-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is anyone better than Rockstar when it comes to building a world?
- Thread starter Soupman Prime
- Start date
In the sense you described your situation, maybe, then again there aren't that many games building a city or place like 1:1. In a broader sense of world building:
- The Witcher
- Dishonored
- The Elder Scrolls series
- World of Warcraft
- From Software games
- The Witcher
- Dishonored
- The Elder Scrolls series
- World of Warcraft
- From Software games
CD Projekt is much better at it as well as others like Arkane, Bethesda, Ubisoft Assassin's Creed teams, and Obsidian. I thought United Front did more with Sleeping Dogs than GTA V did as well, but the contemporary city open world just hasn't been impressive since GTA IV.
CDPR and From Software both beat Rockstar handily in my opinion.
They're amazing at the fidelity of such large open worlds, but for me they end up feeling too static. Kinda like a museum, it's great to look at but you can't touch it, except for the specific activities they let you touch.
They do fill their worlds with a LOT of those activities, but I still get that sensation from their games.
Like when I played Red Faction Guerrilla (which is a pretty mediocre world), I still had so much fun with it because it had destructibility and I could approach missions however I wanted.
When I went to GTA after that I was constantly irritated by hitting small trees or bushes that are apparently stronger than a vehicle driving 80mph.
I never made it all the way through GTA5 because I just got bored of the world. Even as detailed as it was, I just wasnt enjoying what I was doing IN that world.
With the exception of the little missions with random people, I do like those. Like helping a guy find aliens or driving a lady who OD'd to the hospital and getting their little slice of life stories.
I always like those little missions and it's what I love in Bethesda, Bioware, or CDPR games.
They do fill their worlds with a LOT of those activities, but I still get that sensation from their games.
Like when I played Red Faction Guerrilla (which is a pretty mediocre world), I still had so much fun with it because it had destructibility and I could approach missions however I wanted.
When I went to GTA after that I was constantly irritated by hitting small trees or bushes that are apparently stronger than a vehicle driving 80mph.
I never made it all the way through GTA5 because I just got bored of the world. Even as detailed as it was, I just wasnt enjoying what I was doing IN that world.
With the exception of the little missions with random people, I do like those. Like helping a guy find aliens or driving a lady who OD'd to the hospital and getting their little slice of life stories.
I always like those little missions and it's what I love in Bethesda, Bioware, or CDPR games.
CDPR is my pick. I think CDPR does world scaling a lot better, like RDR2 is supposed to be 4-5 states, whereas Velen in The Witcher 3 is literally just one province in a country. It makes RDR2 feels uyrpisingly small realizing that these five states only have a handful of outposts and one city between them, whereas with The Witcher 3's Velen, the rural countryside is appropriately filled with numerous villages and borders two major cities.
And it's not even close.
They do middle of the road satire and that's about it. I don't care for the series or the company but there are plenty of things I'd admit to them doing well, but world building has never been one of them.
Edit: I didn't realize you meant the literal map. I'm used to "building world's" generally meaning lore and the like. They're pretty good at that, but I'm not sure if they are the best at it. Definitely up there.
Last edited:
Skyrim felt very artifically generated, there are a ton of great places to explore but they're laid out in such a random and non-logical way. The towns in Skyrim didn't make a lot of sense to me. Why is the blacksmith shop right at the gates and all the other shops on the other side of town, why is there a giant fountain halfway up this hill, etc. They look cool but it seems, yeah random.
With GTAV I can't think of another open-world map in which, when I join an online session with my friends of with crew mates, is full of so many activities both in locations (arcade, modshops, gun stores, clothing shops, night clubs, CEO business, bike clubs, yachts, casino, etc.) as well as just in the open world and heists related to different places. And of course, I can make it to most of those places without a minimap because the landmarks are so familiar to me now.
However, when it comes to an open world that feels genuinely alive and full of lore, it really depends on how malleable things are, and what you're looking for. RDR2, for instance, is beautiful to look at but mainly a chore to ride through once you've seen most of the map. The main camp is where it felt most alive. The online is also exceedingly sparse in comparison.
Games like The Witcher 3 have maps that are full of locations you can enter (maybe more than any other open world game I've played), and the world of Skyrim and Fallout seem to have the most "reactive" world in terms of things going down, though killing a chicken by accident and having the whole town out for your blood is a bit much :P
Now if you mean world-building, rather than the design of the open world itself... thats a whole different subject to discuss.
However, when it comes to an open world that feels genuinely alive and full of lore, it really depends on how malleable things are, and what you're looking for. RDR2, for instance, is beautiful to look at but mainly a chore to ride through once you've seen most of the map. The main camp is where it felt most alive. The online is also exceedingly sparse in comparison.
