The Outer Worlds: Spacer's Choice Edition - Obsidian's first-person sci-fi RPG set in a corporate space colony

[Zarniwoop]

I am watching a let's play of Outer Worlds right now, actually, funnily enough. I am not seeing why it is met with so much hate.

Can people please explain that to me? The game play seems pretty good, and there doesn't seem to be any game stopping bugs. You don't get stuck in terrain, and barring one graphics glitch, the graphics are pretty darned good. Barring the commiecunt propaganda, there doesn't seem to be all that much sjw shittery in there.

Basically as I said. The only thing in its favour is that it's not buggy. Otherwise it's Skyrim With Guns Without Character.

And yes, it's full of SJW fucketry. The developers famously made all the wymbxn in the game ugly and androgynous on purpose (as a self insertion by the purple haired freaks that work there probably ) and predictably called anyone that objected misogynist literal hitlers.

 

[Grunker]

And like I said, you could argue for the implementation of many systems of that account.

No, you couldn't.

As combat is the de facto tool of argument resolution and problem solving in RPGs it therefore is the most sensible solution to allow players to kill NPCs they don't like.

RPGs are not storybooks, they are not racing games, they are not dating simulators.

Neither are they about having the option to murder everyone. Like I said:

Most games I enjoy in nowadays are murder hobo games. But now that you mention it, most strict murder hobo games - that is, RPGs that are strictly about combat, typically have unkillable NPCs. You might even say it's a staple of the murderhobo genre. It's the case for many blobbers and many tactical combat RPGs.

I was reminded of this because most of the games I enjoy nowadays are extremely combat-focused RPGs like blobbers or tactical top-down RPGs where you do nearly nothing but murder everything you come in contact with - except for the (genereally very few) shopkeepers and quest givers, which are often unkillable since they often don't even appear as an interactable NPC but rather as a seperate screen.

Must be nice to always side with the designers 100% of the time

I'm not gonna reply to stupid strawmen, sorry

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm not gonna reply to stupid strawmen, sorry

Yes, I know you have no argument.

 

[Grunker]

Lazy

 

[jackofshadows]

Unless you think I'm arguing that RPGs shouldn't allow you to kill all RPGs or steal from a merchant's inventory, in which case I think you should re-read my posts.

Yup, my bad.

You know what else RPGs are generally "about"? Heroism. Solving problems, protecting the innocent etc. Stopping the evil wizard from destroying the world.

I fundamentally disagree but why you can't imagine a case where creators won't allow you to kill that "evil wizard", at least straight away like it was in The Witcher for example, do you see that as a good design? I don't.

If there is 0 cost I completely agree that it should always be implemented, because why not.

If there's 0 cost then it generally sucks anyway, pretty much subj case. Compare it to, say, Arcanum's conjure spirit on plot NPCs use. No, if the devs not gonna properly support this design then it's simply not worth it. That's also why verisimiltude argument might look stronger or weaker depending on particular game's quest design and its very world.

 

[KVVRR]

It's not something you would normally notice since the truth is that almost no video game would allow you to "gay-bash" somebody during any moment.

We win again fellow DISCOCHADS!

 

[Shadenuat]

It is not about killing every character, it is about the choice of being able to kill each character

Choices must come from a role player picked. Ability to kill everything is neat, but if it's just out of tradition, developers would most likely achieve nothing and leave you with mostly empty boring non-consequences and walking around empty areas. Ability to kill anyone in game where you're a hireling assasin in a story about noble houses fighting each other would lead to much greater impact.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It is not about killing every character, it is about the choice of being able to kill each character

Choices must come from a role player picked. Ability to kill everything is neat, but if it's just out of tradition, developers would most likely achieve nothing and leave you with mostly empty boring non-consequences and walking around empty areas. Ability to kill anyone in game where you're a hireling assasin in a game about noble houses fighting each other would lead to much greater impact.

I'm not sure why everyone thinks "can kill" is the same as "must"
is this an ESL thing?

can we get ESLs tagged properly so I know not to use advanced concepts when communicating with them?

 

[Valdetiosi]

It is not about killing every character, it is about the choice of being able to kill each character

Choices must come from a role player picked. Ability to kill everything is neat, but if it's just out of tradition, developers would most likely achieve nothing and leave you with mostly empty boring non-consequences and walking around empty areas. Ability to kill anyone in game where you're a hireling assasin in a story about noble houses fighting each other would lead to much greater impact.

Remembering a game, third elder scrolls game, that would let you kill everybody, and just let you go on with the game, saying only as caution "you should reload your save".

 

[Shadenuat]

Just lettin u go with the game if you kill anything/everything is just uninteresting. Murderfaggotry is interesting in PnP because of DM tears and trying to hunt you in haven and hell and similar stuff. When you kill Master of Blades in Morrowind or Vivec and, nothing really happens, eh it's ok they allow you to, but at least roll a cool cinematic where that moon held by Vivec's power crashes on you.

