Support NeoGAF

[Zafir]

World building is much more than only placing the right building in the right place. Don't focus only on that. Again, look at the way each area is designed, without taking into account what other areas are next to it.

It's also much more than deciding what area's are where...

World building generally relates to building a real world, all aspects of it, and whether it feels real, and alive. Just building placement, or even area design, does not make that. I only used the building's as an example so I didn't have to go into excruciating detail. The outsides of buildings may be detailed, but they don't bother to do internal design unless there's a reason, gameplay wise, for them to do so. Outside of missions, the NPCs you come across are mostly random agents who spout random lines, they have no depth and do not grow. The NPCs you can talk to properly, are generally there to start an activity or a mission. The closest GTA gets to it is the phone, the fact you can phone people up makes it feel a bit more realistic, but that's about it, and even Shenmue did that, 15 years ago.

I dunno, all of those add up for me, and consequently, I don't feel the world is alive at all. It just feels like the world is there solely for the game play. That's isn't necessarily a bad thing for the kind of game Grand Theft Auto is, of course.

World design is another kettle of fish, and yes, Rockstar do a fantastic job of building an amazing representation of LA. In terms of design alone, Rockstar are pretty un-matched.

 

[brobban]

Yes they are, by far

 

[nkarafo]

I like the argument the Art Director of GTAV (Garbut) made about being concerned with "breaking right angles", i think that's a big part of what makes GTAV's (as well as GTAIV's and RDR's) world look so natural and organic, even in urban areas, there are very few perfectly symmetrical, vertical or horizonatal lines.
Telephone poles are bent, and don't go straight up, asphalted streets and sidewalks are bumpy and curvy, and so and so on.

This sounds incredibly interesting can we have a source?

It's also much more than deciding what area's are where...

World building generally relates to building a real world, all aspects of it, and whether it feels real, and alive. Just building placement, or even area design, does not make that. I only used the building's as an example so I didn't have to go into excruciating detail. The outsides of buildings may be detailed, but they don't bother to do internal design unless there's a reason, gameplay wise, for them to do so. Outside of missions, the NPCs you come across are mostly random agents who spout random lines, they have no depth and do not grow. The NPCs you can talk to properly, are generally there to start an activity or a mission. The closest GTA gets to it is the phone, the fact you can phone people up makes it feel a bit more realistic, but that's about it, and even Shenmue did that, 15 years ago.

I dunno, all of those add up for me, and consequently, I don't feel the world is alive at all. It just feels like the world is there solely for the game play. That's isn't necessarily a bad thing for the kind of game Grand Theft Auto is, of course.

World design is another kettle of fish, and yes, Rockstar do a fantastic job of building an amazing representation of LA. In terms of design alone, Rockstar are pretty un-matched.

I understand what you are trying to say but what i mean in the OP is mostly about visual design. The way everything looks, down to the tiniest detail.

 

[gelf]

They are probably the best for sandbox design. But in terms of world building I'd give the nod to any designer of a good metriodvanian world over any sandbox.

 

[doofy102]

Writing them off by saying, "oh they just copied real places" is ignorant , because there's a lot of industry-leading work they do in making sure their worlds are fun videogame worlds on top of being a "real" ones as well. Having both qualities simultaneously in a game, in perfect balance, is harder than it looks.

 

[T.O.P]

Yeah it's not even close, still so pissed at MP3 cutscenes, i would've replayed that game at least 20 times by now, the gunplay was THAT good

 

[WorriedCitizen]

Ther's some similarities with how Rockstar and Valve approach environments. The single assets often times don't even look that great, sometimes even downright horrible but it all comes together and blends nicely into a good looking game world.

The current crown for best open game world (from technical and art pov) holds AC: Unity tho in my opinion.

 

[The Boat]

I don't think it's fair to compare building a city with building other sorts of worlds, so I would generalize it as them being the best as creating worlds, disregarding the fact at world building isn't up the same as making a map. Making a city where you drive and walk around with little in the way of world interaction is completely different from designing a world where you enter dungeons, talk to people and so on.

 

[UrbanRats]

This sounds incredibly interesting can we have a source?

