The Outer Worlds Impressions - Oh.....I get it now

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

CritialGaming:

Happyninja42:
snip

I mean to be fair, that's exactly what they wanted to make. A good Fallout game, period. No bugs, no rushed production, none of the bullshit. Just a straight up, good Fallout game again. Which is basically what people have been wanting from Bethesda since New Vegas came out in the first fucking place.

So you are right, if you wanna just say "Oh it's just another Fallout game." Yeah it is. But it's a GOOD Fallout game and that's what makes it stand out.

I think you missed my point, because the other games are just as good in my opinion as Outer Worlds. Or at the very least, it's not any significant degree better than the previous installments it's liberally borrowed from, to warrant the harem level of devotion and praise it's fans seem to lavish on it.

It's about on par with my experience from FO 3 and FO 4, and frankly, I found New Vegas incredibly boring. It seriously took me 4 attempts, spread out over about 2-3 years to force myself to finish that game. I just couldn't give a crap about any of the groups in question and their struggles.

Outer Worlds feels just like FO 4 to me, with a coating of Mass Effect paint when it comes to the party size, and the interpersonal conversations. All of it under a Firefly skin, that is painfully obvious. Not a bad thing mind you, it's just, everything that I've seen so far that is different from the previous FO games, that are constantly compared to this, aren't anything new or revolutionary. It's just other mechanics and themes Obsidian obviously took from other games, and stuck in what feels very much like a Fallout game. The mountain climbing is still just as janky as the previous ones, with you being able to get stuck in terrain if you try and explore. The combat feels the same, the dialogue and "wacky" humor feels the same, the dialogue options feel more like Mass Effect, they even have the same locations of Top of list = Nice responses usually, Middle of List = Neutral, Bottom = Asshole.

I mean, I like the game just fine, it's fun, I'm enjoying it, but nothing about it is making me go "Wow, that's the Obsidian touch right there! Unique to any other developer before them in this franchise! Totally unique to them and not at all just re-purposing stuff from others games" Though I find the writing only slightly better than New Vegas (which I didn't think was very good), especially when it comes to things like the "morality choices" they present you. The "dilemma" in Emerald Vale is laughable for how one sided it is. I mean they even try and give each side a "dark element" to them, but it's pretty lopsided given what we are shown from the opening moments of the game.

Happyninja42:

CritialGaming:

Happyninja42:
snip

I mean to be fair, that's exactly what they wanted to make. A good Fallout game, period. No bugs, no rushed production, none of the bullshit. Just a straight up, good Fallout game again. Which is basically what people have been wanting from Bethesda since New Vegas came out in the first fucking place.

So you are right, if you wanna just say "Oh it's just another Fallout game." Yeah it is. But it's a GOOD Fallout game and that's what makes it stand out.

I think you missed my point, because the other games are just as good in my opinion as Outer Worlds. Or at the very least, it's not any significant degree better than the previous installments it's liberally borrowed from, to warrant the harem level of devotion and praise it's fans seem to lavish on it.

It's about on par with my experience from FO 3 and FO 4, and frankly, I found New Vegas incredibly boring. It seriously took me 4 attempts, spread out over about 2-3 years to force myself to finish that game. I just couldn't give a crap about any of the groups in question and their struggles.

Outer Worlds feels just like FO 4 to me, with a coating of Mass Effect paint when it comes to the party size, and the interpersonal conversations. All of it under a Firefly skin, that is painfully obvious. Not a bad thing mind you, it's just, everything that I've seen so far that is different from the previous FO games, that are constantly compared to this, aren't anything new or revolutionary. It's just other mechanics and themes Obsidian obviously took from other games, and stuck in what feels very much like a Fallout game. The mountain climbing is still just as janky as the previous ones, with you being able to get stuck in terrain if you try and explore. The combat feels the same, the dialogue and "wacky" humor feels the same, the dialogue options feel more like Mass Effect, they even have the same locations of Top of list = Nice responses usually, Middle of List = Neutral, Bottom = Asshole.

I mean, I like the game just fine, it's fun, I'm enjoying it, but nothing about it is making me go "Wow, that's the Obsidian touch right there! Unique to any other developer before them in this franchise! Totally unique to them and not at all just re-purposing stuff from others games" Though I find the writing only slightly better than New Vegas (which I didn't think was very good), especially when it comes to things like the "morality choices" they present you. The "dilemma" in Emerald Vale is laughable for how one sided it is. I mean they even try and give each side a "dark element" to them, but it's pretty lopsided given what we are shown from the opening moments of the game.

The problem is that this is coming right out of a disaster of Bethesda's last releases. We haven't gotten a good Fallout-like game in a long time and people have been hoping and hoping for Bethesda to get their shit together, which clearly isn't happening any time soon.

So to have this come out and deliver, yeah people are gonna be stoked about it.

I am like you, I didn't like any of the previous Fallout's really, not even New Vegas. But the fact that I like THIS game, is saying something pretty significant. Because if I like it, then the people who normally like Fallout games must be over the moon for it and they are.

So I get that you aren't hyped and happy about the game, but you are enjoying it fine enough and that's cool for you. But to deny that there is any reason to be hyped for it is just missing the boat.

I was/am a huge fan of the Fallout franchise (probably because I've avoided 76 entirely), particularly New Vegas, and Obsidian's work in general. So Outer Worlds seemed like a game right up my alley, what with it being a game that seems to capitalize on Obsidian's strengths and covering for their weak points (limiting the scope, spending more resources on polish and QA etc.). Now, I don't think Outer Worlds is a bad game or anything, seeing as how I've spent almost 20 hours with it over the last 4 days, but I don't think it is all that great.

