The Outer Worlds Pre-Release Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]

[GentlemanCthulhu]

lol. Any of you guys want to post your chiseled good looks, go ahead, I'm sure you all look like Fabio. Weird for people to expect that video game characters should all be supermodels.

I'm officially THE hottest member of tis forum. Just look at my beautiful tentacles.

 

[fantadomat]

Just look at my beautiful tentacles.

No beard,no hotness points bro.

 

[Reinhardt]

lol. Any of you guys want to post your chiseled good looks, go ahead, I'm sure you all look like Fabio. Weird for people to expect that video game characters should all be supermodels.

Maybe in your lands all people looks like trannies but it's not same case here.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Right, that'un.

 

[Efe]

Tyranny is the better game.
it has shit combat? and poe doesnt?

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

Just look at my beautiful tentacles.

No beard,no hotness points bro.

Aha! But don't you know that to a cephalopod the tentacles is the beard? I a mean they even come off down as an extension of the face.

 

[fantadomat]

Just look at my beautiful tentacles.

No beard,no hotness points bro.

Aha! But don't you know that to a cephalopod the tentacles is the beard? I a mean they even come off down as an extension of the face.

Meh,you have to have beard on evert tentacle!!

 

[AwesomeButton]

it would be much much better than chase eothas. It would the game's biggest problem that's sense of urgency when actually your fucking around the island.

The only correct answer to the story of Deadfire is completely annihilating the gods and ending their tyranny over mortals, because they are fake gods. They are not the absolute power as god is conceptualized to be in real world. The struggle they portrayed in Deadfire was imo completely nonsensical and stupid after the revelation in the first game that the gods are phony constructs made by humans. IMO how they should've branched the story is like this:

Either the watcher,
1. Completely destroys the gods - AKA Prophetic liberator, destroyer of idols ala Moses.
2. Rules over them - AKA Strict materialist industrialist
3. Gets in cahoots with them as a partner - Theocratic Sovereign

They came up with this excellent setup in the first game which could've been developed into a fantastic mirror of mankind's ascendance out of the dark ages, but they completely lost the thread in Deadfire. They chose to operate within the pantheon of the gods as if they are absolute powers (which they really are not as much as they seem, since their powers are by design, finite), when instead they should have superseded it with the watcher raising above the gods. It's a game i play for the RTwP, as opposed to the first game which really excites my imagination.

They could've tie in the factions in nicely too, as one could work to achieve one of those endings. For example, the scientific Vailians could've helped ruling over the gods through scientific mastery - which they even endeavor to in the game.

At least some effort at thinking is going on here. Maybe PoE2's story really was good for what it was.

 

[S.torch]

Tyranny is the better game.
it has shit combat? and poe doesnt?

The best thing about Tyranny was the setting, which was an original idea of MCA. Sadly, he was not the lead writer of the game and very soon the plot and the story got in a trainwreck.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

I don't recall any pen & paper RPG where my GM said "Your lockpick skill is low, so we have to sit here in silence for 5 minutes if you want to try."

Even CRPGs don't use this, including "push this button a million times hoping to roll 1000." Except for point-based character generation systems ... and yes, I'll say out loud that that method of chargen is shit.

CRPGs do have "push this button a million times hoping to roll 1000," although I wouldn't suggest actually doing that.
First example that popped into my head: stealth mechanics for every single IE game.
Nobody forces you to sit there and press the enter shadows button ad infinitam, but you can if you want.
And then there's savescumming. Again, I wouldn't suggest it, but developers know it exists and often don't penalize it on purpose. It's just another way people use the systems.
I rest my case.

I don't recall any pen & paper RPG where my GM said "Your lockpick skill is low, so we have to sit here in silence for 5 minutes if you want to try."

Instead he's likely to say: you lockpick skill is low, it takes you twenty minute instead of five to open the lock.

Of course, but that's not a time sink because either way the actual conversation takes two seconds. HarveyBirdman was suggesting that it should take 20 real time minutes.

