Reviews The Outer Worlds Review

That's harsh.

I do have a couple of complaints about this game, but not that it's anything like Fallout 4.

1. I hear it's a bit short.
2. It could really do with a proper catchy soundtrack with some actual songs in it and not just a boring score in the background.

That's about it. Otherwise it's a very pretty, very enjoyable RPG. If anything it feels like I am in New Vegas, which is a compliment.

Oh also. You need to consider the eeny weeny budget they had compared to Bethesda.

Which leads me on to complaint 3, this game should not be £50.

 

Over the years the genre that's dominated my gaming habit has been RPGs. (The Fallout series was a notable exception. I just couldn't get over how ugly it was and how poorly it ran.) There is a certain expertise that comes with age and experience. I've noticed nowadays I can watch a trailer and pretty much immediately know if I'm going to like a game or a movie. It's not foolproof - I remember watching the first Anthem gameplay trailer with awe (well, they cheated) - but it's close. I can recall seeing the faces of the ME: Andromeda characters and knowing for a fact that whoever came up with those characters doesn't get ME. Those were quirky, young-adult sitcom faces and you couldn't make an RPG game I care about with those. What I first saw from The Outer Worlds, the the character models, the setting, the color palette, gave me that same feeling, sо I get exactly what the reviewer means. I've enjoyed all of the previous games from Obsidian that I've played a lot, but I'll be skipping this one.

 

The combat is really what makes me not want this game. I find Bethesda Fallout combat to be so.. Weird that it takes me out of any immersion the rest of the game has achieved.

I hate the AI in Bethesda Fallout games, because it is all dumb as a stump, and I'm given to understand that the AI in this game feels very much the same.

I realise that AI can't be programmed to be as adaptive as a human, and I'm absolutely a harsh critic, but I don't feel like AI in other games (Other games not super old (Although sometimes even super old game AI is better)) is so.. ****. AI in Bethesda Fallout and its various clones makes me feel like the only code involved is something like,

Code:

Is enemy unit in <radius>;

if yes (Shoot&Run directly at enemy);
else
if no (Move in random direction loosely associated with the direction PC moves in);

Because there appears to be no effort to refine it any further. I only have dim, dark, recollections of Not-Bethesda Fallout, but I'd put those games in the 'super old' category and exempt them from AI judgements compared to modern games.

 

I was thinking of 3 and up. Fallout and Fallout 2 look like they'd have been right down my alley, had I discovered them earlier.

 

While there's no denying that my assessment of their FO AI is incredibly simplistic, and there have no doubt been some seriously smart cookies working at Bethesda, I really don't feel like their AI, like their game engine (Alright, engines, but since it's all basically modified versions of the same engine from Morrowind, 2002, I'm not convinced it gets to be called more than one..), has really changed since it was first written

I just did some quick refreshing, and it's "Radiant AI" that Bethesda call their AI system that was, supposedly, designed for Oblivion, then modified for various other games. And I feel like the design has stayed there. Thirteen years in the past.

Hell, Konami managed to fart out an engine that worked well for their sports simulator and Kojima's talking simulator. Um. Metal Gear V - And they're a company that mostly seems interested in pachinko machines and annual sports simulators with little change to the previous year.

Bethesda have access to id software. There's no way they couldn't convince Zenimax to let them license an engine from id that doesn't resemble the temperamental teenage child that their current engine does. Might even make their games release with slightly fewer bugs than features, which would be a novelty.

 

You're not wrong - But the recent id engines have been better than the dumpsterfire that modders have had to fix in every Bethesda game I've played in recent memory.

 

They made more money than god from Skyrim, they can afford to buy whatever talent they need, so it doesn't really matter for Bethesda if the old guard at id left.

 

While a large part of the styling of the worlds has a similar feel to a Fallout game, with a tiny hint of Mass Effect thrown in, I didn't at any moment feel like I was playing anything like a recent Fallout game.

I think the AI was okay for this type of game, if they had a bigger budget they could have possibly done something more complex but I think they did alright with the engine they chose to use.
There was enough variation in combat response from the various enemies to make some of the fights feel like they had some sense of intelligence (a few grunts and beasts were sent in whilst others would circle to cover and appear as if they were trying get an angle).

I agree that the populated areas could have done with some use of decent path finding and animation to make it at least appear like the people had lives and jobs.
I think it would have been nice if those ships you see flying over head on a planet would land at a town every now and then and load/unload some boxes, they could even have a random chance of a ship containing a merchant.

