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

[Roguey]

Would more money even help here? I remember watching interviews with Cain and Boyarsky years ago and it always sounded like it was more of an issue of time rather than budget.

Time is also budget.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

 

[Lemming42]

Giving this another chance since it's free. It's kind of tolerable when you go into it knowing what to expect (ie nothing great). I feel like many of its problems came from them desperately trying to make what they perceive of as "an Obsidian game" - the marketing even says it's a game "in the Obsidian tradition" or some bullshit. Like they just went through a checklist of shit they imagine people expect from their games, with obvious heavy reference to NV, except it turns out most of what's in their games sucks unless it's tied to the Fallout setting.

The levelling system sucks so much balls too, I don't get it. Why am I investing in groups of skills rather than individual skills. Like what's the point of even having Persuade and Intimidate as different skills if I invest in them simultaneously. I guess I could wear a Hat Of +5 Persuasion or w/e but I wouldn't even know to do that prior to encountering a skill check, by which point it'd be too late to back out and put the right hat on.

 

[Baron Tahn]

The levelling system sucks so much balls too, I don't get it. Why am I investing in groups of skills rather than individual skills. Like what's the point of even having Persuade and Intimidate as different skills if I invest in them simultaneously. I guess I could wear a Hat Of +5 Persuasion or w/e but I wouldn't even know to do that prior to encountering a skill check, by which point it'd be too late to back out and put the right hat on.

But you do get it? Just because its free doesnt mean it magically improves. Its shit.

Why ARE you investing in groups of skills etc? Its shit.

Whats the point of x and y...? There is no point, its poorly designed.

You get the idea. That whole paragraph you wrote, its not irony but its gotta be something like it - Its never too late to back out and put the right game on, you know. Garbage is free it doesnt mean you have to pick it up and take it home.

 

[Lemming42]

My favourite series is The Elder Scrolls, so I'm used to sifting through shit to try and find hidden scraps of enjoyment. I'm a shit excavationist, a turd explorer. Diving boldly headfirst into a TOW playthrough and swimming down deep into Obsidian's ocean of shit is just another day at the office to me. Navigating a dull empty world with terrible mechanics and boring quests is my bread and butter.

I also replayed both Starfield and New Vegas not long ago and TOW is interesting to revisit next as a game that acts as a successor to the latter and a prelude to the former. It's interesting to see Obsidian try and fail to replicate their lightning-in-a-bottle success, and then see how Bethesda fucked the same idea up in their own unique way.

 

[Baron Tahn]

Haha fair, fair. Carry on, like a wasteland wanderer in the post apocalypse of games or something.

 

[Decado]

Suspect they'll have another PoE situation on their hands (First game sells reasonably well, second game fails due to lost interest)

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I think you're correct and that nobody really wants a sequel -- I think a large part of the original's success as the novelty, exploring the new universe, etc. But it was not good enough to warrant continued interest.

On the other hand, now being firmly in the grip of Microsoft who is looking to expand their territory when it comes to original ("original") IP, they might pump a hefty marketing budget behind this. Plus, they can always throw it on Gamepass.

That said I doubt they will hit 10 million units sold. I think they hit 7.5 if they're lucky. 10 million is immaturely optimistic. Unless, of course, the game is phenomenal and departs significantly from the first one in terms of mechanics, etc. Which it probably won't.

Would more money even help here? I remember watching interviews with Cain and Boyarsky years ago and it always sounded like it was more of an issue of time rather than budget. Sure the AA budget affected their mentality on how big the game should be, but there seemed to be just a bunch of stuff that got cut just to make the deadline and a stable game. Maybe this is also why it feels like so much of the game is just checking boxes of "stuff rpgs must have"

More money will always help but the question is "How much?" It's entirely possible that the last few years under MSFT have changed the way Obsidian thinks about games and how big to make them, because now they have deep(ish) pockets.

To me, a game like the Outer Worlds needs to be as fully open-world as you can make it. It is just too close in everyone's minds to New Vegas; the comparisons are inevitable and so is the eventual disappointment. If they're smart, they have learned this lesson.

So if they can make an actual open world game that is resourced properly, they could do much better a second time around. And I think this is where the association with MSFT could really help them. If they get the Phil Spencer special and receive the full weight of the Xbox gaming brand juggernaut behind them, the game will make some money.

 

[Butter]

All the normies I've heard talk about this game said essentially "Yeah it was all right, but I was hoping for New Vegas 2. Maybe the second one will be better with more money."

Here's the question: How many times has increased budget made for a better sequel?

 

[Daedalos]

All the normies I've heard talk about this game said essentially "Yeah it was all right, but I was hoping for New Vegas 2. Maybe the second one will be better with more money."

Here's the question: How many times has increased budget made for a better sequel?

I mean... alot of times?

Increased budget ofte leads to a better product, that's just a given, obviously not always, but often.

Keep in mind that Outer Worlds was AA, not AAA. Big difference, really.

How do you think BG3 turned out it was AA, with much less budget and time? Yeah, not really GOTY would it.

 

[Baron Tahn]

Bg3 wasnt goty, an AA game was.

Also its not really that easy a question ti answer. I had to think for a few minutes before I came up with one and it was Total War - but that had its ups and downs, not every bigger variation was better than the last.

Most games really are better before they hit the big time amd then tend to decline. Shadow magic was better than AOW but 3 and 4 were worse, Monkey Island 2 was better than 1...

There are examples of course but it aint clear cut.

