I never expected to be sold into buying a video game by the Washington Post before. How on earth did this game go so far under my radar, though? I can't believe this game is coming out tomorrow...
I never expected to be sold into buying a video game by the Washington Post before. How on earth did this game go so far under my radar, though? I can't believe this game is coming out tomorrow without me having heard any details about it. Maybe I should start listening to video game news again.
The multiplayer aspect of one versus the other, along with the more fleshed out quest system (in The Outer Worlds) never really made me even consider comparing the two. I do want a polished...
The multiplayer aspect of one versus the other, along with the more fleshed out quest system (in The Outer Worlds) never really made me even consider comparing the two.
I do want a polished multiplayer experience akin to Fallout 76 or Rust or 7 Days to Die, etc.-- a game where it's open world like Skyrim and you may or may not run into another player, but with the polish that Blizzard or Naughty Dog have come to be known for. That would be fantastic. I would love for a silent multiplayer aspect where other players just drop in and out of your open-world game without any prior notice and you just have to figure it out for yourself.
But I'm by no means expecting that from The Outer Worlds, which I look at as just another Skyrim/Fallout game (even though I know it's different developers) with (hopefully) much better writing and far greater quest options over just "Go to X and shoot Y." over and over.
It just feels weird for people to keep butting their heads together. I can hate what Fallout's doing and want to play The Outer Worlds without putting a link between the two.
Washington Post publishes some surprisingly good video game articles. They seem more keen to talk about the broader social context around a game, which I think is important when assessing any work...
Washington Post publishes some surprisingly good video game articles. They seem more keen to talk about the broader social context around a game, which I think is important when assessing any work of art. Too many reviewers think they need to review something as if it exists in a vacuum to give it a fair shake, which is just not how most people actually experience games.
Huh - well I was never going to purchase Fallout 76 anyway, but the £50 I was about to spend on The Outer Worlds is now going to a Game Pass subscription instead. Helpful article!
Huh - well I was never going to purchase Fallout 76 anyway, but the £50 I was about to spend on The Outer Worlds is now going to a Game Pass subscription instead. Helpful article!
So I'm kinda with you on that, however I wouldn't mind a game where you're exploring ghost towns/maps and there's like a miiiiiiinniiiiiscule chance, like 1% that you run into another player...
Because Fallout is a single-player game, and I know in my bones that's why it works. I don't want to play single-player games with other people; that defeats the point.
So I'm kinda with you on that, however I wouldn't mind a game where you're exploring ghost towns/maps and there's like a miiiiiiinniiiiiscule chance, like 1% that you run into another player dropped into your map without any warning/notice whatsoever. I feel like if that were done right, and the core gameplay was difficult enough as is, it could really add some tension to the game.
Maybe not do it with the Fallout universe, but a game where you're exploring a large, abandoned map maybe. Or something like Watchdogs 2, where another player kind of plays hide and seek with you and can potentially sick NPCs on you.
This is pretty much an exact description of DayZ. That game was literally the most intense game I've ever played in my life. The map was a large island and it actually took 10 minutes or so of...
This is pretty much an exact description of DayZ. That game was literally the most intense game I've ever played in my life. The map was a large island and it actually took 10 minutes or so of holding forward to get across the island. Zombies everywhere, and you need to eat. Towns have grocery stores and hospitals, so lots of supplies, but you might not be the only person trying to get restocked.
Hackers ruined the game. It got so bad I quit and never went back, but it was a really, really special game until then.
I never expected to be sold into buying a video game by the Washington Post before. How on earth did this game go so far under my radar, though? I can't believe this game is coming out tomorrow without me having heard any details about it. Maybe I should start listening to video game news again.
I posted the launch trailer a few days ago. Really looking forward to playing it tomorrow!
The multiplayer aspect of one versus the other, along with the more fleshed out quest system (in The Outer Worlds) never really made me even consider comparing the two.
I do want a polished multiplayer experience akin to Fallout 76 or Rust or 7 Days to Die, etc.-- a game where it's open world like Skyrim and you may or may not run into another player, but with the polish that Blizzard or Naughty Dog have come to be known for. That would be fantastic. I would love for a silent multiplayer aspect where other players just drop in and out of your open-world game without any prior notice and you just have to figure it out for yourself.
But I'm by no means expecting that from The Outer Worlds, which I look at as just another Skyrim/Fallout game (even though I know it's different developers) with (hopefully) much better writing and far greater quest options over just "Go to X and shoot Y." over and over.
It just feels weird for people to keep butting their heads together. I can hate what Fallout's doing and want to play The Outer Worlds without putting a link between the two.
Washington Post publishes some surprisingly good video game articles. They seem more keen to talk about the broader social context around a game, which I think is important when assessing any work of art. Too many reviewers think they need to review something as if it exists in a vacuum to give it a fair shake, which is just not how most people actually experience games.
Huh - well I was never going to purchase Fallout 76 anyway, but the £50 I was about to spend on The Outer Worlds is now going to a Game Pass subscription instead. Helpful article!
So I'm kinda with you on that, however I wouldn't mind a game where you're exploring ghost towns/maps and there's like a miiiiiiinniiiiiscule chance, like 1% that you run into another player dropped into your map without any warning/notice whatsoever. I feel like if that were done right, and the core gameplay was difficult enough as is, it could really add some tension to the game.
Maybe not do it with the Fallout universe, but a game where you're exploring a large, abandoned map maybe. Or something like Watchdogs 2, where another player kind of plays hide and seek with you and can potentially sick NPCs on you.
This is pretty much an exact description of DayZ. That game was literally the most intense game I've ever played in my life. The map was a large island and it actually took 10 minutes or so of holding forward to get across the island. Zombies everywhere, and you need to eat. Towns have grocery stores and hospitals, so lots of supplies, but you might not be the only person trying to get restocked.
Hackers ruined the game. It got so bad I quit and never went back, but it was a really, really special game until then.