Part of that is due to what Happyninja42 described, namely that OW feels a lot, spiritually, like Dungeon Siege 3. It is an Obsidian game that more or less cribs all its ideas from other, better, games and keeps a strong story. Nothing really stands out as being really great, despite the game having some really cool new features (like the way social skills influence combat or how companions skills gets added to the PCs). The setting is cool and all, the story is passable if badly paced (first you spend about half the game trying to find a guy to help you locate a MacGuffin and once you know where it is the game basically rushes the last third like a maniac) and the NPCs range from passable to cool. On the other hand the combat is kind of bad, the color palette does a number on my eyes (I've never gotten so tired in my eyes as I do playing OW) and through all the game I didn't find a single piece of loot that I felt was really cool, which wasn't helped at all by the bad descriptions of what the "science weapons" actually did.

But mostly, OW is soured by me playing Disco Elysium just the week before. DE is the superior roleplaying game in every possible way, save for freedom to choose the PC. I was utterly blown away with how well characterized the NPCs of DE were, how my stats and skills influenced everything I did in game, down to the game opening or closing quest paths based on which skills were dominant. In DE I as the player felt genuinely smart when I managed to get ahead of the game and could find clues by visiting places where I figured they might be. OW, on the other hand, showed its hand early and often. I kept seeing the stacked boxes where I could jump to get up to roofs, the vents for the Sneaky players, the security terminals for the tech players etc.. Worse still, I was almost perpetually overleveled and overstocked and had so many skillpoints distributed that I could often just brute force any situation. Maybe sneaking works better on the highest difficulty level, but I kept shooting shit dead if it wouldn't talk to me and I ended the game with 3000+ rounds of all 3 ammo types and something like 250 adreno's.

Simply, OW is a mediocre RPG/FPS hybrid if compared to other games in that genre (Borderlands does guns and shooting better, Fo4 does most things better then OW in terms of FPS combat) and after the Tour de Force that is Disco Elysium its RPG aspects also feel pretty mediocre. I would probably have loved OW had I not come straight of DE, but as it is DE beats out OW in all the areas where OW had a potential to shine.

CritialGaming:

The problem is that this is coming right out of a disaster of Bethesda's last releases. We haven't gotten a good Fallout-like game in a long time

You do know that saying we haven't had a "good" FO game is just an opinion right? That's not an objective fact, because enjoyment isn't quantifiable, and varies from person to person. Because I found FO 4 to be a very enjoyable game. And I'm not sure what you consider a long time, but a handful of years isn't really that long.

CritialGaming:

So to have this come out and deliver, yeah people are gonna be stoked about it.

Being stoked is fine, but the level of discourse and hyperbole coming from the OW camp is rather silly. They almost orgasm just mentioning the game, while equally vilifying anything prior to it as absolute trash. And it's just all very silly. If the discourse was just "This game is super fun and I'm enjoying the hell out of it!" I'd have no issue. But it's not just that, and your very own thread is an example of it. The "Not only is OW the greatest thing since orgasms! But it also totally validates every criticism of Bethesda and shits all over everything they've ever touched!!" tone of a lot of these discussions is just a bit extreme in my opinion. It's just a fucking game. Disclaimer: Not saying yours is stating to that level, I'm generalizing the tone of a lot of them, but there are a lot of articles and threads out there, that ARE that level of extreme with their criticism.

CritialGaming:

I am like you, I didn't like any of the previous Fallout's really, not even New Vegas. But the fact that I like THIS game, is saying something pretty significant. Because if I like it, then the people who normally like Fallout games must be over the moon for it and they are.

Not sure if this is due to a typo, or if you totally missed my stance in my previous posts, but you are not like me, because I DO like the previous FO games. In fact, New Vegas is my LEAST enjoyed game. I thoroughly enjoyed FO 3&4, and found New Vegas (the other golden child of the Obsidianites) to be incredibly bland and dull. To reiterate, I got so bored with NV, that I quit playing it multiple times, and restarted from scratch because when I picked it back up later, I felt I needed to start again to remember what was going on. And then I'd get bored again...and drop it...etc. It took me roughly 2-3 years, from when I bought it, to when I beat it, and that took multiple tries because I just couldn't give a shit about what was going on.

CritialGaming:

I am like you, I didn't like any of the previous Fallout's really, not even New Vegas. But the fact that I like THIS game, is saying something pretty significant. Because if I like it, then the people who normally like Fallout games must be over the moon for it and they are.

Well I'm someone who does normally like FO games, seeing as I like FO 3&4 (which oddly enough puts me in the minority if you listen to the discourse), and I'm not over the moon for the game. I find it just fine. Simply put, I don't see what all the praise is about. People talk it up like it's this quantum leap forward that leaves the Bethesda FO games in the dust! And I'm just not seeing it. It's on par with all the others that came before it. It's different only in it includes game elements that haven't been in any FO game, but again, they are clearly pulled from other games instead. Which, I mean if we're going to praise Obsidian for taking ideas from other people, and that's ground breaking? Umm....ok I guess? *shrugs* Doesn't seem very revolutionary to me.

CritialGaming:

So I get that you aren't hyped and happy about the game, but you are enjoying it fine enough and that's cool for you. But to deny that there is any reason to be hyped for it is just missing the boat.

You don't get it, because I am happy with the game, but it isn't instilling orgasmic levels of glee in me like people seem to think it should. And I didn't say there wasn't a reason to be hyped, hype is it's own thing. It's the reaction to the hype that I find tedious, and not matching the received product. It's a finely made game, and it's fun, but it's not as amazing (to me anyway) as people are making it out to be, ESPECIALLY when they keep comparing it to previous games that it is on par with in my opinion.

Let me break it down.

Obsidianites: Bethesda = Festering Pile of Shit from the Anus of Satan Himself!! Obsidian = The Orgasmic Juices from Jesus and God, raining down upon us in our time of greatest need!

Me: Bethesda = Eh, the FO games they've made are just fine. They've been fun to play and I have no issues with them, especially not when compared to New Vegas. Obsidian = Eh, New Vegas was pretty bleh for me, and Outer Worlds is perfectly fine as a game, but it's not very different from it's predecessors that everyone keeps lauding it over.

CritialGaming:
Well after another 12 or so hours with the game I wanted to give and update on the impressions I originally had.

