Poll: Open worlds: Bethesda or Rockstar?

[Jabberwock King]

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.

If you find auto aim too easy, turn it off. I put it in expert mode, was great.

I know that I'm allowed to turn the auto-aim off, but that still doesn't address the fact that the enemies are boring copy-pasted thickies, and that I have to mash the sprint button in order to make Jon Marston act like a sensible human being and avoid bullets as quickly as possible. The copy-pasted enemies is also the same reason that I don't like CoD or Battlefield, and why I think Halo is more interesting and thought provoking in terms of tactics.

 

[Rhys95]

I voted Rockstar.
Sure Bethesda's are huge and they're pretty good. Rockstar's open worlds don't crash all the time

 

[blindthrall]

Easily Rockstar. They allowed me to explore the American West and the town of Bullworth. Those places actually had personality. Bethesda puts out big, but lifeless and dull worlds. I'd actually put Ubisoft above Bethesda for the Assassin's Creed series.

I'd agree with no personality in the Elder Scrolls games, but Fallout is dripping with the stuff. I'd consider Ubisoft more for Far Cry/Crysis. Some of the levels in Far Cry are as big as a city in GTA.

I said Bethesda, just because the devil is in the details.

And if I have to watch ads now just to comment, I think I'll skip the Escapist's boards from now on.

 

[Schmittler]

Bethesda, hands down.

In my opinion, this would have been a tough choice about 5 years ago, right when GTA: SA came out. GTA IV was a disappointment for me and Red Dead Redemption was just a solid game, nothing that I found exceptional. I'm glad Saint's Row took GTA's spot as the silly, over-the-top open world game.

Bethesda, on the other hand, continues to impress me. Maybe I'm a bit of a fanboy, but I just really enjoy the exploration and depth of their games.

 

[Xaio30]

Bethesda rules the RPG Sandbox.
Rockstar rules the mayhem Sandbox.

You cannot really compare the two.

 

[Darknacht]

Thats easy Interplay makes the best open worlds.

But out of the two Bethesda is better.

 

[CRRPGMykael]

Bethesda,I know you're trying really hard to make good games,and I had tons of fun with Oblivion,but you could take more time to fix bugs and...Rockstar's just my homeboy,sorry.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

Bethesda rules the RPG Sandbox.
Rockstar rules the mayhem Sandbox.

You cannot really compare the two.

Indeed, comparing them does more harm than good.

 

[blindthrall]

Thats easy Interplay makes the best open worlds.

/thread

Also, no companion in a Bethesda game has ever annoyed me as much as Roman.

 

[Magicman10893]

Bethesda creates the better worlds because they are more interesting looking, filled with more people and detail, and have more stuff to do in them (well, stuff that actually makes sense in the context of the game, not taking your fat ass cousin out to go bowling). Rockstar creates more interesting games to play in those open worlds, though, and as Yahtzee said, "A sandbox is only as good as the way to get around in it." So that is why my vote goes to Rockstar because I would rather drive cars, boats, helicopters and motorcycles than ride horses or walk.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Bethesda.
Still, i can go into the forest not knowing what i'll find, and come back having completed a quest, have new gear and a magical staff that allows me to summon sheep demons.
Well not quite like that but you get the idea.
Whereas, although still brilliant, with rockstar you know exactly what your going to get.

 

[johnzaku]

That did take me a moment, but when you think about it, they're very different.

Rockstar tends to make their games huge and open, but still linear. You can only do a couple missions at a time, and can only talk to important people. You can go anywhere and do just about anything completely separate from your missions or story (barring the death of a minor character, denying you a mini-mission or something similar).

Bethesda on the other hand has massive incredibly detailed worlds where every single person is a potential interaction. Everything you do, from stealing to straight up murder influences what people say or do around you. On one side, I get great immersion, but also because of this, it's hard to make it more personal to your character.

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 just kinda wanna throw in Bioware's contribution. In an odd way, Mass Effect is right in the middle. It's a much more linear open world with few interaction outside quest related ones, you have a character that comes with a personality and voice, but you can still get sheperd to be who you want him/her to be.

I guess my preference is Bethesda

Bethesda rules the RPG Sandbox.
Rockstar rules the mayhem Sandbox.

You cannot really compare the two.

Nice summation of what I put lol

 

[Mark Flanagan]

Bethesda, not because Rockstar does anything wrong but because as filled in as the GTA worlds are they don't 'feel' real. To me when I'm playing GTA it just seems like a dollshouse unlike Bethesda's living worlds.

Also Volition wasn't an option.

 

[Dr. wonderful]

Bethesda in Oblivion and Fallout 3

but they fail in New Vegas... terribly.

Why?
Why did they fail in New Vegas?

Because they didn't make it of course, silly!

Faceplam.

Well played my good person.

 

[Kunzer]

I voted for bethesda.

My main reason: I've gotten well over 1000 solid hours of quality gameplay from fallout 3 alone

I only got about 20 hours out of GTA4 before i became mind-numbingly bored.

I don't personally feel that most of Rockstars' games are all that great.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Bethesda. When I play a Rockstar game, I enjoy how open it is (except for some games where you get pwned for crossing into somewhere you shouldn't go yet), but I hate that there's... well... NOTHING TO DO besides the main quest!

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Bethesda for me as well.I enjoy their open world more than Rockstar's.

 

[edman270]

Rockstar's worlds feel more populated, whereas Bethesda's are bigger - in terms of how vast they feel. They absolutely nailed the idea of isolated communities, but I would leave things like cities to Rockstar[footnote]Because Volition Inc. isn't an option[/footnote].

Bethesda in Oblivion and Fallout 3

but they fail in New Vegas... terribly.

They also didn't make it, so... fair's fair.

oh the lol's

 

[sheah1]

Rockstar may make more believable worlds but, well, Bethesda's are simply more fun.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

Never played Elder Scrolls so Bethesda is riding on nothing more than Fallout 3.

That being said, given that I'm still putting them in the same league, that says a whole fucking lot about Fallout 3.

Still giving it to Rockstar.