As for the complaint about the stealth needing to be more than just crouching - I thought the way you access restricted areas was quite clever, if you're careful you could clear an most of the restricted areas without being spotted a single time by working out where other exits/entrances were.
Would be interested to now what kind of stealth elements you'd want in a game like this.

Spoiler: My short review

I'd give this game a 6/10, perhaps a 6.5/10.
Worth a play through using the cheap Game Pass but not worth paying full price for.

It was enjoyable enough to play through the entire game in a week, took me approx 23 hours with me taking time doing the side quests and a little extra sight seeing - I take my sweet time with how I like to wander and look around at things, so it's likely to be under 20 hours for most people.

What I Liked

• Most environments were well designed and a lot of the locations looked rather pretty.
• It had a good selection of weapons to choose from.
• I enjoyed listening to the companions chat to each other as we wandered around.
• The overall plot was fairly decent.
• I can off a major NPC and it won't break the game.
• I experienced minimal bugs (a rare feat in this day and age it seems).

What I Didn't Like

• It's far too easy.
• The dialogue is a little bland.
• The companions add nothing to the game beyond background noise.
• The final boss was a massive let down.
• Way too much Firefly influence... I wouldn't mind one or two references but to me it seemed like they wanted to make a Firefly game but couldn't get the rights.
• There's no need for 99% of the medical items in your inventory.

All in all, it was a slightly above average game with room for improvement but has enough going for it to enjoy most of the game as is for a short single-player experience.

 

id Software, as much as it pains me to say it, is close to dead. The part of the company working on Doom may be on an acceptable level (nowhere near the level they used to have when John Carmack was still there, mind) but the "team" (LOL, one person's not a team!) working on Quake Champions right now is just bad. They also began outsourcing their multiplayer games: Doom 2016's MP was made by Certain Affinity until they got fired because it was baaaaad and Quake Champions was programmed by Saber Interactive until they were fired because their engine is a piece of utter ****. And now they basically killed multiplayer for Doom Eternal before it's even released with that joke of a mode and no FFA/TDM/CTF. Also, firing Tim Willits was probably the only positive and smart thing id Software did in 2019.

If every Bethesda title used the id Tech engine I could see a future for id Software. Their games surely can't keep them relevant for much longer.

Back on topic: I think this game might have gotten way better reviews and reception if it hadn't tried so hard to be Fallout.

 

The "old guard"? The talent that Bethesda squandered after the id acquisition wasn't just your run-of-the-mill talent. It was a team with decades of technical experience, which contained individuals that helped parent modern game engines, and which (as a team) produced programming products of a technical quality that many recognize as excellent to this day. These are not "has-been"s, as the term "old guard" typically implies. They evolved with the industry and still produce good work to this day.

They're just no longer producing it for Bethesda.

 

That's where he belongs. Unless there's still space in one of the circles of hell.

 

I have found it strange just how much the "it's too similar to Fallout 4" line has come up in reviews. I personally was disappointed Outer Worlds wasn't *more* like Fallout 4. The environments felt bland and empty by comparison, and the crafting system, while better than some, didn't match up to Fallout 4's playthrough-spanning series of complex decisions around designing a set of weapons that balanced firepower, weight and ammo availability.

With the exception of quest design, dialogue and voice talent (Ashly Burch in particular) I would rate Fallout 4 as the superior experience in every respect. This is personal taste, of course, but I'm surprised to be alone in this opinion.

Pay for a month of Game Pass and it's £3.99, plus you're not supporting Epic store exclusives, which is an added bonus even if you're not a fan of Microsoft.

 

Fallout 4 is bigger and has had far more of a budget and it shows. So yes, I prefer Fallout 4, even with all of its flaws. And there are many.

But, when you consider the budget constraints here it's a bloody good game. New Vegas also had large very barren areas but again this was down to time and money constraints.

Fine detail is lacking yes. However its also lacking terribly in Fallout 4. It doesn't have the enormous depth Fallout 3 had. The buildings you could get lost in for hours and all of the fine detail. With FO4 what you see is what you get but it's all skin deep. If you scratch it beneath the surface you won't find much. Buildings are tiny and more maze like and so on. It just doesn't have the same vibe as FO3.

Let's hope Obsidian put their spoils to good use, as it's clear they can make a cracking RPG.

It's prettier than FO4, better looking and good fun. It does need more though.

 

Really hoping that Microsoft saw a good enough surplus of people jumping on the Game Pass to play this game, to the point that they'd turn around to Obsidian and tell them to go all out on their next project with a nice sizeable budget.