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

[Valdetiosi]

Well, The Outer Worlds has a 85% "Very Positive" rating on Steam.
It probably means that the vast majority of people on Steam are idiots, much unlike the gaming connoisseurs in this thread, that can tell an exquisite, perfect game, from a fucking terrible shit game without any redeeming qualities, as The Outer Worlds obviously is.

No stuck-up elitism at all. Nope. Idiots, all the rest of 'em Steamboyz.

If we go by that merit,

 

[Inconceivable]

Skyrim is an epic game. But yeah, I know. It's shit to the *real* gamers who inhabit this corner of the Internet.

 

[Delterius]

It probably means that the vast majority of people on Steam are idiots

they are but they are also right this time. ignore the naysayers. they are just envious of obsidian.

 

[Nano]

Well, The Outer Worlds has a 85% "Very Positive" rating on Steam.
It probably means that the vast majority of people on Steam are idiots, much unlike the gaming connoisseurs in this thread, that can tell an exquisite, perfect game, from a fucking terrible shit game without any redeeming qualities, as The Outer Worlds obviously is.

No stuck-up elitism at all. Nope. Idiots, all the rest of 'em Steamboyz.

Joined: Aug 31, 2020

 

[jackofshadows]

Skyrim is an epic game. But yeah, I know. It's shit to the *real* gamers who inhabit this corner of the Internet.

Look, is Avatar a good movie? Sure, there's some vistas to look at but that's basically it. To see how anyone praising it or recommend to others makes any person with a taste wrinkle. Same's here.

 

[anvi]

Skyrim is an epic game. But yeah, I know. It's shit to the *real* gamers who inhabit this corner of the Internet.

Tell me about Skyrim!!

 

[Butter]

ITT people getting trolled by Templar's alt.

 

[KVVRR]

Well, The Outer Worlds has a 85% "Very Positive" rating on Steam.
It probably means that the vast majority of people on Steam are idiots, much unlike the gaming connoisseurs in this thread, that can tell an exquisite, perfect game, from a fucking terrible shit game without any redeeming qualities, as The Outer Worlds obviously is.

No stuck-up elitism at all. Nope. Idiots, all the rest of 'em Steamboyz.

Fallout 76 is currently sitting at a 77% on steam. Would you say that that game is on par with Outer Worlds, too?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Well, The Outer Worlds has a 85% "Very Positive" rating on Steam.
It probably means that the vast majority of people on Steam are idiots, much unlike the gaming connoisseurs in this thread, that can tell an exquisite, perfect game, from a fucking terrible shit game without any redeeming qualities, as The Outer Worlds obviously is.

No stuck-up elitism at all. Nope. Idiots, all the rest of 'em Steamboyz.

Fallout 76 is currently sitting at a 77% on steam. Would you say that that game is on par with Outer Worlds, too?

better

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Skyrim is an epic game. But yeah, I know. It's shit to the *real* gamers who inhabit this corner of the Internet.

 

[Inconceivable]

It's OK to have high standards, guys. But you can't deny that there is some stuck-up elitism going on in RPG Codex. Been here for almost a year, and I encounter it all the time. Say something, anything, good about a certain game, and you immediately get aghast pushback on how that is the absolutely shittest game ever and you're a lesser being for thinking otherwise. The more mainstream the game is, the bigger the pushback and the insults. It's like a competition is on, on who has the highest standards and can take the biggest shit on the game, like its the way to distinguish yourself as part of the RPG codex high society.
It's too much, and gets tiresome. Claiming that a game like TOW has absolutely no redeemable qualities is just nonsense.

I'm done here. Carry on.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Skyrim is redeemed by its setting (and plethora of mods to suit one's tastes) as a decent timewaster while not being a great RPG by any stretch. TOW is mediocre in terms of gameplay and abysmal in narrative design and worldbuilding.

