Bethsidia, Just because GTA if you stray from the roads theres nothing. Red Dead is alright though. I love Oblivion, but don't like fallout, lol. Well drop the 2 I don't like and Oblivion wins.
Poll: Open worlds: Bethesda or Rockstar?
- Thread starter Iwata
- Start date
well, I felt NV was really lacking in extra content. the map for FO3 was huge and there was just tons of little things like buildings or easter eggs you could discover. NV seemed more linear with those deathclaws guiding your path. I just like being able to run off and explore.Radoh said:
in FO3, I'd do the main quest last and basically run in the opposite direction of the quest! and it was great! but in NV, it seems like you HAVE to go in to certain places in a certain direction. like there's just not as much extracurricular activities to do. the FO3 DLCs were the same, except for that one with the mini world in the swamp... forget the name...
AH!!! you're right! Obsidian developed NV as opposed to Bethesda! didn't know that! guess it explains a lot.
Wow... tough one. I went with Rockstar. It was difficult, because Fallout 3 is my favourite open world game, period. Yet, I haven't played enough Bethesda games to say that they always pull off great worlds. Oblivion had a lot of cool stuff to do, but the place wasn't that interesting Geographically. I don't think I've played a Rockstar game whose world I didn't love, although I've yet to play L.A. Noire, so maybe the apparently smaller world there will make me take that statement back.
Depends on my mood; Rockstar have little empty space in their worlds, so there's always something going on (I like to just cruise GTA in a panda waiting for trouble to kick off between NPCs).
On the other hand, Bethesda worlds favour exploration. There's a lot of wilderness, but if you wander you can find little dungeons and set pieces. Last time I played Oblivion I just based myself in a city and just wandered out to see what I could find every day, no fast travel.
On the other hand, Bethesda worlds favour exploration. There's a lot of wilderness, but if you wander you can find little dungeons and set pieces. Last time I played Oblivion I just based myself in a city and just wandered out to see what I could find every day, no fast travel.
Bethesda is the company that was making sandbox games before they really had the descriptive title of "sandbox", though I might be wrong about that. Regardless, I never finished Red Dead Redemption, because the gameplay was simply boring. Keep smashing the "A" button to run, same thing with your horse, don't bother aiming your gun at the 3 dozen copy-pasted enemies in front of you, we'll do it for you. Sandbox games are by their very nature long from beginning to end, and Bethesda's understands that by filling the world with assortments of different enemy types, desirable loot, and fun sprawling terrain and dungeons.
Rockstar Rockstar Rockstar. I don't care about tunnels and caves, no world is as involving as the Rockstar ones. You never feel so part of their world, so involved.
Well I've never really felt like I had to go exploring in GTA IV. It can be delightful roaming the wastes and fighting raiders and exploring interesting towns.
That being said, neither Fallout or Oblivion have helicopters to jump out of at great heights.
That being said, neither Fallout or Oblivion have helicopters to jump out of at great heights.
Rockstar for me. Their worlds feel much more alive and organic, while Bethesda's are a bit plastic. Interesting, pretty and all that, but not really alive.
Um this is a thread to see who does the best worlds and things to do in those worlds, not whats the better gameJoseph375 said:
OT: Bethesda because there always the element of discovery when going into old ruins or a new dungeon. Whilst in RDR and GTA the only other things to do are minigames and the world acts more like a hub for the missions.
If you find auto aim too easy, turn it off. I put it in expert mode, was great.Jabberwock King said:
Bethesda has better worlds, but Rockstar has better combat. Overall, I prefer Rockstar's games better, but I had to vote for Bethesda.
Well, there's nothing to do in the open world. I should say theres nothing to do thats fun in the open world. Its a sandbox but that just serves as a tedious drive between crime scenes. You can skip it by letting you partner drive, which I did after the first few uneventful drives. There are "street crimes" that you get calls on the radio for but you can fast travel to those as well. Its just kind of pointless. I guess people call it "immersion" but I will take a loading screen over 5 minutes of boring driving, especially later cases with like 8 locations.Iwata said:
I can admit I have had some enjoyable times in Liberty City, the old West, and L.A.
But Bethesda's worlds though have lost me to playing for upwards of 14 hour forgetting to eat, and constantly referring to myself as the brave battlemage Illegor.
But Bethesda's worlds though have lost me to playing for upwards of 14 hour forgetting to eat, and constantly referring to myself as the brave battlemage Illegor.