 

[KVVRR]

What's the problem with RPGs letting the player decide who they want to fight? Combat is so deeply ingrained within the videogame medium that there's a huge amount of people that don't consider videogames without it an actual videogame. Being able to kill whichever NPC you choose so long as you have the tools for the challenge seems like the natural evolution of a player's own agency, no? RPGs are all about player choices after all.

It's not so much that you have to implement a new system for the game like with the dentristry thing mentioned before, but elaborating upon an already existing one. The only place where this wouldn't make sense is in an RPG where the system is simply not there (like Disco Elysium).

 

[Zombra]

but murdering folks who remind him of his real world prejudices for laffs. Haw haw I beat up that [gender/race/ideology] I want to torture in real life.

This is basically the definition of games like Outerworlds, except it's ok because the people we're killing are bad because they do capitalism. Haw haw I beat up the [gender/race/ideology] I want to torture in real life because the designers made them a strawman!
At least half of modern RPGs have examples like this. Dragonfall Humanis mission, anyone?

Yes. As I said before, CRPGs have a strong tendency to define the good guys and the bad guys. Pretty much every RPG presents a central conflict, whether it's adventurers vs. dungeon sentries, goblins vs. townsfolk, or CEOs vs. workers. You're agreeing with me here.
The difference with Outer Worlds is that the CEOs have a point of view and you can side with them if you want, which is certainly neato; but the expectation that you can take any side in any conflict, or create your own conflict from any viewpoint in any situation, is ridiculous. Being angry about lack of support (writing, narrative branches, voice lines recorded, C&C etc.) for a Druid hunting character is dumb. The game isn't about the conflict between Druids and Christians.

It's worth noting that Roguey's own RPG Wannika does this too. In the first 10 seconds of the game you encounter "Phil's Mom", but for some reason you are not allowed to kill her! Clearly it's because Roguey is a lazy designer. For shame.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

but murdering folks who remind him of his real world prejudices for laffs. Haw haw I beat up that [gender/race/ideology] I want to torture in real life.

This is basically the definition of games like Outerworlds, except it's ok because the people we're killing are bad because they do capitalism. Haw haw I beat up the [gender/race/ideology] I want to torture in real life because the designers made them a strawman!
At least half of modern RPGs have examples like this. Dragonfall Humanis mission, anyone?

Yes. As I said before, CRPGs have a strong tendency to define the good guys and the bad guys. Pretty much every RPG presents a central conflict, whether it's adventurers vs. dungeon sentries, goblins vs. townsfolk, or CEOs vs. workers. You're agreeing with me here.
The difference with Outer Worlds is that the CEOs have a point of view and you can side with them if you want, which is certainly neato; but the expectation that you can take any side in any conflict, or create your own conflict from any viewpoint in any situation, is ridiculous. Being angry about lack of support (writing, narrative branches, voice lines recorded, C&C etc.) for a Druid hunting character is dumb. The game isn't about the conflict between Druids and Christians.

It's worth noting that Roguey's own RPG Wannika does this too. In the first 10 seconds of the game you encounter "Phil's Mom", but for some reason you are not allowed to kill her! Clearly it's because Roguey is a lazy designer. For shame.

Most well written antagonists are often at least sympathetic to some degree, if not outright presenting a better argument than the other sides. Designers deciding who you can and can't kill inherently imposes a black and white view of the story no matter what.
Who were the good guys and bad guys in FNV? You could probably get the codex to write a collective book about that subject.

 

[BLOBERT]

And like I said, you could argue for the implementation of many systems of that account. Again, the question is not whether killable NPCs is virtuous - all player freedom that doesn't break the fiction contract is, more or less - it is whether it is worth the cost to implement.

If there is 0 cost I completely agree that it should always be implemented, because why not.

My entire point since we began this discussion was that given how little you actually use the system and how little value it brings, it is an odd system for so many Codexers to choose as one of the fundamental tenets that must be in all RPGs.