It was one of the interviews about the next version, he was also mentioning breaking such angles by adding bushes and little sprouts of grass here and there.

If you look at say, the Manhattan recreated in many other games, it often feels like a flat board, with cardboard boxes glued on to make the buildings, because everything is too geometrically precise and simple.
In GTA they introduce enough imperfection to make even a very urbanized area look lived in and real.

Part of it comes from the immense time and budget no doubt, but there is also a crazy understanding of what makes an environment look "natural".

 

[Mass_Pincup]

They're good at whant they do but they also have a bigger budget and time then others.

 

[nkarafo]

It was one of the interviews about the next version, he was also mentioning breaking such angles by adding bushes and little sprouts of grass here and there.

If you look at say, the Manhattan recreated in many other games, it often feels like a flat board, with cardboard boxes glued on to make the buildings, because everything is too geometrically precise and simple.
In GTA they introduce enough imperfection to make even a very urbanized area look lived in and real.

Part of it comes from the immense time and budget no doubt, but there is also a crazy understanding of what makes an environment look "natural".

That's exactly what i mean when i talk about geometry detail. A perfect "boxy" building is much less interesting looking than one that has imperfections and various other details as 3D objects (not just textures). I remember liking S.T.A.L.K.E.R's building's for the same reason. Geometry being used for cracks on walls, damaged sections, the metal skeleton sticking out of the bricked walls complete with bending parts here and there, etc.

 

[Black Mantis]

For me, Team Andromeda created the best universe I've come across in gaming, in the the Panzer Dragoon series. I love what Rockstar do as well though.

 

[Palculator]

They are probably the best for sandbox design. But in terms of world building I'd give the nod to any designer of a good metriodvanian world over any sandbox.

Yeah I was thinking about this as well. Rockstar is great at making realistic worlds, especially in sandbox games. But their talent is mainly in making very authentic, believable and detailed worlds, whereas a good Metroidvania worlds can feel much more engaging due to them being more integrated into the gameplay. I mean, the world is basically the goal of the game in Metroidvania. It's there to be fully explored and your abilities as a player are directly affected by that exploration, which in turn gives you more opportunities for exploration. Depending on your priorities, that can make a good Metroidvania world much more interesting than any satirical simulation of the real world.

Note: I don't mean to downplay Rockstar's talent. They're incredible. But thinking back to game worlds I liked, many more Metroidvanias come to mind, at least to me.

 

[Berserker976]

Their world design is exceptional, but I've always found their world building to be quite lacking.

 

[flyinpiranha]

The best IMO. Sales and scores back this opinion up.

 

[nkarafo]

This little structure in STALKER is something similar to what Rockstar is doing but in a much larger scale. Its a small structure of no importance in a medium sized camp. However, notice the geometry detail of it. The collapsed part (i couldn't find another angle) is handcrafted using many polygons and the bricks down the floor are also 3D objects that some guy painstakingly had to place there. Rockstar uses this level of geometry detail, for things that you might only look for a few seconds or even miss completely, but on a scale of a whole city, not just a small camp.

Max Payne 3 also has similar level of detail.

That's what makes Rockstar worlds so incredible to look at.

 

[doofy102]

Consider how empty and barren Red Dead is compared to GTA. Somehow, they made it work. A sparse, rural sandbox. Not a rural RPG or Zelda game - just a sandbox with shooting and horse riding. That's all. How it was a success is Rockstar's own secret. Take 2 didn't even have faith in the project for a while.

 

[Skinpop]

sadly they are horrible at actual game design. it's a shame they don't do anything interesting with these worlds they create. the mission design/mechanics are so awful I'm always surprised so few call them out on it.

 

[antitrop]

I'm with you, OP, I too was more visually impressed by GTA V on 360 than Watch Dogs on PS4.

Rockstar are the masters of open world building.

It's the little details.

 

[Matush]

sadly they are horrible at actual game design. it's a shame they don't do anything interesting with these worlds they create. the mission design/mechanics are so awful I'm always surprised so few call them out on it.

Did you play GTA V?

