The Outer Worlds - Obsidian's new game, like Borderlands meets Fallout: New Vegas

[Tanner Glass]

Off the top of my head, Obsidan has lost George Ziets (Mask of the Betrayer & New Vegas), Kevin Saunders (Sith Lords & Mask of the Betrayer), and John Gonzalez ( New Vegas, his most well known contribution to it being House). Brian Mitsoda also worked there for a spell but to be fair he didn't really contribute much before leaving.

According to Avellone, Urquhart and Parker are useless assholes. The former really fucked over Tyranny by funneling funds that Paradox gave them for it into Pillars of Eternity.

And on top of that, Sawyer was supposed to be "hands off" on this project - only working in an occasional advisory capacity, despite the fact he's likely the biggest "fallout game" resource available and probably should have been front and center on the project.

 

[Vault Boy]

And on top of that, Sawyer was supposed to be "hands off" on this project - only working in an occasional advisory capacity, despite the fact he's likely the biggest "fallout game" resource available and probably should have been front and center on the project.

Wasn't Brian Fargo involved with this game? He's practically the father of Fallout, which makes this game's mediocrity worse.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Wasn't Brian Fargo involved with this game? He's practically the father of Fallout, which makes this game's mediocrity worse.

I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure he's with his new company working on Wasteland 3 and had little/no involvement in OW.

My problem with a lack of Sawyer (in particular) is that it shows through the game systems. OW has very poor gun selection and skill interaction and an armor system that may as well not exist (and has a very basic problem) - these are the kinds of things that Sawyer excels at and are pretty important for a Fallout-styled RPG.

 

[Vault Boy]

I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure he's with his new company working on Wasteland 3 and had little/no involvement in OW.

My problem with a lack of Sawyer (in particular) is that it shows through the game systems. OW has very poor gun selection and skill interaction and an armor system that may as well not exist (and has a very basic problem) - these are the kinds of things that Sawyer excels at and are pretty important for a Fallout-styled RPG.

Thinking about it, I was talking more about Tim Cain. Got the two mixed since both worked on the original Fallouts.

And yes, the fact that you more or less see the entire game's weapon selection by the time you reach Monarch is a major flaw. That's like the halfway point of the damn thing, they couldn't think up of more weapons besides MK II variants? All that does is make the already boring combat even worse since you're using the same shit you've used earlier but with better stats (which is just pissing in the wind given how easy the game is).

Never mind the lack of Josh Sawyer's influence, this game has worse weapon variety than Fallout 3 & 4. This game's like the diet version of some off-brand soda compared to any of the Fallout games except 76 (even then, that game had a nice variety of weapons).

 

[Tanner Glass]

Thinking about it, I was talking more about Tim Cain. Got the two mixed since both worked on the original Fallouts.

And yes, the fact that you more or less see the entire game's weapon selection by the time you reach Monarch is a major flaw. That's like the halfway point of the damn thing, they couldn't think up of more weapons besides MK II variants? All that does is make the already boring combat even worse since you're using the same shit you've used earlier but with better stats (which is just pissing in the wind given how easy the game is).

Never mind the lack of Josh Sawyer's influence, this game has worse weapon variety than Fallout 3 & 4. This game's like the diet version of some off-brand soda compared to any of the Fallout games except 76 (even then, that game had a nice variety of weapons).

Not just weapons, but weapon perks, customization, different ammo types, different armor types, different skills, etc.

Fallout New Vegas had a lot of customization and builds that were possible between all of the different game systems (different weapons, different armors, etc) and Outer Worlds has basically none of it.

 

[Vault Boy]

Not just weapons, but weapon perks, customization, different ammo types, different armor types, different skills, etc.

Fallout New Vegas had a lot of customization and builds that were possible between all of the different game systems (different weapons, different armors, etc) and Outer Worlds has basically none of it.

The Outer Worlds is sorely lacking in those categories in comparison to even Fallout 3 & 4. For god's sake, unarmed and explosive weapons aren't even featured (with the exception of that grenade launcher, but that's just a heavy weapon), and those two categories aren't all that prominent for the Bethesda Fallouts (except Fallout 76, funnily enough).

As it is, Obsidian has a long way to go if they want to top those two games, let alone New Vegas.

 

[HeyYou]

The Outer Worlds is sorely lacking in those categories in comparison to even Fallout 3 & 4. For god's sake, unarmed and explosive weapons aren't even featured (with the exception of that grenade launcher, but that's just a heavy weapon), and those two categories aren't all that prominent for the Bethesda Fallouts (except Fallout 76, funnily enough).

