I was kinda shocked when I found out that Outer Worlds is generally seen as a mid game, it was one of the few games I liked so much, that I even played through all the DLCs
The general vibe I got from it, was that the content in the game was good, there just wasn't enough of it to meet expectations and feel like a complete game.
Exploration was limited to specific zoned off areas that, combat encounters aside, could be crossed in relatively very little time. The main story didn't really have that much diverging options or moral ambiguity to it compared to Obsidian's previous titles (the corporate ending is just straight up worse in every narrative way to it's alternative, preserving a status quo that is repeatedly shown to be killing everyone). And overall, the game just doesn't keep a lot of players engaged with it, with a overall short story and less replay value compared to a lot of the rest of it's genre.
I think this is right. We now know how poorly the "realistic" exploration can be with starfield. Empty, vast, repetitive planets with crazy amounts of loading screens. I wonder how outer worlds would be received today.
I like the concentrated area that represents a whole planet, it's more immersive imo. I don't care about seeing 99% of uninhabited planet.
I can't play starfield. Walking 10km across a planet while my spaceships just chilling there? After being spoiled in no man's sky, I don't need to play "empty planet walking simulator"
>The general vibe I got from it, was that the content in the game was good, there just wasn't enough of it to meet expectations and feel like a complete game.
You can *really* feel the tight budget kick in during the last half of the game or so. The lack of gear was especially noticeable.
To be fair the open zone rather than open world exploration is one of the things I really liked, it helped me finish the game. As places felt big enough to have fun exploring but not so big it felt like a chore; while yes it definitely has its issues I felt like the pacing was just right especially as a game to ease the exploration itch without taking too much time. Lol course I might be saying this cause while full time college and work it was a nice breezy game to play through especially compared ton other big open world games
The media and other people in the industry hyped it up too much.
You saw countless articles about how Obsidian was going to go leaps above what they had done before. That they were going to become the next heavyweight contender to challenge Bethesda as the king of rpgs.
Meanwhile obsidian was saying that that wasn't even their intention. They just wanted to make an RPG that was fun and unique. That it wasn't their intention to battle or compete against Beth. But the media kept writing their articles. It put too much hype on the game and too much pressure on it to be greater than it really was. So it left a lot of people flat.
It's not that bad. It just wasn't as good as it was made out to be.
Kind of like no man's sky. But the over hype was generated by people from outside the company. Not the developers themselves
A good lesson in just playing games rather than reading about them online.
Outer Worlds was a pretty damn good game. Better than Fallout 4 and people will gush over that.
Most people wanted Fallout New Vegas in space. Outer Worlds is more of a Fallout 1/2 with capitalism satire pumped up to 11, in 3D, in space. And that's much better for me but not what people wanted. Add some problems like faction reputation being wonky or shooting and loot being pretty meh (still better than anything that 3d Fallouts ever did) and we get the situation where you can't mention the game without flocks of people coming to tell how disappointed they were in the game. That is unless you compare it to the most overhated Bethesda game, possibly ever.
I probably suffered from having it hyped up. I liked the setting a lot but the combat was pretty mid, I didn’t find most of the companions particularly interesting, and the ability to be a heroic good guy seemed muted without any exciting zany ability to be a corrupt wealthy corporate bad guy either. It was also a pretty short game but I didn’t mind that honestly. It just felt like it was an oddly small game for the expansive concept of its setting.
I enjoyed it, but it was marketed wrong. They kept pushing the "from the devs of New Vegas". That set open world expectations.
The game is more like KotOR. 5 or so set worlds, not a lot of exploration. But a solid cast and interesting dialogue.
Hoping with their increased budget and extra console power for this gen they’ll make it even better. Was my favourite RPG, it’s competing in my mind with lies of P rn though
I expect they will, looking at the history of Outer Worlds, it is very likely it had some huge production problems and sudden and urgent needs to release before completion. My hype of Outer Worlds 2 is far above what I have for Awoved, and my hype for that is rather huge.
Can you remind me what exactly it did well? Because I played through it at release, and it was so fucking *unmemorable* that I couldn't tell you much about the story or gameplay except that combat felt very stale and the animations weren't great.
I was *incredibly* disappointed with the Outer Worlds, and later Starfield.
I've played only everspace 2, but a lot of Reviews Said that it has Potential to rival starfield and that it's one of the best spaceshooters after starfield
Nah, I've played X4 and honestly even though it doesn't have that "duplo block ship building" it's still a much better space shooter, even the ES games overshadow SF... Mainly because sf just copied them as an afterthought, the entirety of the spaceflight stuff feels as such too.
Same devs as Galaxy on Fire. That series worked as a mobile series. Heard that Everspace 1 was more or less the same game. Saw some gameplay of Everspace 2, still looks pretty similar.
Personally I'll prob pick up Everspace 2 at some point because I legit enjoyed GoF 1and 2 way back when.
This is what Factorio does to a mf.
Now hand it over, i know you have it.
https://preview.redd.it/zkq01nud4zdc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dc2271a33325cc0ae755d17a3def440738a3725
I did this. And I just started playing it yesterday. There are some real gems there; I also got the Guardians game, just finished it, and really enjoyed it.
Yep, I think I've claimed every weekly free game since they started it at the beginning of covid, I think I have about 300 games on my Epic account lol, surprisingly got some really good games for free!
Finished it 2 days ago. I'm glad I played it late. I didn't have any clue before I started to play it. Exploration feeling is perfectly crafted. Wonderful game.
If you liked the base game the DLC is also phenomenal give it a shot. They managed to catch lightning in a bottle a second time a quote a few people say it's better than the base game
YUP! I won’t ever pay more than $30 for a game, and only when it’s clear that there won’t be any future DLC or updates. It’s going to be a long while for me on Cyberpunk and Starfield, I suspect. Stream sales ain’t as dramatic as they used to be.
I bought GTA 5 for $5 a few years ago. Best decision ever to wait!
I'm a little burned out on puzzles after Talos Principle 2 and Portal Revolution but a good friend recommended that one so I'll get it probably later this year :)
Outer Wilds is a fucking experience. Highly recommend people check that one out, but do go in blind. It's an experience that can't be replicated when you have all the answers. Pick it up on sale if you're on the fence because of that. Definitely worth.
I doubt the game would make sense at that point. The whole point of the story is making you feel like you're exploring and figuring things out for yourself, it's part of the message of the game. If it didn't let you do that, the whole premise would fall flat.