BRO GOODB POINTS

HERE IS THE REAL REASON YOU SHOGK BE ABLE TO KILL EVERYONE

GAMES THAT ALOW THIS USUUULY HAVE A FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND DESIGN THAT ALLOW APPLYING THE MECHANICS CREATIVELY

THISB OFTEN MEANS MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS TO POOBKLRMS AND FREEDOM IN APPLYING GAMGE MECHANICS

INDIRECTLY IT ALSO SUPPORTS DIFFERENT FACTIONS CAUSE NOT ALL TOWNS OR QUEST GIVERS OR MERCHANTS ARE GOOD PEOPLE OR PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE

TERRAIN DESTRUCTION IF IT WAS ALLOWED SHOUFKD LET YOU DESTROY A TOWN

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO STEAL THE MERCHANTS ENTIURE INVENTORY IF YOU CAN STEAL OR KILL MERCHANT

TO PREVENT THIS YOU WOULD HAVE TOWN GUARDS TO KILL OR EVEN BETTER NO ONE WILL HELP YOU IN YOUR QUESTN BECAUSE YOU ARE A HORRIBLE CUNT

WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO CHOICES AND CONSEQOUINCES

PLUS LOLLLOLOLLOL I HAVE FOND MEMORIES OF KILLING EVERY MOTHERFUCKER IN NEW RENO AND LOLLOLOL TRINSIC CAUSE A MOTHERFUCKER WOULDNT GIVE ME A SHRINE MANTRA

 

[Zombra]

well written antagonists

I thought we were talking about RPGs.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS THIS MOTHERFUCKER RIGHT HERE

WOULDNT GIVE ME THE MANTRA CAUSE I STOLE A BUNCH OF SHIT LOLLLLLOL

SO I KILLED HALF THE GUARDS IN THERE SLEEP AND SAVED HIS ASS FOR LAST

 

[rusty_shackleford]

BROS THIS MOTHERFUCKER RIGHT HERE

WOULDNT GIVE ME THE MANTRA CAUSE I STOLE A BUNCH OF SHIT LOLLLLLOL

SO I KILLED HALF THE GUARDS IN THERE SLEEP AND SAVED HIS ASS FOR LAST

Remove the end part when linking to wiki images
or host them elsewhere because the links seem to work a bit weird tbh

 

[Roguey]

Like I wrote about Bloodlines, a game sells immersion by being consistent with its fiction contract and adhering strictly to a coherent setting that abides by the rules it tells you are fundamental - if its themes and gameplay are otherwise compelling.

As I recall, in Bloodlines you can kill everyone you meet except in Elysium areas; this is because doing so would either result in your immediate destruction or a plot-breaking blood hunt called against you. This is a perfectly acceptable reason for not being able to kill everyone.

Roguey outright admitted that what he really wants and expects is a power fantasy ... in his case the fantasy isn't protecting the weak or saving the kingdom, but murdering folks who remind him of his real world prejudices for laffs. Haw haw I beat up that [gender/race/ideology] I want to torture in real life. It's pretty sick shit if you ask me, and I bet very few developers would agree that it's a valid interpretation of what their games are "about".

You are reading way too much into what kinds of people I find annoying. Characters who bother me with their words or actions annoy me.

It's worth noting that Roguey's own RPG Wannika does this too. In the first 10 seconds of the game you encounter "Phil's Mom", but for some reason you are not allowed to kill her! Clearly it's because Roguey is a lazy designer. For shame.

The reason for this is that Wannika is a more-defined character who sees no profit in killing random people, which I've already mentioned is an acceptable reason for not allowing the killing of just anybody. I thought it was a bit daft that Witcher 2 allows you to kill civilians, and didn't miss it at all when Witcher 3 removed that feature. I also believe Cyberpunk 2020 would have been better received if it had the ability to kill randoms removed as well (no meme teleporting police or robotic civilian AI to showcase).

 

[MajorMace]

Being able to neutralise all living things in a game is always a fun gimmick.
I don't understand why it's presented as a potential crpg feature itt since it's something you find in all sorts of games, from GTAs to infiltration games like Hitman or MGS.

What matters then is how it serves the game design. Common trope in infiltration games is to reward the player depending on how 'clean' his assassination/infiltration went.
Dishonored had a very cool idea regarding the plague, represented by a rat infestation, which would grow more and more visible the more non-targets you'd slay during your missions. It also tied pretty well with the themes and narrative of the game and.. well dishonored simply is the kind of game everybody should try by himself.

In Crpgs, the freedom to slay npcs is obviously another high-potential feature. You can design mechanics around it (reputations gains/losses are a common effect) and alter the narrative with it (important npcs dropping key items, sometimes allowing you to skip some quest). But overall I don't see it as more than a fun gimmick to toy with. It asks for proper planning and design to handle it convincingly.
Some crpgs with such feature had the most obvious flaws (morrowind's game over screen comes to mind. Logical, yet kind of lazy) and very few seemed to make a good use of it.
It usually doesn't affect more than the access to dialogs/quests/trade, which will alter your game experience a bit but ultimately won't matter much.
To consider it a fundamental part of c&c is interesting but it requires proper demonstration. I'm not sure to understand how it represents such a great way to let the player express his agency.
I've played quite a lot of crpgs with this feature that actually had a pretty bad c&c and where the player's agency was not all that respected (Fallout 3) and I've played games with fantastic c&c where it's just impossible to kill most npcs (witcher 2, kotor II).

tl;dr : I wholeheartedly agree that killing things is a core mechanic of rpgs. I'm not so sure that being given the choice to kill anything is. It deserves a proper demonstration.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Murder is unjustified killing in any RPG NPCs who attack you on sight are considered evil and fair game unless the Devs wanted to use device ''was send to prison as innocent''. You can extend this definition to NPCs who betrayed or robed you too since there are very rarely any prison in modern sense of world in RPGs. This is why I hated when you were not allowed to convict to death halfing who stolen gold from you as your steward but at least you could decide to either excecute bandit on sight or to pardon and draft them as guards.

