Jefferson's arena was broader.

As President, Jefferson more than doubled the size of the United States. Marshall did not join his old Federalist allies in opposing the Louisiana Purchase. Lacking an adversarial confrontation, Simon spends no time reflecting on the importance of Jefferson's acquisition in shaping the economic and physical form of the United States. The Louisiana Purchase has had more to do with this country's place in the sun than the powers of the Supreme Court. I would also argue that Simon's focus upon the judicial undervalues Jefferson's importance to the "kind of nation" we are morally and philosophically. Jefferson's words -- not Marshall's -- still express the ideals to which we aspire as a nation. As Jefferson's actions sometimes fell short of his aspirations, so do ours.

What Kind of Nation is a well-written thought-provoking book based on careful historical documentation. I enjoyed it thoroughly even though I do not agree with the dialectic it proposes. Like David McCullough's John Adams, it broadens one's understanding of the foundations of our nationhood.

The world needs a book about John Marshall's contribution to America. In my opinion, "What Kind Of Nation" by James F. Simon is it. Though the nature of the subject almost guarantees that the reading will be somewhat dry, scholarly, and lawyerlike, the author did a nice job with it. As a scholar myself, I recommend it. If you're looking for an easy read on Thomas Jefferson, I also recommend Norman Thomas Remick's excellent book "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From Thomas Jefferson's Readings And Writings", in which West Point is posited as a metaphor for Jefferson's worldview of the way America ought to be.

On a recent vacation to Colonial Williamsburg and Monticello, my 14-year-old nephew commented that Thomas Jefferson didn't get along with Alexander Hamilton. The four adults accompanying him replied patronizingly that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr certainly didn't get along, but didn't remember anything between Hamilton and Jefferson...

Of course, my nephew was absolutely correct. In an effort to rectify my obvious educational deficiency, I immediately embarked on a reading plan which led me to "What Kind of Nation", where I discovered that Thomas Jefferson also didn't along with John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the time I got to this book I had a pretty good feel for the politics of the period, having read "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis, "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington" by Richard Brookhiser, "Alexander Hamilton: American" by Richard Brookhiser and "James Madison" by Garry Wills. I believe this background helped me to maximize my enjoyment of "What Kind of Nation" because I was able to focus on Marshall's brilliance and perseverance in establishing the authority of the Supreme Court on an equal footing with the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Jefferson's antics were amusing, but old news. The way that Marshall dealt with Jefferson who was, after all, the President of the United States during the first 8 years of Marshall's 34 years as Chief Justice, is fascinating.

James Simon does a great job of telling the story without getting overly technical with the legal side of things. I think he strikes just the right balance, so that the lay reader (i.e., non-lawyer) can appreciate the significance of Marshall's extraordinary accomplishments.

There was no information that the book was published in 1986. If I new it I would not buy it. There is very limited use for a Restaurant Guide that is 15 years old.

Like Mr. Camps other book, THE GREAT RESTAURANTS OF CHICAGO, this book is an excellent selection for eating out in Chicago. Mr. Camp provides fine reviews of the best of the best in Chicago, as one of the top restaurant reviewers for the Trib. Although out of print, this book is well worth the wait! I never leave for Chicago without it!