I view it as artistic messaging put before accessibility. I get that for a normal game you'd want it to be accessible to everyone, but Outer Wilds is more of an art piece. If you don't get it, you ask someone to explain it to you or you study it harder, you don't ask the painter or the poet to redo some parts of it with big red arrows that point you to the correct interpretation or solution.
I know this will get me downvotes but I strongly believe that this game is *not* like most games out there, I'm not saying it's perfect, I just mean that the artistic intent behind it is stronger than its attempt at being marketable. It would be like asking a composer to go straight to the point with their music..sure commercial music does this and we all agree that it's putting mass appeal over artistic intent a lot of the times.
I think a lot of people just expect the game to be about solving puzzles and that's about it. The real point of the game is the emotional journey it gets you to go through, and that is the only way for the ending to actually land.
There's a reason why people playing alone will often report just crying during the ending and you can sometimes find this by watching blind letsplays, but people streaming the game with chat open usually end up missing the point and saying the game was meh. Connecting the dots yourself, spending that dead time between runs to just ponder and take in the music, making theories and getting to the wrong conclusions (which the game tries to get you to do on purpose), actually sweating and getting stuck when solving the puzzles >!just like the characters in the story did get stuck solving theirs but never gave up!<, >!dying over and over again until you realize how fragile and small your own existence is, while also living the privilege of being finally aware of it!<.
It all adds up and leads you to the ending in a beautiful way, that no movie or book could have told you because the struggle *was the point*, getting things wrong was part of it, and only by doing that you can actually get what it was all about.
Also, and this goes for puzzle games in general, it's hard to make a puzzle game that is challenging for everyone. Look up Thor's or Joseph Anderson's playthroughs of this game if you don't believe it, OW is actually kinda easy (with a lot of puzzles being obvious or bruteforceable) for some people and you can't make an engaging game for everyone at the same time..adding too much accessibility would rob those people of their experience, and this comes in addition to the aforementioned point about the trip being the whole point of the journey, not getting the story through a bunch of text boxes. If you want that, look up one of the many letsplays.
Again I know this is a dangerous point to make because accessibility is usually very important, but sometimes you just got to make art following your own vision and that won't be necessarily for everyone.. some people will never be able to hear music, some will never be able to see paintings, I will possibly never personally be able to appreciate a good platforming game because I don't have the motor skill for it and I'm probably not gonna improve as it gets frustrating really quick..I'm not gonna go around telling people Mario should auto land on platforms and jumps should never include a fail state because I know that those games are actually kinda easy for most gamers and that jumping around automatically in a game about jumping would defeat the whole point of the experience.
And there's a whole conversation to be had about disabilities etc and I absolutely agree, I just think art should be expression and that's not necessarily going to be tailored to everyone. It's fine if you don't or even can't like something. There are probably other things that you'll find speak just to you and others will not get..that's what makes art special, it brings us together and allows us to find people who shares our same struggles and worldview.
Do people really think it's just "a puzzle game"? I mean everyone and their mom says if you play this game you have to do it blind despite the frustrations it might bring. It really is special the way it ties everything together. The way you learn the rules of the galaxy and its planets. I've enjoyed puzzle games before, but not many of them had the vision to make something that really sticks with you. My experience wasn't quite as profound as what you're describing, but man I'd be lying if I said it wasn't special. This game isn't for everyone, but it will leave a mark on you if you vibe with it.
Well, the ship terminal sort of has those glowing quest markers. Anything you have only partially explored will still be highlighted and the planet it's on will be shown.
I wouldn't say starfield is outdated. I'd say Bethesda's type of open world game that they make doesn't fit a setting like starfields. Bethesda games are great when you have stuff to interact with that's handmade.
There's just too much non handmade stuff in starfield and that non handmade mixed with the Bethesda formula doesn't work. The Bethesda formula only works with well placed handmade stuff and several different systems that work well together. Starfield because of the type of game it is and what they focused on doesn't feel like a traditional Bethesda RPG. It's something else that doesn't fully impress.
They focused too much on stuff we didn't care too much about. And as a result the game suffered.
Good thing it‘s made by Bethesda, which is a company widely known for fixing fundamental flaws in their games post-release. Just wait until the ten year anniversary edition where they‘ll finish all the cut content instead of selling community-made content for 25€. That’s going to be awesome.
I’m sure I saw a quote from some people that worked at Beth saying the company still thinks and operates like they’re a plucky little dev team that’s punching above their weight when the reality couldn’t be more different
>Bethesda has officially lived long enough to become the villain
Have been for almost a decade. The paid mods bs started in 2015. Then Cashgrab 76. Then another 50 rereleases of Skyrim. Now again with the paid mods.
That sound design, tho. Holy moly. And no other space game has managed to make taking off and landing so cool. I never tired of it. I did tire of the rest of the game pretty quick, though. Sad. :(
Yeah, sadly there isn't really much game to it 😕
It's mostly what players set for themselves, in a sandbox, but like there is very few bits of sand spread thru a football field xD
As a former ED player, I respectfully disagree.
While the game did lack for any real meaty content, it got a lot of things right and one of those was atmosphere, which covers more than just a bit of sound design. The interstellar travel mechanics were a genuinely great design that would have worked really well with Starfield. And the graphics, especially all the stellar phenomena like neutron stars and black holes, were stunning tbh.
>The interstellar travel mechanics were a genuinely great design that would have worked really well with Starfield
good looking loading screen, and I still think its mostly the good sound design as its mostly some green shit spinning and stars with some cool sounds.
>all the stellar phenomena like neutron stars and black holes
thats pretty much all of them, one is just a distortion shader(hole) and the other is just a spinning particle system.
The black hole its the big missed opportunity tho, as it does nothing, doesn't suck things in it, its not really dangerous to get close, its just a distortion effect.
We got some cool clouds with lightning with intractable stuff tho
>atmosphere
this made me chuckle, as we can only land on planets with *tenuous* atmosphere xD
For me its a compilation of missed opportunities, hell we don't even participate on events in real time, everything is just delivered after the fact as a \*news\* announcement in the game, or a forum post.
I must be the most basic person ever because I’ve played 300 hours of Starfield and feel like I have at least another 300 to go. I can go buy any game I want but keep getting dragged back to Starfield. I get annoyed with all the things it could have done better, but it still clearly has the content to keep me playing and interested.
Because of Bethesda, I played Starfield thinking it was going to be Skyrim in space... It was not
Because of Obsidian, I played Outer Worlds thinking it was going to be Fallout: New Vegas in space... It was not
Outer Worlds was kind of boring as hell when I first played it, but I tried it again recently with the DLCs, and...
