I really hate to say it but... Fallout 4 is better than The Outer Worlds

[SuzanoSho]

Obsidian has made nothing but bangers up to this point. KOTOR 2 (The better of the two games, New Vegas (the best fallout game), Alpha Protocol, Dungeon Siege III, Pillars 1&2, and Tyranny.

That's a hell of a repertoire

Click to shrink...

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone mention KOTOR 2 as "the better of the two", tbh...New Vegas couldn't escape being compared to Fallout 3 as the inferior game (I never played 3, I loved NV), and Alpha Protocol was plagued by animation issues and dodgy controls, ESPECIALLY when it was released on PC...

I never hear Obsidian exactly praised for these games aside from the one I was referring to in my first comment (NV), regardless of my feelings about the games themselves...

TOW definitely has better actual gunplay than Fallout 4. 4's gunplay was marginally better than 3 and New Vegas's but it's still pretty shit. VATS is a great system but it definitely carries the combat.

Click to shrink...

Nah. Fallout 4's gunplay was DEFINITELY better. The Outer Worlds' gun combat got seriously bland and boring before finishing half of the story, made all the more obvious when most of the perks are lackluster and the enemy AI actually being worse than a Bethesda game's AI...

 

[Grazzt]

Can't disagree more. I played fallout 4 for 15 hours and really couldn't find any motivation to continue. The story and writing is just boring. Meanwhile, I can't stop playing the outer worlds.

 

[GamerJM]

Hot take. I hate all of those types of games.

Fallout 4, 3, Skyrim, the Outer worlds, witcher 3? Etc

All open world busy work.

......

I guess I'm in the wrong thread huh?

Click to shrink...

You are but I feel the exact same way. I get lost so easily in these games. BotW is the only one that felt fun to play to me.

 

[Deleted member 224]

TOW definitely has better actual gunplay than Fallout 4. 4's gunplay was marginally better than 3 and New Vegas's but it's still pretty shit. VATS is a great system but it definitely carries the combat.

Click to shrink...

Fallout 4 definitely has better gunplay than 3 and New Vegas. But playing 76 made me realize how stiff it all feels. The first person animations look fine, so I don't know if they're the problem. But things start to really fall apart when you're put under any actual pressure.

 

[Haze]

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone mention KOTOR 2 as "the better of the two", tbh...New Vegas couldn't escape being compared to Fallout 3 as the inferior game (I never played 3, I loved NV), and Alpha Protocol was plagued by animation issues and dodgy controls, ESPECIALLY when it was released on PC...

I never hear Obsidian exactly praised for these games aside from the one I was referring to in my first comment (NV), regardless of my feelings about the games themselves...

Click to shrink...

Where alpha protocol stumbled in it's combat system, it soared in its story, writing, and player agency. I don't think saying KOTOR 2 is the better of the KOTOR games is a hot take at this point. Other than the plot twist, there isn't much that 1 does better.

 

[FlintSpace]

Fallout 4 also did nothing for me. Been enjoying Outer World's more but I gotta say the game IS easy which takes away from the experience.

Outer worlds feels like a playground while Fallout 4 felt like survival.

 

[Haze]

Fallout 4 definitely has better gunplay than 3 and New Vegas. But playing 76 made me realize how stiff it all feels. The first person animations look fine, so I don't know if they're the problem. But things start to really fall apart when you're put under any actual pressure.

Click to shrink...

I think part of it, as someone who has only watched gameplay, is that without stopping time, VATS is fucking ass and enemies aren't animated very well.

 

[LossAversion]

Fallout 4 is definitely a great game. The story and the dialogue were massively disappointing but it still had a lot going for it. The combat definitely feels tighter in Fallout 4 compared to The Outer Worlds. Exploration and looting both feel more rewarding thanks to the more in-depth crafting and the settlement system. Despite all of its flaws, you definitely still get that "I'm really living in this world" vibe that Bethesda is so good at. So minute to minute gameplay is definitely better in Fallout 4. However... The Outer Worlds is definitely a more consistent experience from what I have played of it so far. Fallout 4 is more ambitious but a lot of its systems are deeply flawed.