Namely, combat is not great. It's actually kind of bad imo. The gun play nor the melee is fun enough to want to actively do combat and I found myself letting my companions do all the work because I simply can't be bothered, also they do way more damage than I do for some reason even though I'm upgrading my equipment and barely giving them anything. So I really don't understand that. Also explain to me how my 81 dps mace deals way more damage than my 320dps handgun? Can anyone explain that shit? Because all my damage stats are in guns, so why do the guns suck? I don't get it.

Additionally I've made several choices in the game, as I stated before there are loads of quests that give you options to deal with them different ways. Power the corporate city or the hippy community, for example. Which in the context of the writing is an interesting choice because the corporate wants you to steal the hippy's power not to kill them or anything but to force them to come back to town and get back to work. The city needs the workers and is suffering because of it for reasons I wont spoil. And if you go talk to the hippy's they of course want you to give them the power so they can keep growing pot and singing around campfires I guess. But the community just bitches at you that work is hard and they dont wanna work. Which makes the game feel real to me. Like it definitely is a satire commentary on capitalism but it also illustrates that capitalism is the best economic system we've invented so far.

The game does a good job of showing you that capitalism isn't perfect, but it also goes out of its way to show you that other systems are worse, and it does it in a brilliant satire that never makes it feel political, or that it's trying to push any message to you, instead it is merely presenting the player with this world and you make you own opinions about it. Which is dope.

The problem with the quest I mentioned above. Is that no matter what choice you make, it doesn't affect anything in your playthrough. It basically just changes the person you turn your quest into and that's it. Supposedly there is a reputation system but I haven't seen that matter in any meaningful way (I think I lost access to a couple of special vendors or something but that's not big deal as far as I can tell). So ultimately it makes the choice not really matter to you, which is a bummer and hurts motivations for multiple playthroughs.

That being said, the game is worth going through at least once because the writing of the universe is just enjoyable. The biggest flaw is that the combat is really really flat and more of a hassle than anything else. Though I do like how non-combat skills like intimidation can affect combat. I'm such a scary badass that enemies cower when I hit them, that's funny. But it doesn't let me do more damage to them. There are a few bullet spongy enemies and your damage just doesn't feel like it works right.

Still one of the best games of the year easily, and should make my top 5 unless Death's Stranding is amazing. But let's face facts, Death's STranding looks like a bunch of fucking boring open world nonsense.

So, while I'm gonna go on a limb since I don't have the game yet, I do think I read that there's weapon types of damage and certain enemies are more susceptible to different types. So whatever your mace is hitting is weak to maces (blunt damage?) and resistant to guns.

Think kinda like how in fallout robots are weak to plasma damage and resist normal bullets.

Happyninja42:
The "dilemma" in Emerald Vale is laughable for how one sided it is. I mean they even try and give each side a "dark element" to them, but it's pretty lopsided given what we are shown from the opening moments of the game.

Eh? Laughably one-sided? I spent a while thinking about it, and the actually decent solution I came up with only worked because I'm roleplaying a rebellious idiot type character who isn't afraid of a little murder.

I just enjoy when a game gives you the ability to take options like that, or at least let you completely fuck the situation up.

aegix drakan:

Happyninja42:
The "dilemma" in Emerald Vale is laughable for how one sided it is. I mean they even try and give each side a "dark element" to them, but it's pretty lopsided given what we are shown from the opening moments of the game.

Eh? Laughably one-sided? I spent a while thinking about it, and the actually decent solution I came up with only worked because I'm roleplaying a rebellious idiot type character who isn't afraid of a little murder.

I just enjoy when a game gives you the ability to take options like that, or at least let you completely fuck the situation up.

You essentially just literally did the one actual path that completes that quest. I mean, you shot someone instead of persuading them to leave (it might not even be a persuasion required), but thats how that quest is meant to play out.

IF you do any other outcome the quest just dead ends and goes incomplete,

For those on PC, my advice would be to head on over to the game's PCGW page and follow the instructions for disabling "chromatic aberration". (I fucking hate this thing, and I have no idea why so many games use it. It literally makes my eyes hurt, and that's not an exaggeration.) Disabling this also has the added benefit of sharping up the graphics and improving graphical fidelity.

You can also disable mouse acceleration (highly recommended), and other useful things like disabling the intro movies. They also suggest increasing the font GUI scale to 1.15 which actually looks really nice (anything higher than this means things get cropped off the sides of the screen, at least on 1080p).

Happyninja42:
You do know that saying we haven't had a "good" FO game is just an opinion right? That's not an objective fact, because enjoyment isn't quantifiable, and varies from person to person. Because I found FO 4 to be a very enjoyable game. And I'm not sure what you consider a long time, but a handful of years isn't really that long.

Boils down to your expectations of the franchise and whether you're a goal-oriented or journey/exploration-oriented gamer.

If you're a goal-oriented gamer with the requisite game knowledge, not even a dedicated speedrunner, you can beat FO1 in about a half hour: Necropolis for the water chip if you like, military base, cathedral, Bob's your uncle. FO2 takes about the same time: straight to San Fran, whack Ken Lee, get access to the oil rig, get the GECK, blow the rig and escape. FO:NV takes about an hour, assuming you're not glitching: run straight to the Strip, kill Benny, kill House, blast through the factional wrap-ups, install the chip, deal with Kendall, and talk your way through Lanius.

By comparison, Morrowind takes about a half hour too and that's a forgiving figure, since all you need to do is abuse Almsivi Intervention and Icarian Flight to teleport to Ald'ruhn, hop over the Ghostfence to grab Sunder and Keening, then straight into Dagoth Ur to destroy the heart.

Meanwhile, FO3 takes about two hours: go straight to Tranquility Lane, then off to Rivet City and Citadel, Project Purity, grab the GECK, Raven Rock, and back to Project Purity. FO4 takes something like two or three, I've never tried it: rescue Valentine, off to Fort Hagen, Memory Lane and Virgil, build the teleporter with the Minutemen since you get the requisite rep by default, then complete the main quest with the Railroad since they offer the quickest and most straightforward endgame.