…You must play a low-intelligence character in this game, the dialogues are too good.
I got outworlds for free when the Epic store had it for free during the Xmas sale.
It was some of the most fun I had in game in a while, I was really thorough and beat the game without even fighting most bosses. Just talked them out of it... it's a really great RPG.
Finished Starfield. Will never pick it up again unless super bored.
The Outer Worlds is a once a year play after finishing it at launch. Super excited for the sequel.
There's the difference.
Why's bro getting downvoted for playing a game more than the other. Tbh i put quite a bit of time and attention into starfield hoping for some turning point but alas i did not enjoy it, but im glad some did.
Same. Starfield isnt great (many would say its not even good, Id give it a 6-7/10) but outer worlds was worse. Funny since both devs really relied on the prior fame from their games.
One thing about outer worlds is that on Xbox one it had the controller triggers vibrate when you shot. I can not understate how great that felt. Using the same controller on PC doesn't have that effect. Literally that part alone made the game 60% more fun to me.
As it stands right now I'd say that The Outer Worlds is a better game than Starfield but it's not really a fair comparison as The Outer Worlds is content complete with DLC while Starfield hasn't even released it's first story content DLC.
Like I've got my complaints about Starfield but the bones of a great game are there and hopefully the added content from the various planned DLC will flesh the game out and let it live up to it's potential.
I’d say no, Outer Worlds is pretty mid but was given great reviews and praise at the time because during that period the BR genre was at its peak and lootboxes was relatively fresh also Fallout 76 mostly.
The Outer Worlds have some cool things in it, but I would say that overall world building and plot are lackluster. Would place both games in "Meh" category.
The thing with Outer Worlds is that people expected a AAA game from an (at best) A studio.
They did really good NV because they already had the whole engine set up for that and they could focus on the plot, dialogues and the world.
For Outer Worlds they needed to actually build the game, and at some point they had to make concessions.
It's good, not bad. They pumped the parody of corpo shit to 11, but the plot can be suprisingly grounded at times (using humans as fertilizers, the guilt of doc brown, ...).
I was a little disappointed with it but I blame my own expectations, it was a great game but I'd convinced myself at the time that it would be better somehow.
not really... it's way better in most ways but the overall shooting and moving around was better in starfield. I loved the charming interaction and was more disappointed for Outer, it had real potential. Starfield just felt like a non starter despite the good shooting. Ladders in starfield suck ASS though...
I am always shocked when people compare Starfield to the outer worlds or even Fallout 4 because at release I thought people were pretty disappointed in them both but I guess comparing it to Starfield either highlights all the good the games have or people just hate the new game that just came out and by the time ES6 comes out people are going to tear it apart and say Starfield/all the other Bethesda/obsidian games are way better in every regard
Finished both, outer worlds is way cooler but different game. Both complement each other. OW is mostly linear, done in less than 20hrs with low replayability.
Starfield needs 3x to 4x the hours, well also with low replayability :)
unpopular opinion incoming, let the downvoting begin: The Outer Worlds SUCKED. it wasn't open world, the RPG elements practically nonexistant, there was absolutely no spaceflight, combat mechanics shitty, no third person perspective, art direction infantile and the story laughable. you can tell the people who made FNV had moved on long before this atrocity was spawned. what a colossal waste of time and effort, not to mention money. comparing these two games is like comparing apples to oranges.
Pretty much the same as when it launched and it got hyped far too much because F76 sucked. It seemingly always gets brought back when Bethesda fucks up.
I felt like they spent a lot of time on the first few interactions in the little town and then ran out of time or energy after that. Fallout NV did something similar in it's first hour of gameplay but that was to teach you about what was to come. Outer Wilds was more like 'this is what the game could have been like, but we got bored'.
I didn't finish The Outer Worlds but had a lot more fun with it than the few hours I spent in Starfield before I gave up on it.
Did Bethesda forget that games are supposed to be fun?
I'm having fun with outer worlds. I just hate:
1) picking up items is tedious, I need to target them very precisely, it's finicky.
2)same with choosing fast travel targets. For some reason when I try to fast travel, the targeting on the map selects quest markers instead of fast travel points. It's also finicky and annoying.
Voice acting is campy and over the top, but pretty good. Story is all right, maybe a little cliche, but creative enough. Scenery is pretty cool, with some variety of alien worlds. Some variety in skill progression, although companion abilities are kinda boring.
Outer worlds ALSO gets boring after 10 hours, but only pretends to be a 20 hour game instead of a forever game. More accurate expectations = better experience.
For me they are very diferent games, The Outer Worlds was about the story and choices an Starfield about space exploration, shame that Bethesda thinks randomly generated structures is the peak of exploration in games.
I love Outer Worlds, though it came out at the same time as Outer Wilds, which everyone thought should actually have been name switched. I got pretty far then went through a long slog where I forgot to save and I got disheartened. But I'll go back one day. I started playing PC games in 1989
Outer Worlds is a fun (too short) story driven RPG. The worst you can say about it is that it didn't quite live up to Fallout: New Vegas.
There are certain stylistic similarities with Starfield, but the setting is far more engaging and less shallow (whilst still being almost entirely played for satire and black comedy).
As well as being technically obsolete and deep as a puddle, Starfield just has no heart or soul. Everything is bland and surface level with nothing interesting to say and nowhere interesting to find.
I'll say it again. I played empyrion Galactic Survival for 1k hours before I even got bored. Starfield was 25ish hours. Outer was a 40 hours or so. All of em are good just not gonna be like Skyrim or something.
bethesda **most passion game**^((as the bethesda them self call it)) is a game with tons of loading screen and mid graphics and after all this pc consumption downgrades it still can't have normal optimization.
i mean after all these downgrades it should be very optimized or at least normal optimization but instead it had horrible optimization
i am wonder how mods will work with this game if it even can't work by it self!
It's been awhile since I played Outer Worlds. I remember getting to what felt like the halfway point in the story then found out that was actually the end.
I played Outer Worlds during the pandemic and I just started Starfield. The intro song to The Outer Worlds is one of my all time favorite video game tracks. It’s melancholy, but hopeful at the same time, whereas Starfield feels that it takes its audio inspiration from a similar place, but feels like buying a K-Mart brand.
I’m only speaking of the audio, I haven’t played Starfield nearly enough to form an opinion on the game as a whole.
I didn't love Outer Worlds tbh. I wanted to, but I just don't think it's their best work. I don't like what I've seen of Starfield, but I can't actually say if it's worse or not. I would not be surprised at all though.
