Round Up: The Outer Worlds 2 Could Be One of the Best RPGs of the Year, Say Positive Previews

Presses X to doubt

We’ve had preview roundups that were glowing and then the game ended up being less than great.

Ever since they tried jacking up the price for this game and then backed off, I knew I’d wait for a sale no matter what.

A lot of youtubers I watch are saying the opposite, the game is too front loaded.

I'm looking forward to Outer Worlds 2 but I can't trust the critics again after DA Veilguard got 9's and 10's.

@Oram77 how would they know that when only the first hour has been previewed?

@ApostateMage It was a return to form for BioWare!

I have very little trust left in me for anyone or any organization who claimed this.

@Oram77 being too front loaded can be a big issue..ask Katie price 👍

Im excited for it. I enjoyed the first way more than recent fallout bs..

@Northern_munkey A reference that even I as a filthy American can appreciate. Well done, sir!

@ApostateMage It sold really well too.

@Northern_munkey Damn now there's a name I haven't heard in years, but yes your metaphor works 👍

@Oram77 @dskatter no problem..

The first one just seemed boring, at least to me. Hopefully the sequel fixes that.

@Gr8VngnzN4esAngr zero chance that comment sticks around, but I get it

The short answer is lol no, the long answer is after outer world 1 nobody is fooled again, so lol no.

@Gr8VngnzN4esAngr Surprised this comment hasn't been removed yet.

Looking at this comment and the comment you made on the Stellar Blade article, it's pretty clear what type of person you are.

@ApostateMage "I can't trust critics again after they gave DA: Veilguard 9's and 10's."

I always find comments like this funny because 8 times out of 10, the general sentiment that critics have for a game is the same sentiment that players have, as well. The video game industry is not like the movie industry, where opinions between critics and consumers vary wildly. Here, they're often the same.

People have short-term memory. They just dogpile on the latest game that's trendy to hate, and ignore the fact that the critic consensus usually aligns with player sentiment more often than not. Dragon Age: Veilguard is an exception to the rule, not the rule.

Well to me Outer Worlds 2 has things they have wanted to do for years, probably as far back as Alpha Protocol. Even it's dialogue system isn't used today, many games don't do a lot of things today I wish did but it happens.

I don't play a game for a vibe check. XD I play for gameplay. I like a lot about Outer Worlds, but will never play them. So I can give a vague impression but that's about it.

I also ignore a lot of 'this is old gen/too similar to this' if that's their vision by all means. I mean if they have the gameplay substance key word there of old games then yes I'll engage in it & showcasing ideas well, & not just 'look it's in the style/tone/character designs of it' then yeah I'd ignore them.

With enough movesets/level design/game modes these days there is a reason i hate modern gaming & how empty or accessible (Casual wise, not able wise) they are. There is stats/accessibility, half the game skippable (unless an awkward design or stuck on something but a trophy for skilled players that want to do them and can achieve them) for end game access, or skill and communicating some things enough, not a fun enough showcase of an ability in level design, awkward exploration/value to do so, or it just doesn't work well.

I hate Indies that are nostalgic and substanceless and don't even match the gameplay extent of PS1 era platformers, they just have the look and not as much gameplay design of them, so modern or empty/underskilled. But I have to be fair to Indies, but I'm not buying those games and rating them. I'm giving respect on some levels while refusing to support them due to their lack of gameplay ideas or ways to wrap up their world with particular animations, not their dialogue/artstyle which are always strong in what they were going for.

But I don't care about production quality and other factors reviewers offer. I can give a game that's particular budget in mind, what they were trying to do and more and gameplay ideas and give something many will give a 1 to 3 a 5, or a 7. To me the world can be empty in gameplay and rich in themes and I may give it a 5.

So to me the things people look for in games of themes, characters, graphics and more mean nothing to me. So I would review completely different to someone else. If I see potential even in a title I may put a rating suited to that and suggestions. If it's referential and not in a good way, it losses points. If it's too realistic (in feel, graphics, tone/etc.) I have to curb my rating as I hate that but I have to be fair there.

So them getting the chance to add particular features they always wanted to, besides modern design and the scale, and all these other things, why not.

Will audiences care, no idea compared to whatever narratives/things people say and so on, but I respect the game. I'm not the core audience, but I respect the tone/themes, the dialogue is enjoyable, but the marketing has been hit and miss.

Part 2:
I also ignore a lot of nonsense audiences say or advertising/reviewers say, if I can see what they are getting at, I'm not watching the footage or for their points to agree/validation/familiarity/similar mentality, etc. it's just I see their points and meet that or agree, not disagree in emotion but disagree in potential they could do it in kind of way but still understand what they are getting at.

But that's when you watch video essays/reviewers that break things down, not reviewers that have to fit enough details in or showcase things most people want then reviewers that focus deeper and don't have videos that are 3 to 12 minutes or so but 10 minutes to 1 hour/more hours and do have context/value in their points and examples being explored but major outlets can't do that or don't do that due to limits in how they are to communicate those reviews/scores for people to look at them for viewership or their examples/thoughts that do creep through enough if someone is willing to read it/watch the review.

So to me I don't care. I have my own preferences of games, and my level of respect for those I don't if i think something is cool. I like game design not realistic grounded boring games and RPGs to me a usually boring and story/graphics/themes I don't usually care for and the gameplay with stats/more in old school RPGs I respect more then modern ones. But the minor stats are not convincing so to me it isn't my thing compared to how other genres movesets, level design/exploration works.

Or that I prefer tactics RPGs more so then real time action/turn based/etc. of the typical RPG formulas over the years. So my perspective is very different then everyone else's where world, dialogue and more doesn't matter to me at all.

But I respect Obsidian a lot even if I haven't played all their games.

I liked outer worlds so i will definitely play this

@Questionable_Duck Normal?

After that steaming dump they took, called Avowed, I think I will wait until the none main stream press reviews come in before I risk this one. I loved the original Outerworlds, it was a blast to play and very amusing.

I'm looking forward to it hitting Plus in 3 years!

Previews said the same about Avowed but apparently it wasn't very good in the end.

I really liked the first one so this was a no brainer for me, if it plays like the first then I'll be happy.

Why did my comment get removed? Lol? What guidelines did I break?