Outer Worlds, a mediocre Fallout

[thearmourofGod]

1 hour ago, outWo said:

I like the outer worlds, although the hype was huge and I was expecting something more. Fallout NV is my favorite FO 3D and I expected TOW to be even better. Dialogues are very poor, same when it comes to missions. Will The Oter Worlds be further developed?

i thought TOW was going to be an an even more advanced NV 

now i know it is most definitely a different style of game altogether

and, i can live with that because im having fun and it isnt some mile wide, inch deep open-world 100’s of meaningless hour beth-fest

i do not think the dialogues are “poor”, especially, considering other bioware and bethesda titles that were truly atrocious and adolescent  writing; this game has multiple branching dialogue opportunities that can create different results and even quests

im with you completely on the question of will TOW be further developed and am very much looking forward to what TOW2 will be with microsoft backing?!

 

[LaMOi]

31 minutes ago, thearmourofGod said:

lol, cmon man!

those oblivion enemy queues are one of the most ridiculous things to ever happen in the history of gaming!  funny as all heck but absolutely garbage development

lol, yes, human enemies (creatures makes sense to me) turning on a dime and returning to their spots is funny looking but the alternative in a hub setting i will assume (im no programmer lol) is unacceptable to everyone not named bethesda

It’s totally stupid. 
 

in Skyrim and Fallout 4, at least something has the option of chasing you which can make for some really dynamic encounters. 
I never experienced a long que of enemies chasing me in those games, apart from a few persistent Ferals where I had to lose them in a ruined building and then ambush them from a better position. These moments of emergent unscripted gameplay are great.

 

i know it’s hub worlds but they could set their radius a little larger say 100-200ft at least! 
it’s comical how small the radius limit is, 20-30ft!!! That’s nuts! 
Witcher 3 was not much better! 

[thearmourofGod]

first, fallout4 is not a rpg and TOW is not an open world

second, i was referring to oblivion

third, i agree, lol!  its funny

its just that i think i understand that in a hub-style the enemies are so close; if the radius was too much closer id assume an oblivionesque-type queue

but, again, im no developer and i assume a lowerish budget for this game

off-topic: imo, i see people and reviewers judging this game incorrectly and against completely different types of games

myself included originally 

 

 

[Mr.Placeholder]

There are a lot of foundational problems with the storyline and in general everything feels rushed or forced or too on the nose. 

From the outset: You have no motivation. 
And they never fix that. You start as a blank slate character, but there is still a linear narrative to the game you're being forced down. That is a bad combination. Your character might have an implicit sense of duty or people he wants to save or something on the Hope, but the player doesn't. Like your character you have no frame of reference for this world or motivation to do what the doctor says or go down either branch of the storyline. 

There is a simple fix to this, a ticking clock. "You need one way or another to get more of chemical X or you'll suffer cell death from your freezing" and you need to either do what Rick Sanchez says or sell him out to the government to do that. Bam, you now have motivation for the game to happen. A reason besides "because the game has to happen" for you to want to fix the ship, get off world, do the doctors dirty work, etc. etc. 

Without a reason to do anything in the game besides "because game" everything else feels offbalance with the story. 

[PUBG2055]

On 10/29/2019 at 5:17 AM, Mikeymoonshine said:

Safe and unimaginative how? You not liking the jokes does not mean the writing is "safe and unimaginative" it means you don't like the joke? Safe compared to what? Unimaginative compared to what? Where did the writers go wrong? How would you have done it? 

Most quests in video games can be considered "fetch quests" but there are plenty of quests that do not involve going and getting an item and almost every quest has some kind of plot, choices, tells a story ect. 

No the factions do not just boil down corporations vs rebels, but sure in a game that centres around that conflict most of the relevant factions are invested in that conflict somehow. 

Enemy Veriety could be better I agree, what RPG with big open areas is not filled with marauders or bandits or something like that though? At least this game does give you a reason for why there are so many. 

There could be some more interesting perks like New Vegas, that's a legitimate criticism. Calling the skill system "bare bones" is nonsensical though. A gun is still a gun, you can still use it with low gun skills. I do think there could be a whole lot of tweaking to the balance though the game is a bit too easy and supernova difficulty is more just annoying that anything. 

