For sure, Fallout 2 was the game that finally taught me the importance of keeping multiple save files when towards the end of the game I used a stimpack on the robodog and saved before resolving the turn, leaving me a game file that resulted in a BSOD after loading.
Truth be told, I was hoping for more of a FO 1/2 vibe from OW, but instead I'm getting more 3/NV. I really enjoy the game, but I'm also looking forward to being done with it, if that makes sense.
Cose when I saw a tiny bit of the world, with its weird colors . My 1st though was ''Where does everyone see Fallout in that ?? All those colors..remind me more of No Man's Sky!'' . I mean, all I remember from Fallout Games is the Brownish..greenish texture everywhere . (well unless you use mod to clear it out) .
Cose when I saw a tiny bit of the world, with its weird colors . My 1st though was ''Where does everyone see Fallout in that ?? All those colors..remind me more of No Man's Sky!'' . I mean, all I remember from Fallout Games is the Brownish..greenish texture everywhere . (well unless you use mod to clear it out) .
I believe they were referring to the gameplay, not the visuals. Like New Vegas, Obsidian has pieced together some interesting characters with a lot of player agency. (As opposed to the relatively linear plot and execution of Fallout 4.)
Hmm. Apparently the game has been a remarkably bugfree release for an Obsidian game, and a inspite of all the criticism, a commercial success enough, that once a couple of patches have been released, a sequel might indeed be in the plans.
Hmm. Apparently the game has been a remarkably bugfree release for an Obsidian game, and a inspite of all the criticism, a commercial success enough, that once a couple of patches have been released, a sequel might indeed be in the plans.
My further observations:
- melee combat is even worse than in F4
- the same with gunplay
- I seldom saw so bad, copy-paste characters in a game. Everybody looks the same.
- Your companions are a bunch of completely uninteresting bunch of pixels. Their stories are boring, they are boring and their reasons to join you are plain silly: "hey, I dedicated my whole life to make this settlement better but I will join you because of reasons".
- Companions have the same copy-paste issue: girl with a red hair, girl with a pink hair, and another girl. Makes the robot the most interesting companion in the whole game.
- Their stories... Jeez. What a waste of time. And it's from the same company which gave us Boon or Cassidy stories in NV.
- The main story makes a as much sense as the F4 main quest.
- Some of the decisions some NPC's are making are so unbelievably stupid: "I'm all for making profits and driving people to their limits but you've persuaded me to step down because I care about people" WTF?
- Map design... Let's put a bunch of bad huys in the middle of nowhere, doing nothing, so the player have something to do while traveling from point A to B.
This game is bad. It copies everything what was bad in F:NV while adding nothing good. If it would be done by another company, nobody would play it. But it was done by Obsidian and everyone instantly puts on pink-tinted glasses playing this piece of garbage.
I've stopped playing this abomination already. But this is a discussion topic about Outer Worlds, so I'm discussing.
Oh, and btw. I love the fact that my character is constantly waving his gun in face of everybody, and no one cares. Or the NPC which I've basically blackmailed, still talking to me as if nothing happened. Yup, amazing RPG experience.
Thanks for thinking about my happiness - like I said, I'm not playing it anymore. Still, discussing it is very amusing.
For example, the complete lack of balance between solo and "with companions" gameplay. Or time dilatation "thingie" which is VATS, but it's connected to the weapon RPM, which makes very little sense.
When I'm thinking about, the only new and orginal thing Obsidian created is the "fault system", which is interesting, but ultimately gimps the player unnecessary, due to the fact that perks are pointless, and the negative effects are quite severe. It would be cool if those faults would be referenced in any way in dialogues, but probably it was too much for Obsidian to implement.
The Outer World has proven to be a surprising hit for Private Division.
www.vg247.com
And good for them. Well done. A fun, engaging RPG in a new IP. Bit linear, in my opinion, and definitely not breaking new ground in terms of systems, but a well-done, entertaining nearly bug-free Obsidian experience.
I think it's a real step up for the studio and I look forward to the sequel.
Let's hope they are a bit more F:NV daring next time, but even if not, it'll still be a lot of fun.
Every developer which went with Epic says that the sales "exceeded their expectations", or something similar, without saying what the expectations were and how much of the "expectations" were covered by the up-front payment Epic does.
I believe they were referring to the gameplay, not the visuals. Like New Vegas, Obsidian has pieced together some interesting characters with a lot of player agency. (As opposed to the relatively linear plot and execution of Fallout 4.)
You've been roused here. Your choices are mostly meaningless and don't affect things in any large capacity. The main quest is not branching like Fallout 4. Even with the complaints many have against F4, it did that very well. Your choices to support a faction lead to vastly different questlines. I've got a fair amount of hours (and playthroughs) into TOW already and haven't come close to finding anything like that. You can make wildly different choices that turn out with more or less the same outcome. Much less than even New Vegas
There are 3 primary end states ( with modfied results for different companions and other NPCs) and a wide variety of modified results depending on smaller actions.
Your choices determine if the Colony survives ( 1 of 3) or not ( 2 of 3), and a whole lot of other results as well. Your character has 8 ending states.
