Poll: Who Do You Think is Best RPGs Between Bioware, Square Enix, and Bethesda?

[ChupathingyX]

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

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.

Well you pretty much just avoided my question there, however, I never said the guilds in Morrowind were bad, I was only talking about Oblivion. Once again you avoided my question and tried to chnage the subject.

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

It makes perfect sense: Skyrim has not been released so we don't know if it will be good or bad, whether it will have a lot of choice or not, whether the writing will be good or the story.

And no it isn't being insecure, I'm hoping that Skyrim will be good, I really want it to be. However, it hasn't been released yet so I can't judge t and I'm not the kind to blindly follow hype.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Origin Systems. You know, the company that all three of these groups have been copying?

Really...? REALLY...?

They're not copying Origin, sorry man, but they're not.

Yeah they are. Bethesda owes practically everything to Ultima Underworld, and both Bioware's games and Squaresoft's early games were derived very, very closely from the main Ultima series, especially Ultima 3 onward until 6. In fact, almost every CRPG currently on the market owes a lot to both those games and the Wizardry series.

The only things they have in comparison to the Ultima series are the stats and traditional RPG format. Square Enix has certainly used a simplified Ultima format with their Dragon Quest games, but that's about it. Square Enix usually does cinematic RPGs while Bioware makes third person shooters and hack and slash games while talking shit about other companies that are much better than them.

I'd argue that Bethesda took a hell of a lot of cues from Ultima 7's sandbox-style "living world" as well, and has essentially been trying to work their way towards duplicating that ever since they started on with Morrowind.

 

[Defense]

Origin Systems. You know, the company that all three of these groups have been copying?

Really...? REALLY...?

They're not copying Origin, sorry man, but they're not.

Yeah they are. Bethesda owes practically everything to Ultima Underworld, and both Bioware's games and Squaresoft's early games were derived very, very closely from the main Ultima series, especially Ultima 3 onward until 6. In fact, almost every CRPG currently on the market owes a lot to both those games and the Wizardry series.

The only things they have in comparison to the Ultima series are the stats and traditional RPG format. Square Enix has certainly used a simplified Ultima format with their Dragon Quest games, but that's about it. Square Enix usually does cinematic RPGs while Bioware makes third person shooters and hack and slash games while talking shit about other companies that are much better than them.

I'd argue that Bethesda took a hell of a lot of cues from Ultima 7's sandbox-style "living world" as well, and has essentially been trying to work their way towards duplicating that ever since they started on with Morrowind.

I do have some Ultima games on my NES emulator, but I decided against trying to compare them to Bethesda games because I didn't actually know how close the two might have been.

All I know is that modern Square Enix has never really stuck to its Ultima roots and Bioware ditched those mechanics for a more streamlined, linear experience.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Origin Systems. You know, the company that all three of these groups have been copying?

Really...? REALLY...?

They're not copying Origin, sorry man, but they're not.

Yeah they are. Bethesda owes practically everything to Ultima Underworld, and both Bioware's games and Squaresoft's early games were derived very, very closely from the main Ultima series, especially Ultima 3 onward until 6. In fact, almost every CRPG currently on the market owes a lot to both those games and the Wizardry series.

The only things they have in comparison to the Ultima series are the stats and traditional RPG format. Square Enix has certainly used a simplified Ultima format with their Dragon Quest games, but that's about it. Square Enix usually does cinematic RPGs while Bioware makes third person shooters and hack and slash games while talking shit about other companies that are much better than them.

I'd argue that Bethesda took a hell of a lot of cues from Ultima 7's sandbox-style "living world" as well, and has essentially been trying to work their way towards duplicating that ever since they started on with Morrowind.

I do have some Ultima games on my NES emulator, but I decided against trying to compare them to Bethesda games because I didn't actually know how close the two might have been.

All I know is that modern Square Enix has never really stuck to its Ultima roots and Bioware ditched those mechanics for a more streamlined, linear experience.