Seems like your issue with the writing is that you don't personally like the writing style. That's not the same as it being bad writing. Bad writing is plots that don't make any sense, characters that are one dimensional ect ect. 

You never played the game.  Most quests ARE fetch quests . And yes the factions do just boil down to corporations vs rebels. 

One example is choosing Botanical gardens over Edgewater .. well nothing interesting happened . The only thing that occurs is all of the cannery workers in Edgewater are found standing outside protesting the cannery being closed down. Nothing happens to the CEO guy either. And Botanical gardens remains exactly the same too. Zero changes .

[PUBG2055]

On 10/30/2019 at 3:08 PM, imitenotbecrazy said:

 

 

Choice and consequence (HAHA) is largely a farce. I've save scummed a bunch of situations only to find out they had the same outcome anyway. Maybe one line of dialogue was different and addressed my choice but it's largely meaningless. In fact, they've gone out of their way to make your choices seem less meaningful. I killed the named leaders of a faction and their whole base in my second playthrough, got a simple line of dialogue about it, then still ended up in the same fight with that faction (that I wiped out) with "Faction Leader" as a replacement for the named NPC that I killed. Absolutely disappointed in how meaningless the choices are here. 

Absolutely agree with this post. It's the truth. I do like the outer world's but was fairly disappointed with the lack of choices. I figured Obsidian would go all out but I was wrong.

[ComradeYellow]

And yet people can't name any CRPG that fulfills their bloodthirsty playstyle to their preference.  Not to mention someone with "PUBG" in their username.

[algroth]

1 hour ago, PUBG2055 said:

You never played the game.  Most quests ARE fetch quests . And yes the factions do just boil down to corporations vs rebels. 

One example is choosing Botanical gardens over Edgewater .. well nothing interesting happened . The only thing that occurs is all of the cannery workers in Edgewater are found standing outside protesting the cannery being closed down. Nothing happens to the CEO guy either. And Botanical gardens remains exactly the same too. Zero changes .

Actually there's pretty big consequences later down the line. Akande might ask you to wipe out the entire city as it's no longer productive, hence leeching off Board resources. If you accept, quite a few companions will oppose and I think one of them at least will end up leaving.

[Theonlygarby]

1 hour ago, PUBG2055 said:

You never played the game.  Most quests ARE fetch quests . And yes the factions do just boil down to corporations vs rebels. 

One example is choosing Botanical gardens over Edgewater .. well nothing interesting happened . The only thing that occurs is all of the cannery workers in Edgewater are found standing outside protesting the cannery being closed down. Nothing happens to the CEO guy either. And Botanical gardens remains exactly the same too. Zero changes .

Someone only played the first location.  There are other locations where no one is with the board.  As has been mentioned, where is this game with real choice and consequence?  Being pretty harsh if you are judging a game against some magical game that doesn't exist.  Games are limited because they aren't real life.  If you are comparing it to real life yes the graphics are bad, and the story is too linear... Good point

[DekarServerbot]

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

And yet people can't name any CRPG that fulfills their bloodthirsty playstyle to their preference.  Not to mention someone with "PUBG" in their username.

 

I guess that the only game that can fulfill their bloodthirsty playstyle is UNDERTALE

[DekarServerbot]

On 11/9/2019 at 2:27 PM, Mikeymoonshine said:

Some people complained about it being announced as a news story but that wasn't really bioware's fault that was the games media. The writers posted like character profiles for every companion and Gaider mentioned that Dorian was gay in that (because as a gay man dorian was kind of the character he always wanted to write) and the media made it a news story.  Then a bunch of people acted like Bioware had done some kind of press release about the gay character or something. 

I've also heard people say that Dorian is too steroitypical but most of the people who say that are straight people, not gay people complaining about being steroityped. There are criticisms of his personal quest that I do actually agree with though. 

So Freddie Mercury is stereotypical? Thought that Spongebob was more stereotypical

[Mikeymoonshine]

On 11/14/2019 at 12:39 AM, PUBG2055 said:

You never played the game.  Most quests ARE fetch quests . And yes the factions do just boil down to corporations vs rebels. 