As it is, Obsidian has a long way to go if they want to top those two games, let alone New Vegas.

Outer Worlds is pretty much on par with 3 in terms of weapon selection, and I think it beats it out if you compare just guns. People forget just how lacking 3 was, and it's understandable because it was Bethesda's first outing. I get that it's annoying that this game was/is constantly being compared to Bethesda's Fallout games, but you don't need to bring it up as much as you do. If you prefer 3 and 4 and think this game is weaker than both, then more power to you. I do think that Bethesda can learn from this game that people want roleplaying back in Fallout, because it's almost entirely removed from 4.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Outer Worlds is pretty much on par with 3 in terms of weapon selection, and I think it beats it out if you compare just guns. People forget just how lacking 3 was, and it's understandable because it was Bethesda's first outing. I get that it's annoying that this game was/is constantly being compared to Bethesda's Fallout games, but you don't need to bring it up as much as you do. If you prefer 3 and 4 and think this game is weaker than both, then more power to you. I do think that Bethesda can learn from this game that people want roleplaying back in Fallout, because it's almost entirely removed from 4.

The point is more that most guns in Outer Worlds are virtually identical and aren't differentiated in any meaningful way in the game. The game has very few weapons and they're spread really thin to a point where the skill that's supposed to help (Engineer) can't keep it going. You're forced to change weapons just because the few weapons you have are (essentially) level locked.

The only slight differentiation is "slower/single shot" weapons and "faster/spread weapons" and every weapons falls pretty neatly into one of those catagories; with the exception of the Science weapons.

Every shotgun is basically identical, every rifle is basically identical, and so on. Every character can use any weapon and the only thought you ever have to put into it is "bigger number better". In other games (not just fallout games) - weapon choice/build is something that's typically character defining and it's a core roleplaying concept that is thrown in the garbage for no reason.

 

[HeyYou]

The point is more that most guns in Outer Worlds are virtually identical and aren't differentiated in any meaningful way in the game. The game has very few weapons and they're spread really thin to a point where the skill that's supposed to help (Engineer) can't keep it going. You're forced to change weapons just because the few weapons you have are (essentially) level locked.

The only slight differentiation is "slower/single shot" weapons and "faster/spread weapons" and every weapons falls pretty neatly into one of those catagories; with the exception of the Science weapons.

Every shotgun is basically identical, every rifle is basically identical, and so on. Every character can use any weapon and the only thought you ever have to put into it is "bigger number better". In other games (not just fallout games) - weapon choice/build is something that's typically character defining and it's a core roleplaying concept that is thrown in the garbage for no reason.

That's a problem with Fallout 3 and 4, to be honest. 4 does not require you to build a radically different character to use different guns: you can pick up a shotgun without any shotgun perks and it's as easy to use as a rifle. 3, meanwhile, has a nearly nonexistent variety of guns. You have essentially four different types of pistol if that's your niche, and you can't modify them in any way. Even further, there's three types of shotguns and one submachine gun. In almost all categories, it's just a straight up upgrade in damage. New Vegas tried to tweak this a bit (although there's still a rather obvious and admitted upgrade in terms of caliber, for instance 9mm -> 10mm -> 12.7 mm) but it's even more obvious in 3. 4 is at least saved by a rather robust gun customization system (although, even then, most of the upgrades are just stat upgrades; you have to download gun mods that truly have radically different attachments to get that feeling of choice). The reason I'd probably prefer to play 3 over Outer Worlds is that the pacing is overall much better, and it doesn't have the issue of feeling like it's winding down towards the end because it wasn't complete. But still, I don't find myself replaying 3 as much as I do New Vegas and even 4.

 

[Tanner Glass]

That's a problem with Fallout 3 and 4, to be honest. 4 does not require you to build a radically different character to use different guns: you can pick up a shotgun without any shotgun perks and it's as easy to use as a rifle. 3, meanwhile, has a nearly nonexistent variety of guns. You have essentially four different types of pistol if that's your niche, and you can't modify them in any way. Even further, there's three types of shotguns and one submachine gun. In almost all categories, it's just a straight up upgrade in damage. New Vegas tried to tweak this a bit (although there's still a rather obvious and admitted upgrade in terms of caliber, for instance 9mm -> 10mm -> 12.7 mm) but it's even more obvious in 3. 4 is at least saved by a rather robust gun customization system (although, even then, most of the upgrades are just stat upgrades; you have to download gun mods that truly have radically different attachments to get that feeling of choice). The reason I'd probably prefer to play 3 over Outer Worlds is that the pacing is overall much better, and it doesn't have the issue of feeling like it's winding down towards the end because it wasn't complete. But still, I don't find myself replaying 3 as much as I do New Vegas and even 4.