Where I'm going with this, is FO3/4 have a distinct design philosophy that sets them apart from the other games with more appeal to goal-oriented gamers: they have clearly-defined progression paths, and the games' main story paths are divided into smaller, gated, "acts" which must be completed in order. The macro-scale gameplay loop is to acquire and clear out side quests, progress to the next act, and repeat until completion; Oblivion and Skyrim follow the same design philosophy, in contrast to Daggerfall and Morrowind.

The end result being more deliberate, controlled pacing with metered rewards. I hesitate to call it "sequence breaking" in the case of FO1, FO2, FONV, and Morrowind since those games are only vaguely structured in the first place, but in the case of FO3, FO4, Oblivion, and Skyrim, it's very much an issue of "sequence enforcing". The time spent between beginning and end in that former group are entirely what the player makes of it; that is not the case in the latter group.

Eacaraxe:

The end result being more deliberate, controlled pacing with metered rewards. I hesitate to call it "sequence breaking" in the case of FO1, FO2, FONV, and Morrowind since those games are only vaguely structured in the first place, but in the case of FO3, FO4, Oblivion, and Skyrim, it's very much an issue of "sequence enforcing". The time spent between beginning and end in that former group are entirely what the player makes of it; that is not the case in the latter group.

New Vegas has a fairly obvious sequence if you follow the intended path, rather then wiki/fluking your way through otherwise impassable deathclaw/cazador hellscapes to break it. With the same full on scripted events to introduce factions that you run into FAllout 4, albeit nothing so cinematic as the airship showing up.

One of the big issues with FO4 (And Skyrim) was really the radiant stuff. Not even so much that it was there, but the sheer unwillingness to vaguely curate it to be sensible. If they had it sprial outwards from a starting zone into ever-more exotic locales, and introduced some kind of control to actually give locations you hadn't visited instead of repeating ad nauseum, that might've worked out as a functional system to sort of organically structure the open world. Instead they have nonsense RNG where people dropped their wallet in an active volcano on the other side of the world at level 1, and the same raiders keep repopulating that building across the street every other day.

Seth Carter:

Eacaraxe:

The end result being more deliberate, controlled pacing with metered rewards. I hesitate to call it "sequence breaking" in the case of FO1, FO2, FONV, and Morrowind since those games are only vaguely structured in the first place, but in the case of FO3, FO4, Oblivion, and Skyrim, it's very much an issue of "sequence enforcing". The time spent between beginning and end in that former group are entirely what the player makes of it; that is not the case in the latter group.

New Vegas has a fairly obvious sequence if you follow the intended path, rather then wiki/fluking your way through otherwise impassable deathclaw/cazador hellscapes to break it. With the same full on scripted events to introduce factions that you run into FAllout 4, albeit nothing so cinematic as the airship showing up.

So does Fo1, Fo2 and Morrowind too. Fallout sort of assumes you will head to Shady Sands then Junktown then the Hub and it is around there it opens up. Fo2 expects you to go to Klamath, then the Den, then Vault City and after that New Reno. Morrowind clearly points you to Balmora, from where you will go to Ald'ruhn early on and then send you on missions around the southern part of the map before eventually sending you up north.

These games have a clear progression you need to follow unless you know exactly what you are doing (good luck beating an Enclave Patrol at level 2). It is only after multiple playthroughs (or online guides) that you can ever sequence break the whole game by making a beeline straight to the end game quests. For players who haven't memorized the locations of plot critical items and the correct set of skills (and in the case of Morrowind, the alchemy/enchantment exploit) it is impossible to just skip large swathes of the story. Ironically, Fallout 3 is probably the game of the lot where sequence breaking is the easiest, as a bunch of people reported finding Dad by accident while exploring when the game released (thus skipping over meeting Three Dog, the BoS and Rivet City and essentially cutting out the first half of the story). I've yet to come across anyone who played Fo 1/2/NV or Morrowind who accidentally found the water chip, stumbled upon Navarro, persisted in heading through Quarry Junction or found Keening and Sunder by mistake. All four of those games heavily encourage the player to follow the intended progression, if only because the end game enemies will murderdeathkill the player and skill checks are nigh impossible to beat for a low level character.

Haven't had a lot of time to play it but so far so good. Enjoying the world, presentation, and just the overall feel of it. Will report back when I actually get out of Edgewater.

Seth Carter:
New Vegas has a fairly obvious sequence if you follow the intended path...

Gethsemani:
...Fallout sort of assumes you will head to Shady Sands then Junktown then the Hub and it is around there it opens up. Fo2 expects you to go to Klamath, then the Den, then Vault City and after that New Reno. Morrowind clearly points you to Balmora, from where you will go to Ald'ruhn early on and then send you on missions around the southern part of the map before eventually sending you up north.

These games have a clear progression you need to follow unless you know exactly what you are doing...

I don't think you're exactly getting my point, here. FO1, FO2, NV, and Morrowind have progression paths laid out through breadcrumbs and dialogue, but it's not enforced on the player. There are 1-2 key objectives the player must accomplish, and the endgame, but no more. Morrowind takes to such a degree players can whack essentials left and right, get the message about the game no longer being possible to complete, but proceed to complete it anyways because all the information you actually need about Kagrenac's tools and the Heart actually come from books and notes you pick up from those same NPC's.

This is why I feel it's important to make that distinction between sequence breaking and sequence enforcement. I don't necessarily consider it sequence breaking to bypass a series of intended, but not enforced, events or locations; the key is whether that intended progression path is enforced upon the player by some gating mechanism. Finding James in Tranquility Lane straight away isn't necessarily sequence breaking, but getting into Vault 87 without going through Little Lamplight is.