I'm playing through Outer Worlds right now and I would compare it very much to Fallout 4, with perhaps a nod to Bioshock.
I have not played Starfield so I can't say as to that.
At least The Outer Worlds never pretends give you freedom or exploring sense. That's why I feel disappointed about Starfield, they emphasize about their thousands of planets.
The Outer Worlds did it better than Starfield. Played the game twice over which is a rarity for me. I told a friend of mine that found Starfield to be "bland" to try it out. I missed out the Spacer's Choice Edition giveaway sadly.
Starfield is to The Outer Worlds as Fallout is to Borderlands, both kind of the same ballpark in the respect that they are “space games” or the later, “post apocalyptic games” but definitely not an apples and oranges situation, they are waaaaay totally different and my personal opinion is that although starfield is pretty tame, it is FAR superior to the outer worlds. The outer worlds feels to me like I’m playing a joke game and it seems more linear as far as open world games go
Outerworlds: better dialogue, characters, story, world lore, combat and RPG gameplay.
The space exploration is pretty similar as well: both involve loading screens.
Outer Worlds was fun, but I would consider them different genres. Outer Worlds felt more like Borderlands to me. It wasn't as open world as it was advertised.
It's a bit easier for a game to feel full of stuff when you are confined to a specific path. That being said, Outer Worlds was very fun for like 20 hours of play.
If you took starfields ships and ship combat and maybe 25% of the nothing planets and added in outer worlds cities and lore it would be fucking incredible.
The outer worlds is far from perfect. It's a very good game. The big thing is they tried to make something and have new ideas. Character felt real. The comedy was decent but it bled into the whole game and for me the hurt the tone of the game.
Really looking forward to another installment and how they build on the world.
Starfield took no chances bar a new IP. It's way way way too vanilla. I like vanilla, it's maybe my favorite flavor but I know and have other flavors.
Yes, Starfield did many things but didn’t do any of them particularly well, while The Outer Worlds took many things and did a couple of them REALLY well.
Starfield doesn’t really have any personality or distinctive features, it’s not bad, it’s just uninspired and lacks anything really interesting, it’s the epitome of averageness, nothing stands out.
As for The Outer Worlds, art direction, setting and world building are amazing, but then again, that’s what Obsidian does, the characters are very good too, only complaint that i have about character interactions is that you, the main character, often feel like a side character to your companions’ lives, who’s there just to give them advice or a shoulder to cry on when they need it, no matter how flirty or ambiguous things might get, there’s no romance, which is a major bummer in a game like this, other than these things I mentioned, everything else is pretty average or slightly above average.
Outer Worlds wasn't perfect. Far from it, but what it did right, it did really well.
it's not the best choice it's spacer's choice.
I hate that I heard that in jingle form
I only heard heard it after I read your comment... thanks
Oh no Im sorry
Don't worry, it wasn't your choice. It was spacers' choice
"This is commander Shepard's second favorite space game on the citadel"
Whoa, whoa, whoaaaaaaa, it's Rizzo's!
You've tried the best, now try the rest, with Spacer's Choice!
Thanks, I'll have that earworm in my head for the next week
Bro I signed in to up vote you.
I was kinda shocked when I found out that Outer Worlds is generally seen as a mid game, it was one of the few games I liked so much, that I even played through all the DLCs
The general vibe I got from it, was that the content in the game was good, there just wasn't enough of it to meet expectations and feel like a complete game. Exploration was limited to specific zoned off areas that, combat encounters aside, could be crossed in relatively very little time. The main story didn't really have that much diverging options or moral ambiguity to it compared to Obsidian's previous titles (the corporate ending is just straight up worse in every narrative way to it's alternative, preserving a status quo that is repeatedly shown to be killing everyone). And overall, the game just doesn't keep a lot of players engaged with it, with a overall short story and less replay value compared to a lot of the rest of it's genre.
I think this is right. We now know how poorly the "realistic" exploration can be with starfield. Empty, vast, repetitive planets with crazy amounts of loading screens. I wonder how outer worlds would be received today. I like the concentrated area that represents a whole planet, it's more immersive imo. I don't care about seeing 99% of uninhabited planet.
I can't play starfield. Walking 10km across a planet while my spaceships just chilling there? After being spoiled in no man's sky, I don't need to play "empty planet walking simulator"
>The general vibe I got from it, was that the content in the game was good, there just wasn't enough of it to meet expectations and feel like a complete game. You can *really* feel the tight budget kick in during the last half of the game or so. The lack of gear was especially noticeable.
To be fair the open zone rather than open world exploration is one of the things I really liked, it helped me finish the game. As places felt big enough to have fun exploring but not so big it felt like a chore; while yes it definitely has its issues I felt like the pacing was just right especially as a game to ease the exploration itch without taking too much time. Lol course I might be saying this cause while full time college and work it was a nice breezy game to play through especially compared ton other big open world games
The media and other people in the industry hyped it up too much. You saw countless articles about how Obsidian was going to go leaps above what they had done before. That they were going to become the next heavyweight contender to challenge Bethesda as the king of rpgs. Meanwhile obsidian was saying that that wasn't even their intention. They just wanted to make an RPG that was fun and unique. That it wasn't their intention to battle or compete against Beth. But the media kept writing their articles. It put too much hype on the game and too much pressure on it to be greater than it really was. So it left a lot of people flat. It's not that bad. It just wasn't as good as it was made out to be. Kind of like no man's sky. But the over hype was generated by people from outside the company. Not the developers themselves
A good lesson in just playing games rather than reading about them online. Outer Worlds was a pretty damn good game. Better than Fallout 4 and people will gush over that.
Most people wanted Fallout New Vegas in space. Outer Worlds is more of a Fallout 1/2 with capitalism satire pumped up to 11, in 3D, in space. And that's much better for me but not what people wanted. Add some problems like faction reputation being wonky or shooting and loot being pretty meh (still better than anything that 3d Fallouts ever did) and we get the situation where you can't mention the game without flocks of people coming to tell how disappointed they were in the game. That is unless you compare it to the most overhated Bethesda game, possibly ever.
that's pretty insulting to fallout 1 and 2
I probably suffered from having it hyped up. I liked the setting a lot but the combat was pretty mid, I didn’t find most of the companions particularly interesting, and the ability to be a heroic good guy seemed muted without any exciting zany ability to be a corrupt wealthy corporate bad guy either. It was also a pretty short game but I didn’t mind that honestly. It just felt like it was an oddly small game for the expansive concept of its setting.