Although Fallout 3 is a bit bare (and Fallout 4 basically lets you take everything) - at a minimum a "small gun" (any pistol/revolver/rifle/etc) does more damage at skill 80 than at skill 30, which isn't something Outer Worlds does. Fallout 3 at least lets you spec a little bit into specific guns (small gun perks, energy weapon perks, one handed perks, two handed perks, etc) although New Vegas took it to a new level. Even if speccing into a skill is literally just tagging it + adding points to it, it's still a way to have a character grow.

Because Fallout has smarter damage scaling, you can actually find a "good gun" and use it for a long while because the damage scales (and increases) with your skill. One of my major problems with Outer Worlds is that you get a lot of named/unique weapons that were just too low a level to really use or care about, combined with how few weapons there already is very unsatisfying. Outside of the "science" weapons, the guns are all wet farts, and the "science" weapons are one-note.

It's a bit unfair to just beat up on Outer Worlds, but literally the same company fixed those problems in Fallout : New Vegas over 10 years ago so it's baffling that those same problems crept back in.

 

[Julias_Seizure]

One thing that kind of annoys me about this game is how far out of their way they go to make the board as evil as possible because they dont want you to side with them, sure you can side with them but its pretty clear you arent intended to.

ENDING SPOILERS


Their freeze everyone plan isnt all that bad when you consider that everyones starving to death already and if they woke up the hope colonists instead of just riding out the collapse theyd actually have a chance at rebuilding. Waking up the colonists on its own dumber than the boards plan because it makes the starvation problem far worse and would probably cause a collapse before the colonists could do anything to even attempt to fix it.

They advertised it as if they gave you actual choices then end it in the most black and white way they possibly could have even though they claimed it wouldnt be that way

 

[Tanner Glass]

One thing that kind of annoys me about this game is how far out of their way they go to make the board as evil as possible because they dont want you to side with them, sure you can side with them but its pretty clear you arent intended to.

ENDING SPOILERS


Their freeze everyone plan isnt all that bad when you consider that everyones starving to death already and if they woke up the hope colonists instead of just riding out the collapse theyd actually have a chance at rebuilding. Waking up the colonists on its own dumber than the boards plan because it makes the starvation problem far worse and would probably cause a collapse before the colonists could do anything to even attempt to fix it.

They advertised it as if they gave you actual choices then end it in the most black and white way they possibly could have even though they claimed it wouldnt be that way

The idea is that the Hope Colonists are smarter than the Board Scientists, who don't even have anything approaching a plan and casued the problem in the first place (on top of knowing there was a problem and never bothering to fix it). The Board specifically has a plan to freeze more people but has no plan (or ability, or care) to unfreeze them when the problem is fixed and a lot of the more specific plans the Board has in place already (Akande's plan for Stillwater, "Early Retirement", Monarch) just boils down to "kill everyone, less mouths to feed".

They aren't really going to fix the problem in a way that's good for anyone and will decidedly only make it worse for all involved.

 

[Vault Boy]

The idea is that the Hope Colonists are smarter than the Board Scientists, who don't even have anything approaching a plan and casued the problem in the first place (on top of knowing there was a problem and never bothering to fix it). The Board specifically has a plan to freeze more people but has no plan (or ability, or care) to unfreeze them when the problem is fixed and a lot of the more specific plans the Board has in place already (Akande's plan for Stillwater, "Early Retirement", Monarch) just boils down to "kill everyone, less mouths to feed".

They aren't really going to fix the problem in a way that's good for anyone and will decidedly only make it worse for all involved.

So unless you're playing as an evil character, why would anyone choose the Board over Phineas?

This is Caesar's Legion all over again, but at least that game had two more options to work with,

 

[Tanner Glass]

So unless you're playing as an evil character, why would anyone choose the Board over Phineas?

This is Caesar's Legion all over again, but at least that game had two more options to work with,

It's really unclear, but you also can't join the board until much later in the game (IIRC) and it's much more a "comedy evil" option rather than a supposedly compelling one.

Caesar's Legion was much more compelling in my opinion - because the faction does seems to have a lot of upside (the territory CL controls is supposed to be very peaceful and secure, they are very efficient in attacking thier goals, etc) as opposed to The Board.

 

[Adamska]

So unless you're playing as an evil character, why would anyone choose the Board over Phineas?

This is Caesar's Legion all over again, but at least that game had two more options to work with,

Caesar's Legion at least put down the raiders and tribals they forcibly absorbed and gave those they controlled a society they could actually live in.

