The boss of the game Kingdom Come: Deliverance reviewed The Outer Worlds 2and in doing so made some harsh criticisms of Obsidian's sci-fi RPG.
Daniel Vavra, co-founder of Warhorse Studios and lead writer of the beloved role-playing games Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, took it from social networks say he finished The Outer Worlds 2 and received a 7/10 review rating (see below). The Outer Worlds 2 Review to find out what we thought).
That's a fair assessment for any video game, but expanding on his thoughts, Vavra criticized The Outer Worlds 2 and Microsoft-owned developer Obsidian Entertainment for failing to innovate in the role-playing game space.
Here's the review in full:
Finished. 7/10. But what makes me sad is that the company and people who brought us some of my favorite games (Fallout and New Vegas) have been unable, even 15 years later, with all of Microsoft's money and the latest technological advancements, to come up with a single new game mechanic that could take this tried and true but ancient formula in a new direction. Can any of you think of a single new gameplay mechanic in The Outer Worlds that wasn't already present in Deus Ex or the original Fallout games over 25 years ago? Unfortunately, I can't. Give me a living, simulated world! Real nonlinearity! Give me something more than loot boxes, maintenance shafts, loading screens, and completing levels in a static scripted world.
It's worth unpacking Vavre's commentary. His first point is the accusation that Obsidian, the creator of the beloved Fallout: New Vegas, has failed to significantly develop its “ancient formula” despite the support of moneybags Microsoft. He claims that there isn't a single new game mechanic in The Outer Worlds (I assume he means The Outer Worlds 2) that wasn't present in Deus Ex or the original Fallout games over 25 years ago.
This is true? Some people point to The Outer Worlds 2 Flaw Systemin which the game offers game-changing perks that can benefit your character but always hinder them in some way, which is an attractive new feature for this type of RPG. In a later social media post, Vavra said that Fallout has traits with negative aspects, calling the disadvantage system “nothing new.”
But is this fair? The Outer Worlds 2's flaw system is beloved by players not only for its impact on playstyle, but also for the way it is unlocked. While you're playing the game, you will sometimes activate the Flaw abilityand the game itself reacts to how you play, providing some really fun bonuses that are fun to experience. For example, if you squat a lot, you will be given the Bad Knees Disadvantage, which makes you squat faster, but every time you stand up, your knees crunch, creating a noise that can be heard by the guards. I won't spoil all the flaws here because part of the fun is in discovering them, but I will say that it feels like there's a DM standing behind the scenes, observing your playstyle and occasionally diving into the action to add a little spice to your experience.
Others point out that Obsidian allows players to unlock unique dialogue options not only through high speaking skill, but also by searching for information that can then be used in conversation to gain an advantage. Your character will remember “discovered information” that you found in, say, terminals, chats with other NPCs, or while exploring things, and you will be able to use it in conversation when needed. It's a cool system that adds depth to the standard, straightforward, speech-driven dialogue you see in many RPGs, and makes you want to go out into the world and learn more before jumping into big quest meetings, like the space detective I love RPGs for.
Vavra continues: “Give me a living, simulated world! Real non-linearity! Give me something more than loot boxes, maintenance mines, loading screens and leveling in a static scripted world.”
This is where Wavre's assessment of The Outer Worlds 2 perhaps rings true. The game's mini-open worlds can feel static and scripted in the sense that they don't revolve around the simulation. The Outer Worlds 2 isn't the same in scale or style as one of Bethesda's big RPGs. It's not even Fallout: New Vegas, but rather a game that rekindles memories of it.
And scale is something Obsidian is open about. This is one of Microsoft's most prolific studios, releasing three new games this year alone: Avowed, Grounded 2, and The Outer Worlds 2. This is a developer that has learned to focus when it comes to scale, detail, and deliver games that are playable and, I suspect, developable. Obsidian is not making The Elder Scrolls 6. It created its own style.
So The Outer Worlds 2 was never going to be a game with a living simulated world. Whether or not this disappoints you probably depends on your expectations of modern Obsidian games. But I would say it was pretty obvious what The Outer Worlds 2 would be like, not just based on the previews, but also based on the studio's previous games.
What about Vavra's “all Microsoft's money” comment? Of course, Microsoft has significant resources, but the reality of the business is reportedly this: that Xbox studios are under a lot of pressure to make a profit. Part of this will be to attract more money while keeping development as low as possible. It's not like Xbox studios have a magical source of money to bring their dream games to life.
Vavre's comments have certainly touched a nerve online and sparked debate about what Obsidian is trying to do when it comes to video game development. The company recently admitted that fans desperately want it to make Fallout: New Vegas 2.a game that will likely live up to the expectations Vavra has for the studio, but she enjoys creating new IPs and expanding those franchises with sequels, and that's what The Outer Worlds 2 is all about.
It should be clear by now that Obsidian focuses on releasing games that are consistently good and don't have to be huge hits to be successful. In the current climate, perhaps this approach makes a lot of sense.
Wesley is IGN's News Director. Find him on Twitter at @wyp100. You can contact Wesley at [email protected] or confidentially at [email protected].