 

[kangaxx]

It's OK to have high standards, guys. But you can't deny that there is some stuck-up elitism going on in RPG Codex. Been here for almost a year, and I encounter it all the time. Say something, anything, good about a certain game, and you immediately get aghast pushback on how that is the absolutely shittest game ever and you're a lesser being for thinking otherwise. The more mainstream the game is, the bigger the pushback and the insults. It's like a competition is on, on who has the highest standards and can take the biggest shit on the game, like its the way to distinguish yourself as part of the RPG codex high society.
It's too much, and gets tiresome. Claiming that a game like TOW has absolutely no redeemable qualities is just nonsense.

I'm done here. Carry on.

I'd rather have somewhat monocled elitism than endless puff pieces about bang average games to be honest. There's always reddit for the latter. IMO this game is genuinely painfully average in most ways, and flat out bad in the rest. If that's "elitist" then whatever.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

90%

Spoiler

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

It's OK to have high standards, guys. But you can't deny that there is some stuck-up elitism going on in RPG Codex. Been here for almost a year, and I encounter it all the time. Say something, anything, good about a certain game, and you immediately get aghast pushback on how that is the absolutely shittest game ever and you're a lesser being for thinking otherwise. The more mainstream the game is, the bigger the pushback and the insults. It's like a competition is on, on who has the highest standards and can take the biggest shit on the game, like its the way to distinguish yourself as part of the RPG codex high society.
It's too much, and gets tiresome. Claiming that a game like TOW has absolutely no redeemable qualities is just nonsense.

I'm done here. Carry on.

Perfectly fine to have your opinions and fling shit back if you want. The trolldex encourages monkey posturing. Once you pop... you just can't stop.

But, you could be all prestigious and noble and keep your stance. You play what you like and enjoy it and share. The culture here is freedom be one an asshole or a saint or just ghost and watch like a peeper. Be the paragon of yourself and think not of the elitist wannabe king of shit flinging mountain. Its a stinky thing and always needs freshening.

 

[thesheeep]

Well, The Outer Worlds has a 85% "Very Positive" rating on Steam.
It probably means that the vast majority of people on Steam are idiots, much unlike the gaming connoisseurs in this thread, that can tell an exquisite, perfect game, from a fucking terrible shit game without any redeeming qualities, as The Outer Worlds obviously is.

No stuck-up elitism at all. Nope. Idiots, all the rest of 'em Steamboyz.

Most people ARE idiots.
We can be happy that there are at least a few corners left on the internet where the casual mindset hasn't yet lead to a complete rot of standards.
Likewise, one of the few corners where a game CAN be criticized without people being banned for going against the majority/wrongthink (*cough* Reeeera rpg.net *cough*).

Same for elitism.
It is only conceived a bad thing for those without the skills, knowledge or the will to attain them to belong to the elite.

It's too much, and gets tiresome. Claiming that a game like TOW has absolutely no redeemable qualities is just nonsense.

Seriously, you failed to counter even a single of the myriad of arguments brought up against the game.
And to provide even a single redeeming quality. Skyrim does have redeeming qualities - most of all its moddability without which something like Enderal never would exist.

Like everyone else who likes to shove crap into their faces, you just go "that's nitpicky!" "I just like it anyway!" "this is nonsense!", none of which is a valid argument.
Nobody tells you what you can or cannot like (I sure like some crappy games), but stop pretending an objectively bad game is anything but objectively bad.

It's too much, and gets tiresome.
I'm done here. Carry on.

Dude, I've been here for 14 years. Do you have any idea how much BS I've had to endure over the years?
You only step back if things start going in circles, you get bored or your arguments are defeated.
Of which I can only detect the last one here, at least in the last few pages. Not that I detected many arguments to begin with other than "you guys are mean".

 

[KVVRR]

It's OK to have high standards, guys. But you can't deny that there is some stuck-up elitism going on in RPG Codex. Been here for almost a year, and I encounter it all the time. Say something, anything, good about a certain game, and you immediately get aghast pushback on how that is the absolutely shittest game ever and you're a lesser being for thinking otherwise. The more mainstream the game is, the bigger the pushback and the insults. It's like a competition is on, on who has the highest standards and can take the biggest shit on the game, like its the way to distinguish yourself as part of the RPG codex high society.
It's too much, and gets tiresome. Claiming that a game like TOW has absolutely no redeemable qualities is just nonsense.