Oh, and they had the excuse then of being cut heavily on content because Bethesda wanted them to fail to ensure they held the rights over the older Obsidian. I don't remotely know what excuse the Board has in that situation.

 

[Vault Boy]

Oh, and they had the excuse then of being cut heavily on content because Bethesda wanted them to fail to ensure they held the rights over the older Obsidian.

Blame Obsidian for not properly managing their time, they agreed to that 18 month deadline.

As far as I know, there was no deadline this time, so what the fuck is their issue?

 

[Tanner Glass]

As far as I know, there was no deadline this time, so what the fuck is their issue?

It hasn't been expressly said or stated, but there might have been an accidental deadline coinciding with the company being purchased by Microsoft.

I'm not 100% certain of the legality of buying a game studio (Obsidian) who is already slated to launch a title (Outer Worlds) that has commitments to retailers but I imagine that part of the agreement was for the game to release as planned before Microsoft would assume full and direct control. This is evidenced to me by the fact that

A) The game released on all systems and was not an XBOX exclusive.
B) Take Two (old publisher) was able to make an exclusivity deal with Epic Game Store, something that Microsoft doesn't typically do (they would go on to launch all Halo games on Steam)

With that said, I imagine that Microsoft likely pushed for Obsidian to "hurry up and finish" thier current project very quickly so they could start on the next project, which would likely be a Microsoft Exclusive. For me, it looks that way because.

A) Outer Worlds feels rushed as fuck in many places, some places comically so.
B) Outer Worlds didn't have a release date (October 25th) until June 9th of the same year. Four months is a very small window between "Announcing Release Date" and "Actual Release Date".
C) It also didn't have a full year between it's annoucement date (Dec, 201 and it's release date (Oct, 2019) which is another very small window.

It feels very likely that pre-Microsoft that Outer Worlds wouldn't have a October 25th, 2019 release date, or any release date, until much later. Microsoft purchased Obsidian in November, 2018 (possibly earlier) but probably couldn't do anything about thier existing obligations (with Take Two, Sony, and later Epic) and all they were likely able to do was to push the release out as hard/fast as they were able to do. Microsoft bought them to make First-Party, XBOX exclusive games and they'd likely like them earlier than 2023.

 

[Ruin]

Blame Obsidian for not properly managing their time, they agreed to that 18 month deadline.

As far as I know, there was no deadline this time, so what the fuck is their issue?

About half of the planets on the galaxy map are inaccessible. That combined with the announcement of "substantial story DLC" in 2020 makes me think large portions of the game were cut to sell as DLC.

 

[Vault Boy]

It hasn't been expressly said or stated, but there might have been an accidental deadline coinciding with the company being purchased by Microsoft.

I'm not 100% certain of the legality of buying a game studio (Obsidian) who is already slated to launch a title (Outer Worlds) that has commitments to retailers but I imagine that part of the agreement was for the game to release as planned before Microsoft would assume full and direct control. This is evidenced to me by the fact that

A) The game released on all systems and was not an XBOX exclusive.
B) Take Two (old publisher) was able to make an exclusivity deal with Epic Game Store, something that Microsoft doesn't typically do (they would go on to launch all Halo games on Steam)

With that said, I imagine that Microsoft likely pushed for Obsidian to "hurry up and finish" thier current project very quickly so they could start on the next project, which would likely be a Microsoft Exclusive. For me, it looks that way because.

A) Outer Worlds feels rushed as fuck in many places, some places comically so.
B) Outer Worlds didn't have a release date (October 25th) until June 9th of the same year. Four months is a very small window between "Announcing Release Date" and "Actual Release Date".
C) It also didn't have a full year between it's annoucement date (Dec, 201 and it's release date (Oct, 2019) which is another very small window.

It feels very likely that pre-Microsoft that Outer Worlds wouldn't have a October 25th, 2019 release date, or any release date, until much later. Microsoft purchased Obsidian in November, 2018 (possibly earlier) but probably couldn't do anything about thier existing obligations (with Take Two, Sony, and later Epic) and all they were likely able to do was to push the release out as hard/fast as they were able to do. Microsoft bought them to make First-Party, XBOX exclusive games and they'd likely like them earlier than 2023.

Another rush job, then. I can only hope they'll have more time under Microsoft, because these cut corners are getting old.

 

[Sir Wesley Tailpipe]

Another rush job, then. I can only hope they'll have more time under Microsoft, because these cut corners are getting old.

They’ll get the Microsoft standard “way too long in development, game cancelled, developer dismantled” treatment. God knows they can’t dodge the bullet forever.