Bethesda I love the games they make so much. The Elder Scrolls and Fallout are my 2 favourite series. Then Bioware is second because they make great games too.
Poll: Who Do You Think is Best RPGs Between Bioware, Square Enix, and Bethesda?
- Thread starter HusaneFatal
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok, firstly...paragraphs.CATS FTW said:
Secondly, Oblivion is linear, where is the choice in the main quest? You're forced to fight for Martin and you can't decide to join the Mystic dawn permanently. The guilds are also linear, in the Dark Brotherhood I can't join Mathieu, in the Fighters Guild I can't permanently join Blackwood, in the Mages guild I can't join the necromancers.
Also, New Vegas was made by Obsidian, not Bethesda.
Dude, Chupathingy, you're kind of a butt. The way you use your words functions to make other people with not only legitimate opinions, but legitimate points to look stupid rather than encouraging an open discussion, you're also unhealthily opinionated on certain subjects, as well as knowing a disturbing amount of useless forgettable details from games that you claim to despise, as well as the fact that Rooster Cogburn is right, you should take into account the direction a group is going in when discussing a game you simply can't use it's gameplay mechanics or story as examples but using the ideas the developers have in there heads as a basis of opinion is perfectly acceptable.ChupathingyX said:Please point out the choice in Oblivion's main quest, because I didn't see it. Also pease show me the choice in the main guilds in Oblivion too.Rooster Cogburn said:
No, Skyrim has not been released and therefore should not be taken into consideration.P.S.- While I admit it would be an error to vote for Bethesda solely based on the future potential of Skyrim, it only makes sense to include what you know about their approach to upcoming titles in your opinion of them as a developer. Plus, it looks sick.
No, Black Isle/Interplay made the original Fallout and Fallout 2, and Black Isle eventually became Obsidian.Vhite said:
Bethesda did not make New Vegas, Obsidian did (if only I had a dollar every time someone said that)Linsenman said:
You should never use an unreleased game as an example.
Last time I checked in Fallout you were forced to be the Lone Wanderer who was born to Catherine and James, born in the Jefferson Memorial, grew up and became friends with Amata, was bullied by Butch and basically has had his childhood shoved in your face telling you that this is the character you will be playing as.Best of the 3 said:
Once again...paragraphs, sorry but it's really hard to read a wall of text like that.CATS FTW said:
In order to have a legitimate opinion you should back it up with reason. There are heaps of people who say they like Bethesda, some of them give reasons so I ignore them because they give legitimate reasons. Every person who I respond to gives opinions without legitimate reasons.
Giving Bethesda credit for New Vegas is wrong.
I am opening myself up for discussion, I love discussion and I have had many discussions in the past, some didn't end well whereas some did end up well with everyone coming to a reasonable agreement or compromise.
Sometimes the smallest detail can be important, when debating or having a discussion the small details are always important and they add more to your thesis.
In theory yes, but not practically. If Bethesda intended us to make decisions and choices then they should've put decisions and choices into their games. Oblivion's main quest did not have choice...it's that simple.
BioWare gets he vote.
Bethesda in a VERY close second.
Sqeenix? Eh.. I've grown weary of the tradition "JRPG" model, and Sqeenix has shown no motive to try and do anything different. If you try and claim Deus Ex: HR as Sqeenix, you are wrong (bringing it up, because I know so many people have their info wrong here). Human Revolution is being developed by Eidos Montreal, which is owned by Sqeenix.
Bethesda in a VERY close second.
Sqeenix? Eh.. I've grown weary of the tradition "JRPG" model, and Sqeenix has shown no motive to try and do anything different. If you try and claim Deus Ex: HR as Sqeenix, you are wrong (bringing it up, because I know so many people have their info wrong here). Human Revolution is being developed by Eidos Montreal, which is owned by Sqeenix.
Bethseda and Bioware does the same thing with their games. They're strictly story driven and the story is delivered through endless dialogue where you get to say something that is either good or bad. There's usually good graphics, huge worlds and a decent gameplay involved, but I hate plowing through endless pages of text to get a feel of what's actually going on. After playing Mass Effect, Mass effect 2 and Fall Out New Vegas I realized I didn't care one tiny bit about the story and only played it for the gameplay. When a story driven game doesn't give me a story I give a damn about something is wrong. I don't care about the moral choices and I don't want to be bothered my making choices that might restrict what I can do later on or give me a "bad" ending where I am an evil satanic baby eater just because I said I wanted to get some breakfast within the first hour of the game. Square Enix got Final Fantasy III and IV on the DS, IV on the SNES and The Last Remnant. I can forgive them a lot of crappy games for those jewels, but sadly I can't find that much enjoyment in the other 2 that I think are eerily similar in way of portraying their story.
Well, I'm going to write-off Squeenix to begin with as JRPG's have never been my main thing, although I will admit they have done some good stuff in the past.
Choosing between Bioware and Bethesda is a tough one for me. They both do different RPG elements well as many before me have stated. I'm very tempted to say Bioware as the first games I heavily got into were NWN and Baldur's Gate and I have loved their more recent titles such as DA:O also. However, they've lost a little something for me I can't quite put my finger on.