Why not?

Two points:

(1) Making totally possible things totally impossible is just plain stupid. Maybe you shouldn't be able to finagle a lock of typical design if your dexterity is so low you couldn't even pick up a butter knife without dropping it. But retardo builds aside, pretty much everybody on earth can figure out the process, and so should your character.

(2) If you don't invest in lockpicking, but really want to spend 20 minutes at a time mashing a button, then more power to you. There's always a cost benefit analysis. For example:

• You have low lockpicking skills and walk into a shop a night. You see a locked chest, and decide it's not worth spending 20 minutes to unlock it, because that chest is always going to be easily accessible. Maybe you'll come back later with a higher skill, or a party member that can open it, or a magic consumable, or whatever.

• You are at the ass end of a massive dungeon. It took you five hours to get to the end. It will take you a half hour to get back out, and subsequent visits to this exact spot will accordingly take another half hour. There is a locked chest. You want to open it, but it will take you 20 minutes of autistically clicking on the chest for it to finally work. Maybe in this case, it's worth your time clicking away. Or maybe you say fuck it, I want to play the game, next time I'll prepare something to deal with locks.

***

"But Harvey, my good Birdman, doesn't this trivialize stealth? What's the point of investing skills in lockpick if you can brute force it?"

Simple, my dear Codexian. Stealth should always be in real time, even if you're doing a minigame. If you've broken into a bank and have to spend 20 minutes clicking like a madman, you're going to get caught. If you've invested in lockpick, then you're much more likely to get out quickly enough to evade detection. I'll also reiterate that (good) simulation is better than abstraction anyway, but the timing thing holds true for both.

As far as "hard" gating goes, maybe you need to invest at least one point in lockpick in order to even attempt it, for example. After all, how could you try lockpicking something if you didn't even know where to begin?

And for the record, I never said that 20 minutes is some magic number. That's just a personal anecdote on how long it took me to pick the lock to my house without any prior knowledge on the process. Maybe 5 minutes works. Maybe 35.

 

[Zombra]

HarveyBirdman
Your post is smart, but your conclusions are dumb.
Upper section:
"This behavior is dumb and boring but you can do it if you want and get rewards" is not a pillar of strong design. It is shit design justified with the weak excuse of "but freedom". A strong design has an image of the fun things the player is supposed to be doing, and rewards those behaviors.

Lower section:
(1) "Good design because realism"
Realism is a stupid, stupid basis on which to design game mechanics. Bad mechanics are bad even if they are realistic. Good mechanics are good even if they are unrealistic. Realism is nice but it is a bonus to good game design, never the meat.
(2) Making your players run an internal cost/analysis to decide whether to play your game is again the opposite of good design. Ideally a game should be enjoyable. Incentivizing your players to say "fuck this, it isn't worth it" means your game is not worth their time, period.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

HarveyBirdman
Your post is smart, but your conclusions are dumb.
Upper section:
"This behavior is dumb and boring but you can do it if you want and get rewards" is not a pillar of strong design. It is shit design justified with the weak excuse of "but freedom". A strong design has an image of the fun things the player is supposed to be doing, and rewards those behaviors.

Freedom is a strong argument, not a weak one. More options are always better than fewer.
Look at it this way: the player who does things the "right" way is just as rewarded for doing those things regardless of other less exciting options available. Your enjoyment of the game -- as a player who does things properly -- is in no way diminished.

Lower section:
(1) "Good design because realism"
Realism is a stupid, stupid basis on which to design game mechanics. Bad mechanics are bad even if they are realistic. Good mechanics are good even if they are unrealistic. Realism is nice but it is a bonus to good game design, never the meat.
(2) Making your players run an internal cost/analysis to decide whether to play your game is again the opposite of good design. Ideally a game should be enjoyable. Incentivizing your players to say "fuck this, it isn't worth it" means your game is not worth their time, period.

(1) Sure, realism is a bonus and never the meat, and it always will be until we live in a dystopian world with Matrix technology.
To the rest of your point, refer to the above.