There are 3 primary end states ( with modfied results for different companions and other NPCs) and a wide variety of modified results depending on smaller actions.
Your choices determine if the Colony survives ( 1 of 3) or not ( 2 of 3), and a whole lot of other results as well. Your character has 8 ending states.
I know the main endings, which is all that counts there. As far as Edgewater, sure you can make choices there but have no bearing on anything else in the game. I've gotten one line of additional dialogue commenting on what I did to Edgewater and then back to the same conversation I had in previous playthroughs. Your ending choices also feel less meaningful because the game just ends. It's not an enjoyable choice for any of them. Honestly, people love the ending slideshow thing and that's cool, I like hearing it but like Broken Steele fixed, you should be able to continue playing and see some of those effects. New Vegas suffered from this as well
You've been roused here. Your choices are mostly meaningless and don't affect things in any large capacity. The main quest is not branching like Fallout 4. Even with the complaints many have against F4, it did that very well. Your choices to support a faction lead to vastly different questlines. I've got a fair amount of hours (and playthroughs) into TOW already and haven't come close to finding anything like that. You can make wildly different choices that turn out with more or less the same outcome. Much less than even New Vegas
Not at all. You seem to have a different interpretation of what makes good "player agency" and "choice / consequence" gameplay.
For me, a storyline branching off down linear paths is still linear gameplay. This is something that I disliked strongly about Fallout 4, especially since it carried the brand name "Fallout".
By comparison (even though I disliked New Vegas for other reasons ), the gameplay was very much based on a non-linear web of potential pathways. Read: not based upon an over-arching story arc, but organically evolving based upon subtle connections of player choice. (The original Deus Ex, released by Eidos in 2000, is another fantastic example of this type of gameplay.)
Of course, this may appear, on a purely mechanical level, to be splitting hairs. As I, myself, have often argued, every game follows linear pathways in the end. Nothing can happen in a game that was not specifically pre-determined by the code. So therefore, all "resolutions" have to be written in advance and are, inherently, linear and mathematical.
The element we're actually dealing with here is the evocative quality of the title. What does it leave the player feeling? Like all media, games included, this is "theatre". It's playing the house. It's the simulation of the experience. That's why a film or play can feel intense, emotional, and/or surprising. It's not. It's carefully orchestrated, rehearsed, and staged. But the illusion can be strong enough to affect suspension of disbelief. (And no production will be universally appealing. There will always be someone who doesn't like it.)
A game like Fallout 4 attempts to achieve this by locking the player into numerous, linear modules that branch at key junctions and result in a few disparate endings. However, the choices a player makes within those individual modules (quests, missions, etc.) are irrelevant to the evolution of the "plot". Whether I shoot the deathclaw, sneak by the deathclaw, or tame the deathclaw...it doesn't affect anything concerning my progression through the "story arc". The choice is there, but irrelevant. The "story" will be unaffected regardless of how I overcome the deathclaw challenge.
A game like New Vegas offers a much different approach. If I choose to, say, shoot an NPC, then it makes me a certain type of character. The act of "attacking" a particular NPC will increase my combat skill, create a relationship shift between my character and that NPC, their faction, etc. By degrees, my relationship with that faction will affect my relationship with other factions in the game. My Karma will shift, affecting my relationship with other NPCs across the game. Pathways will begin opening or closing due to my single act of attacking that first NPC. By contrast, choosing to "negotiate" with that NPC will have an equally impactful effect, but yield different results. In the end, my progression is dictated not by pre-determined story arcs, but by my interaction with the game mechanics themselves. The evocative impact is totally different.
This, from all of the gameplay footage I've watched (I've not played the game), is exactly what The Outer Worlds seems to be doing. There is not so much a "story arc" as there is a series of potential interactions which will ultimately reach a resolution. This will play out differently based upon the moment-by-moment decisions of the player and "how" they choose to play -- not by a few key junctions that forever after lock the player onto a particular story track.
Now, preferring one system over the other is a matter of taste and opinion. Both have their merits. (I'm one of the lucky gamers that can enjoy either, as long as they're done well. I do prefer the New Vegas / Outer Worlds approach, though.)
TL; DR:
When it comes to defining "player agency", it's about how much of an impact on the overall gameplay has on the final resolution(s).
Did I make a few choices at scripted junctions that will be the same every time I play? Or did my character and playstyle create exclusive gateways to progress?
Did I choose a quest then decide how to kill the NPCs the story arc pre-determined were my enemies? Or did my choices organically determine who my enemies and friends were, and offer me pathways of progression based upon my character's skills?
The one thing that surprises me that no one has posted is there is no way point marker in the map . It`s annoying to shift through all the options go get to the map as well , it would be good to go back to the last thing you were looking at rather than starting at the beginning every time .
www.vg247.com
), the gameplay was very much based on a non-linear web of potential pathways. Read: not based upon an over-arching story arc, but organically evolving based upon subtle connections of player choice. (The original Deus Ex, released by Eidos in 2000, is another fantastic example of this type of gameplay.)