On that note, Bethesda get my vote only by a small fraction as I'm currently enjoying vast sprawling worlds to explore. Ask me this question in a few months and I'll have probably changed my mind though. It all comes down to my current "phase" with RPG's.
Choosing between Bioware and Bethesda is a tough one for me. They both do different RPG elements well as many before me have stated. I'm very tempted to say Bioware as the first games I heavily got into were NWN and Baldur's Gate and I have loved their more recent titles such as DA:O also. However, they've lost a little something for me I can't quite put my finger on.
On that note, Bethesda get my vote only by a small fraction as I'm currently enjoying vast sprawling worlds to explore. Ask me this question in a few months and I'll have probably changed my mind though. It all comes down to my current "phase" with RPG's.
I was thinking of FNV and Oblivion, you're just some random bum who eventually saves the worl, you don't know much of your past and you have to fill in any blanks. I never playedFallout 3 myself -3-ChupathingyX said:
Wanted to though.
GAH! Now I'm confused over my games and the developers. Yeah, you're right.ChupathingyX said:
Really must not post so early on the morning again.
Bethesda. Hate Squeenix's games, and I just prefer the Beth angle over Bioware. Plus I played a bit of DA2 the other day and it sucked a bit.
Bioware at the top for sure. any company thathas made the Baldur's Gate series, wins by default.
Bethesda at a respectable second place though.
Square? HAH!
Bethesda at a respectable second place though.
Square? HAH!
Hm... Personally, I consider this arbitrary in the sense that there is no clear definition of RPG, which makes it kind of difficult to argue.
Since the question is which is the best RPGmaker, I would answer BioWare with ease, simply because my definition of RPG does not simply mean character customisation in an open world where your actions barely has consequence, except for a rumors and gossip. To me, it means the interaction between characters and with the world in a sense that leaves a mark. Since the characters are pretty... poor in Bethesda's games, I can't really consider them very good from a RPG standpoint. Since in Square Enix games you generally don't control your character's actions in dialogue, I don't really consider them very RPGish either. Please note that I am not saying these are bad games! Many are really good games, that I have enjoyed thoroughly, though not so much as a RPG, as for the other merits they have.
Shortly following on that, I'll show myself as a heathen by admitting to having played neither Bauldur's Gate game. However, I still have enjoyed pretty much all of their games that I have played. I recently completed DA2 and completed ME2 a long time ago, and I do not really see the reason for the hate they receive, personally finding them superior in almost every way compared to their predecessor. Removing RPG elements? Which? I can't say much for ME2, seeing how long ago it was, but I found that DA2's roleplaying opportunities were greater than those of Origin's (also love the story and the conflicts of the game). Just curious, do you mean that you cannot customize your character in as many ways (races, classes and such), or what? The absolutely largest fault of any BioWare game is definitely its replayability value. Oblivion's open world and FFVII's really long storyline leaves for hours and hours of gameplay, while DA:O is over in only a couple of hours. Haven't yet replayed DA2, but it would seem in hindsight that your choices might not matter so much (meaning that I don't really know what is the case, but got that feeling). I also got really immersed in DA2 for some reason, don't really know what pulled me in.
Don't have much experience of Square (Enix) games, having only played a few (Chrono Trigger, a few FF games, sadly not KH though I have been intrigued by them for some time), but they seem to have some high quality games when you feel for simply immersing yourself in a world where you simply follow what is happening and don't decide more than which attack to use.
Bethesda has made som really good games (sadly never got into Morrowind, it never really hooked onto me), but their open worlds generally do not fit my play style very well (i.e. they are fun to play at times, but not what I usually look for). Personally I wasn't as fond of FO3 as New Vegas, simply because it felt a step away from the Fallout setting. The funny thing is that FO3 was the first FO game I played. (I played them in order 3 - 1 - 2 - NV).
EDIT (big one apparently):
I have read all the posts in the thread and read about people who have well thought-through plans for their characters in games like Oblivion (I'll use it as example from now on), giving their character flaws and wishes, change of opinion due something and so on. I really admire you, but I have never been able to do that in Oblivion, never got that immersion since it felt as if the world didn't really respond to my acts. Part of it is that the game didn't reward me for the act, but that is kind of a weak argument.
Also, I have a dislike for the level-scaling system, which almost requires you to make a character with at least a sensible set up of character skills (for example a character with Alchemy as Major Skill is pretty doomed... unless he doesn't use Alchemy, that is). I tried to make a mage with the Atronach birthsign (meaning he doesn't regenerate magick on his own), and that was fun for a while but I was too sparing with my resources (barely ever used Welkynd stones, for example), so he ended up being a pretty... flat character (very much my own fault).
If I had the wish and the... 'discipline' to make a character where I bar ways for my character (for example, a mage that adhers to laws wouldn't commit a crime, complete a quest that resorts to crime or choose a path that in some way involes crime, even if it would've been easier), I believe it would have spurred my interest in the game, but the time I've already spent playing the game would probably spoil that experience.
Also... on an unrelated note, would someone please point out the RPG elements that had been cut-out in ME2 and DA2?
(Geez, that edit became way larger than originally intended.)
