The Outer Worlds Catch-All

Possibly worth buying for the epic levels of shade cast by keeping "From the Original Creators of Fallout" in their trailer at this moment alone.

Vector wrote:

Tyranny (2016)

Tyranny wasn't all that stable. It needed multiple patches, and when I last replayed it, the Bastard's Wound expansion was still messed up pretty badly.

The game was very enjoyable, and they're tracking an insane amount of state, but bug-free it most definitely was not.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Possibly worth buying for the epic levels of shade cast by keeping "From the Original Creators of Fallout" in their trailer at this moment alone.

Endorsed.

Malor wrote:
Vector wrote:

Tyranny (2016)

Tyranny wasn't all that stable. It needed multiple patches, and when I last replayed it, the Bastard's Wound expansion was still messed up pretty badly.

The game was very enjoyable, and they're tracking an insane amount of state, but bug-free it most definitely was not.

Huh. Weird. I never played the expansions but didn’t encounter a single bug when I played it on release and didn’t read about any on here.

Environments are small but have intense detail

I am in love with this!

ruhk wrote:

I was super hyped by the initial trailer but every subsequent piece of info that drops about this game is making me incrementally less interested in a weird way that I can’t pinpoint.

To be fair, you're reading about it on a gaming forum. That'll suck the fun out of anything.

PaladinTom wrote:
ruhk wrote:

I was super hyped by the initial trailer but every subsequent piece of info that drops about this game is making me incrementally less interested in a weird way that I can’t pinpoint.

With me my interest always wanes a bit when it goes from, “wow, this could be anything!” to “yup, it’s a thing.”

That's where I am with it: in that phase of finding out what a thing will actually be instead of the ideas and emotions that the trailers can evoke. This is why I don't like cinematic trailers.

I will say that Fallout 76 is pretty much the zenith of what I've wanted from one of Bethesda's Fallout games, so I'll be curious to see what Obsidian can bring to the table with a similar but distinct property. I'm encouraged by the talk of bases and multiple planets. I'm less encouraged by the talk of companion characters.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'm less encouraged by the talk of companion characters.

And I'm the opposite. I do feel Obisidians companion and side characters are the best work they do, however.

I'll be happy as long as they're optional. If they're not, then there's a good chance I'll skip the game entirely.

New Vegas is easily the best RPG experience of the Bethesda and Obsidian produced games because it has the best gameplay related to story, companions, factions, etc.

For me, Fallout 76 is the best Bethesda produced Fallout because I can explore and loot in a more open map.

I'm hoping Outer Worlds is more like New Vegas and allows for multiple quality playthroughs, choosing different pathways and seeing how things shake out. I'm really hoping New Vegas is what this is most like and not Mass Effect as Bioware's games are too linear.

Of the two, I'd prefer something closer to Mass Effect than New Vegas. But I'll take either!
Would still rather have Pillars of Eternity 3.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'll be happy as long as they're optional. If they're not, then there's a good chance I'll skip the game entirely.

Is it the characters (writing/presentation etc.) or the gameplay of having multiple characters (or sidekicks, in the context of Fallout and ME) you don't like?

I don't think I've ever used a companion in any of the Fallout or Elder Scrolls games. Just didn't fit with my conception of the character. I -may- have used Rex and/or ED-E briefly in New Vegas.

For a game like this, maybe. If I'm basically Mal Reynolds I don't remember Mal spending a lot of time wandering around by himself without the rest of the crew. I can't say it's a selling point of the game for me, though.

Middcore wrote:

I don't think I've ever used a companion in any of the Fallout or Elder Scrolls games. Just didn't fit with my conception of the character.

A: Pack mules

Shadout wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'll be happy as long as they're optional. If they're not, then there's a good chance I'll skip the game entirely.

Is it the characters (writing/presentation etc.) or the gameplay of having multiple characters (or sidekicks, in the context of Fallout and ME) you don't like?