NES? No, Ultima 6, 7, and Serpent Isle on PC. Every character has a daily routine, there's a day-night cycle, you can pick up everything that's not nailed down or too big to carry (including peoples' corpses and a variety of containers), there's a big, open world full of sidequests, you can talk to practically every NPC in the world... sound familiar? That's because Bethesda is still trying to catch up with the interactivity that Lord British implemented in 1991. This can likely be attributed to the fact that they're admittedly working with a higher tech level, with a full 3D environment rather than a 2D isometric perspective, but I won't be satisfied until they give me storylines and characters that are as memorable rather than just settling for just having a big-ass theme park to explore.

To be fair Bioware/Black Isle is more notable for copy-pasting the AD&D 2nd edition handbook into a computer and letting it do the heavy lifting for them than for trying to rip off Ultima. It's entirely possible that they came up with their stuff without ever looking at the Ultima games, given the source material for Baldur's Gate and the Temple of Elemental Evil. I still gotta figure the dialogue system came from Ultima, what with the keyword system Origin transitioned to in Ultima 6, but alas there ain't much proof.

Still, I'm with you, I'm not too fond of the direction Bioware's taken of late. I'll play the Mass Effect games and enjoy them, but it's not a very good shooter or a very good RPG. Dragon Age is kind of a trudge, like they tried to combine D&D with Diablo and pulled off the worst aspects of both instead of the best. That's how I feel, at least. The combat's too slow to be a good hack-and-slash and too simple to be strategically engaging.

 

[z121231211]

While I don't want to say Square Enix is good anymore, I have actually almost beaten most of the Square Enix games I own while the few Bioware/Bethesda RPGs I have I've stopped playing before I even got through 10% of the story.

 

[Savber]

No CD Projekt Red?

Fine I'll go with Bioware.

 

[CWestfall]

I voted BioWare. They did make Dragon Age II, but they also made Mass Effect 1 & 2 so I'll forgive them.

...well that and between Square Enix and Bethesda I've played 3 games from them, and two of them they only published it. (Just Cause 2, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas)

Not too much of an RPGer I suppose.

 

[Volafortis]

How strange when a statement counters itself by the end.
If anything they're the most progressive of the three above companies, so get over yourself.
Square bought a western studio in the hopes to appeal to the Western audience and introduce more Western influence to the East.

They've been a positive force for bringing the Western market to Japan, what with standing up to retailers, releasing/publishing western influenced games like Nier, Just Cause 2, MW2 (in Japan).

Meanwhile Bioware bitches and moans about how other companies don't make RPGs (pot - kettle - black). I enjoy Bethesda's RPG offerings, but I don't think they are better or worse than Square (not a fan of Bioware).

Square Enix's publishing department may be doing all they can to fight anti-western bias and whatnot in Japan, but the development team is who I'm referring to. Not a single Sqeenix developed game shows a single hint of attempting anything new.

Nier? Developed by Cavia
Just Cause 2? Eidos. Again.
MW2? Infinity Ward.

What has Sqeenix developed lately that shows any sign of progressiveness? Nothing. I think you should also get over yourself.

I'll admit, both Bioware and Bethesda have their own formulas that they don't stray much from. However, both companies have formulas that are uniquely "theirs" and considering the usual 2-3 years between releases for these companies, the formula doesn't feel "stagnant".

The Square Enix JRPG formula? Rehashed in almost every JRPG to date, and they show no intent on changing it.

 

[iFail69]

Bioware hands down, I loved Dragon Age Origins, I loved KOTOR and I loved Mass Effect. The other developers don't really come close in my opinion.

 

[OpticalJunction]

It would have to be Bioware, they are better storytellers than the others and that's what I look for in an RPG, a good story. Bethesda has amazingly open worlds and beautifully detailed environments, but their writing (and voice acting!) is bad. I remember in oblivion how the beggars would magically change their tone of voice in the middle of a conversation, Wtf was that?

