The Outer Worlds 2

[jebsmoker]

why is tim cain even fucking with this. he should just make an indie [...] with a small cabal of highly talented people

are you people really still apologizing for this motherfucker after the ball of mediocre boredom Outer Worlds was

not really apologizing, more like intense disillusionment

 

[Infinitron]

Tim Cain may have had a relatively hands off role on The Outer Worlds after its initial conception, but Leonard Boyarsky was narrative lead and created characters like Vicar Max, etc. He seemed more invested in the game's development and was disappointed by how much content they had to cut. Remember, he left Blizzard specifically to make it.

But content cutting is obviously not an excuse here. VtM:B was a diamond despite it flaws - so excuses work there, because you can say "yeah development was shit, there were a lot of problems, but look at the core of what we produced, it's exceptional."

That's why Outer Worlds is so damning. Everything from idea to writing to design to execution - everything is bland and uninspired. Bad ideas on bad ideas.

Especially the way the villain and the plot was crafted is really indicative that these guys aren't really very clever. It's the type of stock anticorp satire I thought was hilarious when I was 13-year-old.

It's clear that Obsidian have adopted development practices that prevent them from ever aiming beyond what they can reach like Troika (or the old Obsidian) did. If they don't feel they have a high enough budget, they will intentionally design simple worlds and simple quests. We'll see what Microsoft's financial backing does for them now.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Tim Cain may have had a relatively hands off role on The Outer Worlds after its initial conception, but Leonard Boyarsky was narrative lead and created characters like Vicar Max, etc. He seemed more invested in the game's development and was disappointed by how much content they had to cut. Remember, he left Blizzard specifically to make it.

But content cutting is obviously not an excuse here. VtM:B was a diamond despite it flaws - so excuses work there, because you can say "yeah development was shit, there were a lot of problems, but look at the core of what we produced, it's exceptional."

That's why Outer Worlds is so damning. Everything from idea to writing to design to execution - everything is bland and uninspired. Bad ideas on bad ideas.

Especially the way the villain and the plot was crafted is really indicative that these guys aren't really very clever. It's the type of stock anticorp satire I thought was hilarious when I was 13-year-old.

It's clear that Obsidian have adopted development practices that prevent them from ever aiming beyond what they can reach like Troika (or the old Obsidian) did. If they don't have a high enough budget, they will intentionally design simple worlds and simple quests. We'll see what Microsoft's financial backing does for them now...

Purposely hitting mediocrity is a far worse sin than aiming for greatness and falling short.

 

[Grunker]

Tim Cain may have had a relatively hands off role on The Outer Worlds after its initial conception, but Leonard Boyarsky was narrative lead and created characters like Vicar Max, etc. He seemed more invested in the game's development and was disappointed by how much content they had to cut. Remember, he left Blizzard specifically to make it.

But content cutting is obviously not an excuse here. VtM:B was a diamond despite it flaws - so excuses work there, because you can say "yeah development was shit, there were a lot of problems, but look at the core of what we produced, it's exceptional."

That's why Outer Worlds is so damning. Everything from idea to writing to design to execution - everything is bland and uninspired. Bad ideas on bad ideas.

Especially the way the villain and the plot was crafted is really indicative that these guys aren't really very clever. It's the type of stock anticorp satire I thought was hilarious when I was 13-year-old.

It's clear that Obsidian have adopted development practices that prevent them from ever aiming beyond what they can reach like Troika (or the old Obsidian) did. If they don't feel they have a high enough budget, they will intentionally design simple worlds and simple quests. We'll see what Microsoft's financial backing does for them now.

You've reached new levels of apologetic bullshit, mate. How do limitations on quest design impact the overall design and structure of the villain and the plot? You can have a completely linear, banalass boring game design structure and still have clever satire. Outer World's satire is the most awful, uninspired, 1st-semester-critical-theory uni stuff. And the reason this is important is that this uninspiredness echoes throughout systems and design as well. There's a clear red thread here.

There is no way to excuse Outer Worlds' shortcoming through corporate decisions. The people making it simply did not have an interesting vision or a genuinely good, original idea. That was going to hamstring the project no matter the scope.

 

[Infinitron]

You've reached new levels of apologetic bullshit, mate. How do limitations on quest design impact the overall design and structure of the villain and the plot? You can have a completely linear, banalass boring game design structure and still have clever satire. Outer World's satire is the most awful, uninspired, 1st-semester-critical-theory uni stuff. And the reason this is important is that this uninspiredness echoes throughout systems and design as well. There's a clear red thread here.