A little of column A, a little of column B.

Much of it—both on the writing side of it and the mechanical side of it—comes down to these kinds of games typically not being built as party-based games and then further trying to reflect the make-up of the player's particular party at all times.

Party management is usually not well-implemented. This is especially true in Bethesda's games where party members are an optional extra, but it seems to be the case in BioWare's games, as well, even though party members are mandatory. The interfaces for leveling, equipping, controlling, and otherwise managing party members just feel clunky as hell.

And with so much flexibility in who you have in your party and when, I find that the companions lose a lot of personality. Their stories tend to be siloed into side quests, and their contributions the rest of the time are reduced mostly to quips in battle. They don't have much to say during pivotal scenes, and their stories aren't meaningfully part of the game's overall storyline.

This makes perfect sense from a structural standpoint when considering that the player's party can typically consist of any combination of characters. As a writer, you need the flexibility to slot anyone into and out of those companion positions, and the best way to do that is to minimize their contributions to the critical path. The less they do in the critical path, the less you have to customize for each individual party member. But it's dramatically unsatisfying.

Keep in mind, though, that I play mostly JRPGs, where literally almost every single game in the genre for the last thirty years has been party-based. That's such a fundamental expectation that the best practices for party management and narrative are robust and well-understood. There are some different audience expectations (mostly around nebulous ideas like immersion) that keep those solutions from carrying easily over the genre boundary, but it's tough to go from one of those to a game like Fallout 4 and not be resoundingly disappointed by the clunkiness of the companion experience.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Keep in mind, though, that I play mostly JRPGs, where literally almost every single game in the genre for the last thirty years has been party-based. That's such a fundamental expectation that the best practices for party management and narrative are robust and well-understood. There are some different audience expectations (mostly around nebulous ideas like immersion) that keep those solutions from carrying easily over the genre boundary, but it's tough to go from one of those to a game like Fallout 4 and not be resoundingly disappointed by the clunkiness of the companion experience.

Yeah, companions typically being an intetgral part of JRPGs was part of the reason I was wondering.
Can only agree about companions in Fallout 4 and the other Bethesda games. But that seems to be exactly because they are optional. They cant make them an optional & integrated part of the game at the same time.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Their stories tend to be siloed into side quests, and their contributions the rest of the time are reduced mostly to quips in battle. They don't have much to say during pivotal scenes, and their stories aren't meaningfully part of the game's overall storyline.

Always thought Dragon Age did quite well in that regard. In DA1, a few of the companions arguably play much larger roles than the main character. To a lesser degree in DA2 and DA:I as well.
But I can only agree, for the most part, companions are side-characters in western rpg's.

Getting to the party a bit late, but I feel obligated to comment on the VATS/SPATS system. Seeing as they are blatantly advertising this as being "from the creators of Fallout" and it has obvious Fallout inspirations, I can't see as I'm surprised to see certain features and mechanics getting carried over. The VATS system was originally used in Fallout 1 and 2 - well before Bethesda got ahold of the franchise. In fact, I will go so far as to say that this looks more Fallout than Fallout (3/4).

Companion Characters: I really, really like the general gameplay principle of having a main viewpoint character and a bunch of companion characters. For me, having the sidekick characters in Gears and the later Halo games made the shooter gameplay much less ... boring, maybe. In ARPGs, I pretty much exclusively play minion/summoner characters and I don't play ARPGs that don't have good versions of this archetype. And, of course, I really liked all the Bioware RPGs and was always frustrated that I could only have two other characters travelling with me.

I just kind of hate the idea of being the sole agent in my virtual worlds, even though I have absolutely no desire to share them with other human beings. I like the illusion of not being the very center of attention, without having to deal with other actual human beings.

vypre wrote:

In fact, I will go so far as to say that this looks more Fallout than Fallout (3/4).

