The Outer Worlds information overload

In defense of romance in games, I think the idea itself has a lot of potential but it hasn't been done properly.

When we hear "romance", we expect a bunch of obvious dialogue/quest checks, before reaching the goal threshold with a possible awkward and/or hilarious payoff. Thanks mostly to Bioware for that.

Witcher probably did that type of romance best by embracing the silliness of it and turning it into a collecting game of nudes.

So much could be done with it though. You could manipulate an NPC into a relationship and/or use a relationship for personal gain, if you want to go an evil route. What would make you feel more like a bastard than romancing someone and then sending them to their death when you need it? What about finding out an NPC has been manipulating you? Characters you romance don't have to be 100% good or sane either. Jealousy, infidelity, breaking of trust and being found out, there are so many things to explore in order to create situations and interactions that are different from the regular PC/NPC stuff. It's a unique relationship type that's worth playing around with.
 
Can we not bring up this millennial bullshit? Norzan didn't say it was the incorrect meaning anyway.
 
I just set my phone to receive news alerts about this game so if I see anything I think you guys might be interested in and nobody gets to it first, I'll post it right away!

I'm pretty sure this is already known, but I'll put it here anyway. Found a better link, so I edited this. It seems they won't be pulling the "every character is essential" shenanigan.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/12/12/new-the-outer-worlds-story-details-player-choices/
 
Last edited:
Gizmojunk said:
Wait... Do you mean the use of "millennial" with its actual intended meaning?—instead of to mean something else?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what its intended meaning was, because definitions change. Kind of like how "literally" now also means "figuratively, despite the fact that figuratively is the opposite of literally.
 
as a rule i don't get hyped because i feel its a retarded practice, but guys... i'm so hyped it actually hurts.
 
yfk12 said:
It doesn't matter what its intended meaning was, because definitions change.
Click to expand...
The meaning of that post, was reference to the definition of the word Ironic.

Kind of like how "literally" now also means "figuratively, despite the fact that figuratively is the opposite of literally.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't; though I don't disagree with the common prevalence of the error.

 
Gizmojunk said:
Wait... Do you mean the use of "millennial" with its actual intended meaning?—instead of to mean something else?

No... because it isn't Fallout. It might well be a New Vegas unofficial spinoff/sequel... The way Arkane did with Arx Fatalis (of Ultima Underworld), but had this actually been a numbered Fallout title, IMO it would have not have been an improvement at all; in the same way that all of Bethesda's efforts with the IP have been detriment.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something. Do people actually think this could be a spinoff from Fallout in some way. Because I mean, this is set in space? In what looks like the far future. I don't see the connection. I see only one tonal similarity, which is the retro commercialism vibe. Which I wish they would drop, frankly.

Even mechanically, it seems a bit unfair to think of this as a Bethesda-like. It is first person with real time combat, but Bethesda certainly doesn't have a patent on that.

On the other hand, if someone was wanting a turn-based isometric game, I can understand wanting to vent...
 
Gizmojunk said:
The meaning of that post, was reference to the definition of the word Ironic.

No it doesn't; though I don't disagree with the common prevalence of the error.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does now. The dictionary people caved and added a second definition.
 
I haven't read any replies to this topic here, so if I seem off, please excuse me. I also haven't looked anything up in the net about this new title other than the initial announcement at Obsidian's YouTube channel.

And from what I've seen so far... I am afraid.

It is clear to me that Obsidian has gone down with some sort of a triple A pox. Everything a certain ex employee of that company was readily sharing over and over again rings truer right now.

Obsidian is sitting on old laurels, and the 'down bellow' at YouTube had quickly filled with Beth trashing. That isn't to say that Beth doesn't deserve it. That is to say that a new title should be evaluated on it's own merits, rather than waiting to chameleonize itself with hype through the vacuum left from another's huge blunder. And a huge blunder that was, but it makes Obsidian seem like they are playing a certain game all too well other than actually making a good game. It makes them look too predatory. Say what you will, but that never made a good game.

As far as the sporadic game-play cut scenes are concerned... it looks too familiar. Are they trying to preemptively rip a page from CDProject without Cyber Punk even being released? Is this going to be a shotgun release, aimed at filling a void after F76 and before Cyber Punk? I cannot shake the feeling that they're mixing features here, and looking at 'what works', looking at 'where the world is at', thinking a bit too much in 'wider audience.' But they are not doing it Vagrant Story style, they are doing it EA style.

I am not against a good game, but I will be very careful with this title.

