Is Naughty Dog better than Rockstar?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Farty_Fartsalot
#1 Posted by Farty_Fartsalot (192 posts) -

Thoughts?

Avatar image for Flubbbs
#2 Edited by Flubbbs (4865 posts) -

i think they are.. the only Rockstar game ive really enjoyed was Max Payne 3.. i think they both are probally the best at the types of games they do

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#3 Edited by turtlethetaffer (18600 posts) -

Most developers are better than Rockstar. Rockstar's games are always impressive from a technical POV but the gameplay almost always has more than a few issues, as do the stories.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#4 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

Better at what ? They don't make the same type of games.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#5 Posted by Jacanuk (12016 posts) -

This sub-forum is becoming more and more like systemwars each day.

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
#6 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (14795 posts) -

Each have strengths & weaknesses in different areas. In terms of story-telling, few are as good as ND. But Rockstar are awesome game-world builders.

Pretty hard to pick one over the other for me.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#7 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Yep !

Avatar image for mastermetal777
#8 Posted by mastermetal777 (3215 posts) -

They both make very different types of games. Naughty Dog creates story-driven cinematic-style games normally, while in the past they focused on more fantastical stuff while maintaining the story and cinematic style with Jak & Daxter and Crash Bandicoot to some extent. Rockstar creates open-world sandbox games for the most part, with a few linear games here and there. They know how to write impressive stories, sure, but that's not where their strength lies. Hard to pick who's "better" when they both do vastly different things.

Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
#9 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (12684 posts) -

You can't compare them. Rockstar makes video games with an open world for the player to have fun in, and Naughty Dog makes movies that you can collect on blu-ray.

Avatar image for ivo_ree
#10 Posted by ivo_ree (121 posts) -

They are if they can sell more than 1 million copies in 24 hours.

Avatar image for Pedro
#11 Edited by Pedro (28199 posts) -

@Farty_Fartsalot said:

Thoughts?

Exactly.

Avatar image for mastermetal777
#12 Posted by mastermetal777 (3215 posts) -

@ivo_ree: that just means they're popular. Just because it's popular doesn't always mean it's the greatest thing ever *cough* Minecraft *cough*

Avatar image for notorious1234na
#13 Posted by Notorious1234NA (1917 posts) -

imo nope since never bought a naughty dog game

Avatar image for Gamerno6666
#14 Posted by Gamerno6666 (5090 posts) -

@speedfreak48t5p said:

You can't compare them. Rockstar makes video games with an open world for the player to have fun in, and Naughty Dog makes movies that you can collect on blu-ray.

@Jacanuk said:

This sub-forum is becoming more and more like systemwars each day.

Yup this looks to me like system wars material.

Avatar image for mesomorphin
#16 Edited by Mesomorphin (903 posts) -

Dude thats like comparing chalk and cheese. Naughty Dog make these great story driven games, with excellent production values, whereas Rockstar work on open world experiences with online/gameplay as their main priority. In say that however I thought GTA 5 had a pretty good story.

Avatar image for deactivated-57d8401f17c55
#17 Edited by deactivated-57d8401f17c55 (7221 posts) -

High voltage is better than rockstar

Avatar image for heguain
#18 Posted by heguain (1414 posts) -

They both are over-rated. I enjoyed L.A. Noire much though..

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#19 Edited by turtlethetaffer (18600 posts) -

@mesomorphin: The issue with making gameplay priority in their games is that the gameplay isn't that great compared to other games in the genre. I recently played GTAV and my feelings about it can be summed by by the mission where you Fly a plane into the back of another plane as Trevor.

It was boring as all hell until you got to the intense action set piece. The game as a whole makes you perform a lot of really really menial, un fun, boring tasks before it gives you something exciting to play. I understand that Rockstar might have been trying to build tension or something, but with something like a heist movie, the less action heavy parts can still be enjoyable due to performances and dialogue, as well as story development. With a game like GTAV, performing menial tasks in service of the story jut isn't fun because the actions you are performing feel like they are there to simply pad the game out.

Avatar image for Blueresident87
#20 Edited by Blueresident87 (5657 posts) -

2 completely different companies, not worth comparing. Personally I don't care much about what either company does anymore.

Avatar image for Macutchi
#21 Posted by Macutchi (5722 posts) -

i've only ever played uncharted and uc2 when i owned a ps3 for about three months several years ago. it's a shame they're tied to sony as i'd love to play uc3 and the last of us. maybe i'll pick up a ps3 for cheap and give them a go. i fear their lack of multiplatform games might prevent them from achieving the recognition they deserve.

nonetheless neither of the nd games i've played can hold a candle to r*'s crown jewels - gta 3, vice city or gta v. throw in the max payne series and the ballsy attempt at something quite different in la noire ( can't believe one or two in this thread are seriously suggesting r* don't do story driven games ffs :D ) and you have an almost peerless publisher. so rockstar

Avatar image for Kuromino
#22 Posted by Kuromino (1594 posts) -

If you're going to do these vs-type threads, then at least contribute your own thoughts in the original post. At the very least, you would need to include your choice and your reasons as to why.