The settlement system is a really cool idea but as usual, Bethesda doesn't understand the concept of moderation. Dragons... Oblivion Gates... Settlements are no different. They become a chore to manage and it would work a lot better if there were only 3-5 major settlements to build up and maybe half a dozen smaller "player home" settlements to choose from. The combat feels great in Fallout 4 but unfortunately it makes up about 90% of the experience outside of settlements. They were so busy adding settlements to every corner of the map that they forgot to add unique quests or interactions with NPCs. They have all of these cool locations like a robot racing track and a fight pit... but the only thing you can do at these locations is kill everyone. There's a huge town taken over by the gunner faction... in an Obsidian game you might be able to work for or befriend this faction but nope... just kill em all. Combine this with the lackluster story and dialogue and... The Outer Worlds is a much better role playing experience. So I guess it depends on what you're after.

 

[Agent 47]

Oh god no! I just finished Monarch last night and it had more in depth and interesting quests than all of Fallout 4.

 

[ThroughtheVoid]

One of the main criticisms and problems with Fallout 4 is how little choice the player actually has, and how much combat is forced upon you in every situation. You can't do nearly as much (choice/story wise) as previous Fallout titles, which makes Fallout 4 much harder to enjoy when important elements like those are missing as you mow down endless enemies each mission.

I haven't played The Outer Worlds yet, but that game has no previous titles so it has none of that baggage.

 

[Artdayne]

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone mention KOTOR 2 as "the better of the two", tbh...New Vegas couldn't escape being compared to Fallout 3 as the inferior game (I never played 3, I loved NV), and Alpha Protocol was plagued by animation issues and dodgy controls, ESPECIALLY when it was released on PC...

I never hear Obsidian exactly praised for these games aside from the one I was referring to in my first comment (NV), regardless of my feelings about the games themselves...


Nah. Fallout 4's gunplay was DEFINITELY better. The Outer Worlds' gun combat got seriously bland and boring before finishing half of the story, made all the more obvious when most of the perks are lackluster and the enemy AI actually being worse than a Bethesda game's AI...

Click to shrink...

It's actually fairly common that people prefer KOTOR 2 over KOTOR 1, the writing is a lot better, which shouldn't be surprising.

 

[gogosox82]

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone mention KOTOR 2 as "the better of the two", tbh...New Vegas couldn't escape being compared to Fallout 3 as the inferior game (I never played 3, I loved NV), and Alpha Protocol was plagued by animation issues and dodgy controls, ESPECIALLY when it was released on PC...

I never hear Obsidian exactly praised for these games aside from the one I was referring to in my first comment (NV), regardless of my feelings about the games themselves...


Nah. Fallout 4's gunplay was DEFINITELY better. The Outer Worlds' gun combat got seriously bland and boring before finishing half of the story, made all the more obvious when most of the perks are lackluster and the enemy AI actually being worse than a Bethesda game's AI...

Click to shrink...

Most people prefer KOTOR 2 (myself included as long as you install the cut content mod).

 

[newmoneytrash]

I dunno about you, but Bethesda's Fallout not willing to adhere to the folly's of humanity in post-apocalype society or can humans change is a big condemnation against them.

Let's not forget that they treat nukes as if they're some child toys.

Click to shrink...

i don't think that stuff is missing. i think a lot of it isn't executed well, but that stuff is all there. the world not feeling the same in every location, portraying humanity the same way is a *positive* to me, not a negative

the nukes as toys stuff is more of a fallout 76 thing. unless you're talking about the fatboy?

 

[Lunchbox]

Having way more fun with Outer Worlds than Fallout 4.