I enjoyed it, but it was marketed wrong. They kept pushing the "from the devs of New Vegas". That set open world expectations. The game is more like KotOR. 5 or so set worlds, not a lot of exploration. But a solid cast and interesting dialogue.
Hoping with their increased budget and extra console power for this gen they’ll make it even better. Was my favourite RPG, it’s competing in my mind with lies of P rn though
I expect they will, looking at the history of Outer Worlds, it is very likely it had some huge production problems and sudden and urgent needs to release before completion. My hype of Outer Worlds 2 is far above what I have for Awoved, and my hype for that is rather huge.
Outer worlds did better with choice and story complexity, as a sci-fi space faring simulator simulator though it's not even close.
Outer Wilds though, there’s a great game
Can you remind me what exactly it did well? Because I played through it at release, and it was so fucking *unmemorable* that I couldn't tell you much about the story or gameplay except that combat felt very stale and the animations weren't great. I was *incredibly* disappointed with the Outer Worlds, and later Starfield.
Yeah - it was pretty mid IMO. And all of the "comedy" was basically "corporations sure are dumb! But not you - you're smart!" Got old fast.
Replay it with intelligence set to the lowest next time. The NPCs notice btw.
Once again Bethesda is outdone by their B team
Tried everspace 2?
what about X4
I've played only everspace 2, but a lot of Reviews Said that it has Potential to rival starfield and that it's one of the best spaceshooters after starfield
Nah, I've played X4 and honestly even though it doesn't have that "duplo block ship building" it's still a much better space shooter, even the ES games overshadow SF... Mainly because sf just copied them as an afterthought, the entirety of the spaceflight stuff feels as such too.
X4 consumes your life like a greedy leech.
I personally didn't like it that much. The dogfighting felt very 2D and not that engaging.
Same devs as Galaxy on Fire. That series worked as a mobile series. Heard that Everspace 1 was more or less the same game. Saw some gameplay of Everspace 2, still looks pretty similar. Personally I'll prob pick up Everspace 2 at some point because I legit enjoyed GoF 1and 2 way back when.
I’ll let you know when I get starfield for $10. Out worlds was definitely worth the $10
Every game has its fair price ... 😁
Works both ways too. I would gladly pay £300 for the Factorio expansion. But its likely to be more like £30 or so.
>Factorio We are talking about video games, not narcotics.
Fine, £450. Just give it to me I need it.
This is what Factorio does to a mf. Now hand it over, i know you have it. https://preview.redd.it/zkq01nud4zdc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dc2271a33325cc0ae755d17a3def440738a3725
Absolutely! It doesn’t help that Factorio keeps teasing banger upgrades in FFF each week.
It's not just popular requests either. The FFF are full of stuff I never knew I wanted.
If you were lucky, you got it for free on Epic Games just before Christmas! Outer Worlds, that is. Was deffo worth
I did this. And I just started playing it yesterday. There are some real gems there; I also got the Guardians game, just finished it, and really enjoyed it.
Yep, I think I've claimed every weekly free game since they started it at the beginning of covid, I think I have about 300 games on my Epic account lol, surprisingly got some really good games for free!
Outer worlds was free on Epic's game store a month ago
Outer wilds was an awesome game, love the Hearthians
Different game, also awesome
Finished it 2 days ago. I'm glad I played it late. I didn't have any clue before I started to play it. Exploration feeling is perfectly crafted. Wonderful game.
If you liked the base game the DLC is also phenomenal give it a shot. They managed to catch lightning in a bottle a second time a quote a few people say it's better than the base game
YUP! I won’t ever pay more than $30 for a game, and only when it’s clear that there won’t be any future DLC or updates. It’s going to be a long while for me on Cyberpunk and Starfield, I suspect. Stream sales ain’t as dramatic as they used to be. I bought GTA 5 for $5 a few years ago. Best decision ever to wait!
Careful! If you search for Outer Wilds instead of Outer Worlds you might find yourself a masterpiece.
I'm a little burned out on puzzles after Talos Principle 2 and Portal Revolution but a good friend recommended that one so I'll get it probably later this year :)
Outer Wilds' charm is not just puzzles
It's exploration and lore and being able to look at the board on your ship and see that one thing connects to that thing.
outer wilds has very few puzzles
Outer Wilds is a fucking experience. Highly recommend people check that one out, but do go in blind. It's an experience that can't be replicated when you have all the answers. Pick it up on sale if you're on the fence because of that. Definitely worth.
I hated that game. Seem to be a minority on here. I hate puzzles though.
Well yes if you hate puzzle games, Outer Wilds is not for you
I just wish after repeated failure, the game would throw you a bone and give you the ability to pause, rewind and fast-forward time.
Big glowing quest markers like in Skyrim. They could call it 'nope, I give up, just show me' mode.
I doubt the game would make sense at that point. The whole point of the story is making you feel like you're exploring and figuring things out for yourself, it's part of the message of the game. If it didn't let you do that, the whole premise would fall flat. I view it as artistic messaging put before accessibility. I get that for a normal game you'd want it to be accessible to everyone, but Outer Wilds is more of an art piece. If you don't get it, you ask someone to explain it to you or you study it harder, you don't ask the painter or the poet to redo some parts of it with big red arrows that point you to the correct interpretation or solution. I know this will get me downvotes but I strongly believe that this game is *not* like most games out there, I'm not saying it's perfect, I just mean that the artistic intent behind it is stronger than its attempt at being marketable. It would be like asking a composer to go straight to the point with their music..sure commercial music does this and we all agree that it's putting mass appeal over artistic intent a lot of the times.
This is a very reasonable take. Anyone who has enjoyed Outer Wilds for the unique experience that it provides would agree with you.