That's where the distinction lies. FO1, FO2, FONV, and Morrowind aren't heavily gated; FO3, FO4, Oblivion, and Skyrim are. The funny thing about FO:NV in relation to this:

...Fallout 3 is probably the game of the lot where sequence breaking is the easiest, as a bunch of people reported finding Dad by accident while exploring when the game released...

is my memory of FO:NV is quite different. The player is straight up told they can go straight to the Strip at the game's beginning, if they can figure out a way past the cazadors and deathclaws; they're just warned about it. Lots of players didn't think to follow the NPC's advice and take the longer route through Primm, Nipton, Searchlight, and follow Route 95 north, and complained getting to the Strip was too difficult. Or, they managed to get to the Strip and had no idea what was going on, or thought the game too short, because they skipped the entire first "act" and its world-building.

aegix drakan:

Happyninja42:
The "dilemma" in Emerald Vale is laughable for how one sided it is. I mean they even try and give each side a "dark element" to them, but it's pretty lopsided given what we are shown from the opening moments of the game.

Eh? Laughably one-sided? I spent a while thinking about it, and the actually decent solution I came up with only worked because I'm roleplaying a rebellious idiot type character who isn't afraid of a little murder.

I just enjoy when a game gives you the ability to take options like that, or at least let you completely fuck the situation up.

Yes it is one sided if it's supposed to be presented as a moral dilemma, which is what they tried to do. But if you actually look at the different views of the 2 groups, it's really no contest.

So no, I don't call that an actual "moral dilemma" by how it's presented to us. Which is clearly what Obsidian tried to make it based on how the two groups talk.

CritialGaming:
Well after another 12 or so hours with the game I wanted to give and update on the impressions I originally had.

Namely, combat is not great. It's actually kind of bad imo. The gun play nor the melee is fun enough to want to actively do combat and I found myself letting my companions do all the work because I simply can't be bothered, also they do way more damage than I do for some reason even though I'm upgrading my equipment and barely giving them anything. So I really don't understand that. Also explain to me how my 81 dps mace deals way more damage than my 320dps handgun? Can anyone explain that shit? Because all my damage stats are in guns, so why do the guns suck? I don't get it.

DPS is a misleading stat. Each swing of the mace probably does way more than each your bullets, it just takes more time to swing than shoot. Say you can shoot 3 bullets in 1 sec outputting 1 dmg each, it gives you a dps of 3. Compare that to a mace that does 3 dmg each swing but takes 3 seconds to swing, its dps is 1. You can do damage quicker but you need to land more hits to do the same damage as the mace. A super attack that does 60 damage every minute has a dps of 1.

Basically low dps doesn't mean low damage depending on how frequently you can attack. MH has the opposite problem, I think weapons show raw damage so the big slow weapons look stronger than the small fast ones at face value. In reality you can get similar levels of damage between weapons if you are using them optimally.

Dansen:
DPS is a misleading stat. Each swing of the mace probably does way more than each your bullets, it just takes more time to swing than shoot. Say you can shoot 3 bullets in 1 sec outputting 1 dmg each, it gives you a dps of 3. Compare that to a mace that does 3 dmg each swing but takes 3 seconds to swing, its dps is 1. You can do damage quicker but you need to land more hits to do the same damage as the mace. A super attack that does 60 damage every minute has a dps of 1.

Basically low dps doesn't mean low damage depending on how frequently you can attack. MH has the opposite problem, I think weapons show raw damage so the big slow weapons look stronger than the small fast ones at face value. In reality you can get similar levels of damage between weapons if you are using them optimally.

"DPS" is a bullshit, irrelevant stat in nine out of ten games its shown in stats or paper dolls...and frankly, in that tenth game, its relevance is at best dubious, circumstantial, and puts stupid ideas in players' heads about how one might best proceed. Pretty much your first, best test when it comes to detecting bullshit in "DPS" is whether the game's multiplayer and competitive. OW is neither, so there's no point considering "DPS" at all.

Underscoring this fact, is even having just watched a bit of YT video one can figure out OW's armor and damage formulae more closely align with FO:NV's than other comparable FPSRPG's, in that armor rating provides normalized or flat benefits as opposed to proportional benefits. Googling it, it seems to be a flat reduction in damage dealt on a per-hit basis, which puts it in the same camp as FO:NV in that slower and harder hits are always better against armored targets, while rapid-fire, high "DPS", weapons only function as advertised against unarmored or weakly-armored targets.

Eacaraxe:

Dansen:
DPS is a misleading stat. Each swing of the mace probably does way more than each your bullets, it just takes more time to swing than shoot. Say you can shoot 3 bullets in 1 sec outputting 1 dmg each, it gives you a dps of 3. Compare that to a mace that does 3 dmg each swing but takes 3 seconds to swing, its dps is 1. You can do damage quicker but you need to land more hits to do the same damage as the mace. A super attack that does 60 damage every minute has a dps of 1.

Basically low dps doesn't mean low damage depending on how frequently you can attack. MH has the opposite problem, I think weapons show raw damage so the big slow weapons look stronger than the small fast ones at face value. In reality you can get similar levels of damage between weapons if you are using them optimally.

"DPS" is a bullshit, irrelevant stat in nine out of ten games its shown in stats or paper dolls...and frankly, in that tenth game, its relevance is at best dubious, circumstantial, and puts stupid ideas in players' heads about how one might best proceed. Pretty much your first, best test when it comes to detecting bullshit in "DPS" is whether the game's multiplayer and competitive. OW is neither, so there's no point considering "DPS" at all.

Underscoring this fact, is even having just watched a bit of YT video one can figure out OW's armor and damage formulae more closely align with FO:NV's than other comparable FPSRPG's, in that armor rating provides normalized or flat benefits as opposed to proportional benefits. Googling it, it seems to be a flat reduction in damage dealt on a per-hit basis, which puts it in the same camp as FO:NV in that slower and harder hits are always better against armored targets, while rapid-fire, high "DPS", weapons only function as advertised against unarmored or weakly-armored targets.