One example is choosing Botanical gardens over Edgewater .. well nothing interesting happened . The only thing that occurs is all of the cannery workers in Edgewater are found standing outside protesting the cannery being closed down. Nothing happens to the CEO guy either. And Botanical gardens remains exactly the same too. Zero changes .

"You never played the game"

Makes it obvious you know very little about what happens in the game after the first area. I wonder why that is.

Also the "CEO guy" explains what is going to happen to him, did you miss that? 

[Jill7894]

On 10/27/2019 at 4:26 AM, Reffy said:

When this game was released, I was pleasantly surprised. It looked like a combination of Fallout and Mass Effect.
But after a few hours of playing, I started to see the mediocrity that Obsidian is known for.

My biggest complaint is that the main character is an emotionless husk. Why spend all my time at the character creation, making a human being, while I can only act as an eunuch?
No flirting, no camaraderie (besides fetch quests for your team), no romance and barely any friendship. Why surround me with characters, if I can barely interact with them anyway?

Whatever I can do in Outer Worlds, I can also do in Fallout 4 and more. And I know Fallout 4 doesn't have the best dialogue in the Fallout series. But Outer Worlds isn't better either. That and Fallout 4 has so many mods, and isn't Epic Store exclusive.

When I compare Pillars of Eternity 1 to 2, I can see so many improvements. Maybe Outer Worlds 2 would be better, but currently I see more roleplaying in GTA online, and I don't even own that game.

Outer Worlds. 4/10 

Yeah, I completely agree. I don't see how, in any way, this is being compared to any Fallout game. I wasn't really ever excited for Outer Worlds, but I thought that it'd be booming with personality and comedy and RPG elements similar to Fallout NV, yet it seems surprisingly devoid of that; in fact, it seems pretty devoid of a lot of things. I think that the best word to sum it up with - as I noted, surprisingly - is Lacklustre. It seems like a game with a lot of potential that was never really expounded upon. I give it approximately a 4/10 as well - it just seems like there's less to it than a game of it's type  made by a reputable, or even in many cases, "reputable," company.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Jill7894

[algroth]

17 hours ago, Jill7894 said:

Yeah, I completely agree. I don't see how, in any way, this is being compared to any Fallout game. I wasn't really ever excited for Outer Worlds, but I thought that it'd be booming with personality and comedy and RPG elements similar to Fallout NV, yet it seems surprisingly devoid of that; in fact, it seems pretty devoid of a lot of things. I think that the best word to sum it up with - as I noted, surprisingly - is Lacklustre. It seems like a game with a lot of potential that was never really expounded upon. I give it approximately a 4/10 as well - it just seems like there's less to it than a game of it's type  made by a reputable, or even in many cases, "reputable," company.

I'm curious as to what people who feel The Outer Worlds was lacking in content consider a game with content. Far as I'm concerned I've found plenty to do in each new map and section I arrived to in the game, each section likewise filled with interesting characters, each with their own unique set of idiosyncrasies and with a voice unique enough to make them feel like their own person independent of whatever function they fulfilled in the game. I'm honestly confused at how divisive this game is in certain circles whilst a game that to my mind feels far emptier or more mechanical like, say, The Witcher 3, is regarded as one of the finest games of the decade.

Edited November 16, 2019 by algroth

[Jill7894]

10 hours ago, algroth said:

I'm curious as to what people who feel The Outer Worlds was lacking in content consider a game with content. Far as I'm concerned I've found plenty to do in each new map and section I arrived to in the game, each section likewise filled with interesting characters, each with their own unique set of idiosyncrasies and with a voice unique enough to make them feel like their own person independent of whatever function they fulfilled in the game. I'm honestly confused at how divisive this game is in certain circles whilst a game that to my mind feels far emptier or more mechanical like, say, The Witcher 3, is regarded as one of the finest games of the decade.