There is no way to excuse Outer Worlds' shortcoming through corporate decisions. The people making it simply did not have an interesting vision or a genuinely good, original idea. That was going to hamstring the project no matter the scope.

That was apologetic? I think TOW is a mediocre title. I agree that its plot is kind of second-rate, but personally it's not what really bothers me about the game. I care about quest design and world design. See here: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...-on-eridanos-dlc.130421/page-280#post-7225202

I would add that the kind of Fallout: New Vegas-style quest design that I'm referring to there is something that I think can impart additional meaning and resonance to a game's story. It's something that can make a game more than the sum of its parts, even when the basic concept is kind of cliche.

 

[Butter]

Imagine how much more fun it would be if the player were part of the corporate structure, running missions to sabotage competitors, maybe even striking backroom deals to climb the ladder until he's an executive. The satire/commentary would stem from the player having to reconcile his fucking over regular people in pursuit of profits/promotion. You could even subvert old tropes by making the "bad ending" trying to help people at the expense of profits.

 

[Reader]

If they don't feel they have a high enough budget

But high enough to pay to Megan Starks. The "indispensable part of The Outer Worlds team. Her writing was insightful and humorous".
And as you said they cut Boyarsky content... Was he dispensable part of team then?

design simple worlds and simple quests

Like Gothic 1, right? But Gothic is a good game.

 

[Grunker]

You've reached new levels of apologetic bullshit, mate. How do limitations on quest design impact the overall design and structure of the villain and the plot? You can have a completely linear, banalass boring game design structure and still have clever satire. Outer World's satire is the most awful, uninspired, 1st-semester-critical-theory uni stuff. And the reason this is important is that this uninspiredness echoes throughout systems and design as well. There's a clear red thread here.

There is no way to excuse Outer Worlds' shortcoming through corporate decisions. The people making it simply did not have an interesting vision or a genuinely good, original idea. That was going to hamstring the project no matter the scope.

That was apologetic? I think TOW is a mediocre title. I agree that its plot is kind of second-rate, but personally it's not what really bothers me about the game. I care about quest design and world design. See here: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...-on-eridanos-dlc.130421/page-280#post-7225202

I would add that the kind of Fallout: New Vegas-style quest design that I'm referring to there is something that I think can impart additional meaning and resonance to a game's story. It's something that can make a game more than the sum of its parts, even when the basic concept is kind of cliche.

I thought it was hyperapologetic - my criticism is that Outer Worlds is pretty clear evidence that the direction was totally lost. Your response is that Obsidian's corporate approach to games nowadays was a root cause for some of the problems. That's apologetic because it doesn't directly respond to the criticism since corporate limitations do not explain away much of the mediocrity in Outer Worlds - the lame satire, for instance - even if it could be used to explain other factors.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I remember laughing exactly one time while play TOW: When you bring the book back to the Vicar and it's in French. It was a joke setup through a culmination of events, completely unexpected, and delivered well. It's one of the few positive things I remember from the game at all.

The plot isn't "kind of second-rate", it's almost nonexistent and it makes no sense. When you actually analyze some parts, they're so poorly written that you have to wonder how they even made it in the game. Like the part where you go all across a fucking star system to get a dress and other shit for your asexual companion to go on a totally not-date with another woman.
It's as if they lifted quite a few of these scenarios wholesale from another story and forgot that many of them no longer make sense in the situation given. Starving colony? Yeah, might make sense in a game say -- ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL AND DEFINITELY NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING -- an irradiated wasteland desert. It stops making sense when you have a spaceship with what seems like unlimited fuel.

 

[Grunker]

To broaden this: your point that "New Vegas-style" quest design can make a story better in terms of meaning ond resonance is another way to not respond directly to my point. The satire in Outer World wouldn't be more resonant with better quest design. The dialogue but more importantly *the central idea of Outer Worlds' satire and world building* is fucked. The idea is what's causing the collapse of the entire house of cards. You introduce better quest design to that satire you get better gameplay. It wouldn't magically affect the half-assed satire in a positive manner.

 

[Infinitron]

To broaden this: your point that "New Vegas-style" quest design can make a story better in terms of meaning ond resonance is another way to not respond directly to my point. The satire in Outer World wouldn't be more resonant with better quest design. The dialogue but more importantly *the central idea of Outer Worlds' satire and world building* is fucked. The idea is what's causing the collapse of the entire house of cards. You introduce better quest design to that satire you get better gameplay. It wouldn't magically affect the half-assed satire in a positive manner.

