I don't think Just Cause 2 will cower before Skyrim in terms of world hugeness. That's still the biggest sandbox game I can think of.Pierce Graham said:
Poll: Open worlds: Bethesda or Rockstar?
- Thread starter Iwata
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bethesda Studios all the way. My first 'open-world' game was Morrowind, and everything that isn't Bethesda hardly seems 'open world' by comparison.
Well, while there might be techincally more to do in Bethesda open world games, I still prefer R*, especially RDR because of the simple reason, it looks better, there's more in it. Example, in Fallout 3, you step out of the vault, take a look at the wasteland and you've seen it all... In RDR however, there's everything from the mexican desert to snowy mountains, and it looks beatiful... Bethesda games just looks bad IMO, sure Skyrim looks nice, and have more variation, so maybe they've actually made an effort this time... But, we are still to see what R* brings out next.
Oh and also, R* gave us awesome open world multiplayer
Oh and also, R* gave us awesome open world multiplayer
Bethesda. I always get bored halfway through Rockstar games, and the world has a lot to do with it.
neither.. I like big cities. I like big fantasy worlds.. but both are very static in their "open-ness" so they arent that much fun to be in (nothing you do makes a difference).
Heck, even just cause 2 with all the "permanent destruction" doesnt do much; you dont see anything different with the people once you wipe out a zone. They just keep doing their thing as if you didnt do a thing in the first place.
Nuked every oil rigs, stations, pipelines? Still endless lines of vehicles everywhere. No one complains of the sudden rise in fuel price/low supply.
Heck, even just cause 2 with all the "permanent destruction" doesnt do much; you dont see anything different with the people once you wipe out a zone. They just keep doing their thing as if you didnt do a thing in the first place.
Nuked every oil rigs, stations, pipelines? Still endless lines of vehicles everywhere. No one complains of the sudden rise in fuel price/low supply.
Well GTA is only really fun if you turn some cheats on and then go on a rampage. Trying to play the game properly is just feckin annoying because of their terrible, terrible aiming system.
I remember when Oblivion first came out... and how many hours i've spent on it since then. And playing Morrowind at a friends house many years ago too.
Bethesda.
I remember when Oblivion first came out... and how many hours i've spent on it since then. And playing Morrowind at a friends house many years ago too.
Bethesda.
Like comparing apples and asparagus...
Rockstar and Bethesda make very different games. The similarities are the free-roam aspect,but that's where it ends.
Rockstar focuses on letting the player loose to get from point A to point B (which is of their choosing) in the most entertaining method possible,and has (in my experience) very little priority given to story structure;they simply poured everything into the "tooling around" parts of the game.
Bethesda focuses on story driven games with rich background and deals almost exclusively in RPG titles. (I said ALMOST,not entirely). Rockstar titles can easily be classified as third-person shooter sandboxes,while Bethesda's games are RPG sandboxes.
Two entirely different companies that are impossible to compare properly. However,if I HAD to vote,I'd vote Bethesda. They had possession of 85% of my soul since Morrowind,anyway.
Rockstar and Bethesda make very different games. The similarities are the free-roam aspect,but that's where it ends.
Rockstar focuses on letting the player loose to get from point A to point B (which is of their choosing) in the most entertaining method possible,and has (in my experience) very little priority given to story structure;they simply poured everything into the "tooling around" parts of the game.
Bethesda focuses on story driven games with rich background and deals almost exclusively in RPG titles. (I said ALMOST,not entirely). Rockstar titles can easily be classified as third-person shooter sandboxes,while Bethesda's games are RPG sandboxes.
Two entirely different companies that are impossible to compare properly. However,if I HAD to vote,I'd vote Bethesda. They had possession of 85% of my soul since Morrowind,anyway.
Hmm... I'm gonna say Rockstar for this one.
See, the problem is that I don't really like either.
Bethesda are most noted for their ridiculously oversized world in Oblivion, but that was almost entirely copied and pasted. It all looked the same.
But Rockstar's ones are usually just big, bland cities (Except for Red Dead), but I think that Rockstar did a better job on RDD than Bethesda did on FO3, so it's Rockstar for me.
See, the problem is that I don't really like either.
Bethesda are most noted for their ridiculously oversized world in Oblivion, but that was almost entirely copied and pasted. It all looked the same.
But Rockstar's ones are usually just big, bland cities (Except for Red Dead), but I think that Rockstar did a better job on RDD than Bethesda did on FO3, so it's Rockstar for me.