Well, there aren't a lot of enemy types and the way that they're placed on the maps seems more reminiscent of an MMORPG more than anything. There isn't a very big incentive to explore compared to any bethesda (I hate them, but still) game or Fallout NV because there aren't a lot of unique and intriguing  sets of armor and weapons; I remember in Fallout NV I went through a whole f*** fest in order to get this one unique M4 style carbine assault rifle, and a lot of other unique items too just to boost up my character and make her look awesome. I'd spend hours upon hours doing this. The game feels more systematic, as in I'm knocking off quests according to some checklist of quests in order to progress, rather than progressing on my own time and in my own way (this might be a weak point in hub games compared to open world). For instance, in Oblivion, I barely even did quests for my first few characters and instead I basically just ransacked the map looking for cool items, exploring unique places, and doing random quests here and there. It seems like your companions in Outer Worlds have a personality, until you recruit them and then that personally just seems to slip away with a random response here or there when talking to someone, as opposed to that sniper guy in the dinosaur town in Fallout NV, for instance, where he had an entire, I'd say meaningful backstory and was really fleshed out, and his is presence on the team was always very apparent - he had skills that really meant something. The majority of perks are, bleh. Skill checks, because of how you place points into one tree and it adds to all of the skills in it, are vacuous and way too easy to master. In any Fallout game, I have to decide which gun skill I'm going to under develop in order to boost up my speech skill, while in Outer Worlds, it matters significantly less, comparatively. I like the story in Outer Worlds, but the way that it's delivered and by whom isn't nearly as effective as I believe it could be - a certain rebel leader, for example hardly seems very passionate about his cause. Then, of course, there's no 3rd person which makes customization of looks virtually meaningless.

I think that the main problem that irks me about the Outer Worlds is how it's consistently compared to Fallout, when it reality it should not be compared to Fallout. It's just not up to that level. I think that there was excellent marketing for Outer Worlds to be honest, and it gave me the impression that the game would be loaded with personality, quirkiness, comedy, etc., and if those elements were stronger I'd probably overlook the majority of the aspects that I laid out (as long as it's not compared to Fallout). THERE ARE PEOPLE SAYING THAT THIS IS BETTER THAN FALLOUT NEW VEGAS and that's insane, completely absurd.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Jill7894

[Masticator]

After having just finished I feel like it's actually better than Fallout in some ways. Mostly in the humor and world building. But fallout 1 (and even 2) have a better story and better character motivations. Not quite as good as Fallout: NV in my opinion. That will still be my favorite, so unlikely any game will dethrone that at the top of my list. I still feel like it's missing something. Better followers would have been nice, Pavrati was the only one who seem fleshed out. Maybe the Vicar as well. I ran with the Vicar and the black lady most of the game, those are the only 3 with any real personality. The rest weren't that great. Though I admit I didn't use the bot, maybe he has some good one liners.

[UrbaNebula]

I don't think anybody truly saw this topping New Vegas. It's an ambitious game which was developed with a severely limited budget. Limited to the point that even the third person camera wasn't included.

I'm just eager to see Obsidian really dial it up to 11 with follow up titles in the series. At this point I think it is clear that we're going to be getting a sequel at the bare minimum. The Outer Worlds feels like a solid foundation. Hopefully every aspect will get more time, money and attention with Microsoft's backing.

[Selnor1983]

On 11/13/2019 at 8:54 PM, Mr.Placeholder said:

There are a lot of foundational problems with the storyline and in general everything feels rushed or forced or too on the nose. 

From the outset: You have no motivation. 
And they never fix that. You start as a blank slate character, but there is still a linear narrative to the game you're being forced down. That is a bad combination. Your character might have an implicit sense of duty or people he wants to save or something on the Hope, but the player doesn't. Like your character you have no frame of reference for this world or motivation to do what the doctor says or go down either branch of the storyline. 

There is a simple fix to this, a ticking clock. "You need one way or another to get more of chemical X or you'll suffer cell death from your freezing" and you need to either do what Rick Sanchez says or sell him out to the government to do that. Bam, you now have motivation for the game to happen. A reason besides "because the game has to happen" for you to want to fix the ship, get off world, do the doctors dirty work, etc. etc. 

Without a reason to do anything in the game besides "because game" everything else feels offbalance with the story. 

OH dear God no. Having no motivation is what's so brilliant. The whole point is you don't know who to really trust. It's much more like Dungeons and dragons table top. 

