Summary
Not many game studios have a track record as impressive asRockstar Games. Ever since it was founded in 1998, the company and its studios have released some of the most beloved and critically acclaimed video games ever made. Whether it be major franchises likeGrand Theft AutoandRed Dead Redemptionor one-offs likeBully, Rockstar is famous for building some of gaming’s most immersive open-world experiences.
While many modernopen-world gamescan feel a little barren, Rockstar createsopen-worlds that don’t feel emptyand are full of both little details and things to do. Rockstar has never made a bad open-world game, but some are better than others. We’ve ranked their open-worlds not by size, but by how fun they are to explore, how detailed they are, and how much there is to do in them. It says a lot about the studio’s pedigree that even the lowest-ranked game here is still considered a masterpiece by many.
It’s hard to overstate just how revolutionaryGrand Theft Auto 3was when it was released in 2001. Open-world games were nothing new, but nothing quite likeGTA 3had ever been released before. At the time, Liberty City felt like a living, breathing city full of the kinds of little details that gamers hadn’t seen before in an open-world game.
Unfortunately, the passage of time hasn’t been kind toGTA 3and its map. It’s one ofthe shortest games by Rockstarand that’s reflected in the game’s open-world. Liberty City seemed massive in 2001, but by today’s standards, it’s almost comically small. Rockstar did a great job of making the map feel bigger than it was, but there’s no ignoring how quickly one can get from one end to the other. There’s also nowhere near as much to do as in later Rockstar Games, outside of missions and a handful of side activities. Finally, thanks to technical limitations, the world lacks both detail and activity and is a relative ghost town compared to the likes ofGrand Theft Auto 5. Ignore nostalgia and, sadly,GTA 3has to go in last place.
Grand Theft Auto: Vice Cityis just as impressive asGrand Theft Auto 3, but for a different reason. It only took Rockstar a year to releaseVice CityafterGTA 3;pretty impressive considering we’ve been waiting10 yearsforGTA 6. Despite the quick turnaround,Vice Citynever felt like a rush job, and featured some major improvements overGTA 3.
For a start, its open-world map is much better-looking. The actual graphical fidelity isn’t that much higher, butVice City’sopen-world is much more colorful compared to Liberty City’s muddy browns and dull grays. The 80s Miami-themed map also has way more character and a real sense of place, whereas Liberty City was always a bit more generic. There was also more to do on the slightly bigger map.Vice Citywas more interactive, with businesses, safe houses the player could buy, and a lot more side activities to undertake. Tommy Vercetti is one ofRockstar’s most iconic characters, and his city is just as iconic.Vice Cityhas aged slightly better thanGTA 3,but technical limitations still land it near the bottom of this list.
For a while now, major studios have taken a quantity-over-quality approach when designing their open-worlds.Bully’sopen-world is the opposite of this design philosophy. By today’s standards, its map is downright tiny, but thanks to excellent design decisions, it appears much bigger. The game’s open-world is split between Bullworth Academy and the surrounding town.
Both areas are small but vibrant and packed with the kinds of small details we expect from Rockstar Games. Bullworth feels like a real, living town with a sense of community. Jimmy can enter a surprising number of buildings and people will actually approach him with tasks. Being a child, Jimmy doesn’t have the kind of freedom an adult does, but his limited transport options help make Bullworth appear bigger than it is. Despite being a PS2 game, Bully’s open-world had a lot of detail, and each area of the town and the school were distinct. One of the reasonsBully’sending is one of Rockstar’s bestis because the game’s open-world had done such a good job of immersing the player, making them invested in Jimmy’s story and the fate of Bullworth and its residents.
Grand Theft Auto 4is the black sheep of the Rockstar family. A lot of gamers have fond memories of playing it, but at the time, a fair few people felt it was a step backward for the franchise. Once again set in Liberty City, its map was twice as big asGrand Theft Auto 3’sbut felt limited in scope compared to whatGrand Theft Auto: San Andreashad offered. The game was a soft reboot of the franchise, and its open-world marked a change in Rockstar’s design philosophy.
The game had a much greater focus on its characters and telling a compelling story than earlierGTAgames, and its world design was much more concerned with realism.GTA 4’sLiberty City was far more densely packed than Rockstar’s earlier open-worlds, and a much closer representation of its inspiration, New York City. Pedestrians acted and reacted in believable ways, while the step-up in hardware allowed for full HD and more detailed graphics. Rockstar’s dedication to realism came at a cost, however. The game’s open-world feels smaller in scope, and some players just didn’t find it as fun as previous entries. Compared toSan Andreas,it also just didn’t feel like there was as much to do. On the bright side, at least the game has one ofRockstar’s best playable characters, Niko Bellic.
GTA 4might have been a little controversial, but it also solidified Rockstar as the masters of city-based open-world games. With their next major release, they changed gears completely and opted for a setting that was nearly all nature with a few small towns and villages thrown in.Red Dead Redemption’svast map could have felt barren and boring, but instead, it made forone of Rockstar’s most immersive gamesyet.
Its map was massive, but it was made up of regions that felt distinct, while a lack of fast travel and options made every journey feel like an adventure. The open-world also had a ton of stuff to do. Not only were there story missions, but there were lots of sidequests and fun activities to take part in. If players wanted, they could spend hours just hunting or horse wrangling.Red Dead Redemptionwas also easily Rockstar’s prettiest game at the time, and really brought the beauty of America’s Wild West to life.
Grand Theft Auto 5is the game that just won’t die. AfterMinecraft, it’s the second highest-grossing game ever released and has persisted for a whopping three console generations. Part of this massive success is, of course, down to its utterly brilliant open-world. The city of Los Santos and the surrounding countryside strike a balance between the enormous feeling ofSan Andreasand the realism ofGTA 4’s open-world. For the most part, it worked.
Let’s not beat around the bush;GTA 5’smap is pretty huge. At 76 square kilometers (47 miles), it encompasses both Los Santos and a good chunk of the surrounding countryside. Despite its size, the map is full of attention to detail, with Los Santos arguably being the most realistic-feeling city ever in a video game. Outside of story missions, the map also features a fair amount to do, including side missions and some entertaining random encounters. Yet there’s a downside. As impressive as the open-world is to look at, much of it is wasted. The main story and most of the side activities ignore a large portion of the map, and there’s really not much reason outside of curiosity to visit most of it. That sense of emptiness was somewhat solved withGTA Online’sconstant release of content, but the open-world can still feel a mile wide and an inch deep in places.
What Rockstar Games accomplished withGrand Theft Auto: San Andreaswill never stop being impressive. Not only does its open-world span three distinct cities, but it also includes a chunk of mountainous countryside and an entire desert. That’s insanely impressive, especially considering it’s all crammed into a map half the size ofGrand Theft Auto 5’s.
San Andreasis a reminder that it’s not about how big the map is that is important, it’s about how big it feels.San Andreasseems so big in large part thanks to technical trickery, like a severely limited draw distance. In most games, a short draw distance is annoying, but inSan Andreas, it added to the game’s sense of scope (one of the many reasons the remaster was such a disaster). The open-world is also densely packed. There’s something new to do around every corner, whether it be flight school, territory takeovers, or street races. WhereasGTA 5has a highly-detailed world that can feel empty,San Andreasis less detailed but seems full to the brim with things to do. Today, the game’s scope isn’t quite as impressive as it was twenty years ago, but the fact the game featuresthree ofGrand Theft Auto’sbest citiesdeserves some respect.
Red Dead Redemptions 2isn’t a perfect game, not by a long shot, but its open-world gets pretty dang close. When creatingRed Dead Redemption 2’sworld, Rockstar clearly took everything it had learned over the last 20 years and distilled it into one game. The open-world is stunningly beautiful, amazingly detailed, and has an almost endless number of things to do.
It’s easy to get lost inRed Dead Redemption 2’sstunning vistas. It’s the kind of game that encourages the player to take a break once in a while and just take in the scenery, whether it be arid desert, snow-capped mountains, or crocodile-infested swampland. More importantly,Red Dead Redemption 2’sworld is alive. In many ways,Red Dead Redemption 2is more of a simulation than a game. Its wildlife behaves realistically and requires more than aiming and shooting to hunt. Rather than lifeless husks, the thousands of NPCs are also distinct, with their own personalities and even routines. It’s an open-world begging to be explored. Rockstar filled this open-world with collectibles to hunt down and secrets to find (some of which players are still stumbling across). Put simply,Red Dead Redemption 2’s open-world is easily one of the most impressive ever created, and it’ll likely take a while until another game beats it.