See I'd like to think that's the case, but I've been finding results that directly contradict what the game tells me is best for different enemies. For example, it says shock damage is great against automechanicals. Ok fine, I have a really powerful tactical shotgun that does a ton of damage, and I modded the ammo to be shock. I have it for my robot slaying. And yet, when I actually use it on robots, it hardly seems to phase them, and my companions constantly yell out that it's not working, implying the damage type isn't ideal for that enemy. So I switch over to plasma, which is supposed to be best against organics, and it just eats the robots alive.

So...yeah I don't really get their rock/paper/scissors system for damage/armor, because it doesn't seem to pan out in the actual play.

On the subject of damage vs "DPS", there's a setting in the options menu that lets you change the default weapon info display from "DPS" to "damage" or vice versa. Not sure if this is helpful to anyone or not.

Happyninja42:
See I'd like to think that's the case, but I've been finding results that directly contradict...it doesn't seem to pan out in the actual play.

It is the case, and that is how it pans out in actual play. There are a couple intervening variables you have to take into account.

Don't forget shotguns fire multiple pellets, that individually do less damage each but total up to the paper doll value. Which means the game will check versus armor rating not against the sum total of hit pellets, but on a per-pellet basis. In games like these, they're always to be considered in the same "niche" as burst-fire or automatic-fire weapons for this reason.

Plasma and shock have their own armor rating values to check against, but it seems to be the case that's almost always equal to physical armor rating. What matching damage type does, is apply a coefficient to damage dealt, but I couldn't tell you when in the order of operations said check and application occurs (my gut tells me it's after armor reduction). Even though mechanicals are "weak" against shock damage, their heavy armor will still apply and that will mitigate far more than the bonus from matching damage types.

I'm guessing from the context of your post you're using the plasma rifle, which is thoroughly in the "slow but heavy hitting" category especially with the charge feature. So, it's working as intended, you're just not accounting for the second rock-paper-scissors mechanic the game doesn't exactly make obvious, but is nothing new to anyone who's played FONV extensively: how weapon damage and armor interact. So, if you'd stuck your Mag-2-Zap mod inside a revolver, for example, you'd be seeing much stronger returns when using it versus automechanicals.

Assuming a major bug didn't make it to retail, and something goofy is happening like physical armor ratings are applying when they shouldn't.

And as of about an hour ago, once I got to Roseway, the game has developed a bug where it locks up on an infinite load screen anytime I try and transition from one location to another, or even just load up my save file at this point.

So that's nice.

Just got the system to open up and this game is just making me smile so much. The companions, the way I spin to try and find solutions to problems, the weapons, the look, it's just fun and endearing.

I stopped playing because I couldn't play anymore because I was getting tired. Not many games do that to me nowadays. I'm having a grand old time.

Next stop, Roseway.

erttheking:
Just got the system to open up and this game is just making me smile so much. The companions, the way I spin to try and find solutions to problems, the weapons, the look, it's just fun and endearing.

I stopped playing because I couldn't play anymore because I was getting tired. Not many games do that to me nowadays. I'm having a grand old time.

Next stop, Roseway.

Nice to see you loving a game Ert. I don't think I've ever seen you genuinely love on a game on this forum, at least not in a long time. Gratz.

CritialGaming:

erttheking:
Just got the system to open up and this game is just making me smile so much. The companions, the way I spin to try and find solutions to problems, the weapons, the look, it's just fun and endearing.

I stopped playing because I couldn't play anymore because I was getting tired. Not many games do that to me nowadays. I'm having a grand old time.

Next stop, Roseway.

Nice to see you loving a game Ert. I don't think I've ever seen you genuinely love on a game on this forum, at least not in a long time. Gratz.

Honestly I post mostly on SpaceBattles nowadays. But even then, I distinctly recall going to bat for Fire Emblem Three Houses. Adored that game.

erttheking:
Just got the system to open up and this game is just making me smile so much. The companions, the way I spin to try and find solutions to problems, the weapons, the look, it's just fun and endearing.

I stopped playing because I couldn't play anymore because I was getting tired. Not many games do that to me nowadays. I'm having a grand old time.

Next stop, Roseway.

Be careful on Roseway, as that is where I've run into the "loadscreen lockup" bug. Never saw it anywhere else when I was planet hopping, and I haven't seen it anywhere else since leaving Roseway to test the bug out. So, while it's hardly conclusive, it seems that the bug is (for me anyway) exclusive to Roseway. So, save often .

Also, I've noticed a weird bug when using my new sniper rifle I found on Roseway. I was testing out it's range and hitting power, and wanted to see how accurate it was at max range. So I went to the point where the enemies despawned due to draw distance while aiming through my scope, and shot them.

Since Outer Worlds apparently adopted Skyrims physics engine of "excess damage to a target translates to vertical velocity, thus launching them into space" it means that when I would snipe these raiders, and it flung them back (outside of my draw distance), it would apparently despawn them entirely. So, no loot. So that's fun. :/

Eacaraxe:

Happyninja42:
You do know that saying we haven't had a "good" FO game is just an opinion right? That's not an objective fact, because enjoyment isn't quantifiable, and varies from person to person. Because I found FO 4 to be a very enjoyable game. And I'm not sure what you consider a long time, but a handful of years isn't really that long.

Boils down to your expectations of the franchise and whether you're a goal-oriented or journey/exploration-oriented gamer.

If you're a goal-oriented gamer with the requisite game knowledge, not even a dedicated speedrunner, you can beat FO1 in about a half hour: Necropolis for the water chip if you like, military base, cathedral, Bob's your uncle. FO2 takes about the same time: straight to San Fran, whack Ken Lee, get access to the oil rig, get the GECK, blow the rig and escape. FO:NV takes about an hour, assuming you're not glitching: run straight to the Strip, kill Benny, kill House, blast through the factional wrap-ups, install the chip, deal with Kendall, and talk your way through Lanius.

By comparison, Morrowind takes about a half hour too and that's a forgiving figure, since all you need to do is abuse Almsivi Intervention and Icarian Flight to teleport to Ald'ruhn, hop over the Ghostfence to grab Sunder and Keening, then straight into Dagoth Ur to destroy the heart.

