Poll: Open worlds: Bethesda or Rockstar?
- Thread starter Iwata
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bethesda. I like Rockstar's games and all but if you're bored the best you can do for fun is drive/ride around killing people. Meanwhile in any Bethesda game you can check out one of the hundreds of locations and do some exploring/looting. That just makes it for me. My best friend and I make a little competition out of it. We explore the map then when we hangout we compare to see who's found more of the locations and who got better items/loot out of it. He usually wins because I work full-time. Anyways. Bethesda.
I agree with all of that, but I would also like to add it also depends what you can do inside that sandbox. A great big world you can go to where ever you want from the start of the game is great. If all you can do is run over people though, there isn't much point to it. Which I would again give to Bethesda, like running into the Shrines in oblivion, or stumbling upon some awesome extra, like in the first dungeon you see across the river, after getting out of the sewers. There is a hidden panel which leads to a necromancer's hideout. Also all the side plot lines, like the guilds, and other errands and missions.Grouchy Imp said:
In a perfect world, Bethesda would design a game around a Rockstar open world story.
But if I had to choose, Bethesda has two FANTASTIC open world series, while Rockstar has one near perfect series split up into three different worlds. If we saw a Red Dead sequel that incorporated L.A. Noire's technology and GTA's...GTA-ness, it may very well be the greatest open world game ever.
But, Oblivion is, in my opinion, the best, so my vote goes to Bethesda.
I think a more interesting pairing would have been Bioware and Rockstar, and a series comparison between The Elder Scrolls and the "Shock" meta-series.
But if I had to choose, Bethesda has two FANTASTIC open world series, while Rockstar has one near perfect series split up into three different worlds. If we saw a Red Dead sequel that incorporated L.A. Noire's technology and GTA's...GTA-ness, it may very well be the greatest open world game ever.
But, Oblivion is, in my opinion, the best, so my vote goes to Bethesda.
I think a more interesting pairing would have been Bioware and Rockstar, and a series comparison between The Elder Scrolls and the "Shock" meta-series.
Very. very different.
Rockstar tends to do a better job making them feel real and alive, at least at first glance. Bethesda, however, does a much better job of giving you stuff to do and ways to impact the world.
MY biggest problem, or one of my biggest, with RDR was that you could kill anyone you wanted, but then they'd be right back to life the very next time you entered town. In one game I dueled and killed the same guy at least 10 times. In Oblivion and Morrowind, if you killed someone, they stayed dead (unless they were marked as "essential;" then they just get knocked out."
Rockstar tends to do a better job making them feel real and alive, at least at first glance. Bethesda, however, does a much better job of giving you stuff to do and ways to impact the world.
MY biggest problem, or one of my biggest, with RDR was that you could kill anyone you wanted, but then they'd be right back to life the very next time you entered town. In one game I dueled and killed the same guy at least 10 times. In Oblivion and Morrowind, if you killed someone, they stayed dead (unless they were marked as "essential;" then they just get knocked out."
I'd have to say Bethesda as a personal preference.They kinda capture the feeling of freedom and roaming but they don't handle the fun factor as well as Rockstar but then again Volition beats them hands down at that.Both Guerrilla and Saints Row are epic worlds where you have a ton of fun.
On the subject matter: wouldn't it be awesome if Volition made Fallout 3 with Oblivion handling their writing...Just a dream.
On the subject matter: wouldn't it be awesome if Volition made Fallout 3 with Oblivion handling their writing...Just a dream.
I agree with the first part, but I don't feel like Rockstar rules the mayhem sandbox anymore. Rockstar's been steadily stepping farther and farther away from the GTA3 mayhem that they get credit for.Xaio30 said:
As Jeff Cannata said on the weekend confirmed podcast. "It's like Rockstar dumped [the mayhem mechanic] in the trash, and then Volition came around and said, 'Hey, this is a perfectly good mechanic!'"
As far as open world mayhem goes, nothing compares to Red Faction: Guerilla for me. (but I'm sexually aroused by knocking buildings over, so that explains that)
For this poll, Bethesda wins.
Bethesda, hands down.