And if this game had a timer I'd quit it faster than you can say The Outer Worlds. 

 

As it is now, it's a traditional morale choice RPG game. 

Not many devs make these types of games. Which is why it sits so well with many people. It's my favourite RPG of the generation so far. I've currently clocked in nearly 50 hours and haven't finished it yet. 

 

Dialogue is amazing. The narrative Intriguing and the marality choices involving. 

 

I couldn't play past 20 hours of Fallout 4. It was so bland and moved away from RPG into a building/survival simulator. Which is a big big turn off for me. 

[thearmourofGod]

34 minutes ago, Selnor1983 said:

OH dear God no. Having no motivation is what's so brilliant. The whole point is you don't know who to really trust. It's much more like Dungeons and dragons table top. 

And if this game had a timer I'd quit it faster than you can say The Outer Worlds. 

 

As it is now, it's a traditional morale choice RPG game. 

Not many devs make these types of games. Which is why it sits so well with many people. It's my favourite RPG of the generation so far. I've currently clocked in nearly 50 hours and haven't finished it yet. 

 

Dialogue is amazing. The narrative Intriguing and the marality choices involving. 

 

I couldn't play past 20 hours of Fallout 4. It was so bland and moved away from RPG into a building/survival simulator. Which is a big big turn off for me. 

lol, no kidding!

the “no motivation” schtick i hear so many gamers regurgitate these days is ridiculous on multiple levels and often just simply incorrect

to say there is no motivation in TOW is insane as you quickly find out you were left for dead in cryo and were thawed by a wanted man by those who wanted to leave you in stasis

oh and your target date to reach your colony is only slightly off by um about 70 years

its perfect background motivation for an actual rpg game, yet, like you said it sets up instantaneous distrust and the need to find out what the heck is going on

the “pacing” in this game is spot-on

 

 

Edited November 18, 2019 by thearmourofGod

[UrbaNebula]

The player character's motivation in an RPG is very easy to mess up and Fallout 4 messed it up in just about every way. You're immediately introduced to a child and spouse that you don't care about, and they are just as quickly whisked away from you before you can even build any kind of connection. Your character's motivation is then to find this random baby that you as a player do not give a **** about. The instant you start side-questing, your character is fundamentally broken.

Even before this, you as a player know that Vault-Tec is not on the level and everything in Vault 111 has a sense of unease and misdirection that your character and their spouse... doesn't even notice.

The Outer Worlds introduction on the other hand sees you meeting characters and learning about the colony WITH your character. The intro cinematic teaches you, the player, everything the character would have known before being frozen (ten year trip, Halcyon colony, destiny awaits, yada yada yada.) You are then given motive. You and everyone aboard your colony ship (Your friends and family depending purely on your head canon and dialogue choices) are trapped and you're their only hope... Or, you were simply shot into space by some raving mad, outlaw scientist and you want to turn him in. As a new player, Edgewater and it's inhabitants are there to teach you about the universe and how its systems work.

Edited November 19, 2019 by UrbaNebula

[Mr.Placeholder]

22 hours ago, Selnor1983 said:

OH dear God no. Having no motivation is what's so brilliant. The whole point is you don't know who to really trust. It's much more like Dungeons and dragons table top. 

And if this game had a timer I'd quit it faster than you can say The Outer Worlds. 

 

As it is now, it's a traditional morale choice RPG game. 

Not many devs make these types of games. Which is why it sits so well with many people. It's my favourite RPG of the generation so far. I've currently clocked in nearly 50 hours and haven't finished it yet. 

 

Dialogue is amazing. The narrative Intriguing and the marality choices involving. 

 

I couldn't play past 20 hours of Fallout 4. It was so bland and moved away from RPG into a building/survival simulator. Which is a big big turn off for me. 

You have no reason to trust who is your savior and also no dialogue options besides the ability to betray him and some fluff about the Hope no one knows about. Neither law enforcement or the regional leader knows **** all or even has dialogue options about what you would be caring about. Arguably the Hope. But muh power coduit. 