Games like The Witcher 3 have maps that are full of locations you can enter (maybe more than any other open world game I've played), and the world of Skyrim and Fallout seem to have the most "reactive" world in terms of things going down, though killing a chicken by accident and having the whole town out for your blood is a bit much :P
Now if you mean world-building, rather than the design of the open world itself... thats a whole different subject to discuss.
Such as...?
Beyond your objectively false statement about literally nothing to do, the metric in which better world is kind of what distinguishes actual answers here.
Last edited:
I don't think so. I'm still wildly amazed that we've had an entire generation of open-world games and GTA V still sets a standard others can only dream of catching up to.
It's all very different priorities, though. Rockstar is in a very privileged position to be able to put the amount of effort into one single game that they do. Ubisoft could probably do it if they wanted to, but they spread themselves too thin on constant sequels and a great number of different IPs to achieve quite the same level of quality in a single product.
It's all very different priorities, though. Rockstar is in a very privileged position to be able to put the amount of effort into one single game that they do. Ubisoft could probably do it if they wanted to, but they spread themselves too thin on constant sequels and a great number of different IPs to achieve quite the same level of quality in a single product.
Yeah, though to be honest OP could have pointed out they didn't mean world building or gameplay design, to drive home the fact that they are talking most about presentation of a world that is living / breathing / easy to navigate.
Often I can get to most places in GTA without the minimap, as I'm used to the landmarks and familiar with actual LA.
Same with Shenmue 1 & 2 and RGG's Kamurocho - I seldom have to refer to the ingame maps as it feels like I've "lived" there (at least enough to know my way around).
OP
OP
I probably could've worded it better. I'm just in Cali atm and was just amazed at the detail of GTA V to the real world. Just seeing the exact spot where I'd jump my car or where I'd buy expensive clothes was awesome. Shit, I've just been walking Venice Beach the last few hours and I'm like cool that's where masks would be sold.
I'm sure there are a ton of studios that build amazing worlds, maybe build for what Rockstar does is the wrong word to use since they're just "copying" a city or part of a real location.
Soupman Prime the thing is, they aren't just copying the cities they make. As someone else pointed out, yes its inspired by the real places but its also a fraction of the actual size of LA county, and they had to rework all of the landmarks and familiar areas to work within their map, from the dense urban DTLA portion to the open desert and small towns up north. I can jump into the game and someone could say "meet at such and such" and navigating there is as easy as me driving to somewhere near my house.
That in itself is a feat, and what made games like Vice City feel so good.
That in itself is a feat, and what made games like Vice City feel so good.
Just about any MMORPG, so many other games has been mentioned in this very thread, I'd add Sleeping Dogs too.
I was impressed by Kingdom Come's world. Even if a recreation of the real world it's still another time.
Rockstar is about unbridled when it comes to making large, realistic places. I had a similar experience to OP the first time I visited LA (after playing GTAV). I can't say I could navigate the whole city, but the landmarks and general sense of direction when not on the freeway was pretty incredible, even if bits of it are backwards.
As far as good gameplay-based open worlds there are certainly those who do it as good or better. BotW has been mentioned already but is worth mentioning again. Probably the gold standard at this point in many ways.
As far as good gameplay-based open worlds there are certainly those who do it as good or better. BotW has been mentioned already but is worth mentioning again. Probably the gold standard at this point in many ways.
Boom. GTA nails atmosphere and look, yes, but the Yakuza series is detailed down to individual building elements. Walking through the part of town Kamurocho is modeled on, I was able to recognize specific bars and restaurants and navigate the streets and alleys from my memory of the games. It was extraordinary.
Of course when one says "building a world" I think more of what CD Projekt RED or Bethesda does in creating a different reality with history and lore and customs and things in it rather than recreating a real place.
The world isn't just the visuals but the people inhabiting it. Yakuza is far more densely populated by different types of people and you can overhear conversations that you'll never hear repeated again.
No, no matter how you slice it. Whether it's on a purely technical scale or in terms of level of detail, world interactivity and systems working in tandem.
They're unmatched.
They're unmatched.
Oh yes, Obsidian are masters. Impressive stuff with their world building. There's so much in just Pillars of Eternity alone. Also it's a short game but boy there's so much in Tyranny.
Then I'm thinking about Dragon Age, and the amount of awesome world building in that one. I've heard so much about the Tevinter Imperium that I've been waiting to travel there for Dragon Age 4.
Since when does "building a world" mean "copying real places"?
Creating a complete fiction is far more impressive than Rockstar's ripping off reality (often in the most boring and gauche ways possible).
Which to me is in direct contrast with GTA V where there is very little to actually do in the game world after the game's missions are done. RDR2 has this same problem but its towns being smaller they don't feel like just closed buildings.
To me Watch Dogs 2 San Francisco was done better than GTA V's areas.