 

[SuzanoSho]

Where alpha protocol stumbled in it's combat system, it soared in its story, writing, and player agency. I don't think saying KOTOR 2 is the better of the KOTOR games is a hot take at this point. Other than the plot twist, there isn't much that 1 does better.

Click to shrink...

I actually enjoyed Alpha Protocol's dialogue and interactions more than anything else in the game. Unfortunately, that alone does not make it a good game, especially when it's still a technical mess. Alpha Protocol was receiving the OPPOSITE of "praise" upon reception...

It's actually fairly common that people prefer KOTOR 2 over KOTOR 1, the writing is a lot better, which shouldn't be surprising.

Click to shrink...

Well, it's obviously not, in my experience. However, even if that is the case, would that not literally support my initial comment anyway? Didn't BioWare develop KOTOR?...

 

[NikkiNailZ]

It's not.

 

[nbnt]

Couldn't agree more. I dropped TOW and then gave it another chance yesterday but nope, it just won't click with me. I just find the world/art not appealing at all. Not to mention there's no sense of exploration, you get to a new planet, you open the map, and there's like 3 or so major locations on it (at least from what I played), exploration is a HUGE reason why I loved FO3/4, so the lack of it here didn't help at all.

That said, I really hope they get to make a sequel, there's something here, with enough time and budget, I'm sure they can make another New Vegas.

 

[Haze]

I actually enjoyed Alpha Protocol's dialogue and interactions more than anything else in the game. Unfortunately, that alone does not make it a good game, especially when it's still a technical mess. Alpha Protocol was receiving the OPPOSITE of "praise" upon reception...

Click to shrink...

well yeah it wasn't well received at launch but shortly thereafter, people started to realize how good it really was

 

[Linus815]

TOW definitely has better actual gunplay than Fallout 4. 4's gunplay was marginally better than 3 and New Vegas's but it's still pretty shit. VATS is a great system but it definitely carries the combat.

Click to shrink...

Very much disagree. Fallout 4 actually has pretty damn decent gunplay, not just for an RPG but even as an open world shooter. TOW's gunplay is incredibly static in comparison.

VATS is indeed great and multitudes more fun and interesting than the time slowing in TOW.

 

[Katarn343]

People out here really saying The Outer Worlds has better gameplay than Fallout 4. For an instant let's pretend both games handle about the same (Fallout 4 feels much more smooth). But let's say they do. Fallout 4 still has a first-person cover system, grenades, huge weapon variety, actual weapon modifications, different melee weapons, V.A.T.S. and actual, interesting gameplay-changing perks (such as intimidating enemies on the go). Besides, it has much superior enemy AI — and that's saying something, since Fallout 4's AI is terrible. But pretty much all enemy types on TOW have a single strategy: rush and overwhelm the player in groups. It's so uninteresting and annoying. And yes, I consider the gameplay to be more than just gunplay.

 

[Yam's]

I agree. But despite its flaws I loved Fallout 4 for its sense of exploration and well because it has the fallout universe.

And while F4 is always criticized for its writing, I didn't find ToW much better in that regard. Offering more choices during dialogues doesn't do much when the choices themselves are kinda boring. The humour also didn't convince me, so that doesn't help. New Vegas was so much better in its writing for me.

 

[Mr.Deadshot]

Easily, yes.

 

[vestan]

Someone had to say it, thanks OP.

Fallout 4 with its expansions (especially Far Harbor) is legit solid. The exploration aspect of TOW really sucked, but Fallout 4 handled it nicely (just like most other BGS games).

 

[Coxy]

Oh yeah, easily.

Writing and choices go to Outer worlds

But sense of discovery, exploration, detail, joy of sneaking and stealing, stealth, the open world itself, Fallout 4 is faaaar better.

Outer Worlds really lacks the interactivity that makes Bethesda's games so meticulous.

Also V.A.T.S is superior to what Outer Worlds tried to do.

Click to shrink...

