Obsidian Strikes Back with The Outer Worlds

Dammit! I was looking forward to that one.

 

Its a damn shame because what is there is golden, it's not just finished.

 

...
So is anybody hyped for Cyberpunk then?

 

Eh I'm cautiously optimistic. I don't expect it to be an accurate representation of table top game, but if it's open enough to pass as a poor man's Deus Ex, I'll enjoy it

 

Some seem to think, or well, thought (there has been some disappointments since then, like no third person view), that it is going to be the magnum opus of the RPG genre.

 

That's over hype carried over from the Witcher 3, a game that I don't really consider a proper RPG to begin with. I think anyone with those types of lofty expectations are going to be disappointed with anything they get. I also think the developer is a at point in the hype cycle where the audience is starting to turn on them for no real reason other than to be contrarian.

 

Considering I got so bored out of the Witcher series I can say that I am not really looking forward to Cyberpunk. CDPR games have been shaped, as already discussed in another thread on these forums, to be cleverly disguised movies. Witcher's main strength came from the pre-developed lore and characters from the books, but that was the work of an ass-hole outside of CDPR. In other words - their most coveted creation's highest achievement isn't their own idea. That is not to say that the Witcher hasn't got strengths as a game - it's technical state is superb(...well, W3, that is), but it still is a boring game.

 

I did not enjoy the dialogue I've seen in the Cyberpunk trailers. On the other hand, it's not easy to find comparable games, let alone ones that are better written. Technical scope really limits the amount of potential competition.

 

Cyberpunk looks fun, but fun in the same way Witcher is. Fitting for CD. It'll probably be more fun to watch someone play than play it yourself, what with Outer Worlds being pretty fun and Oblivion still being replay worthy for me

 

I never found myself bored with it but I can definitely see why others would. It's still the gold standard as far as open world action games go, it just fails as a role playing game. The Witcher never felt like it was intentionally wasting my time the way that Red Dead 2 and MGSV did. Red Dead 2 is the biggest offender. The entire "game" part of that game is fucking atrocious.



They're not going after Bethesda at all... That being said, not particularly interested in this.

 

Witcher 3 is an ARPG, not an RPG. I don't think open world games are for me anymore though because nearly all I've played for the past year or two have been tedious timesinks. Same with Witcher 3. By the time I got to Skellige I was getting real tired of having to traverse 'anywhere'. You tell me to go from one location to the next which is ingame 200 meters over I'd groan. And in general I find Witcher 3 to be... Adequate. It's... Good? But that's about all it is for me. I don't care how good a story is, how well it is voice acted or how well they write the characters and animate them and detail the world around them. In a game I expect good gameplay. Especially if I am to sit in front of it for dozens of hours.

Witcher 3 is great as a movie. As a game I find it... Serviceable. It has good moments, it has bad moments. But most of the time the game responds in a way that I expect it to respond. It, in contrast to fucking Shadow Of War and Assassin's Creed BLack Flag; Follows its set of rules. Prior to playing it I could not stop seeing people treat it as if it was the holy grail of gaming and I don't see it. This it what I'd expect a AAA game to be. This should be the default. A game that simply works the way it is intended to. It doesn't do anything exceptionally well to make it stand out.

So when it comes to CP77 I'm uncomfortable with the amount of hype there is/was surrounding it, like I'm surrounded by a cult. I learned my lesson of hype back with Fable 2. It stuns me that people still do this.

Back on topic. This was Obsidian's first... AAa title, do ya'll who've played it see potential in it for a potential series?

 

Not really. It was too short and my choices didn't matter

 

I could see them doing another one. The setting is ripe for it. I expect the next one to substantially larger though.

 

It's nice to see a government show Bethesda, they can't just sell trash and laugh their asses off at the people who purchased Fallout 76.

 

I've got to jump in here and say that Outer Worlds was one of the most disappointing games for me. Probably the first 6 to 8 hours were fun and interesting, and then the game just falls off a cliff.

Boring and stale combat with a small selection of weapons and a baldy implemented companion skill button (and a cinematic every time? why?) The companions are pretty lame in my opinion, and the game gets too wordy, too much since the combat mechanics aren't good enough to balance things out. Interesting world overall, but the maps are pretty boring beyond the first world (driftwood I think?) and maybe groundbreaker. The side quests are so forgettable, and there are too little interesting NPCs.

Basically, it felt like a weak attempt at being Mass Effect. I got to about 25 hours in and couldn't bare to play the game any longer. It might improve later in the game, but from what I can tell, at least half of it sucks ass.

 

Could you elaborate on the Mass Effect comparison? I haven't played it.

 

it got blue lady people in it, you can stick your willy or smash your taco with one of them

 

Yeah Sure. The companion selection system is identical (minor I know) and the way you seem to talk to them, build relationships and stuff, is pretty similar. They have really non-compelling companion quests, which are pointless since companions are loyal no matter what. Companion quests had a real purpose in mass effect and affected the end game, but I can't comment on that since I haven't beaten Outer Worlds.

Both games feature a large player ship with an expanding crew, and of course an AI voice assistant. The Normandy from Mass Effect was more interesting in my opinion, having an actually emotional impact when it is destroyed. EDI is a much better AI assistant, and the banter between Joker and EDI is till better than any of the banter in Outer Worlds. Exploring the ship in ME you'll always find an interesting conversation, conversations which you look forward to after every mission. Outer Worlds tried to do this too, but the companions have the personality of a dementia victim.

Of course there's the giant ship hubworld (groundbreaker) that's similar to the Citadel. The ground breaker is visually stunning, at least the first time you view it, but it does not have the depth nor interest of the citadel, which is at its best in ME1.

I hope that satisfies your question.