 

[Wildean]

On the budget point, there's a stark contrast between what Rockstar built for GTA V and what another megabudget game Destiny boasted (topped gta as most expensive ever I think?)

So I dont know if Rockstar are the 'greatest' but even with that kind of money you could do a lot worse...

 

[Carlius]

not at all.

 

[Exile20]

I loved GTAV but you don't get points for copying a city that actually exists. They did an impressive job, but they "just" rebuilt LA.

By contrast, MonilithSoft is creating VASTLY more original worlds with their Xenoblade games.

I agree with this

Yes. The fidelity of their worlds puts other devs to shame.

The budget they have put others to shame also.

 

[BigTnaples]

Yes. Only rivaled by Bethesda.

 

[RipperGrim]

I would say yes they are, I play and enjoy other open world games but they really don't have the same kind of appeal Rockstars games have, I can't quite put my finger on it but their worlds always feel like they are more than just digital blocks that have been painted to look like city and just have NPC's wondering around aimlessly. I noticed this while playing Watchdogs and Sleeping Dogs, their worlds weren't that interesting after a while, they were pretty but also stale.

The only games that come close are the Bethesda games with their Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3 games.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Without question.

 

[hobblygobbly]

I'm sure you're joking, but it's not as easy as that.

What sets Rockstar apart from all other open-world developers is the immersion they provide. The insane attention to the tiniest details to make sure the player is fully immersed in the world.

Yeah I think they are masters at the details as well. Things like the flame burst from exhausts lighting fuel on the floor or sparks from wheels with no tires lighting it are those types of details.

 

[RoninChaos]

It is an incredible accomplishment, but I consider it foolhardy to unequivocally say they're the "best" at it when they have no competition on that scale due to no one else having both a blank check and unlimited time to do it. Ubisoft is the only one that can directly compare with the AC series, but even that can't really compare as it routinely suffers from being on a tight deadline as a yearly released series.

That's a bunch of horse shit. They were building awesome worlds that felt lived in with GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas. I can still remember routes in those games. The worlds in Red Dead and Bully were made up but they were fucking awesome. They weren't money laden copies if photo graphs as people are saying here.

Rockstar weren't always swimming in money. It sounds like you're down playing their technical prowess because to be contrarian. Money doesn't just make games or worlds happen with the level of detail in Rockstar's games. Talent does.

Rockstar really works on the little details. That's the difference, not the budget. In GTA V when you park in your garage you can hear the tink tink tink sound of an engine cooling off. If you get out of your car and leave the door open you will here the ding of the car reminding you the keys are in the ignition if it's a car you own. If you stole it and hot wired it that won't happen. When you drive around you can see flames from your exhaust and hear turbos kick in if you have turbos on your car. The radio references things you've done. If you're driving around in a nice car, pedestrians will talk about how nice it is. There are hundreds of small details like this in Rockstar's games. This is a HUGE part of why their world building is so impressive. It's not just putting up big buildings and calling it a day. It's the little details. Downplaying their talent for it by saying "well they have money!" is fucking ridiculous. Any one who is half way objective can see that.

 

[Gnome Scat]

After playing GTAV, hell yes.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I would say ND is better but when you consider how insanely expansive the GTA world is I think I still give them the win. I don't care how big your budget is they are pretty amazing at it.

That said TLOU is still the best example of world building to me.

 

[BPoole]

I can't even think of another dev that I would compare to them. Possibly Bethesda, but their games have a lot of emptiness in them and don't have nearly as much going on as GTA game

 

[jdmonmou]

Rockstar in my opinion is the king of the open world genre in part because they don't skimp on the details in their environments. Their games (especially the GTA series) always raise the bar and are unlike anything I've played before. A lot of research and care is taken in what they do. I remember Michael Pachter criticized Rockstar for this saying that they need to release GTAs more often and paying attention to minor details such as radio stations was unnecessary. I think it's refreshing that Rockstar is one of the few developers that put quality over profit. They know if the game is good the money will come. Too often we see games ruined because they were rushed out the door to turn a profit.