I'm done here. Carry on.

you're not wrong but i don't feel as if the problems people here have with the game are unjustified, bar a few exceptions (like complaining about how every female haircut is short and pozzed and whatever)
the world, c&c, characters and gameplay of the outer worlds IS incredibly bland at best. you should've been able to at least refute any of the things I've said about the game in the past few post if that weren't the case, but you didn't.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Kate Dollaryhyde was referring to one specific dialogue node. You can murder Parvati's lover in front of her and get a reaction.

That's the entire point you fucktard.
They took away player's choice because the writer herself would be offended if someone chose something she didn't like, in a game where you go around killing thousands of people of varying degrees of innocence.

Was reminded of this -- along with various other forms of changing the story to avoid offending someone such as the Deadfire examples -- when I was reading an old Swen blogpost.

http://www.lar.net/2013/07/08/the-pitfalls-of-politics-ethics-in-video-games

As the game progresses one of your generals will point out that when your armies conquer new land, this conquest is usually followed by widespread pillaging and abuse of women by soldiers. Clearly this is a serious but sadly all too recognisable crime that has been repeated countless times throughout history. In Dragon Commander you can choose to make a stand against this war crime by ordering the execution of its perpetrators, but you can just as well let it slide because you feel you need every last soldier for the war effort, and they can’t fight for dragon and country when they’re swinging from the gallows.

We sincerely hope that we can all agree the moral thing to do is punish those who rape; that this should be the evident and indeed only thing to do. But for us, the real problem we encountered here is that by design each choice should have gameplay consequences that fit with what gameplay mechanics are available in the game. And for decisions to have a real impact, they all need pros and cons; pros yes, even if a choice may be regarded by most as ethically despicable.

Attaching a pro in this particular example, for instance, felt wrong and for quite some time we therefore considered removing the situation from the game all together. But ultimately we decided to leave it in. This part of the game is about role playing i.e. you take on the role of somebody else, and if you decide to role play that person as somebody thoroughly evil, then that’s up to you.

The net result of this is of course that in several cases this may give the impression that we are letting our own convictions influence the rewards and penalties you reap for making certain decisions, but we really tried not to make this so. We did our very best not to judge and we simply tried to balance the game in such a manner that all choices lead to logical consequences. This wasn’t easy because logic and morality don’t necessarily add up.

Anyway, we ended up with a game in which giving your subjects license to do things that may be fundamentally wrong on all kinds of different levels may nevertheless benefit your march to victory. But, we’ll add that it is always possible to win the game by following your own moral compass, even if sometimes it may feel that’s not the case, because we did associate pros and cons to each decision, and while playing you never know what consequences are associated with the choice you didn’t make .

What direction different people’s moral needle points in is another matter entirely. Your north may be their south and vice versa. One may say that ‘one should act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’, but nowhere does it say that – to stay in a fantasy context – a dwarf’s view on what should become universal law does not differ fundamentally from that of an elf.

 

[Humbaba]

Kate Dollaryhyde was referring to one specific dialogue node. You can murder Parvati's lover in front of her and get a reaction.

That's the entire point you fucktard.
They took away player's choice because the writer herself would be offended if someone chose something she didn't like, in a game where you go around killing thousands of people of varying degrees of innocence.

Was reminded of this -- along with various other forms of changing the story to avoid offending someone such as the Deadfire examples -- when I was reading an old Swen blogpost.

http://www.lar.net/2013/07/08/the-pitfalls-of-politics-ethics-in-video-games

As the game progresses one of your generals will point out that when your armies conquer new land, this conquest is usually followed by widespread pillaging and abuse of women by soldiers. Clearly this is a serious but sadly all too recognisable crime that has been repeated countless times throughout history. In Dragon Commander you can choose to make a stand against this war crime by ordering the execution of its perpetrators, but you can just as well let it slide because you feel you need every last soldier for the war effort, and they can’t fight for dragon and country when they’re swinging from the gallows.

We sincerely hope that we can all agree the moral thing to do is punish those who rape; that this should be the evident and indeed only thing to do. But for us, the real problem we encountered here is that by design each choice should have gameplay consequences that fit with what gameplay mechanics are available in the game. And for decisions to have a real impact, they all need pros and cons; pros yes, even if a choice may be regarded by most as ethically despicable.

Attaching a pro in this particular example, for instance, felt wrong and for quite some time we therefore considered removing the situation from the game all together. But ultimately we decided to leave it in. This part of the game is about role playing i.e. you take on the role of somebody else, and if you decide to role play that person as somebody thoroughly evil, then that’s up to you.

The net result of this is of course that in several cases this may give the impression that we are letting our own convictions influence the rewards and penalties you reap for making certain decisions, but we really tried not to make this so. We did our very best not to judge and we simply tried to balance the game in such a manner that all choices lead to logical consequences. This wasn’t easy because logic and morality don’t necessarily add up.

Anyway, we ended up with a game in which giving your subjects license to do things that may be fundamentally wrong on all kinds of different levels may nevertheless benefit your march to victory. But, we’ll add that it is always possible to win the game by following your own moral compass, even if sometimes it may feel that’s not the case, because we did associate pros and cons to each decision, and while playing you never know what consequences are associated with the choice you didn’t make .

What direction different people’s moral needle points in is another matter entirely. Your north may be their south and vice versa. One may say that ‘one should act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’, but nowhere does it say that – to stay in a fantasy context – a dwarf’s view on what should become universal law does not differ fundamentally from that of an elf.

wtf Larian is based???

 

[Major_Blackhart]

They were at one point. Not sure if that's still the case.

 

[cvv]

Larian writing has never been pozzed like most Kwan studios but it's always been terrible, cringy and boring.

 

[Roguey]

Larian has grown quite a lot since the Dragon Commander days and with that (alongside the passage of time) comes changes to the company culture. See also CD Projekt.

 

[fantadomat]

Larian has grown quite a lot since the Dragon Commander days and with that (alongside the passage of time) comes changes to the company culture. See also CD Projekt.

Hmmm it is pretty weird since dragon commander was their best writing thingy. It would have been pretty good political game if they focused on that shit and cut out the shitty rts part. After that their writing took a nose dive. Did they lost a writer or something ?

 

[aweigh]

I recently played through the two DLCs for The Outer Worlds. I sperged a lot about it but I'll sum it up on bullet points:

- They were both too combat heavy and feature boring places to explore, and failed to provide additional context to the main game experience (unlike F:NV DLCs). One of the more crushing aspects of The Outer Worlds is how empty and disconnected it feels, which may sound appropriate for a space game but when compared to the coherent, consistent and extremely interconnected world of Fallout: New Vegas it pales in comparison.

- After finishing my entire The Outer Worlds tour of duty I was left with only one prevailing sentiment: this game had a lot of potential and it was wasted. If I had to say what my biggest problem with TOW is it would be: the game lacked focus and its tone was all over the place. Also the game's aesthetic was too busy and noisy.

- I actually ended up installing Fallout 4 after finishing TOW DLCs because I was curious if Bethesda's game was better than Obsidian's, and I ended up playing Fallout 4 on Survival mode for like a month straight (still haven't finished) and I think I can say without much issue that Bethesda's Fallout 4 is a better game than Obsidian's The Outer Worlds.

Make of that what you will... still mildly excited for The Outer Worlds 2 though.

My main criticism of The Outer Worlds is that it squandered its potential with inconsistent tone, haphazard writing or writing that didn't know what it wanted to do, and the lack of a true open world and eco-system to explore, with no centralized hub packed with content to provide an alternative for the lack. These are things that can be worked on and improved in a sequel.

 

[Cpt. Dallas]

If this game ever drifts down into bargain basement, i.e. <10USD for GOTY edition territory, I'm curious if the reviews will get worse, or better.
It's garbage tier core fanbase basically eliminates the possibility of any serious improvements through mods. A pity, that.