Meanwhile, FO3 takes about two hours: go straight to Tranquility Lane, then off to Rivet City and Citadel, Project Purity, grab the GECK, Raven Rock, and back to Project Purity. FO4 takes something like two or three, I've never tried it: rescue Valentine, off to Fort Hagen, Memory Lane and Virgil, build the teleporter with the Minutemen since you get the requisite rep by default, then complete the main quest with the Railroad since they offer the quickest and most straightforward endgame.

Where I'm going with this, is FO3/4 have a distinct design philosophy that sets them apart from the other games with more appeal to goal-oriented gamers: they have clearly-defined progression paths, and the games' main story paths are divided into smaller, gated, "acts" which must be completed in order. The macro-scale gameplay loop is to acquire and clear out side quests, progress to the next act, and repeat until completion; Oblivion and Skyrim follow the same design philosophy, in contrast to Daggerfall and Morrowind.

The end result being more deliberate, controlled pacing with metered rewards. I hesitate to call it "sequence breaking" in the case of FO1, FO2, FONV, and Morrowind since those games are only vaguely structured in the first place, but in the case of FO3, FO4, Oblivion, and Skyrim, it's very much an issue of "sequence enforcing". The time spent between beginning and end in that former group are entirely what the player makes of it; that is not the case in the latter group.

So far, from what I've seen of Outer Worlds, it's very "sequence enforcing" as you put it. You can't just break the sequence and jump somewhere because you the player, have meta knowledge. You are forced to jump through the hoops in the order the game provides to push the narrative forward. So I don't really see how that is a feather in the game's cap? Because it's core story design is identical to the games that it is compared against. You are forced to move from location to location, accomplishing the tasks put in front of you by the main quest (it's even notated as being the main story, versus side quests). And that main quest often requires you to do the side quests so that you can progress the main one, thus forcing you to jump to another location whether you really feel compelled to do so or not. You can't sequence break Outer Worlds.

Personally I don't see an issue with either method, as having a story that is so linear as to allow you to just skip all of the content and bolt to the end seems contrary to enjoying the game. I mean, ok so the game is designed where I don't have to actually play the game to win it? Um...yay? Good job designers, I didn't have to actually play your game. I fail to see how that is a positive trait of game design. But seeing as you presented it as a negative for the design of FO3 and 4, I think it's only fair to point out that OW utilizes that same negative design trait in it's own structure.

Happyninja42:
...I fail to see how that is a positive trait of game design. But seeing as you presented it as a negative for the design of FO3 and 4...

I skipped straight to this because this is really the main point I'd like to address. No, I said no such thing, nor presented either as a positive, negative, or superior to the other. If that was your takeaway from that post, I'd strongly recommend re-reading it.

What I did say, and went to great effort to point out, is those two groups of games are representative of different design philosophies, with appeals to different types of gamer (goal-oriented, versus exploration-oriented). The two groups of Fallout players -- new versus old -- are at ends due to this shift in design philosophy, and this is why fans of the first two games will almost certainly prefer FONV to FO3 or FO4. FONV espouses the "classic Fallout" design philosophy, and players of the isometric games strongly trend towards an expectation of Fallout to follow that philosophy.

I'm entirely aware of how Outer Worlds is structured. I've also seen how players are largely free to pursue objectives within each area at their leisure, which strikes me as an attempt to meet both types of gamers in the middle, particularly in the world-building and dialogue aspect of the game which plays strongly to the key implication of "classic Fallout" design philosophy. Through exploration, environmental storytelling, and dialogue, players are invited to immerse themselves in the game world and shape their own opinions of the players and factions within it over time, and that immersion itself is the quality from which players are expected to derive enjoyment. Case in point, and spoilers ahead,

Now, to put that in the context of something like New Vegas. Provided the player takes the roundabout way to the Strip on their first playthrough, they're going to have a distinct, borderline preordained, impression of the Legion. Not that the reality of the Legion is really that different, but that's not the point; the point is for the player to go to Fortification Hill and talk to Caesar, and in talking to Caesar learn matters aren't always as they appear. Caesar's choices are deliberate based upon his experiences with the Followers, and what he believes to be necessary to create a sustainable society in the wasteland; whether Caesar's beliefs can survive his death, and whether the Legion's brutality is really necessary or justified, are the real bones of contention.

It's no coincidence this occurs generally at the same time players will find their way to Bitter Springs, Red Rock Canyon, Forlorn Hope, and deal with the Crimson Caravan Company through a number of quests but most notably Heartache by the Number. Because at the same time the players are learning the Legion is cold, calculated evil for the sake of survival, the NCR who are traditionally understood as Designated Good Guys are getting knocked down a few pegs as a corrupt, ramshackle bureaucracy barely capable of seeing to the welfare of its own soldiers on its most strategically-important front, let alone enforce discipline or instill a sense of military justice.

So I just ran into an amazing bug on the Unreliable.

I had unlocked SAM, the robot companion, and was just wandering around the kitchen area between missions. When I suddenly hear a flaming noise behind me, the high pitched scream of Parvati, and then get a "Mission Failed" message, indicating that I had failed Parvati's companion mission, BECAUSE PARVATI HAD DIED. Keep in mind, this wasn't in combat, and I'm not playing on the "Your Companions Can Die" difficulty.

But apparently she was still "alive" enough to deploy on missions, at least she popped up on the exit screen as an option for companion.

So that's fun. :/

erttheking:

CritialGaming:

erttheking:
Just got the system to open up and this game is just making me smile so much. The companions, the way I spin to try and find solutions to problems, the weapons, the look, it's just fun and endearing.

I stopped playing because I couldn't play anymore because I was getting tired. Not many games do that to me nowadays. I'm having a grand old time.

Next stop, Roseway.

Nice to see you loving a game Ert. I don't think I've ever seen you genuinely love on a game on this forum, at least not in a long time. Gratz.

Honestly I post mostly on SpaceBattles nowadays. But even then, I distinctly recall going to bat for Fire Emblem Three Houses. Adored that game.