 

[BeforeU]

Short Answer: Yes
Long Answer: fucking fuck yes

 

[bloodyroarxx]

Not only is it a blank cheque and endless time to make it its also having 7 studios doing the work, plus whatever they contract out.

 

[loaf of bread]

Monolith Soft seems to be better.

Gonna have to strongly disagree with this. The world is huge but its mostly barren and the cities/towns have next to nothing as far as interactivity.

 

[Trickster]

Their world designs are definitely great, the scale and detail are quite amazing. But I don't really think their world building is worth much.

Honestly I didn't even know what they did (at least with their gta games) could be considered world building. It's more world copying than world building.

Something like what Bungie did with the Halo series and it's overall universe is what I think of when I think of world building.

 

[ironcreed]

In terms of making a world that breathes and feels alive, yes, they are definitely up there.

 

[JetSetRadio]

Simply the best.

 

[FLAguy954]

Well sure, money helps a lot, but i don't think that its the only thing that counts. Ubisoft devs also have money but they don't come close. I think its a case of throwing money at the right, talented people.

This is because you are wrong in that Ubisoft does not have even close to the same budget Rockstar gets for their open world games. I don't know about ya'll but I'd rather Ubisoft make their own flavor of open world instead of being on some me-too shit by copying Rockstar.

 

[VicDaMoan03]

Say what you will about Skyrim but the world is second to none.

 

[Alienous]

Their world designs are definitely great, the scale and detail are quite amazing. But I don't really think their world building is worth much.

Honestly I didn't even know what they did (at least with their gta games) could be considered world building. It's more world copying than world building.

Something like what Bungie did with the Halo series and it's overall universe is what I think of when I think of world building.

.

World building. As if to create something almost tangible but still not real.

Grand Theft Auto V is amazing in how Rockstar were able to transfer a real place, and all of its idiosyncrasies, into a virtual format. Max Payne 3 is a great show at how Rockstar's research team are able to capture the smallest minutiae of detail from the real São Paulo and present it digitally.

Halo? The Elder Scrolls? Fallout? That's world building.

 

[Sojgat]

Without a doubt.

 

[Ahasverus]

World building. As if to create something almost tangible but still not real.

So like Red Dead Redemption, gotcha.

One day Rockstar will make a fantasy sandbox and I'll bump this thread laughing at many faces.

 

[Alienous]

One day Rockstar will make a fantasy sandbox and I'll bump this thread laughing at many faces.

That day will never come.

Conceiving of what a fabricated species eats, lives in, sounds like is a completely different beast to photographing an apartment block and painstakingly having dozens of artists replicate it.

 

[klier]

absolutely 100% yes. Unmatched and it isn't close. What really sets Rockstar apart is their attention to detail, especially in the people, not just the characters but the random pedestrians. Their reactions to what you do, and even just random conversations are incredibly detailed and usually hilarious.

Also their worlds feel logical. Like... it makes sense where cities are and suburbs, mountains, etc... the layouts are perfect.

This.

 

[-Silver-]

I think they are only the best because they have the time and money. They have the resources that other devs can probably only dream of. If that same budget and time was allocated to other devs, I bet they can exceed R*.

 

[AusRoachman]

I would rebuy a remastered Max Payne 3 in a heartbeat if it let u skip all the cutscenes . Simply one of the best 3rd person shooters ever .

Gta 5 worlds also simply the best openworld ever created , not just in layout / gfx but all the little touches and people/ conversations that happen all around. I can spend hours on that game just driving around admiring the views.

 

[Tomodachi]

Definitely, nobody comes close. Only worlds that feel alive in gaming. I can't even pinpoint what exactly is that they do right, I guess it's a perfect balance of different things.

Can't believe people are countering with Xenoblade. To me its world felt so dull and devoid of anything of interest.

Dragon Dogma had a fantastic world as well, albeit definitely smaller than a proper "open-world".

 

[Noobcraft]

Rockstar is excellent at translating the real world into a exceptionally well done video game world. But I think there are other devs that are better in general at creating worlds. Looking at Bungie/343 and Halo, From and the Souls series.

 

[Rastafarian42]

No doubt OP they just get what makes a open-world work.