 

[Apollo45]

Can't really compare between Bioware and Bethesda. Bioware sure as hell wins out in the story department, but they can't hold a candle to Bethesda's world generation, environment, or the amount of options the player has. I'll easily put 300 hours in to a Bioware game (except for DA2), but Bethesda is what gets me playing for 500+ hours in the first year, with another playthrough or two every year after that. So, with that in mind, I have to put my vote in for Bethesda.

 

[Seanfall]

Square Enix against Bioware and Bethesda? *bursts out laughing* Oh wait you were serious..i'll laugh even harder. *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!*

That's just going by their latest 'masterpeices'. If we're going by body of work then yeah...it's more of a fair fight...kinda.

Edit: Incase I wasn't being clear the upper comments are both directed at Square.

Boring empty monotone open world-but-still-linear game versus mediocre "nonlinear" space opera third person shooter/mediocre "nonlinear" grimdark hack and slash?

Shit, Square Enix has some serious competition.

At least the Main character isn't a copy pasted self doubting emo git.

 

[sergnb]

Errrr...Obsidian.

I've never played a Square Enix RPG or a Bioware RPG.

And Bethesda "RPGs" barely have any choice in them, at least the last two really dropped the ball, and I'm still on the fence about Skyrim.

Excuse me what?

"barely have any choice in them"? What Bethesda games have you been playing, good sir?

OK, in Fallout: New Vegas after meeting Benny you then start to do quests for different factions, eventually you are given the choice of fighting for Caesars Legion, Mr House, the NCR or using Yes Man for independent New Vegas.

In Fallout 3 Amata has to be your love interest, Butch has to be your bully, you have to love your dad, your dad will always love you and then when you're reunited with your daddy you have to join the altruistic Brotherhood of Steel. Then you're forced to make a decision about the purifier by sacrificing yourself or someone else, why can't I just say "fuck it" and walk away from the purifier, or even better get one of my radiation immune companions to switch it off (Broken Steel does not count, fixing a mistake does not excuse its existence).

Now lets look at Oblivion, fight for Martin and the good guys. Any particular reason why I can't join the Mystic Dawn? Not to mention the side quests barely have any choice especially the main guilds, for example you can't join the Necromancers or Blackwood.

When I think about choice I think about how do I want to play the game. Games must tell stories, you know, and while I agree having multiple choices is a thing that everyone loves, you can't deny that no matter who you are gonna choose to ally with in New Vegas, everything is gonna be the same except maybe a couple missions and the final battle.

You see, the thought of freedom is artificial. It is not really there. You ARE following a storyline that you can't decide by yourself. The only thing changing when you choose to go with Caesar's Legion instead of the NCR is what armor the enemies in the main quest missions are gonna wear.

When I say "freedom" in a game I think of how I'm going to play. I'm going to go berserk? Stealthy? Long distance? Magic (or whatever other options there are)?

Am I going to save this guy? Am I going to explore that building? Is it necesary to kill this guy? Do I need to wear this armor to defeat the boss? Is everything I do scripted?

If you are asking yourself these questions while playing a game, you've got yourself a really open world free game. Of course it's gonna have a main quest line. It has to end at some point, and the game has got to tell a story after all, because if not it wouldn't be a game, it would be a map editor with roleplaying elements.

 

[ChupathingyX]

When I think about choice I think about how do I want to play the game. Games must tell stories, you know, and while I agree having multiple choices is a thing that everyone loves, you can't deny that no matter who you are gonna choose to ally with in New Vegas, everything is gonna be the same except maybe a couple missions and the final battle.

You see, the thought of freedom is artificial. It is not really there. You ARE following a storyline that you can't decide by yourself. The only thing changing when you choose to go with Caesar's Legion instead of the NCR is what armor the enemies in the main quest missions are gonna wear.

When I say "freedom" in a game I think of how I'm going to play. I'm going to go berserk? Stealthy? Long distance? Magic (or whatever other options there are)?

Am I going to save this guy? Am I going to explore that building? Is it necesary to kill this guy? Do I need to wear this armor to defeat the boss? Is everything I do scripted?

