Poll: Open worlds: Bethesda or Rockstar?

[KRbertsproduck5]

Lets see here.... Jumping in cars or on horses doing high speed chases and incredible stunts, getting hookers, or just go ape shit crazy on some near by people OR just walking around at super slow speeds shooting people with the same guns or mashing the "Hit person with sword" button. I chose the first one.

 

[WorldFree55]

A good question yet at the same time has a very simple answer, Bethesda. There games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls are always much more vast and expanded along with a lot of interaction while in Rockstar the whole city or desert your on is pretty limited in actuality.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I went for Rockstar just because in Rockstar games getting around isnt such a chore like it is in Bethesda games. Yeah Bethesda probably uses the sandbox element better in their quests, but for me it just feels like travelling is a choice between quick travelling and feeling like a cheat or taking a 20 minute walk and being attacked by the collective forces of Satan, Hades and Sauron (and you still have to bloody well walk to every where before you even have this choice), where as travel in R* games is usually fun, or at least not as dull (GTA4 being the exception). Anyway, inFamous and AC are my favorite sandboxes, but I suppose that wasnt the (brilliant) question.

Edit: Actually it would be good if the original poster defined sandbox because it seems everyone has been arguing from different angles about why which game is better. I'd also like to say that I still love Bethesda games and that they're still excellent sandboxes but I think R* just does them better

 

[Trololo Punk]

Bethesda, better sights, more things to do (quests, etc.), and fully voiced
(mostly) NPC's.

 

[Talvrae]

Rockstar.... Simply because i hate the RPG style of Bethesda that i call more explorations game personally. But it's really not same kind of game it's hard to compare... And if anything Bethesda world always have feeled lifeless to me

 

[EzraPound]

I like Bethesda's games, but Rockstar popularized the sandbox genre, and clearly have a better grasp of how to create open world games--by making them as accessible as the great games of yesterday, rather than simply arduous to navigate.

 

[Viennetta]

Bethesda, for the detailed and enjoyable games. And even if their games were not of such high calibre, I'd rate them over Rockstar, whose characters walk and run like a pair of damp trousers blowing on a washing line. While I love Rockstar's creativity in driving open world games, they really need to make it fun to actually move around in them.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Since R* has gone backwards since GTA: San Andreas (Best Open-world map) and Volition isn't an option, Bethesda rules.

 

[Nocta-Aeterna]

Bethesda. Granted, I've only played San Andreas as comparison, but Cyrodiil, , the Capital Wasteland and Vvanderfell felt far more fun to explore and filled with interesting stuff than the state of San Andreas.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quite honestly, Rockstar games and I have never got along. So I'm going with Bethesda. Oblivion was my first open-world game, and I found it enthralling. I'd gladly make a deal with the Devil (if he exists) to make Skyrim be finished, perfect, no Bethesda bugs, and come out tomorrow, for everyone!

 

[Victor Cross]

Hm...GTA or Oblivion...Let me think about this for a seco-

Bethesda.

 

[Olorune]

I'm voting Bethesda, but only because Rockstar makes some irritating decisions; such as not making a zombie DLC for GTA IV when they know for a fact that if they did it right (and they would...or else) it would sell an amazing amount! I'm not saying I don't like Bethesda, though. Hell! I loved and still play Oblivion and I eagerly await Skyrim and the next Fallout game if they are the one's making it.

Also, Nico came off as a bit of a complainy-pants in GTA IV which turned me away from some of the story.

I think Rockstar should see this thread. They'd learn a bit more about what people want from them.

 

[Podunk]

I wasn't even going to vote or comment, as I think both companies do a pretty good job but have very, very different design philosophies. But then I thought about it for a minute, and I have to say Bethesda, because in their games and no one else's do I want to walk from place to place and make frequent uneccessary detours every time something interesting catches my eye. Though to be fair, they really should work on making more than one game I actually really give a crap about...

 

[Twilight_guy]

Ubisoft and Sucker Punch. Wait, you're not giving me those options? ugh... Bethesda, I like Fallout 3.

 

[GiantRaven]

Rockstar.

The various worlds of Grand Theft Auto felt like living, breathing environments.
The various worlds of Elder Scrolls felt like games.

In L.A. Noir and Red Dead, I honestly felt for my character, putting you in their shoes and doing what they would do. But this doesn't allow for much vesting in the character more than you might like a movie character.

Bethesda gives you a completely blank slate to make your own. This allows for you to imprint yourself on your avatar, but denies the stronger story aspect of fully fleshing him out. There's only so far you can make him/her into you due to simple constraints in technology.

I never understood why people liked 'blank slate' main characters. I much prefer my main character to actually have a personality and background. You become more invested in them because they can actually seem like a real person, instead of some object in which you use to move through the plot of a game.

Bethesda focuses on story driven games with rich background and deals almost exclusively in RPG titles. (I said ALMOST,not entirely).

I'm sorry, but at what point could Oblivion every be considered 'story-driven'? I don't know anybody who bothered to follow the main plot at all and basically just faffed around with sidequests and exploring for the entire time they played it.

Not that I think there's anything wrong with that but I don't think Oblivion's story is what drives people to like the game.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

Bethesda: They pack a bunch of details and interesting locations and characters in their worlds.

Rockstar: Usually, their worlds serve as more of an atmospheric device, and feel kind of bland, at least in my opinion.

That being said, I loved Red Dead Redemption. I still play it, just to get into shenanigans and let off steam.

Oblivion and the Fallout games made under Bethesda are my old standby games, I play them whenever I'm bored. I'd say that Bethesda is my pick because I'm *still* playing Oblivion in the 4+ years after it's release, and am still enjoying the hell out of it.

 

[Inkidu]

Bethesda

 

[Feylynn]

There would have been a time I said Rockstar but I just don't have fun with their newer games.
Can't fault them for my preferences, only support Bethesda who I prefer.

 

[Arluza]

I've never played a Rockstar game (GTA doesn't appeal to me, and I haven't gotten around to L.A. Noire) so I have to say Bethesda.