The Outer Worlds: Spacer's Choice Edition - Obsidian's first-person sci-fi RPG set in a corporate space colony

[rusty_shackleford]

inf*nitron will call the writers liars rather than accept that the writers were telling the truth about their own product they made

 

[fantadomat]

But Outer Worlds? What does Outer Worlds have that is worth defending? Even if I was an SJW, I would be aggravated by the games intensely lame, vapid and first-semester-just-read-my-first-summary-of-a-Gramsci-article "satire." There's simply nothing worth defending in Outer Worlds, and so I am immediately suspicious about why anyone would do that.

I don't particularly want to defend it. I just rated rusty_shackleford's post fake news and he felt that he had to reply to that, so I got drawn in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Takes a dumb kwan to draw in a jew.

 

[Infinitron]

at least we agree about the overall rating of the game I guess, but both of those posts are fairly apologetic to my mind, the last one spectacularly so. In the actual core meaning of apologism; to defend something with virtues that the something does not possess. There's nothing to indicate anything but the fairly obvious reading about corporate criticsm, and plenty, PLENTY of brainless, simple-minded dialogue that supports that it should actually be read fairly literally.

I think the game's treatment of its themes is shallow, but if you followed its development, Boyarsky and Cain dropped some hints about what they were doing. I think the game's real theme was expressed by one of its taglines: "In the corporate equation for the colony, you are the unplanned variable." The moral of the story is that a planned society will stagnate, fall apart and literally starve to death. Organic growth must be introduced to the system. They told the game's writers to watch the movie Brazil, a satirical take on 1984 which is about a quasi-communist regime. That adds credence to my belief that the pseudo-early 20th century robber baron "critique of capitalism" stuff was for them mostly just a cool visual skin.

Again, if all of this sounds trite and juvenile, that's because it is. But here's Boyarsky shortly after release appearing to reveal that he did give some thought to the game's in-world ideologies: https://blog.playstation.com/archiv...-its-new-sci-fi-rpg-the-outer-worlds-to-life/

How did you flesh out the religions of Scientism and Philosophism? Were there real world inspirations?

Leonard Boyarsky: Scientism started with its name, yet another Simpsons’ reference (their official name, ‘The Order of Scientific Inquiry,’ came later). After settling on that, I began exploring what type of religion could be worthy of that name, and what type of purely materialistic religion the corporations might espouse as a way to remove everything spiritual from their workers’ lives.

I’ve always been fascinated by Laplace’s demon, the idea that somehow the entirety of the universe could be divined if only we had enough information, so I worked that in as well in the guise of their ‘Universal Equation,’ their version of their ‘divine right’ to rule.

The name Philosophism came from Theosophy, a turn of the century mystical philosophy/religion, which, except for their shared belief in a personal experience of God, is about where the similarities end. It was designed as a specific answer to Scientism’s ordered, deterministic ideology.

We took aspects of various eastern religions and mashed them together to come up with something that was vague enough to be misinterpreted by many people in the colony and was also easy for the Board to turn into something to scare their workers with. It was also designed in such a way that there’d be an interesting gap between it and Scientism that could be filled in by Vicar Max’s spiritual quest.

 

[Grunker]

It doesn't really matter what their ambitions were, what matters is what they made. And what they made is chuck full of references to corporate structure specifically as well as PLENTY of superficial, on-the-nose criticism of corporate culture, folly and greed.

 

[Roguey]

I never understood the whole debacle about "NPCs must be killable"

It provides greater role playing freedom and is a flex on game developers, forcing them to change their stories so that they can accommodate our playstyles.

https://screenrant.com/fallout-new-vegas-outer-worlds-kill-everyone-anyone/

Cain stated that during playtests of the game their producer, Eric DeMilt, would simply shoot everyone he came across no matter what, causing them to re-evaluate the way they were gatekeeping certain puzzles. "Not only was he missing out on all the dialog," Cain said, "he made it challenging for us to figure out how to advance story lines... he didn't talk to anyone the whole game... If he saw someone, he shot them."

Boyarsky then reminded his co-worker that this was not new behavior. "You make that sound like it's a new thing," he said. "Eric was working with us at Interplay and he went - he played Fallout by punching everybody. And found a bug that way!" Seeing one of their team members completely ignore all of the hard work put in to the game's dialog was clearly slightly irritating for some of the creators, but it helped them to realize how accessible they needed to make their game's structure to accommodate different kind of gameplay styles. "So, even from way back then we've known, if you've decided you want to be able to kill everybody in the game, you need alternate ways of getting this [plot] information."