You could be right, but what I'm saying is that in general I'm a believer in "greater than the sum of its parts" in fictional media. I think that sufficiently thoughtful execution can elevate simple or ridiculous concepts beyond their station. I'm the kind of person who thought the Burial at Sea DLCs for Bioshock Infinite had a pretty cool story that salvaged the half-assed plot of the series. As I've said before with regards to PoE's writing, you're free to think I just have low standards.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

To broaden this: your point that "New Vegas-style" quest design can make a story better in terms of meaning ond resonance is another way to not respond directly to my point. The satire in Outer World wouldn't be more resonant with better quest design. The dialogue but more importantly *the central idea of Outer Worlds' satire and world building* is fucked. The idea is what's causing the collapse of the entire house of cards. You introduce better quest design to that satire you get better gameplay. It wouldn't magically affect the half-assed satire in a positive manner.

You could be right, but what I'm saying is that in general I'm a believer in "greater than the sum of its parts" in video games. I think that sufficiently thoughtful execution can elevate simple or ridiculous concepts beyond their station. I'm the kind of person who thought the story of the Burial at Sea DLCs for Bioshock Infinite was pretty cool and salvaged the half-assed plot of the main game. As I've said before with regards to PoE's writing, you're free to think I just have low standards.

The problem is that it simply cannot be salvaged without rewriting massive parts of the established universe. The foundation for a better game is not there.
Contrast this to FO4's Far Harbor DLC which is very different from the main game itself. It did not have to rewrite large portions of the universe, it did not have to massively change settings and characters. They took things that they already had(either through inheriting them or otherwise) that were good and did away with those that were not.

There is no way this can be done for The Outer Worlds. You fundamentally cannot salvage this game without simply making an entirely new one in the process.
That is the issue with The Outer Worlds. There is no missed potential, there is no rough gem lying under the dirt. The sum of its parts are as equal to the individual parts themselves: nothing.

 

[Quillon]

Imagine how much more fun it would be if the player were part of the corporate structure, running missions to sabotage competitors, maybe even striking backroom deals to climb the ladder until he's an executive. The satire/commentary would stem from the player having to reconcile his fucking over regular people in pursuit of profits/promotion. You could even subvert old tropes by making the "bad ending" trying to help people at the expense of profits.

imagine that was the suggested "good path" by Phineas; sending us to join a corporation/putting us among a small batch of new arrivals from earth/other colonies and telling us to climb the ladder to be able to do the end goal, along the way some shadowy organization contacting us wanting us to do things their way etc alternatively player's always able the kill his way through

 

[KVVRR]

To broaden this: your point that "New Vegas-style" quest design can make a story better in terms of meaning ond resonance is another way to not respond directly to my point. The satire in Outer World wouldn't be more resonant with better quest design. The dialogue but more importantly *the central idea of Outer Worlds' satire and world building* is fucked. The idea is what's causing the collapse of the entire house of cards. You introduce better quest design to that satire you get better gameplay. It wouldn't magically affect the half-assed satire in a positive manner.

You could be right, but what I'm saying is that in general I'm a believer in "greater than the sum of its parts" in video games. I think that sufficiently thoughtful execution can elevate simple or ridiculous concepts beyond their station. I'm the kind of person who thought the story of the Burial at Sea DLCs for Bioshock Infinite was pretty cool and salvaged the half-assed plot of the main game. As I've said before with regards to PoE's writing, you're free to think I just have low standards.

The problem is that it simply cannot be salvaged without rewriting massive parts of the established universe. The foundation for a better game is not there.
Contrast this to FO4's Far Harbor DLC which is very different from the main game itself. It did not have to rewrite large portions of the universe, it did not have to massively change settings and characters. They took things that they already had(either through inheriting them or otherwise) that were good and did away with those that were not.

There is no way this can be done for The Outer Worlds. You fundamentally cannot salvage this game without simply making an entirely new one in the process.
That is the issue with The Outer Worlds. There is no missed potential, there is no rough gem lying under the dirt. The sum of its parts are as equal to the individual parts themselves: nothing.

This is why I said that for the secuel they should run as far away from the colony we visited as possible. We don't really know anything about how Earth is in the setting, and they did end up in a secuel hook for exploring more about it at the end of the game, so going there COULD actually be a fresh new start.

Don't think they'll be doing that, though. It'll probably just be more corpo bad aren't we so wacky bullshit

 

[kangaxx]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[wyes gull]

Of all things, this is getting a sequel? Damn.
I mean, I suppose I should be grateful they're not ruining something else.