(2) That's disingenuous. Nothing related to what I said determines whether somebody would play the game as a whole. The cost-benefit analysis is narrowly tailored to one specific mechanic. Anyway, it comes down to the following:

[Y] Without a way to get past the lock, you're sunk. Nothing wrong with that, per se. Standard RPG fair.

[Z] Alternatively, giving players an arduous yet completely plausible way to surpass their shortcomings is just another route you can take. You can always ask your DM to do some crazy roll. You should also be able to ask your computer DM to do the same. And again, if you don't want to do it, you don't have to. The flowchart goes back to [Y], and your experience is un-impacted by the availability of [Z]. This is also standard RPG fair.

 

[S.torch]

If you've broken into a bank and have to spend 20 minutes clicking like a madman . If you've broken into a bank and have to spend 20 minutes clicking like a madman, you're going to get caught.

Thanks for the laugh man.

I'll also reiterate that (good) simulation is better than abstraction anyway

And exactly how do you difference a good simulation from a good abstraction? I mean, I think the abstraction itself is supposed to simulate something so...

 

[HarveyBirdman]

And exactly how do you difference a good simulation from a good abstraction? I mean, I think the abstraction itself is supposed to simulate something so...

No hard and fast rule. If it's good, it's good. Simulation probably involves integration of the RPG systems with an action component.

Example of a good simulation: Dark Souls combat.
Example of bad simulation: Elder Scrolls combat.

Example of a good abstraction: JA2 combat.
Example of bad abstraction: IE combat.

 

[Zombra]

More options are always better than fewer.

This sounds good but is fundamentally wrong in game design. Like a child baking a cake. "I like sugar, so I'll put in 10x as much sugar as the recipe calls for." Throwing in tons of but it's optional!!! shit options is shit.

 

[S.torch]

.

But many people in the Codex says that the Dark Souls combat is not completly good for a RPG, because it takes too much into account the skill and knowledge of the player, rather than the skill and knowledge of his character within the game. So for example, someone with level 1 in Dark Souls could go and beat the final boss since the game relies too much on "simulation", while in an RPG that relies on abstractions, no matter how good you are (the player), if you didn't dedicate enough time to raise the statistics of your character, the final boss will defeat you. In this case, isn't Dark Souls ignoring the role-playing part of the RPG?

I mention this because you said that a good simulation could always be better than an abstraction. Does that apply to any case? I imagine the best thing would be a midpoint.

 

[santino27]

So we can conclude by Obsidian's trajectory, Outer Worlds will be likely modestly bugfree, but kinda boring and mediocre

Probably.

You wonder what Pillars would look like if it had been Obsidian's first game, Arcanum-style - or what it would look like if it were made 5 years later instead, when Microsoft has sucked it deep into its blobular mass and spit out Feargus's pelvic bones with a derisive burp.

You mean if MCA had been project lead instead of Sawyer? Yeah, pretty fucking different.

But, I’ve gotta say, the biggest problems with POE 1&2 seem to have two causes: either management by committee (how they settled on Fenstermaker’s less than stellar main story), or Sawyer’s bizarre stylistic preferences (he loves boring, humdrum shit and didn’t have much interest in making this kind of game). Tyranny has plenty of issues, from the lazy combat to the fact that it’s only 75% finished, but a lot of that is because they raided the budget to pay for POE.

If you look at what’s wrong with Tyranny and what’s wrong with POE 1/2, I don’t think there’s much overlap. Because Tyranny is Sawyer free.

Maybe I’m being fabulously optimistic, but in my experience good leadership makes a huge difference. The Outer Worlds won’t have Tyranny’s budget issues, or POE 1/2’s leadership issues. Until they break my heart, I will keep insisting that Tim and Leonard deserve the benefit of the doubt. Or at the very least, they deserve more trust than Sawyer or whoever was the lead on Tyranny (Matt McLean?).