It's hard to tell from just a couple minutes of footage, but I agree, and I think this gets to a fundamental difference between the mindset of the people behind the original Fallout games (carried on at Obsidian) and what Bethesda does: Those original Fallout games were deeply rooted in Cold War era satire, and for me, it was part of what made that world sing. What Bethesda did with Fallout wasn't satire, it was caricature. Whether that was a deliberate change or a lack of understanding the difference, I have no idea.

ubrakto wrote:
vypre wrote:

In fact, I will go so far as to say that this looks more Fallout than Fallout (3/4).

It's hard to tell from just a couple minutes of footage, but I agree, and I think this gets to a fundamental difference between the mindset of the people behind the original Fallout games (carried on at Obsidian) and what Bethesda does: Those original Fallout games were deeply rooted in Cold War era satire, and for me, it was part of what made that world sing. What Bethesda did with Fallout wasn't satire, it was caricature. Whether that was a deliberate change or a lack of understanding the difference, I have no idea.

I love the Fallout series but fell in love with 1 and 2 first. And I totally agree. Made the world more cartoonish. I still loved 3, and 4 but wish it was more in line with the old ones.

Balthezor wrote:

I love the Fallout series but fell in love with 1 and 2 first. And I totally agree. Made the world more cartoonish. I still loved 3, and 4 but wish it was more in line with the old ones.

Same. They're both (F1/F2) in my favorite games list with F2 being among my top 3-5 games of all time. I enjoyed F3 and F4, but to me they were Fallout-inspired and not actual Fallout games. I never played New Vegas - so from what I've heard, that may be the exception to the rule.

I wish someone would make Fallout 1/2 EE remakes. Tried playing 1 once, but didn't get very far. The glaring hole in my RPG experience.

That Game Informer video was intriguing (though I was not a fan of their commentary), if not hugely revealing. I got a sense of what completing a mission might be like, but I'll be more interested to see details of how a series of missions may be strung together--how many missions on a planet? how much space travel are you doing? how much dialog vs. combat vs. other meaningful choices?--but it seems promising so far. I'm also quite wary of the humor. I see potential for this to be funny and potential for it to be extremely not funny. Time will tell.

Shadout wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

Their stories tend to be siloed into side quests, and their contributions the rest of the time are reduced mostly to quips in battle. They don't have much to say during pivotal scenes, and their stories aren't meaningfully part of the game's overall storyline.

Always thought Dragon Age did quite well in that regard. In DA1, a few of the companions arguably play much larger roles than the main character. To a lesser degree in DA2 and DA:I as well.

That's mostly where JRPGs have ended up as a storytelling solution: your main character who is the player avatar is largely a witness to—or, at most, a catalyst for—the journeys of other characters. Personally, I find that a lot more satisfying than being the Shepherd who guides the whole of the universe to its fate.

Outer Worlds is not going to be as big and expansive as New Vegas: https://kotaku.com/dont-expect-the-o...

To quote the article

Not that this is a bad thing. To those of us who don’t have tons of free time and love the idea of an RPG that can be finished without sacrificing an entire month to the scheduling gods, The Outer Worlds seems just perfect.

That really sums up my thoughts.

Heck if it is short enough I might be able to play as different types of characters on different' play throughs.

This specifically:

There are two planets in the game, Obsidian says, although they’re not open worlds—they’re compartmentalized. Each of them contains several areas to explore, and Obsidian says there will be plenty to do, but the scale will be very different than New Vegas.

Loving this up and down the block.

I'm wondering if I want to look up the gameplay they released or just go on media blackout now, because they've managed to sell me on the game already.

So, just enough worlds for the plural in the title to not be a lie, then.

The Two Outer Worlds didn't have the same ring.

But Two Worlds, Too was right there. Missed opportunity, for sure.

Two Worlds Too Furious
You Must Construct Additional Worlds
How Do I Hold All These Worlds

None of that is surprising to me. I figure it's going to be similar in structure to Borderlands with smaller areas.