21 hours ago, thearmourofGod said:

lol, no kidding!

the “no motivation” schtick i hear so many gamers regurgitate these days is ridiculous on multiple levels and often just simply incorrect

to say there is no motivation in TOW is insane as you quickly find out you were left for dead in cryo and were thawed by a wanted man by those who wanted to leave you in stasis

oh and your target date to reach your colony is only slightly off by um about 70 years

its perfect background motivation for an actual rpg game, yet, like you said it sets up instantaneous distrust and the need to find out what the heck is going on

the “pacing” in this game is spot-on

 

 

You have no direct antagonist. Also 

Spoiler

rick sanchez isn't exactly squeaky clean and you could be a pile of organic paste like the previous dozen people he pulled off the Hope. The government leaving you there is on paper the only option for them, barring finding out they're trying to solve the same problem later for other reasons. 

but none of that matters because you don't have any reason to specifically follow any of these plot points. Hell, you should have a more direct "I'm going to kill the pricks who left me out there" yesman plotline if you want to bring up player motivation.

Unlike new vegas where you have a direct immediate motivation to kill the guy who tried to kill you (or not and **** around in that sandbox) OW you have no motivation. You shoot some guys and end up in a town, then can get your ship, then could technically do anything... but can only do what the game wants you to. Why no "help the marauders overrun edgewater" plotline? You have no frame of reference and considering your potential anti board sentiment could be pretty easily sided with the runaways and anarchists you mow down whenever they respawn. Where are the khans or fiends who you can interact with in the outer worlds? 

It has some good beats and shades of grey. But almost everything ends up binary decisions around the linear plotline. Not being able to get to any planet or location is a failure compared to NV where area level naturally directed the game. 

[thearmourofGod]

TOW should not be compared to NV

different games completely

i compare TOW to mass effect and ill take it over that bioware junk all day every day 

as i said, the story, motivation and plot are well-done in TOW 

not only giving the pc enough info, but, also not providing too much

perfect for a hub-style, dialogue rpg

[Mr.Placeholder]

14 hours ago, thearmourofGod said:

TOW should not be compared to NV

Agree to disagree, but to me there is no push besides "because game" for your actions. It feels rushed regarding pacing, makes you the lynchpin to everything very inorganically, and doesn't give you any personal stakes narratively or via your sandbox background. You are a blank slate but the game attributes motive to your actions regardless. Companions sadly are the worst example of this. You know these people for hours yet their small fetchquests cause major life changes for them. Comparing it to the standard obsidian set for themselves through marketing, they entirely miss the mark compared to new vegas. There companions had small storylines, not small quests. You learn their backstory at a believable pace for traveling with them for a few ingame days-weeks and they have their own motivations. If you play any role in their story it is a small, believable one or they are dovetailed into larger questlines like the BoS or NCR. Comparatively you could speedrun say the vicar in an ingame day/20 minutes of play and he'd go from straight laced to your chosen life changing end path. Even moreso for Ellie- you don't even have to shoot anything. 

[Jeffers2112]

I bought this game on release day after holding back on pre-ordering because I wasn't sure how good it would be. Once I saw the reviews I dived in and got it.

Having completed my first play-through in an unhurried 43 hours I do find people's comments on how short the game is a bit strange. I'm now having a second go with a slightly different character build and I've already found locations and quests that I missed the first time through. You really have to read everything, look at every terminal and chat to any named NPC. I also find the chat between different pairings of companions very entertaining, as is the dialogue from the NPCs. I can only assume that anyone getting through the game very quickly is missing out a lot of the content.

I've played RPGs for many years, starting with Morrowind, and I'm finding TOW very entertaining. It's not a classic, but if you take it on it's own merits (I'm tired of all the comparisons to Fallout) then it's certainly worth the money. I've already got ideas for a different character for my next play, and I'm quite a way from finishing the current one.

[Craig Bruyn]

On 10/27/2019 at 10:26 PM, Reffy said:

But after a few hours of playing, I started to see the mediocrity that Obsidian is known for.

Wow, I get that the game isn't everyone's cup of tea, but that kind of sensationalist comment (almost troll like) makes me wonder why youre on these forums if that is your broad opinion of their content?

There's some very valid critique in your comments but its integrity  pretty much ruined by that one line.