If you are asking yourself these questions while playing a game, you've got yourself a really open world free game. Of course it's gonna have a main quest line. It has to end at some point, and the game has got to tell a story after all, because if not it wouldn't be a game, it would be a map editor with roleplaying elements.

No, in New Vegas depending on who you fight for you change the entire story, the actual journey is very similar, however, the end result is very different.

New Vegas while under the command of the NCR is going to be very different compared to Caesar, or even the Legate for that matter.

Also about your other points, things like "should I kill this guy", "should I attack him this way" or "am I going to got there". If that is a defining aspect then Crash Bandicoot is an RPG, Mortal Kombat is an RPG, Tetris is an RPG.

All of those games can play differently depending on simple choices you make, what seperates those games from actual RPGs is the fact that in an RPG you define your character, you decide their role in a grand scale (or not), you make decisions that will have major consequences. In Crash Bandicoot if I jump over that crab instead of killing it there will barely be any difference.

 

[LiraelG]

I don't think you can really compare these producers... The games they produce appeal to slightly different markets, and each game aims to provide a slightly different experience.

I have more experience with Square Enix (I've played Final Fantasy, Valkyrie Profile, a bit of Dragon Quest, a bit of Star Ocean), but I believe games produced by Bioware (e.g. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic) and Bethesda (e.g. Morrowind, Fallout 3, and Skyrim) are extremely good.

Square Enix seem more keen to provide a story, whereas the games developed by Bethesda offer the gamer freedom and provide them with a world to explore. Both are important elements, and difficult to combine effectively; it would take years to develop a game which provided the gamer with a clear, well-structured story AND an extensive world with the freedom of choice.

 

[Brandiferous]

Can I vote for Atlus? Yeah, I vote for Atlus.

 

[Kahunaburger]

When I say "freedom" in a game I think of how I'm going to play. I'm going to go berserk? Stealthy? Long distance? Magic (or whatever other options there are)?

Am I going to save this guy? Am I going to explore that building? Is it necesary to kill this guy? Do I need to wear this armor to defeat the boss? Is everything I do scripted?

By that definition, TF2 blows every RPG I've played out of the water in terms of player freedom.

EDIT: The point is that freedom in RPGs is defined by choice and consequences, not just choice. The problem with Bethesada RPGs is a massive lack of consequence for everything you do.

 

[King Toasty]

Yeah, still saying Bethesda. Not putting the others down, of course. Mass Effect 2 was a masterpiece of a game, and Kingdom Hearts is my favorite Disney-FF crossover. Ol' Bethy just has more MASSIVE games.

 

[Defense]

Square Enix against Bioware and Bethesda? *bursts out laughing* Oh wait you were serious..i'll laugh even harder. *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!*

That's just going by their latest 'masterpeices'. If we're going by body of work then yeah...it's more of a fair fight...kinda.

Edit: Incase I wasn't being clear the upper comments are both directed at Square.

Boring empty monotone open world-but-still-linear game versus mediocre "nonlinear" space opera third person shooter/mediocre "nonlinear" grimdark hack and slash?

Shit, Square Enix has some serious competition.

At least the Main character isn't a copy pasted self doubting emo git.

At least Square Enix games manage to be

Spoiler

fun.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[sergnb]

When I say "freedom" in a game I think of how I'm going to play. I'm going to go berserk? Stealthy? Long distance? Magic (or whatever other options there are)?

Am I going to save this guy? Am I going to explore that building? Is it necesary to kill this guy? Do I need to wear this armor to defeat the boss? Is everything I do scripted?

By that definition, TF2 blows every RPG I've played out of the water in terms of player freedom.

EDIT: The point is that freedom in RPGs is defined by choice and consequences, not just choice. The problem with Bethesada RPGs is a massive lack of consequence for everything you do.

Herp derp, I take these words and put them totally out of context and I instantly win the conversation, I'm such a genius.

You know what my point was, don't try to tergiversate