 

[Yosharian]

> the comparisons are inevitable and so is the eventual disappointment

Not really, I wasn't expecting FNV2 or anything, just a game of the same general quality or as near to it as possible

You're painting it as if Obsidian had an impossible task ahead of them; they didn't, they just had to make a game that wasn't shit. They failed

It's not like FNV was a perfect game, there was plenty of room for improvement there

 

[Roguey]

Here's the question: How many times has increased budget made for a better sequel?

Worked for The Witcher series, Divinity Original Sin 2, and Wasteland 3.

 

[Cael]

Here's the question: How many times has increased budget made for a better sequel?

Worked for The Witcher series, Divinity Original Sin 2, and Wasteland 3.

After Wasteland 2, Wasteland 3 seemed to be a let down...

 

[Silverfish]

The levelling system sucks so much balls too, I don't get it. Why am I investing in groups of skills rather than individual skills.

I think that was done to obscure the fact that, individually, most of the skills are shit. Their effects are barely noticeable or are superseded by other skills entirely. By investing in groups, they hoped you'd at least feel like you were getting more bang for your buck.

 

[Butter]

The levelling system sucks so much balls too, I don't get it. Why am I investing in groups of skills rather than individual skills.

I think that was done to obscure the fact that, individually, most of the skills are shit. Their effects are barely noticeable or are superseded by other skills entirely. By investing in groups, they hoped you'd at least feel like you were getting more bang for your buck.

I think it's even dumber than that. Tim Cain was getting a bunch of "meh" from QA over his Flaws idea, so he wanted to reinvent the wheel with skill synergies.

 

[Roguey]

The levelling system sucks so much balls too, I don't get it. Why am I investing in groups of skills rather than individual skills.

I think that was done to obscure the fact that, individually, most of the skills are shit. Their effects are barely noticeable or are superseded by other skills entirely. By investing in groups, they hoped you'd at least feel like you were getting more bang for your buck.

I think it's even dumber than that. Tim Cain was getting a bunch of "meh" from QA over his Flaws idea, so he wanted to reinvent the wheel with skill synergies.

This is one of his ideas for how he believes he should have done Fallout. You generalize and then you specialize at higher levels. It's fine.

 

[Cohesion]

Here's the question: How many times has increased budget made for a better sequel?

Worked for The Witcher series, Divinity Original Sin 2, and Wasteland 3.

Wtf? Witcher 1 is the best Witcher. 2 and 3 are shit and decline.

 

[LizardWizard]

Here's the question: How many times has increased budget made for a better sequel?

Worked for The Witcher series, Divinity Original Sin 2, and Wasteland 3.

Wtf? Witcher 1 is the best Witcher. 2 and 3 are shit and decline.

Agreed. But Witcher 1 was kinda shit as well

 

[mediocrepoet]

Here's the question: How many times has increased budget made for a better sequel?

Worked for The Witcher series, Divinity Original Sin 2, and Wasteland 3.

Wtf? Witcher 1 is the best Witcher. 2 and 3 are shit and decline.

Agreed. But Witcher 1 was kinda shit as well

Holy cow. I've never actually played W2 or 3 (well, I played a tiny bit of each), but they're actually worse? How?

 

[Cohesion]

Here's the question: How many times has increased budget made for a better sequel?

Worked for The Witcher series, Divinity Original Sin 2, and Wasteland 3.

Wtf? Witcher 1 is the best Witcher. 2 and 3 are shit and decline.

Agreed. But Witcher 1 was kinda shit as well

Holy cow. I've never actually played W2 or 3 (well, I played a tiny bit of each), but they're actually worse? How?

Combat.
W2 - QTEs.
W3 - dodge roll spam (we have dark souls at home!).

 

[mediocrepoet]

Combat.
W2 - QTEs.
W3 - dodge roll spam (we have dark souls at home!).

DDR -> QTE -> Jank Souls?

... I'll take W3.

 

[Hellraiser]

Twitcher 1 was good for what it is despite the combat. The witcher preparation gimmick (potions, oils etc.) was great, the branching/C&C was decent, I liked the writing but I had the advantage of playing it in the original Polish and some things would just not translate well. It had the advantage of being better than expected and expectations from me were low.

Twitcher 2 somehow failed to capture what made the first great, added pure akshun combat which in the end I didn't really enjoy for some reason despiting thinking it should be a clear improvement, felt a bit short on content compared to the first game, but had the act2 branching gimmick and I guess Leto as upsides.

Twitcher 3 felt like Twitcher 2, but way longer (too long for it's own good, the mechanical side is too shallow to carry it that long, the game gets stale by the time you reach Skellige), without the act 2 branching gimmick and with a ton of garbage open world content that's pointless to engage with. Overrated thoroughly, couldn't even be bothered to finish it, dropped it somewhere in the endgame.

 

[Krivol]

Still, W3 sold better than W1 and 2.

I don't believe TOW2 will be good, but I believe Fergus believes it may sell well.

 

[Hellraiser]

Still, W3 sold better than W1 and 2.

Normie storyfaggots, graphic whores and I guess people who find the shit open world good caused it.

 

[Krivol]

Still, W3 sold better than W1 and 2.

Normie storyfaggots, graphic whores and I guess people who find the shit open world good caused it.

That's a fact. But we are talking if TOW2 would be a selling bust, not a quality, hardcore RPG for codexers

Probably TOW was not the worst game ever created, but they were trying to sell it to me as a new FNV (which I liked, probably my fav' "modern (?) open world RPG") with Tim Cain on board, and I was really, really, REALLY disappointed.