 

[Grunker]

It provides greater role playing freedom

This can be said for a million things that aren't in RPGs. The question is why is it more important than something else than provides greater role playing freedom for the same amount of development cost. I personally never gave a shit whether all npcs were killable or not

 

[Roguey]

This can be said for a million things that aren't in RPGs. The question is why is it more important than something else than provides greater role playing freedom for the same amount of development cost. I personally never gave a shit whether all npcs were killable or not

If a character annoys me, I should be able to express my frustration with them by ending their virtual life. I don't play RPGs to feel powerless.

 

[Grunker]

You could as easily argue that you should be able to jump, or to smash a computer that doesn't work

EDIT: Also come to think of it a lot of the very best RPGs make you feel powerless in many situations - whether through great C&C or gameplay difficulty

 

[purupuru]

Characters should be killable. But one shouldn't design the game's plot and questlines around it. If you break the quest you break the quest, murdering a friendly folk should bear its dire consequences.

 

[Zombra]

Living out my murder fantasies with no limits is a primary expectation of all RPGs.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Roguey]

Wow. Just wow.

If you the range of expressions is limited to "hero to anti-hero" then sure, it wouldn't make sense for your character to kill just anybody. But if the range includes outright evil, then it's dubious to put limits on whom you can kill for no reason other than a lazy designer didn't feel like supporting it.

 

[Zombra]

Here we go again. I'm mad at every RPG that doesn't add a dentistry minigame just because the designers were too "lazy" to support it.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Being able to kill every NPC is a good idea because not everyone has the same morality. For example, if I am roleplaying a lawful good paladin I will seek out and cleanse evil wherever I find it. Not being able to kill an evil NPC -- or even worse, being forced to work with an evil NPC -- would be antithetical to my character's nature.

Being capable of doing something doesn't mean you must or even that you want to do something. Choosing not to do something is as equally as important as choosing to do it, but when there is no choice it is no longer an aspect of your character but something forced upon you by the developers.

 

[Roguey]

Here we go again. I'm mad at every RPG that doesn't add a dentistry minigame just because the designers were too "lazy" to support it.

As BLOBERT so eloquently put it back in 2011

A BRO SHGOULD BE ABLE TO KILL OR TALK TO ANY MOTHERFUCKER

THE WORLD SHOULD SEEM LIKE A REAL WORLD BROS THEY COULD DOP THIS SHIT IN THE 80S

Combat is one of the actions allowed in most RPGs. There are some RPGs that decide "Yeah you can fight those who are hostile to you, but you can't initiate hostilities against these select characters for reasons." Sometimes the reasons are completely justifiable, sometimes they're incredibly flimsy.

 

[Justicar]

Being able to kill every NPC is a good idea because not everyone has the same morality. For example, if I am roleplaying a lawful good paladin I will seek out and cleanse evil wherever I find it. Not being able to kill an evil NPC -- or even worse, being forced to work with an evil NPC -- would be antithetical to my character's nature.

Fuck off with your retarted dnd alignment bullshit nigger. Real life doesen't work like this Hurr durrr Im good so I will kill everyone evil hurrrr durrrr go try that in north korea and see what happens niggeroid.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

sometimes they're incredibly flimsy.

Vendortron.

 

[Roguey]

sometimes they're incredibly flimsy.

Vendortron.

The meta-reasons for that are solid (players, especially energy weapon players, will always have a shop to buy weapons/ammo from). And it's not like New Vegas lets you destroy any building, so it's internally consistent as well.

 

[Zombra]

Combat is one of the actions allowed in most RPGs. There are some RPGs that decide "Yeah you can fight those who are hostile to you, but you can't initiate hostilities against these select characters for reasons." Sometimes the reasons are completely justifiable, sometimes they're incredibly flimsy.

Meh. Buying goods and services are also in most RPGs. So why can't I sell my mad dentist skillz? How dare they not support my dentist lifestyle. The systems are already there, they just need a little extra development to give me what I want even though it was never, ever an intended part of the game. They're so lazy!

Substitute combat for commerce and serial killer for dentist. And then substitute whatever the fuck any edge case player might want, because they're just as justified.

 

[Cael]

Being able to kill every NPC is a good idea because not everyone has the same morality. For example, if I am roleplaying a lawful good paladin I will seek out and cleanse evil wherever I find it. Not being able to kill an evil NPC -- or even worse, being forced to work with an evil NPC -- would be antithetical to my character's nature.

Being capable of doing something doesn't mean you must or even that you want to do something. Choosing not to do something is as equally as important as choosing to do it, but when there is no choice it is no longer an aspect of your character but something forced upon you by the developers.