Since the question is which is the best RPGmaker, I would answer BioWare with ease, simply because my definition of RPG does not simply mean character customisation in an open world where your actions barely has consequence, except for a rumors and gossip. To me, it means the interaction between characters and with the world in a sense that leaves a mark. Since the characters are pretty... poor in Bethesda's games, I can't really consider them very good from a RPG standpoint. Since in Square Enix games you generally don't control your character's actions in dialogue, I don't really consider them very RPGish either. Please note that I am not saying these are bad games! Many are really good games, that I have enjoyed thoroughly, though not so much as a RPG, as for the other merits they have.
Shortly following on that, I'll show myself as a heathen by admitting to having played neither Bauldur's Gate game. However, I still have enjoyed pretty much all of their games that I have played. I recently completed DA2 and completed ME2 a long time ago, and I do not really see the reason for the hate they receive, personally finding them superior in almost every way compared to their predecessor. Removing RPG elements? Which? I can't say much for ME2, seeing how long ago it was, but I found that DA2's roleplaying opportunities were greater than those of Origin's (also love the story and the conflicts of the game). Just curious, do you mean that you cannot customize your character in as many ways (races, classes and such), or what? The absolutely largest fault of any BioWare game is definitely its replayability value. Oblivion's open world and FFVII's really long storyline leaves for hours and hours of gameplay, while DA:O is over in only a couple of hours. Haven't yet replayed DA2, but it would seem in hindsight that your choices might not matter so much (meaning that I don't really know what is the case, but got that feeling). I also got really immersed in DA2 for some reason, don't really know what pulled me in.
Don't have much experience of Square (Enix) games, having only played a few (Chrono Trigger, a few FF games, sadly not KH though I have been intrigued by them for some time), but they seem to have some high quality games when you feel for simply immersing yourself in a world where you simply follow what is happening and don't decide more than which attack to use.
Bethesda has made som really good games (sadly never got into Morrowind, it never really hooked onto me), but their open worlds generally do not fit my play style very well (i.e. they are fun to play at times, but not what I usually look for). Personally I wasn't as fond of FO3 as New Vegas, simply because it felt a step away from the Fallout setting. The funny thing is that FO3 was the first FO game I played. (I played them in order 3 - 1 - 2 - NV).
EDIT (big one apparently):
I have read all the posts in the thread and read about people who have well thought-through plans for their characters in games like Oblivion (I'll use it as example from now on), giving their character flaws and wishes, change of opinion due something and so on. I really admire you, but I have never been able to do that in Oblivion, never got that immersion since it felt as if the world didn't really respond to my acts. Part of it is that the game didn't reward me for the act, but that is kind of a weak argument.
Also, I have a dislike for the level-scaling system, which almost requires you to make a character with at least a sensible set up of character skills (for example a character with Alchemy as Major Skill is pretty doomed... unless he doesn't use Alchemy, that is). I tried to make a mage with the Atronach birthsign (meaning he doesn't regenerate magick on his own), and that was fun for a while but I was too sparing with my resources (barely ever used Welkynd stones, for example), so he ended up being a pretty... flat character (very much my own fault).
If I had the wish and the... 'discipline' to make a character where I bar ways for my character (for example, a mage that adhers to laws wouldn't commit a crime, complete a quest that resorts to crime or choose a path that in some way involes crime, even if it would've been easier), I believe it would have spurred my interest in the game, but the time I've already spent playing the game would probably spoil that experience.
Also... on an unrelated note, would someone please point out the RPG elements that had been cut-out in ME2 and DA2?
(Geez, that edit became way larger than originally intended.)
Making me choose between Bioware and Bethesda, now that's pretty harsh. 0.o (Pfffftch, Square Enix? Whuzzat? trolololol)
Anywho...I suppose Bioware right now, by virtue of TESV taking place in one of the realms within its univers I've always been least interested in exploring, while I'm more and more increasingly hyped about ME3 as time goes by.
Anywho...I suppose Bioware right now, by virtue of TESV taking place in one of the realms within its univers I've always been least interested in exploring, while I'm more and more increasingly hyped about ME3 as time goes by.
You don't even have to play that shit. At all. You're thinking too small. This is lost somewhat in Oblivion, but Elder Scrolls games give you a shit ton of content so you can play different characters and tackle different challenges. In Morrowind, for example, you couldn't even complete the guild quests at all unless you were actually strong in the appropriate areas. You arrive in a big world with lots to do. GO. That's actual meaningful choice. Not just swapping out cut scenes. And because your choice of character actually changes the game play, you can experience the same main quest many different ways.ChupathingyX said:
Outside of being convenient at the moment for anyone who doesn't like Bethesda, that doesn't make sense. It sounds insecure, actually. We can make inferences based on what we know of unfinished projects to rate a developer. If I thought Bethesda was doing something absolutely pig-headed with Skyrim, it would obviously influence my opinion of them as RPG developers. If that were the case, I doubt people who don't like Bethesda would be saying "unreleased projects don't count". They have announced a lot of very well thought out and positive changes to their Elder Scrolls formula, so they're getting good marks from me. >dealwithit.jpeg