Agree with the vast majority of what you said... but the talent pool at Obsidian is not particularly amazing, so even with good leadership I don't expect much more than mediocrity.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

More options are always better than fewer.

This sounds good but is fundamentally wrong in game design. Like a child baking a cake. "I like sugar, so I'll put in 10x as much sugar as the recipe calls for." Throwing in tons of but it's optional!!! shit options is shit.

Vehemently disagree.
I sense that you're confusing mandatory "options" like tacked on crafting systems (a la Witcher 3) to actual options, like the myriad creative ways to make builds of varying lethality in Daggerfall.

In this case, isn't Dark Souls ignoring the role-playing part of the RPG?

Nope. You're only going to beat Dark Souls on level 1 if you're a Korean freak of nature who spends 23 hours a day playing Dark Souls.
You could also speed run Wizardry 7 and beat it in an hour. Nobody argues that it isn't an RPG.

 

[Zombra]

I sense that you're confusing mandatory "options" to actual options.

Your instinct is incorrect. I'm perfectly aware that you're advocating unintended behaviors. It's still garbage to include them if they are garbage.

To go back to our stealth example, if it's viable for me to sneak into the bank by sitting there pressing the same button over and over for 20 minutes (including the quickload button), it doesn't mean that your design is brilliantly freeing and encourages creative thought. It means your stealth system is shit and you should have tried harder or left it out altogether.

Nothing related to what I said determines whether somebody would play the game as a whole.

It absolutely does. If your moment-to-moment mechanics are shit, your game is shit no matter how brilliant you think the big picture is. Giving me a good reason to play in a boring way reflects badly on your entire design.

Giving players an arduous yet completely plausible way to surpass their shortcomings is just another route you can take.

Of course. No one but you is suggesting that every well-designed option should be equally easy. A way to climb the cliffs behind the bank instead of sneaking in the front, but it's super hard? Awesome. But if that plausible, challenging alternate route isn't actually challenging but is instead an exploit of shit mechanics, your game is shit.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

Well Zombra, you're just wrong. We won't agree on this. No point rehashing the same arguments.

 

[Efe]

A way to climb the cliffs behind the bank instead of sneaking in the front, but it's super hard? Awesome. But if that plausible, challenging alternate route isn't actually challenging but is instead an exploit of shit mechanics, your game is shit.

this is just false. whats hard for stealth character may not be as hard for another. just because another mechanic in game provides similar rewards/access doesnt mean its not challenging or invalidates each others usefulness. you could be losing out on rewards/lore/etc or may accomplish your goal only partially by not using (or by using) stealth approach.
you are making too many assumptions (that favor your point of view) in your examples.
your sugar example is better stated as: 10 different flavors in recipe, each leading up to a satisfactory taste.
-
if you made a character that can only stealth very poorly and is unable to take any other approach, and you still savescum to get what you want then no game designer ever can satisfy you.
to see an implementation of his lockpicking example see seven days long gone. game is paused when you loot/pickpocket as long as you dont actually start taking shit, then world moves as long as it takes to take the selected item and stops again.

 

[Zombra]

your sugar example is better stated as: 10 different flavors in recipe, each leading up to a satisfactory taste.

No. If this is your essential position, then you are actually on my side of the argument. No one is suggesting that options are inherently bad. That would be idiotic. What is being suggested is that more options are always good, even if they are total garbage. 200 flavors, 190 of which will make you vomit. That is dumb. Stick with the 10 that are good.

If you made a character that can only stealth very poorly and is unable to take any other approach, and you still savescum to get what you want then no game designer ever can satisfy you.

Yet I play many games with consistently good, satisfying mechanics that are not shit. How is this possible unless you are strawmanning?

To see an implementation of his lockpicking example see seven days long gone, a game in which the mechanics are done well so it's not a valid example.

Good point. I especially like the bolded part.

 

[Dishonoredbr]

CamelWorks's preview.

 

[Dishonoredbr]

Dantics's preview

 

[Quillon]

Spacer's choice pills they cure all your ills hahahah

moar of the same: