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

[Butter]

What's the deal with leadership? If by "leadership build" you mean increase your companion stats by improving one of your stats - it was already in New Vegas.

Not to the extent you can in TOW:

Leadership modifies much more than charisma ever did , like unlocking abilities ,how much your companions skill affects your skills , healing when use the inhaler, bonuses for after killing a enemy or when a companion is downned etc.
Its a upgrade in every way over New Vegas' Charisma.

RPG designers must be stopped.

 

[Volrath]

Do people actually still care about this game? I remember the game being painfully mediocre for the most part, a huge disappointment giving the talent involved

And then, the game and hype just faded from peoples memory faster than cancelculture on twitter

Luuuk gais, DIS IS THE REAL EDITION... *crickets* ... only 4 years too late, but now its here!

People moved the fuck on like 2 months after release. Mission failed.

They fucked up by going epic exclusive for a year.

 

[cigaretteEnjoyer_despirit]

Is this the best Alpha Protocol spiritual successor, or just the one that hews the closest to the original vision?

It seems funny now, but I think there are no games like Alpha Protocol.

At least, I haven't encountered any and given how obscure the game is (it isn't even sold on Steam anymore) I doubt we'll see any spiritual successor.

Its not a spiritual successor by any means, but I consider Deus Ex: MD to be at least a thematic successor.

 

[cigaretteEnjoyer_despirit]

The use of AI in dialog dynamics has a lot of potential. But for it to work properly, wouldn't it impact the game design negatively ? Like, purposefully restraining your creativity for the sake of safeguarding the AI specific framework ?

Feels like handmade reactivity will remain preferable for a long time to me.

Yeah, this is important. The use of AI will not make games fundamentally more robust or full of content, because the form of a game is finite, and that's due to the human 'audience' part of the equation. AI can write stuff that is then curated by a human, and then probably by AI itself. Its pointless to say insert a chatbot into the game, make the game possibly have infinite content and infinite depth, ultimately a human will only uncover a fraction of this, and if that's the case you may as well curate it and make each conversation and scene meaningful. Its like attempting to make an infinite novel or a 25 hour long movie. It is not the optimal form for a story.

 

[Cpt. Dallas]

tay.ai or DAN entirely rewriting this FTW.

 

[Ash]

Yeah it's mainly the writing - vacuous zoomer retard female writers who one pictures being on their smartphones 24/7 - but the gameplay is also a bit tired and formulaic. You'd think such old hands would have had the balls to advance the genre at least a little bit, but it's the same tired old gameplay we've seen a thousand times by now, with nothing really to make you as interested in again it as you were the first few times you played that sort of game.

Umm, no? The gameplay is also quite trash. I wish it were the same thing from before. Let's use New Vegas as a point of reference, since the gameplay style is the same and it's the same dev studio; It's missing over half of the gameplay content! Simplified RPG systems, less quests, smaller world, less guns, no perks, less general systems such as the survival, condition management and health ones in NV (radiation, localized health, weapon repair), less enemy types, there is almost nothing different in its place too. A dodge button, explosive barrels and sprinting is about it.

The writing is the most noticeable aspect to most because it's so grating and stupid, but the gameplay while not absolute trite we see with most modern games is simply not up to ARPG standards even a little bit, it's just about barely serviceable for one playthrough.

 

[Tyranicon]

Umm, no? The gameplay is also quite trash. I wish it were the same thing from before. Let's use New Vegas as a point of reference, since the gameplay style is the same and it's the same dev studio; It's missing over half of the gameplay content! Simplified RPG systems, less quests, smaller world, less guns, no perks, less general systems such as the survival, condition management and health ones in NV (radiation, localized health, weapon repair), less enemy types, there is almost nothing different in its place too. A dodge button, explosive barrels and sprinting is about it.

The writing is the most noticeable aspect to most because it's so grating and stupid, but the gameplay while not absolute trite we see with most modern games is simply not up to ARPG standards even a little bit, it's just about barely serviceable for one playthrough.

This game is simply not comparable to F:NV in any way, other than to see the areas where it failed.

 

[soulburner]

The comparisons to FNV are what hurts this game. Everybody, marketing included, thought it's Fallout but different enough to not be called Fallout and infringe on Fallout copyrights.

When treated as a small game with over the top Firefly-esque humour (but turned up a few notches and never taking anything seriously) - it's actually pretty good.
Just stop comparing it to New Vegas and you're gonna enjoy it.
Or not - it's a different game.

 

[Lemming42]

The New Vegas comparisons are sort of inevitable - you're placed in an open world and asked to ally yourself with various factions, who send you on quests that can usually be resolved by some ultra-convenient [Dialogue Skill Check]. In terms of mechanics it's notably thinner than New Vegas but the core gameplay loop of walking towards quest targets while trudging through an overworld where random nameless people and animals take potshots at you is almost the exact same in both games. I think the game would have invited the comparison even if it had been made by a different company.

And it feels more apt to compare it with New Vegas than, say, Fallout 3 or Skyrim, because Fo3 and Skyrim are theme park worlds full of nonsensical shit designed to amuse the player, whereas TOW sort of leans a bit more towards NV's approach of trying to create a world with a certain degree of verisimilitude and logical coherence.

 

[Ash]

Nah forget New Vegas. Forget OW's cringey writing. The game is OK at best, compared to actual good games let alone great ones it is just not up to par. It is missing certain nuances or just content, period. Pretty short for an RPG. Quite lacking in overall content for an RPG. Lacks the story beats to draw you in, despite good setting/premise. Promises awesome space exploration, but then you only get to go to like five locations, some of which are tiny. If it didn't fail in even this one regard alone, it could have been a whole lot more likable. OK so forget all that, the meat is the combat/level design/exploration/build choice "loop", that's what most of the game ultimately is, and...it's just OK at best. Even pretty repetitive by the third planet or whatever. even worse when you have a woke companion shouting cringey shit in your ear the whole time (never play these bethesda-derived games with companions, EVER. Except maybe hardcore mode New Vegas as they dont completely break the game and are a bit more likeable than the normal roster of companions).

 

[cigaretteEnjoyer_despirit]

The comparisons to FNV are what hurts this game. Everybody, marketing included, thought it's Fallout but different enough to not be called Fallout and infringe on Fallout copyrights.

I think that's actually what contributed to its success. Normies do believe this is just as good as new vegas, and similarly, many reviewers were fooled(SkillUp thinks this for example). Sure, for someone who actively distinguishes quality this is a flop compared to NV, but how many people are like that, out in the world? Without that label it would definitely do worse.

When treated as a small game with over the top Firefly-esque humour (but turned up a few notches and never taking anything seriously) - it's actually pretty good.
Just stop comparing it to New Vegas and you're gonna enjoy it.

Is that for real? Because I thought about giving it a try, mostly because I like Firefly, but everyone was saying its shit, and honestly its quite believable given the parts I've seen. Is it really salvageable?

 

[Ash]

And it feels more apt to compare it with New Vegas than, say, Fallout 3 or Skyrim, because Fo3 and Skyrim are theme park worlds full of nonsensical shit designed to amuse the player, whereas TOW sort of leans a bit more towards NV's approach of trying to create a world with a certain degree of verisimilitude and logical coherence.

Yes, but also theme park design too. All the best RPGs have a theme park base, with effort to tie it all together coherently/illusion of an organic place sprinkled on top.

Who the fuck doesn't like theme parks? Places specifically designed to be optimal fun at all times (only with games there's no lineups! even better)

 

[Tyranicon]

When treated as a small game with over the top Firefly-esque humour (but turned up a few notches and never taking anything seriously) - it's actually pretty good.
Just stop comparing it to New Vegas and you're gonna enjoy it.

Is that for real? Because I thought about giving it a try, mostly because I like Firefly, but everyone was saying its shit, and honestly its quite believable given the parts I've seen. Is it really salvageable?

My opinion only, but the writing is nothing like Firefly, unless you consider a bunch of subpar writers trying their best to ape Whedon's writing style as something similar.

This game is the most 6/10 ARPG there ever was. The gunplay is mediocre at best, the writing is uninteresting, the characters will more than likely make you roll your eyes throughout the entire experience, and the RPG mechanics are... there, I guess?

This game could've been good. It wasn't that far off from being good. It didn't suffer from competency issues, but from a sloppy design philosophy and writers that pandered to modern audiences rather than chasing quality.

 

[Ash]

This game is the most 6/10 ARPG there ever was.

This was my rating too. Not the worst thing in the world, it has a framework of a functional game, effort was put in and it's absolutely playable, even has some good aspects, but ultimately it is simply not worthy. 7/10 = decent. 8/10 = good. 9/10 = stunning 10/10 = hypothetical perfection. Anything less than 7 is unworthy.

Oh, regarding gameplay. I forgot about the flaw system. Good concept, shit execution. Largely a non-feature.

 

[ItsChon]

All of you are retards. TOW was a 3/10 game with the potential to hit a 5/10 if everything was firing on all cylinders. The framework was just as shit as the product. I would love to hear the good things about this supposedly "functional" framework.

 

[cigaretteEnjoyer_despirit]

When treated as a small game with over the top Firefly-esque humour (but turned up a few notches and never taking anything seriously) - it's actually pretty good.
Just stop comparing it to New Vegas and you're gonna enjoy it.

Is that for real? Because I thought about giving it a try, mostly because I like Firefly, but everyone was saying its shit, and honestly its quite believable given the parts I've seen. Is it really salvageable?

My opinion only, but the writing is nothing like Firefly, unless you consider a bunch of subpar writers trying their best to ape Whedon's writing style as something similar.

This game is the most 6/10 ARPG there ever was. The gunplay is mediocre at best, the writing is uninteresting, the characters will more than likely make you roll your eyes throughout the entire experience, and the RPG mechanics are... there, I guess?

This game could've been good. It wasn't that far off from being good. It didn't suffer from competency issues, but from a sloppy design philosophy and writers that pandered to modern audiences rather than chasing quality.

Thanks. I knew it was not like Firefly writing wise, but Firefly is a miracle in terms of the variety of themes and overall style(not the dialogue itself), considering it was made by Whedon. It gives religion a sympathetic treatment, it portrays heroism, secessionist freedom ethos, it has a protagonist that's tragically loyal to his principles, a nice supporting cast. The way it treats idealism in general is a breath of fresh air, I mean the Janestown episode in particular, its kind of in touch with matters distinctively human(contrast this with what the fake priest from OW thinks about turning human corpses into fertilizer). Even the things that I usually dont like are presented in a way that makes them likeable. That's an achievement considering that supposedly, Whedon himself did not sympathize with the themes he portrayed, on a personal level.

Honestly I'm interested in OW primarily as a game. That might sound weird, but I'm just looking for something that has a plot, some competent gameplay, a world to explore and progress through. I do agree though, that it is good to have at least a single writer that's interested in differing ideas, and sort of appreciates them, without particularly committing to any of them. Then such person can create a variety of somewhat convincing characters with different outlooks, with ease, and there is no risk of them getting sucked by any of those, which is an advantage in this field. From what I gather thats the bit that was missing in the creation of OW.

I have to say that the setting is inherently appealing, and still Firefly enough for me. I mean it would not be the first time I'd be making up my own story or wondering what I'd put in there if it was my game. The biggest trap in this approach is that I like to read everything the game has to offer, like notes, the messages on computers, etc. And then if I give in to that craving, the writing becomes impossible to ignore, because there's nothing else. 6/10 is pretty high though. If the writing is really that self indulgent and weak, to the extent thats hard to ignore, than that might be not for me.

 

[Butter]

I give the Pillars games 6/10, and I can't even bring myself to try Outer Worlds because it looks significantly worse than that. I can't believe I was being optimistic before the game launched thinking that it would be just OK.

 

[laclongquan]

Sigh. Outer World after New Vegas is like Fallout Brotherhood of steel while we are expecting Van Buren. High expectation, plummeting result.

And the potential is there. The style is quite distinctive, really. SF in the retro 50s style. Colorful pallette after Witcher3's color range and mixing somewhat with F4's color range.

The writings dont hold everything up but dragging everything else down below the standard.

 

[koyota]

The writings dont hold everything up but dragging everything else down below the standard.

Honestly, probably best writing in the thing was the companions, it was the only part that did not just hit you over the head with capitalism parody.

----
Rogue mentioned this, but unless they change something else about the game, increasing the level cap is a wee bit pointless.....
Playing on SuperNova, game still became ridiculously easy towards the end, so did ended not even spending 10 of my levels up...

 

[Tyranicon]

I would love to hear the good things about this supposedly "functional" framework.

Functional framework is exactly what it is. TOW could, reasonably, be modded into a great game if a couple of serious people with a lot of freetime decided to do a Myrtana or Enderal on it (depending on the feasibility of modding tools, which I have no idea on this specific game/engine).

 

[Wunderbar]

(depending on the feasibility of modding tools, which I have no idea on this specific game/engine).

it's UE 4, i.e. modding feasibility tends to zero.

 

[Ash]

All of you are retards. TOW was a 3/10 game with the potential to hit a 4/10 if everything was firing on all cylinders. The framework was just as shit as the product. I would love to hear the good things about this supposedly "functional" framework.

There are not many bugs. The game plays as intended. Everything is in place with a degree of consistency and direction. It can be completed. It has a degree of overall polish. It has a degree of complexity. Some semblance of balance exists.

The game is shit but it is in no way a 3/10. It is you that is retarded. 3/10 = some slavjank half-baked thing with balance all over the place, copy-pasted level design, and half the guns AAA quality modelling and animation, while the other half of the guns are broken jank with no tweening. But hey, it can just about be completed, but not without a great deal of boredom and frustration with maybe a handful of interesting parts. As an example of what a 3/10 might look like.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

6/10 is p much a "good for what it is" territory.

This game is not good for what it is.

 

[Spectacle]

TOW isn't bad, it's just thouroughly mediocre in absolutely every way. A game that's mostly mediocre can still be good if it has one or two standout features, but TOW really doesn't have anything.

 

[Hammer Of The Heretics]

So 5/10, then?