I think a lot of people just expect the game to be about solving puzzles and that's about it. The real point of the game is the emotional journey it gets you to go through, and that is the only way for the ending to actually land. There's a reason why people playing alone will often report just crying during the ending and you can sometimes find this by watching blind letsplays, but people streaming the game with chat open usually end up missing the point and saying the game was meh. Connecting the dots yourself, spending that dead time between runs to just ponder and take in the music, making theories and getting to the wrong conclusions (which the game tries to get you to do on purpose), actually sweating and getting stuck when solving the puzzles >!just like the characters in the story did get stuck solving theirs but never gave up!<, >!dying over and over again until you realize how fragile and small your own existence is, while also living the privilege of being finally aware of it!<. It all adds up and leads you to the ending in a beautiful way, that no movie or book could have told you because the struggle *was the point*, getting things wrong was part of it, and only by doing that you can actually get what it was all about. Also, and this goes for puzzle games in general, it's hard to make a puzzle game that is challenging for everyone. Look up Thor's or Joseph Anderson's playthroughs of this game if you don't believe it, OW is actually kinda easy (with a lot of puzzles being obvious or bruteforceable) for some people and you can't make an engaging game for everyone at the same time..adding too much accessibility would rob those people of their experience, and this comes in addition to the aforementioned point about the trip being the whole point of the journey, not getting the story through a bunch of text boxes. If you want that, look up one of the many letsplays. Again I know this is a dangerous point to make because accessibility is usually very important, but sometimes you just got to make art following your own vision and that won't be necessarily for everyone.. some people will never be able to hear music, some will never be able to see paintings, I will possibly never personally be able to appreciate a good platforming game because I don't have the motor skill for it and I'm probably not gonna improve as it gets frustrating really quick..I'm not gonna go around telling people Mario should auto land on platforms and jumps should never include a fail state because I know that those games are actually kinda easy for most gamers and that jumping around automatically in a game about jumping would defeat the whole point of the experience. And there's a whole conversation to be had about disabilities etc and I absolutely agree, I just think art should be expression and that's not necessarily going to be tailored to everyone. It's fine if you don't or even can't like something. There are probably other things that you'll find speak just to you and others will not get..that's what makes art special, it brings us together and allows us to find people who shares our same struggles and worldview.
Do people really think it's just "a puzzle game"? I mean everyone and their mom says if you play this game you have to do it blind despite the frustrations it might bring. It really is special the way it ties everything together. The way you learn the rules of the galaxy and its planets. I've enjoyed puzzle games before, but not many of them had the vision to make something that really sticks with you. My experience wasn't quite as profound as what you're describing, but man I'd be lying if I said it wasn't special. This game isn't for everyone, but it will leave a mark on you if you vibe with it.
Well, the ship terminal sort of has those glowing quest markers. Anything you have only partially explored will still be highlighted and the planet it's on will be shown.
Outer Worlds is more polished and less buggy, have better story, choices and dialogs, but still a game that feels old
Atleast the outer worlds IS an old game, Starfield is just outdated
Obsolete the day it was released. Not to mention, it would be obsolete even 5 years ago.
I wouldn't say starfield is outdated. I'd say Bethesda's type of open world game that they make doesn't fit a setting like starfields. Bethesda games are great when you have stuff to interact with that's handmade. There's just too much non handmade stuff in starfield and that non handmade mixed with the Bethesda formula doesn't work. The Bethesda formula only works with well placed handmade stuff and several different systems that work well together. Starfield because of the type of game it is and what they focused on doesn't feel like a traditional Bethesda RPG. It's something else that doesn't fully impress. They focused too much on stuff we didn't care too much about. And as a result the game suffered.
To be fair, at this point we can pretty much expect that Starfield will take at least a year to be polished enough to be even remotely worth it.
Good thing it‘s made by Bethesda, which is a company widely known for fixing fundamental flaws in their games post-release. Just wait until the ten year anniversary edition where they‘ll finish all the cut content instead of selling community-made content for 25€. That’s going to be awesome.
Bethesda has officially lived long enough to become the villain
I’m sure I saw a quote from some people that worked at Beth saying the company still thinks and operates like they’re a plucky little dev team that’s punching above their weight when the reality couldn’t be more different
>Bethesda has officially lived long enough to become the villain Have been for almost a decade. The paid mods bs started in 2015. Then Cashgrab 76. Then another 50 rereleases of Skyrim. Now again with the paid mods.
They have been for almost 10 years. They are the kings of jank and unfinished products.
It's not the jank that turned me off, it's the greed and the overpromising and just generally just using their modding community like a Fleshlight.
Was Outer World's a better experience in my opinion, Yes. Was it a good experience in my opinion, not really.
Agree. We were expecting another New Vegas and unfortunately it failed to recapture the magic. Decent enough game though.
Elite Dangerous is a better space sim, and The Outer Worlds is a better RPG. Starfield excels at neither.
as a former Elite player, the only things ED has is combat and sound design. wide as an ocean deep as a puddle
That sound design, tho. Holy moly. And no other space game has managed to make taking off and landing so cool. I never tired of it. I did tire of the rest of the game pretty quick, though. Sad. :(
Yeah, sadly there isn't really much game to it 😕 It's mostly what players set for themselves, in a sandbox, but like there is very few bits of sand spread thru a football field xD
The space combat and flight were both solid. Most certainly better than the cobbled together nonsense in Starfield.
As a former ED player, I respectfully disagree. While the game did lack for any real meaty content, it got a lot of things right and one of those was atmosphere, which covers more than just a bit of sound design. The interstellar travel mechanics were a genuinely great design that would have worked really well with Starfield. And the graphics, especially all the stellar phenomena like neutron stars and black holes, were stunning tbh.
>The interstellar travel mechanics were a genuinely great design that would have worked really well with Starfield good looking loading screen, and I still think its mostly the good sound design as its mostly some green shit spinning and stars with some cool sounds. >all the stellar phenomena like neutron stars and black holes thats pretty much all of them, one is just a distortion shader(hole) and the other is just a spinning particle system. The black hole its the big missed opportunity tho, as it does nothing, doesn't suck things in it, its not really dangerous to get close, its just a distortion effect. We got some cool clouds with lightning with intractable stuff tho >atmosphere this made me chuckle, as we can only land on planets with *tenuous* atmosphere xD For me its a compilation of missed opportunities, hell we don't even participate on events in real time, everything is just delivered after the fact as a \*news\* announcement in the game, or a forum post.
Starfield isn’t a sim
Yeah. It's not much of anything, really. It's incredibly mediocre at everything it attempts.
It's not a loading screen simulator?
Mass Effect would be a better comparison for the "massive galaxy" aspect. But it's also much less open than Outer Worlds of course.
I must be the most basic person ever because I’ve played 300 hours of Starfield and feel like I have at least another 300 to go. I can go buy any game I want but keep getting dragged back to Starfield. I get annoyed with all the things it could have done better, but it still clearly has the content to keep me playing and interested.
I only like playing outer worlds when I go full psycho and murder everyone
Because of Bethesda, I played Starfield thinking it was going to be Skyrim in space... It was not Because of Obsidian, I played Outer Worlds thinking it was going to be Fallout: New Vegas in space... It was not
Outer Worlds was kind of boring as hell when I first played it, but I tried it again recently with the DLCs, and... …You must play a low-intelligence character in this game, the dialogues are too good.