What else is there to do in GTA besides races and the main story line? A few collectables?
The open world from Rockstar serves for 2 things. A big buffer between missions like the ocean in The Wind Waker, and a place to just kill people for a few minutes.
As for Bethesda, the game IS the world. Every town has something to do. Places to go people to slaughter.
It serves a purpose.
What else is there to do in GTA besides races and the main story line? A few collectables?
The open world from Rockstar serves for 2 things. A big buffer between missions like the ocean in The Wind Waker, and a place to just kill people for a few minutes.
As for Bethesda, the game IS the world. Every town has something to do. Places to go people to slaughter.
It serves a purpose.
Basically this. Rockstar's may be pretty to look at but ultimately you can do a lot more in Bethesda games.Radoh said:
I choose bethesda since the games uses thier world so well. There's plenty to discover if you venture off the beaten track as in a rockstar game you just sort of stumble over things and all the other side objectives (such as the challenges) are available from the start.
A lot of people have been adding the Assassin's Creed series into the mix so I'll address all three games here.
In open world games, I feel what distinguishes one game over another isn't the mechanics or even the overall concept. Yes, it is damn impressive to create a near perfect representation of 15th century Italy, and the fact that I can say I've explored it is a pleasure of mine. But, let's be honesty, why am I running around that open world of Rome or driving around in a funny parody of New York city? The great flow of the free running mechanic in Assassin's Creed and the ability to drive over pedestrians while listening to those funny radio shows. While those are great things, let's face it: those have nothing to do with the finely crafted and detailed locations and environments within the games.
I have to be honest that when I think back to playing Assassin's Creed 2, the only thing I can remember about the open world I just explored is a blur of Florentine buildings and streets with carts of hay at every street corner. I know there are unique locations, but in the end what makes the open world aspect of the game memorable is the mechanic of running, jumping, and climbing, not the world itself. Why is that? Well, probably because I'm not actually exploring the world. I'm getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Same with GTA. Same with most open world games these days (I can't talk about Red Dead Repemption since I haven't played it). In games like the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, the entire open world mechanic is the open world, i.e. exploration. You want to find new locations, talk to people you find on the road, look for new and interesting places. Finding these new places and people will introduce new experiences, quests, and stories. They aren't all laid out on your map; you have to look for them. Any location you find, you add to your map and now have the ability to fast travel back to it. Nothing is just given to you, you need the desire to work for them before you can have it. Bethesda does this like a pro, not only having memorable locations and characters, but giving you the wander lust to explore and seek them out.
In open world games, I feel what distinguishes one game over another isn't the mechanics or even the overall concept. Yes, it is damn impressive to create a near perfect representation of 15th century Italy, and the fact that I can say I've explored it is a pleasure of mine. But, let's be honesty, why am I running around that open world of Rome or driving around in a funny parody of New York city? The great flow of the free running mechanic in Assassin's Creed and the ability to drive over pedestrians while listening to those funny radio shows. While those are great things, let's face it: those have nothing to do with the finely crafted and detailed locations and environments within the games.
I have to be honest that when I think back to playing Assassin's Creed 2, the only thing I can remember about the open world I just explored is a blur of Florentine buildings and streets with carts of hay at every street corner. I know there are unique locations, but in the end what makes the open world aspect of the game memorable is the mechanic of running, jumping, and climbing, not the world itself. Why is that? Well, probably because I'm not actually exploring the world. I'm getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Same with GTA. Same with most open world games these days (I can't talk about Red Dead Repemption since I haven't played it). In games like the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, the entire open world mechanic is the open world, i.e. exploration. You want to find new locations, talk to people you find on the road, look for new and interesting places. Finding these new places and people will introduce new experiences, quests, and stories. They aren't all laid out on your map; you have to look for them. Any location you find, you add to your map and now have the ability to fast travel back to it. Nothing is just given to you, you need the desire to work for them before you can have it. Bethesda does this like a pro, not only having memorable locations and characters, but giving you the wander lust to explore and seek them out.
Bethesda... GTA and RDR are good, and so are the Fallout's(never tried Elder scrolls), but i just find fallout to be better