This was my biggest gripe about NWN2's OC. Even if you are playing a Lawful Stupid Aasimar Paladin, you can't smite the everloving frakk out of Bishop the second you saved Shandra. That is some grade A bullshit right there.

 

[Grunker]

Here we go again. I'm mad at every RPG that doesn't add a dentistry minigame just because the designers were too "lazy" to support it.

As BLOBERT so eloquently put it back in 2011

A BRO SHGOULD BE ABLE TO KILL OR TALK TO ANY MOTHERFUCKER

THE WORLD SHOULD SEEM LIKE A REAL WORLD BROS THEY COULD DOP THIS SHIT IN THE 80S

Combat is one of the actions allowed in most RPGs. There are some RPGs that decide "Yeah you can fight those who are hostile to you, but you can't initiate hostilities against these select characters for reasons." Sometimes the reasons are completely justifiable, sometimes they're incredibly flimsy.

The world doesn’t seem real due to these factors. Otherwise it loses this realness by being unable to jump, or burn down a house, or whatever else completely arbitrary restriction you want to claim is a fundamental limit on player freedom that destroys verisimilitude.

Like I wrote about Bloodlines, a game sells immersion by being consistent with its fiction contract and adhering strictly to a coherent setting that abides by the rules it tells you are fundamental - if its themes and gameplay are otherwise compelling.

Your belief that one rule is universal to establish verisimilitude is childish, but moreover you can’t explain why it is fundamental as opposed to whatever else might restrict player freedom, which means it is also arbitrary.

If I can steal - why can’t I steal a merchant’s entire inventory?

If I can cast fireballs - why don’t they destroy terrain?

And so on and so forth. It is the Larian or Bethesda definition of “believability”, a kind of hopeless pursuit of 360 degree interaction. And it is meaningless, because it is unachievable and the development cost is quite high compared to the dubious benefits. Ironically, it often leads to a collapse of verisimilitude as the systems that are supposed to approach “realism” has the uncanny valley effect of approaching them so nearly that their unrealness is glaring. Another reason why that school of fiction design is such a waste of time.

If your design benefits a lot from having killable NPCs like New Vegas does, then it’s a good idea to design your game around that. But arguing for that rule as a baseline virtue of any RPG belies a misunderstanding of what creates verisimilitude in the first place, is arbitrary because there is no principal reason for it being chosen as a rule over other things, and thus ultimately logically leads to an unreachable ideal of 360 degree realism for game design.

 

[Justicar]

Meh. Buying goods and services are also in most RPGs. So why can't I sell my mad dentist skillz? How dare they not support my dentist lifestyle. The systems are already there, they just need a little extra development to give me what I want even though it was never, ever an intended part of the game. They're so lazy!

https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Won't_Hurt_a_Bit

You can but only in the best rpgs.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Here we go again. I'm mad at every RPG that doesn't add a dentistry minigame just because the designers were too "lazy" to support it.

As BLOBERT so eloquently put it back in 2011

A BRO SHGOULD BE ABLE TO KILL OR TALK TO ANY MOTHERFUCKER

THE WORLD SHOULD SEEM LIKE A REAL WORLD BROS THEY COULD DOP THIS SHIT IN THE 80S

Combat is one of the actions allowed in most RPGs. There are some RPGs that decide "Yeah you can fight those who are hostile to you, but you can't initiate hostilities against these select characters for reasons." Sometimes the reasons are completely justifiable, sometimes they're incredibly flimsy.

The world doesn’t seem real due to these factors. Otherwise it loses this realness by being unable to jump, or burn down a house, or whatever else completely arbitrary restriction you want to claim is a fundamental limit on player freedom that destroys verisimilitude.

Like I wrote about Bloodlines, a game sells immersion by being consistent with its fiction contract and adhering strictly to a coherent setting that abides by the rules it tells you are fundamental - if its themes and gameplay are otherwise compelling.

Your belief that one rule is universal to establish verisimilitude is childish, but moreover you can’t explain why it is fundamental as opposed to whatever else might restrict player freedom, which means it is also arbitrary.

If I can steal - why can’t I steal a merchant’s entire inventory?

If I can cast fireballs - why don’t they destroy terrain?

And so on and so forth. It is the Larian or Bethesda definition of “believability”, a kind of hopeless pursuit of 360 degree interaction. And it is meaningless, because it is unachievable and the development cost is quite high compared to the dubious benefits. Ironically, it often leads to a collapse of verisimilitude as the systems that are supposed to approach “realism” has the uncanny valley effect of approaching them so nearly that their unrealness is glaring. Another reason why that school of fiction design is such a waste of time.