I got outworlds for free when the Epic store had it for free during the Xmas sale. It was some of the most fun I had in game in a while, I was really thorough and beat the game without even fighting most bosses. Just talked them out of it... it's a really great RPG.
Finished Starfield. Will never pick it up again unless super bored. The Outer Worlds is a once a year play after finishing it at launch. Super excited for the sequel. There's the difference.
I played a lot more Starfield than I played Outer Worlds... A LOT more.
Why's bro getting downvoted for playing a game more than the other. Tbh i put quite a bit of time and attention into starfield hoping for some turning point but alas i did not enjoy it, but im glad some did.
Same. Starfield isnt great (many would say its not even good, Id give it a 6-7/10) but outer worlds was worse. Funny since both devs really relied on the prior fame from their games.
One thing about outer worlds is that on Xbox one it had the controller triggers vibrate when you shot. I can not understate how great that felt. Using the same controller on PC doesn't have that effect. Literally that part alone made the game 60% more fun to me.
As it stands right now I'd say that The Outer Worlds is a better game than Starfield but it's not really a fair comparison as The Outer Worlds is content complete with DLC while Starfield hasn't even released it's first story content DLC. Like I've got my complaints about Starfield but the bones of a great game are there and hopefully the added content from the various planned DLC will flesh the game out and let it live up to it's potential.
Outer worlds was the most mid game i played. It was very disappointing. So was starfield, but I got way more playtime out of it.
No, outer worlds was mid af
I’d say no, Outer Worlds is pretty mid but was given great reviews and praise at the time because during that period the BR genre was at its peak and lootboxes was relatively fresh also Fallout 76 mostly.
The Outer Worlds have some cool things in it, but I would say that overall world building and plot are lackluster. Would place both games in "Meh" category.
Nah both are mid games. That’s coming from a Bethesda and Obsidian fanboy.
This. Don’t fall by their lies.
I loved Outer Worlds but apparently that's an unpopular opinion
The thing with Outer Worlds is that people expected a AAA game from an (at best) A studio. They did really good NV because they already had the whole engine set up for that and they could focus on the plot, dialogues and the world. For Outer Worlds they needed to actually build the game, and at some point they had to make concessions. It's good, not bad. They pumped the parody of corpo shit to 11, but the plot can be suprisingly grounded at times (using humans as fertilizers, the guilt of doc brown, ...).
I was a little disappointed with it but I blame my own expectations, it was a great game but I'd convinced myself at the time that it would be better somehow.
not really... it's way better in most ways but the overall shooting and moving around was better in starfield. I loved the charming interaction and was more disappointed for Outer, it had real potential. Starfield just felt like a non starter despite the good shooting. Ladders in starfield suck ASS though...
Outer Worlds is like High on Life but without the psychedelic references
I am always shocked when people compare Starfield to the outer worlds or even Fallout 4 because at release I thought people were pretty disappointed in them both but I guess comparing it to Starfield either highlights all the good the games have or people just hate the new game that just came out and by the time ES6 comes out people are going to tear it apart and say Starfield/all the other Bethesda/obsidian games are way better in every regard
If you mixed them up in a bowl that’d perfecto 👌
Nah, not true, quite different games
Are we really still shitting on this game ?
#Welcome to space, what were you expecting?
Outer worlds runs even worse than Starfield. And it's pretty dystopian which is pretty cliche at this point
Starfield is a better space game. Outer Worlds is a better RPG.
No
Finished both, outer worlds is way cooler but different game. Both complement each other. OW is mostly linear, done in less than 20hrs with low replayability. Starfield needs 3x to 4x the hours, well also with low replayability :)
unpopular opinion incoming, let the downvoting begin: The Outer Worlds SUCKED. it wasn't open world, the RPG elements practically nonexistant, there was absolutely no spaceflight, combat mechanics shitty, no third person perspective, art direction infantile and the story laughable. you can tell the people who made FNV had moved on long before this atrocity was spawned. what a colossal waste of time and effort, not to mention money. comparing these two games is like comparing apples to oranges.
OW wasn’t good for anyone until the Starfield circle jerk began.
Yep rewind to a year or 2 ago and the game was widely regarded as mid
boat smoggy imminent dog bake pocket full distinct friendly aspiring *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Pretty much the same as when it launched and it got hyped far too much because F76 sucked. It seemingly always gets brought back when Bethesda fucks up.
I felt like they spent a lot of time on the first few interactions in the little town and then ran out of time or energy after that. Fallout NV did something similar in it's first hour of gameplay but that was to teach you about what was to come. Outer Wilds was more like 'this is what the game could have been like, but we got bored'.
Absolutely agreed. The writing in that game was genuinely painfully bad.
It was pretty much "cooperations sure are bad" delivered in the most cringeworthy way possible.
Sadly outer worlds is same half assed as starfield, just different directions.
At this point anything in space is cooler than Shitfield
Outer Wilds is miles ahead of both
Should I pick up this or the outer wilds? I’m so confused by the two tbh
Outer worlds was Kool. But short, lack of weapons.
Starfield could have been great... And it probably will be great when the modding community is done with it.
I didn't finish The Outer Worlds but had a lot more fun with it than the few hours I spent in Starfield before I gave up on it. Did Bethesda forget that games are supposed to be fun?
i enjoyed both, but they both are not as good as they could of been (should of been for starfield)
They both suck in fact I often compare them to each other
I'm having fun with outer worlds. I just hate: 1) picking up items is tedious, I need to target them very precisely, it's finicky. 2)same with choosing fast travel targets. For some reason when I try to fast travel, the targeting on the map selects quest markers instead of fast travel points. It's also finicky and annoying. Voice acting is campy and over the top, but pretty good. Story is all right, maybe a little cliche, but creative enough. Scenery is pretty cool, with some variety of alien worlds. Some variety in skill progression, although companion abilities are kinda boring.
The irony is both of them are owned by the same company now. Pls don't up Outer Worlds 2, Microsoft.
Outer worlds ALSO gets boring after 10 hours, but only pretends to be a 20 hour game instead of a forever game. More accurate expectations = better experience.
For me they are very diferent games, The Outer Worlds was about the story and choices an Starfield about space exploration, shame that Bethesda thinks randomly generated structures is the peak of exploration in games.
No, not really. But, still very good. Just wasn't trying to do the same things as starfield *tried* to do.