The question is actually not that simple. If it were last gen, I would?ve said R* hands down. However GTA4, RDR, and LA Noir came nowhere near the endless fun of Vice City or San Andreas and they are miles away from the detail found in the DC Wateland. By the time I was done doing everything in Vice or Andreas, I was ready to play through again. By the time I was done with GTA4, I didn?t even want any dlc; much less $20 dlc. They seem to have traded in variety of gameplay & customization for pretentious plot turns and add on story missions.Iwata said:
While none of Bethesda?s worlds seem as huge as San Andreas or as vivid as Vice, they do put a lot of attention to the finer details of their worlds. There?s often interesting narrative etched into the settings of a place like the DC Wasteland that is far more ponderous and heart wrenching than all the suddenly dead cousins and cowboys in the world. However, Bethesda also trumps R* on bugs, glitches, and crashes so I can see why some might not be as impressed.
Overall, I'm looking forward to the next Saints Row more than what either R* or Bethesda are making next.
I love Bethesda open worlds - Huge and leave me immersed. But somewhat sparse.
GTA I'm not much a fan of. I'd say Saint's Row backdrop and space impressed me more.
So I went with Bethesda.
GTA I'm not much a fan of. I'd say Saint's Row backdrop and space impressed me more.
So I went with Bethesda.
I prefer Rockstar, but LA Noire's open world really sucked. Good game, but the the film reel hunt was boring, the car collecting was boringer, there was only one radio station (The Bickersons were hilarious, though), limited song selection (how freaking expensive can it be to license Louis Jordan / Cab Calloway / Andrews Sisters songs?), landmarks were glitchy and weird (who cares about the goddamn bagel factory?), didn't download the "badge pursuit challenge," and you couldn't shoot random people, not even in free roam mode. Obnoxiously shoving people and backing over your partner with the car door remained fun, however.
Rockstar wins on the basis of three games, though. Vice City, San Andreas, and Red Dead Redemption. That game was simply gorgeous, had smart and fun fetch quests / survivalist challenges. Bethesda is good, but their open world IS the game. Rockstar games feel like there are multiple levels of "reality" to it that make the world feel fresh and different.
Rockstar wins on the basis of three games, though. Vice City, San Andreas, and Red Dead Redemption. That game was simply gorgeous, had smart and fun fetch quests / survivalist challenges. Bethesda is good, but their open world IS the game. Rockstar games feel like there are multiple levels of "reality" to it that make the world feel fresh and different.
Bethesda because their worlds feel like they're lived in, as opposed to just a bunch of pedestrians aimlessly walking around a nameless city. Also, exploring every corner of Bethesda's worlds feels more fulfilling than just trying to find every last pigeon to shoot.
Doublefine, because if my choices are exploring muddy fields, dismal cities, or fantastically colorful fantasy dreamscapes, I'll take dreamscapes.
Hard to answer. I'd say... it's like CoD and Battlefield.
Same genre, different style.
Bethesda's worlds are massive, and encourage exploration in fantastically done environments, while Rockstar's are believeable, and much more built for a great story.
As an example, in Fallout 3, I loved exploring every nook and cranny for every scrap of rare loot, and doing every side quest. However in Red Dead, I was so satisfied with just riding around aimlessly; the world was just that beautiful.
I voted Bethesda, because I had more fun and time in Fallout 3's world than Red Dead Redemptions. Though, if asked, I would rate them both equally, overall.
Same genre, different style.
Bethesda's worlds are massive, and encourage exploration in fantastically done environments, while Rockstar's are believeable, and much more built for a great story.
As an example, in Fallout 3, I loved exploring every nook and cranny for every scrap of rare loot, and doing every side quest. However in Red Dead, I was so satisfied with just riding around aimlessly; the world was just that beautiful.
I voted Bethesda, because I had more fun and time in Fallout 3's world than Red Dead Redemptions. Though, if asked, I would rate them both equally, overall.
Fallout 3 was great, and i also liked GTA IV a lot as well as Red Dead Redemption. That being said, all have their gripes. The GTA IV downloadable episodes really didn't do much for me while the Fallout 3 add-ons did add to the experience. That being said, New Vegas...
With New Vegas hanging over Bethesda's head, the fact that Oblivion wasn't that interesting, and the fact that Red Dead Redemption let me murder armadillos en masse, i've got to give it to Rockstar in the end since Rockstar's titles had a much stronger catharsis level. Even if Fallout 3 was great, it just didn't have the level of freedom Rockstar's titles have.
With New Vegas hanging over Bethesda's head, the fact that Oblivion wasn't that interesting, and the fact that Red Dead Redemption let me murder armadillos en masse, i've got to give it to Rockstar in the end since Rockstar's titles had a much stronger catharsis level. Even if Fallout 3 was great, it just didn't have the level of freedom Rockstar's titles have.