If your design benefits a lot from having killable NPCs like New Vegas does, then it’s a good idea to design your game around that. But arguing for that rule as a baseline virtue of any RPG belies a misunderstanding of what creates verisimilitude in the first place, is arbitrary because there is no principal reason for it being chosen as a rule over other things, and thus ultimately logically leads to an unreachable ideal of 360 degree realism for game design.

You're arguing from the POV where combat isn't the basis of RPGs therefore your entire argument is wrong.
Destructible terrains and stealing a merchant's inventory aren't the basis of an RPG, killing things is.

 

[Grunker]

Here we go again. I'm mad at every RPG that doesn't add a dentistry minigame just because the designers were too "lazy" to support it.

As BLOBERT so eloquently put it back in 2011

A BRO SHGOULD BE ABLE TO KILL OR TALK TO ANY MOTHERFUCKER

THE WORLD SHOULD SEEM LIKE A REAL WORLD BROS THEY COULD DOP THIS SHIT IN THE 80S

Combat is one of the actions allowed in most RPGs. There are some RPGs that decide "Yeah you can fight those who are hostile to you, but you can't initiate hostilities against these select characters for reasons." Sometimes the reasons are completely justifiable, sometimes they're incredibly flimsy.

The world doesn’t seem real due to these factors. Otherwise it loses this realness by being unable to jump, or burn down a house, or whatever else completely arbitrary restriction you want to claim is a fundamental limit on player freedom that destroys verisimilitude.

Like I wrote about Bloodlines, a game sells immersion by being consistent with its fiction contract and adhering strictly to a coherent setting that abides by the rules it tells you are fundamental - if its themes and gameplay are otherwise compelling.

Your belief that one rule is universal to establish verisimilitude is childish, but moreover you can’t explain why it is fundamental as opposed to whatever else might restrict player freedom, which means it is also arbitrary.

If I can steal - why can’t I steal a merchant’s entire inventory?

If I can cast fireballs - why don’t they destroy terrain?

And so on and so forth. It is the Larian or Bethesda definition of “believability”, a kind of hopeless pursuit of 360 degree interaction. And it is meaningless, because it is unachievable and the development cost is quite high compared to the dubious benefits. Ironically, it often leads to a collapse of verisimilitude as the systems that are supposed to approach “realism” has the uncanny valley effect of approaching them so nearly that their unrealness is glaring. Another reason why that school of fiction design is such a waste of time.

If your design benefits a lot from having killable NPCs like New Vegas does, then it’s a good idea to design your game around that. But arguing for that rule as a baseline virtue of any RPG belies a misunderstanding of what creates verisimilitude in the first place, is arbitrary because there is no principal reason for it being chosen as a rule over other things, and thus ultimately logically leads to an unreachable ideal of 360 degree realism for game design.

You're arguing from the POV where combat isn't the basis of RPGs therefore your entire argument is wrong.

No, I'm not. I fully suspected the argument that Roguey's rule only applies to the core mechanics of an RPG - that is, "no no, we're only arguing that this player freedom must exist in terms of the mechanics that are in the game."

Hence why I used the example of stealing a merchant's entire inventory if there's thievery in the game, or destroying terrain with fireballs.

And it's not like these examples are hard to come up with, you can produce them endlessly, even within the confines of established game mechanics.

Destructible terrains and stealing a merchant's inventory aren't the basis of an RPG, killing things is.

Thievery is a part of many RPGs. How does your example differ from being able to pickpocket someone, but having no access to stealing a merchant's inventory?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

No, I'm not. I fully suspected the argument that Roguey's rule only applies to the core mechanics of an RPG - that is, "no no, we're only arguing that this player freedom must exist in terms of the mechanics that are in the game."

Hence why I used the example of stealing a merchant's entire inventory if there's thievery in the game, or destroying terrain with fireballs.

And it's not like these examples are hard to come up with, you can produce them endlessly, even within the confines of established game mechanics.

the core mechanics of an RPG are character customization, character advancement, and killing things.
Arguably looting too, therefore the one about shopkeepers has some merit.

So, yes, you should be able to kill everything. Because choosing not to kill things is an important part of an RPG and defines who your character is. Deciding to destroy terrain or not with a fireball has nothing to do with an RPG.

 

[Grunker]

Don't you see the absurdity your argument is leading you to? To sustain it, you must argue that "who not to kill" is a more core and interesting, character-defining choice than whatever else a designer might dream up in their vision. That's such a limiting and strange approach to entertainment