No hype from me so far. And certainly no pre-order. Rest assured that I will be waiting for reviews, and/or try-before-buy.
 
Hulk'O'Saurus said:
I haven't read any replies to this topic here, so if I seem off, please excuse me. I also haven't looked anything up in the net about this new title other than the initial announcement at Obsidian's YouTube channel.

And from what I've seen so far... I am afraid.

It is clear to me that Obsidian has gone down with some sort of a triple A pox. Everything a certain ex employee of that company was readily sharing over and over again rings truer right now.

Obsidian is sitting on old laurels, and the 'down bellow' at YouTube had quickly filled with Beth trashing. That isn't to say that Beth doesn't deserve it. That is to say that a new title should be evaluated on it's own merits, rather than waiting to chameleonize itself with hype through the vacuum left from another's huge blunder. And a huge blunder that was, but it makes Obsidian seem like they are playing a certain game all too well other than actually making a good game. It makes them look too predatory. Say what you will, but that never made a good game.

As far as the sporadic game-play cut scenes are concerned... it looks too familiar. Are they trying to preemptively rip a page from CDProject without Cyber Punk even being released? Is this going to be a shotgun release, aimed at filling a void after F76 and before Cyber Punk? I cannot shake the feeling that they're mixing features here, and looking at 'what works', looking at 'where the world is at', thinking a bit too much in 'wider audience.' But they are not doing it Vagrant Story style, they are doing it EA style.

I am not against a good game, but I will be very careful with this title.

No hype from me so far. And certainly no pre-order. Rest assured that I will be waiting for reviews, and/or try-before-buy.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I actually don't see it as a massive shift for Obsidian. It looks very incongruous next to their Kickstarter projects, but if you compare it to the company's other titles (New Vegas, Alpha Protocol, KOTOR 2, etc), it's not like they all of a sudden went industry standard on us. They've been doing a lot of this stuff for a while.

From what I can see, I feel like the comparisons to other current projects and companies (CDProjekt, Bethesda) are a bit unfair. It may be true that there aren't that many AAA companies making RPGs, so setting them against each other is easy. But first person RPG is not an innovation of any kind. Nobody making games in the last decade and more deserves credit for it. So what they have shown so far looks less like them ripping people off and more like them making something fairly formulaic in terms of basic mechanics.

From reading comments from all sides about this announcement, I get the sense that a lot of fans of the genre want to put these companies in their own mental Thunderdome and see who comes out alive, then decide to like that one and hate the other two. And so Outer Worlds is either a Bethesda-killer or a blatant copycat, when I don't think it's either of those things. Obsidian is kind of just doing what they would have been doing years ago if they had been able to find funding from a major publisher instead of Kickstarter.
 
Jabberwok said:
...
Click to expand...

I will be the last man alive to turn down a good game.

But like I said, I just can't shake that feeling at the back of my head. Deadfire was the first game I bought on release in years, and it's... well, I am just not going to buy on release anymore :).

I want people to evaluate this title for it's own merits--we should begin with how System Shock-esque it looks(and may probably end up playing like), but to dismiss the fairly bog standard and, like you said, formulaic, presentation they've given us so far isn't wise at this point, imho. It may all be down just to sheer dumb luck and the added incompetence from Beth and the rest of the big budged companies, but if somebody is getting suspicious about ulterior motives(ok, granted. Everybody needs to turn a profit but...), I understand.

Worst case scenario is waving the skull and bones flag.
 
Damn, Toront beat me to it.

Anyway, this game has me pretty hyped, but then again I'm prepared for disappointment. Only two planets? There has to be more to the game than this.
 
No, because DLC is likely already planned to string the game out another year and a half after it launches.
 
Oh god... I immediately thought of day one DLC...

The last DLC I bought was for NV months ago and I can't even play them right now.
 
Two planets is fine for me I'd rather have two planets with a good chunk of area to run around in than 10 planets with only small areas to run around in like Mass Effect Andromeda.
 
Well, the game can only be so big, so if these two planets have a good amount of ground to cover, I'm game too. And like Toront said, there's DLC too. But how good the vanilla game is will determine whether or not I buy any of them.
 
Black Rose said:
Damn, Toront beat me to it.

Anyway, this game has me pretty hyped, but then again I'm prepared for disappointment. Only two planets? There has to be more to the game than this.
Click to expand...

I mean, a planet in a video game is a pretty arbitrary amount of space. He does compare it to KOTOR 2, and that was a pretty large game. I do think there were more than two planets in that game, but a planet could mean anything from one to a zillion different areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top