And there is also Morrowind and Atom RPG which both allow you to slay all you meet and even provide you with way to finish the main quest.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Being able to neutralise all living things in a game is always a fun gimmick.
I don't understand why it's presented as a potential crpg feature itt since it's something you find in all sorts of games, from GTAs to infiltration games like Hitman or MGS.

What matters then is how it serves the game design. Common trope in infiltration games is to reward the player depending on how 'clean' his assassination/infiltration went.
Dishonored had a very cool idea regarding the plague, represented by a rat infestation, which would grow more and more visible the more non-targets you'd slay during your missions. It also tied pretty well with the themes and narrative of the game and.. well dishonored simply is the kind of game everybody should try by himself.

In Crpgs, the freedom to slay npcs is obviously another high-potential feature. You can design mechanics around it (reputations gains/losses are a common effect) and alter the narrative with it (important npcs dropping key items, sometimes allowing you to skip some quest). But overall I don't see it as more than a fun gimmick to toy with. It asks for proper planning and design to handle it convincingly.
Some crpgs with such feature had the most obvious flaws (morrowind's game over screen comes to mind. Logical, yet kind of lazy) and very few seemed to make a good use of it.
It usually doesn't affect more than the access to dialogs/quests/trade, which will alter your game experience a bit but ultimately won't matter much.
To consider it a fundamental part of c&c is interesting but it requires proper demonstration. I'm not sure to understand how it represents such a great way to let the player express his agency.
I've played quite a lot of crpgs with this feature that actually had a pretty bad c&c and where the player's agency was not all that respected (Fallout 3) and I've played games with fantastic c&c where it's just impossible to kill most npcs (witcher 2, kotor II).

tl;dr : I wholeheartedly agree that killing things is a core mechanic of rpgs. I'm not so sure that being given the choice to kill anything is. It deserves a proper demonstration.

Divinity games are some of the best examples of it being done properly.

 

[Zombra]

It's worth noting that Roguey's own RPG Wannika does this too. In the first 10 seconds of the game you encounter "Phil's Mom", but for some reason you are not allowed to kill her! Clearly it's because Roguey is a lazy designer. For shame.

The reason for this is that Wannika is a more-defined character who sees no profit in killing random people, which I've already mentioned is an acceptable reason for not allowing the killing of just anybody. I thought it was a bit daft that Witcher 2 allows you to kill civilians, and didn't miss it at all when Witcher 3 removed that feature. I also believe Cyberpunk 2020 would have been better received if it had the ability to kill randoms removed as well (no meme teleporting police or robotic civilian AI to showcase).

So you chose to have a more focused experience with a limited scope, and games that limit their scope in this way are A-OK?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's worth noting that Roguey's own RPG Wannika does this too. In the first 10 seconds of the game you encounter "Phil's Mom", but for some reason you are not allowed to kill her! Clearly it's because Roguey is a lazy designer. For shame.

The reason for this is that Wannika is a more-defined character who sees no profit in killing random people, which I've already mentioned is an acceptable reason for not allowing the killing of just anybody. I thought it was a bit daft that Witcher 2 allows you to kill civilians, and didn't miss it at all when Witcher 3 removed that feature. I also believe Cyberpunk 2020 would have been better received if it had the ability to kill randoms removed as well (no meme teleporting police or robotic civilian AI to showcase).

So you chose to have a more focused experience with a limited scope, and games that limit their scope in this way are A-OK?

It's a JRPG, not a cRPG. They're not the same genre.

 

[Roguey]

So you chose to have a more focused experience with a limited scope, and games that limit their scope in this way are A-OK?

I think it's best when narrative and game mechanics work together as opposed to being at odds with each other.

 

[Zombra]

It's a JRPG, not a cRPG. They're not the same genre.

You're suggesting that RPGs should never have limits to their scope. Got it.

I think it's best when narrative and game mechanics work together as opposed to being at odds with each other.

We certainly agree here. Not sure if this is relevant to the original suggestion that an RPG is 'lazy' if it doesn't a) let you murder each and/or every character and b) provide full scripting and narrative support for all possible consequences of murdering each and/or every character.