Can't wait for another 20 hours of the same insufferable, androgynous, snarky cunt and incompetent, castrated man copy-pasted all over a bunch of tiny planets, sometimes punctuated by interactions with that one decent character, the one Boyarsky could be arsed to write while leaving everything else to a bunch of smug, self-indulgent co-ed drones. God give me some fabulous optimism, I'm gonna need it.

 

[Grunker]

To broaden this: your point that "New Vegas-style" quest design can make a story better in terms of meaning ond resonance is another way to not respond directly to my point. The satire in Outer World wouldn't be more resonant with better quest design. The dialogue but more importantly *the central idea of Outer Worlds' satire and world building* is fucked. The idea is what's causing the collapse of the entire house of cards. You introduce better quest design to that satire you get better gameplay. It wouldn't magically affect the half-assed satire in a positive manner.

You could be right, but what I'm saying is that in general I'm a believer in "greater than the sum of its parts" in fictional media

But that is *exactly* the place I'm arguing from. That's why I highlighted Bloodlines: gameplay might be broken, bugs may be very plentiful, but it has a clear-cut vision, and all its broken parts flow into the strength of that core idea which means Vampire is more than its broken systems. So yeah, I completely agree.

Problem is: this is precisely what Outer Worlds lacks. In many ways, Outer Worlds has much more polished systems and gameplay than VtM. But since the strength of its core idea is so weak, the heart of what the game wants to do so lacklustre, nothing can save the game.

That's why my fingers are pointed at Tim and Leonard. Playing Outer Worlds you get the sense that nothing could have saved it - which is in direct opposition to VtM:B which is an idea so good it was saved despite being barely functional. There really is nothing "broken" about Outer Worlds. It's just not worth your time.

 

[Grunker]

It's not that I disagree with you entirely, btw. For instance, the movie Looper has an incredibly weak, weird premise but is saved by just being a good movie with an outstanding script and good performances. However the equivalent of that for Outer Worlds is that they took this college-level analysis of anticorp criticism and world building and somehow had the writing and design skills to make a new spin on that - maybe a subversion could have worked for instance, something that turned the idea on its head. Or like Looper; make the idea be a completely unimportant background for a story that is really about something else entirely. It is, however, clear, that the direction of the project had no such skills or vision, so your point of "but if only Obisidian had a broader concept of design space that their game directors could utitilize" is still moot, even if I grant your point that the core idea doesn't necessarily have to be incredible.

 

[Infinitron]

Problem is: this is precisely what Outer Worlds lacks. In many ways, Outer Worlds has much more polished systems and gameplay than VtM. But since the strength of its core idea is so weak, the heart of what the game wants to do so lacklustre, nothing can save the game.

OK, but we are talking about the prospects for the sequel here, not the original game.

 

[Grunker]

Problem is: this is precisely what Outer Worlds lacks. In many ways, Outer Worlds has much more polished systems and gameplay than VtM. But since the strength of its core idea is so weak, the heart of what the game wants to do so lacklustre, nothing can save the game.

OK, but we are talking about the prospects for the sequel here, not the original game.

But isn't that sort of my point? This whole debate started with me asking how people can still apologize for Cain and Boyarsky. So if these two are out or play marginal roles - sure, Outer Worlds 2 has some potential (though I fail to see what benefit continued oxygen to such an uninspired IP would have). But if they're still in charge, where would that faith come from? To quote Sick Boy:

 

[Fedora Master]

Game will be mediocre at best and forgotten about in 6 months, just like the first one.
Codex will discuss it endlessly.

 

[Bad Sector]

To quote Sick Boy:

The problem with this part is that some of the examples he gave actually went on to make good stuff after the movie was released (e.g. i always liked Sean Connery in his later movies than those made in the 80s or early 90s - some otherwise bad movies were made better just by having him).

 

[Grunker]

good stuff

No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just shite.

 

[fantadomat]

Game will be mediocre at best and forgotten about in 6 months, just like the first one.
Codex will discuss it endlessly.

Mediocre games get forgotten when there is good games to talk about.

 

[Bad Sector]

good stuff

No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just shite.

That "downfall" does happen often, but there are enough cases to the contrary to not make it a rule. And while someone's output will certainly have a generally accepted "best" work, it doesn't make every other work they've made bad - they can still make good work after their best work even if (by definition) it isn't as good as that best. And they can make good work after they produced some bad output, it happens less often but it still does happen.

Also some just always produce good work, e.g. for me Lacuna Coil never made a bad album :-P. Or in games, i never played a game from Arkane or Spiders i didn't like (though i haven't played that fairy game yet).