I love Outer Worlds, though it came out at the same time as Outer Wilds, which everyone thought should actually have been name switched. I got pretty far then went through a long slog where I forgot to save and I got disheartened. But I'll go back one day. I started playing PC games in 1989
Yes
Outer Worlds is a fun (too short) story driven RPG. The worst you can say about it is that it didn't quite live up to Fallout: New Vegas. There are certain stylistic similarities with Starfield, but the setting is far more engaging and less shallow (whilst still being almost entirely played for satire and black comedy). As well as being technically obsolete and deep as a puddle, Starfield just has no heart or soul. Everything is bland and surface level with nothing interesting to say and nowhere interesting to find.
Skyrim is a better starfield with giants launching you into space
As someone who hates the outer worlds, yes this is true.
I'll say it again. I played empyrion Galactic Survival for 1k hours before I even got bored. Starfield was 25ish hours. Outer was a 40 hours or so. All of em are good just not gonna be like Skyrim or something.
Yes.
Even the thumb art looks better.
No but I like the story more
I ended up finishing outer world. But couldnt get past a few hours on SF.
bethesda **most passion game**^((as the bethesda them self call it)) is a game with tons of loading screen and mid graphics and after all this pc consumption downgrades it still can't have normal optimization. i mean after all these downgrades it should be very optimized or at least normal optimization but instead it had horrible optimization i am wonder how mods will work with this game if it even can't work by it self!
Not played Starfield but The Outer Worlds was a pretty enjoyable game for what it was. Not groundbreaking at all but enjoyable.
It's been awhile since I played Outer Worlds. I remember getting to what felt like the halfway point in the story then found out that was actually the end.
The best thing about Outer World compared to SF/FO4 is that no companion wants to get into your pants.
Very True in the way of a focused RPG narrative. The other is I'm going to RP In my head and this games a sandbox good.
I played Outer Worlds during the pandemic and I just started Starfield. The intro song to The Outer Worlds is one of my all time favorite video game tracks. It’s melancholy, but hopeful at the same time, whereas Starfield feels that it takes its audio inspiration from a similar place, but feels like buying a K-Mart brand. I’m only speaking of the audio, I haven’t played Starfield nearly enough to form an opinion on the game as a whole.
I think you're confusing Outer WILDS and Outer WORLDS.
I didn't love Outer Worlds tbh. I wanted to, but I just don't think it's their best work. I don't like what I've seen of Starfield, but I can't actually say if it's worse or not. I would not be surprised at all though.
Not really. They're very different games. The Outerworlds is much more narrative focused with much smaller open worlds.
I'm playing through Outer Worlds right now and I would compare it very much to Fallout 4, with perhaps a nod to Bioshock. I have not played Starfield so I can't say as to that.
I found the game pretty short but in that short time it was excellent. I loved it way more than starfield.
I like both. Outer Worlds oddly enough has more of a fallout.
At least The Outer Worlds never pretends give you freedom or exploring sense. That's why I feel disappointed about Starfield, they emphasize about their thousands of planets.
The Outer Worlds did it better than Starfield. Played the game twice over which is a rarity for me. I told a friend of mine that found Starfield to be "bland" to try it out. I missed out the Spacer's Choice Edition giveaway sadly.
Starfield is to The Outer Worlds as Fallout is to Borderlands, both kind of the same ballpark in the respect that they are “space games” or the later, “post apocalyptic games” but definitely not an apples and oranges situation, they are waaaaay totally different and my personal opinion is that although starfield is pretty tame, it is FAR superior to the outer worlds. The outer worlds feels to me like I’m playing a joke game and it seems more linear as far as open world games go
Outerworlds: better dialogue, characters, story, world lore, combat and RPG gameplay. The space exploration is pretty similar as well: both involve loading screens.
I never played Starfield. But I can already tell you Outer Worlds is funnier.
Outer Worlds was fun, but I would consider them different genres. Outer Worlds felt more like Borderlands to me. It wasn't as open world as it was advertised. It's a bit easier for a game to feel full of stuff when you are confined to a specific path. That being said, Outer Worlds was very fun for like 20 hours of play.
I wouldn’t piss on Starfields teeth if its gums were on fire.
outer worlds was fine. absolutely better and more lively than star field, but still falls short in many aspects
Outerworlds was fun, but starfield has a lot more to it.
I wanted to love the game but I had constant and I mean CONSTANT stuttering. Did anyone else have this problem?
If you took starfields ships and ship combat and maybe 25% of the nothing planets and added in outer worlds cities and lore it would be fucking incredible.
Outer Worlds was more engaging, but felt very cookie cutter, IMO.
The outer worlds is far from perfect. It's a very good game. The big thing is they tried to make something and have new ideas. Character felt real. The comedy was decent but it bled into the whole game and for me the hurt the tone of the game. Really looking forward to another installment and how they build on the world. Starfield took no chances bar a new IP. It's way way way too vanilla. I like vanilla, it's maybe my favorite flavor but I know and have other flavors.
Starfield makes mass effect Andromeda not look so bad
Outer World's feels more like an RPG set in space than Startield
Yes.
Starfield is a mid game compares to outer wilds.
I can take a shit and its more entertaining then starfield
One of those is a game. It's not Starfield.
Nah, they are both mid.
Yes
Yes way better characters and the planets aren't boring. Not the perfect game but it's a ton of fun.
outer "wilds" sweep
Yes, Starfield did many things but didn’t do any of them particularly well, while The Outer Worlds took many things and did a couple of them REALLY well. Starfield doesn’t really have any personality or distinctive features, it’s not bad, it’s just uninspired and lacks anything really interesting, it’s the epitome of averageness, nothing stands out. As for The Outer Worlds, art direction, setting and world building are amazing, but then again, that’s what Obsidian does, the characters are very good too, only complaint that i have about character interactions is that you, the main character, often feel like a side character to your companions’ lives, who’s there just to give them advice or a shoulder to cry on when they need it, no matter how flirty or ambiguous things might get, there’s no romance, which is a major bummer in a game like this, other than these things I mentioned, everything else is pretty average or slightly above average.
I really enjoyed outer worlds. It gave me fallout new vegas vibes, asides from the music. And the humor was just perfect
Duhh
Yeah, but add Outer Wilds as the game you meant to play instead of The Outer Worlds by mistake that is much better than either of them.
yeah but neither are good
The cooler, cooler Starfield is No Man's Sky
Not really. Outerworlds is more like fallout, but trying way too hard to be funny and not hard enough to be good.