Seems like a nifty forum. Any general leaning of the posters there? I've been trying to find something more focused than Reddit. The only two I've found so far is a cesspool and the other is too busy.

Eacaraxe:
Caesar's choices are deliberate based upon his experiences with the Followers, and what he believes to be necessary to create a sustainable society in the wasteland; whether Caesar's beliefs can survive his death, and whether the Legion's brutality is really necessary or justified, are the real bones of contention.

There's a little sequence in Caesar's dialogue which completely changed my view of his character, and I am absolutely convinced it is deliberate.

Caesar: No, I'll destroy it because it's inevitable that it be destroyed. It's Hegelian Dialectics, not personal animosity.
Courier: Hegelian Dialectics? What are those?
Caesar: How do I put this basically enough? It's a philosophical theory, the kind you might encounter if you took time to read some books.
Caesar: The fundamental premise is to envision history as a sequence of "dialectical" conflicts. Each dialectic begins with a proposition, a thesis...
Caesar: ...which inherently contains, or creates, its opposite - an antithesis. Thesis and antithesis. The conflict is inevitable.
Caesar: But the resolution of the conflict yields something new - a synthesis - eliminating the flaws in each, leaving behind common elements and ideas.

In this whole sequence, Caesar is essentially lecturing you. He even takes a moment to mock you for not reading books, which is ironic because everything he says in this sequence is bullshit to anyone who has read the books.

The legion is not the antithesis to NCR. NCR is the antithesis to NCR. Caesar basically says it himself. A thesis inherently contains or creates an antithesis. NCR does not inherently contain or create the legion. Remove the legion, and NCR would carry on being very much the same. The antithesis of the NCR is the fact that it is, as you say, a corrupt, ramshackle bureaucracy. For all its ideals, NCR cannot exist without being a corrupt, ramshackle bureaucracy. That is why it is a valid antithesis.

The great irony of Caesar's point here is that actually, the reason NCR and the legion are fighting isn't because they're different at all, but because they are in many ways exactly the same. They are both expansionist nation states who want the same land.

This may be an accident, it may be that J.E. Sawyer brought in Hegel simply to get some big philosophy words to make their game sound smart, but it is also tells us something about Caesar's character which clearly represents Sawyer's view, namely, that he's a fraud. He's an old bald dude from LA pretending to be the Son of Mars to tribals who don't even realise they're LARPing.

But I think that's one of the marks of quality for Fallout as a series (the non-Bethesda ones at least). The villains can be wrong, and yet still be understandable.

evilthecat:
There's a little sequence in Caesar's dialogue which completely changed my view of his character, and I am absolutely convinced it is deliberate.

My take on it was a bit different, but like you I absolutely agree it was completely, utterly, intentional. I think Sawyer was riffing on Marx. Marx having committed the same error in reasoning, taking a literalist approach to Hegelianism and applying that to argue society is inherently teleological.

The legion is not the antithesis to NCR...

Honestly, I'd take it a step further and argue Zion and Joshua Graham were the antithesis to Caesar and the Legion.

Eacaraxe:
My take on it was a bit different, but like you I absolutely agree it was completely, utterly, intentional. I think Sawyer was riffing on Marx. Marx having committed the same error in reasoning, taking a literalist approach to Hegelianism and applying that to argue society is inherently teleological.

I actually kind of agree.

Caesar's idea of Hegelian dialectics is material, it's about actual societies which exist and are not just ideas. Now, I actually don't think that's completely incompatible with Hegel's own view. Hegel did think that society was teleological, and he did apply dialectics to real historical events. But yeah, it is more historical materialism than hegelian dialectic.

But here's the thing. Caesar doesn't seem to view society as having any teleological aim except survival. That's the whole point of the legion. Unlike Hegelians or Marxists, the legion possesses no greater ideals than simply perpetuating itself through warfare. The Legion is not Marxist, it's fascist. It's a ludicrously on-the-nose representation of fascism right down to weird Roman obsession. All the major antagonists of the Fallout series (the non-Bethesda series, at least) have been fascist in one way or another, the legion is probably the bluntest expression of fascism in the entire series.

The fascist critique of Marxism is essentially that a society, being founded on "organic" concepts (nation, race, culture) could not produce internal conflicts like class struggle. Conflict can only happen between societies, not within them. The legion is predicated on this idea that if you make people part of the same society, there will be no internal conflict. The fact that Caesar thinks NCR is his antithesis when most of the population of the legion consists of slaves who hate him is a weirdly sophisticated insight into the mentality of fascism, and it still surprises me.

Gethsemani:
So does Fo1, Fo2 and Morrowind too. Fallout sort of assumes you will head to Shady Sands then Junktown then the Hub and it is around there it opens up. Fo2 expects you to go to Klamath, then the Den, then Vault City and after that New Reno. Morrowind clearly points you to Balmora, from where you will go to Ald'ruhn early on and then send you on missions around the southern part of the map before eventually sending you up north.

One really fun thing about Fallout 1 & 2 is how easy it is to get to endgame areas if you just travel in a straight line from the starting area in a direction you wouldn't normally think to go. There's also a general commitment (especially in Fallout 2) for putting important settlements on the same X and Y axes on the map, so that more often than not just walking off in a cardinal direction will get you somewhere eventually.

Those games are so small by modern standards, and yet they're made with an attention to detail that I wish more modern games embraced. New Vegas was a noble attempt, especially considering it was slapped together in a year and a half to meet an arbitrary deadline.

I messed up all of this

Yoshi178:

CritialGaming:
I liked the Outer Worlds.
i enjoyed it very much. more than any fallout game.

Good for you little buddy. have a gold star.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion as per your usual quality.

CritialGaming:

Yoshi178:

CritialGaming:
I liked the Outer Worlds.
i enjoyed it very much. more than any fallout game.

Good for you little buddy. have a gold star.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion as per your usual quality.

you're welcome.
any time buddy old pal. :D

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here