This

 

[Keldroc]

Absolutely not. Fallout 4 is a bad game.

 

[JigglesBunny]

Fallout 4 has The Outer Worlds beat in soundtrack alone.

The Outer Worlds wiped the floor with every Fallout product post New Vegas with half the budget, development team and resources.

 

[Oghuz]

In some ways Fallout 4 is better, in other ways TOW. But overall I enjoyed TOW more than Fallout 4.

 

[Haze]

People out here really saying The Outer Worlds has better gameplay than Fallout 4. For an instant let's pretend both games handle about the same (Fallout 4 feels much more smooth). But let's say they do. Fallout 4 still has a first-person cover system, grenades, huge weapon variety, actual weapon modifications, different melee weapons, V.A.T.S. and actual, interesting gameplay-changing perks (such as intimidating enemies on the go). Besides, it has much superior enemy AI — and that's saying something, since Fallout 4's AI is terrible. But pretty much all enemy types on TOW have a single strategy: rush and overwhelm the player in groups. It's so uninteresting and annoying. And yes, I consider the gameplay to be more than just gunplay.

Click to shrink...

thats.... what Fallout 4 is like too?

 

[Tovarisc]

TOW is superior story and overall writing experience, but lacks reason or meaning for world exploration. Also nice to have basically just core systems in place without fluff like half baked settlements of FO4.

Fallout 4, like all Bethesda games, is sandbox to explore with everything else outside of that having depth of puddle.

Also calling Fallout 4's perks "game changing" is reaching. Both games have poor leveling systems.

 

[Katarn343]

thats.... what Fallout 4 is like too?

Click to shrink...

I mean... not really? An enemy with power armor behaves very differently from an average raider. A synth keeps distance. Mole rats and radscorpions burrow. Deathclaws can physically grab you if you get too close. Bloodbugs try to get close to you to suck your blood, while bloatflies try to stay away and launch you their stings. Their AI and behavior is not great, but it is better than TOW's.

 

[Haze]

I mean... not really? An enemy with power armor behaves very differently from an average raider. A synth keeps distance. Mole rats and radscorpions burrow. Deathclaws can physically grab you if you get too close. Bloodbugs try to get close to you to suck your blood, while bloatflies try to stay away and launch you their stings. Their AI and behavior is not great, but it is better than TOW's.

Click to shrink...

I mean they do all those things, but they also for the most part just rush you or stay at a distance and shoot you, just like in TOW. Neither game has very good enemy AI, but the gunfeel and actual gunplay of TOW is significantly better than FO4.

 

[Katarn343]

I mean they do all those things, but they also for the most part just rush you or stay at a distance and shoot you, just like in TOW. Neither game has very good enemy AI, but the gunfeel and actual gunplay of TOW is significantly better than FO4.

Click to shrink...

I think it is significantly worse, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Tovarisc]

Gunfeel and gunplay is poor at best in both games.

Weapons don't properly convey feeling of being powerful at any point of game progression. Weapon designs also aren't that interesting, but safe and normal assault rifles and FO4 drops in some franchise memes like fatboy which also feels weak in end game.

To extent this is explainable (excusable?) by games being RPGs.

 

[Flipyap]

I haven't played The Outer Worlds yet and I'm in no real rush to catch up because it doesn't focus on the parts I enjoy about 3D Fallouts.
The only Fallout game I've played for the story was the original, so Fallout 4's bad main quest didn't ruin it for me. I didn't "finish" it and still got well over 100 hours of enjoyment out of it.
As an open world exploration game with survival and base buildings mechanics, Fallout 4 is pretty great.

 

[Lyng]

I really enjoyed the choice of freedom in Outer Worlds, but I have a ton of issues with it: the humor didn't land for me and felt like we where laughing at the people being abused by the companies. The skill system was bland. Apart from Pavarti and Sam the followers just annoyed me. And it was just way to easy, even on hard.
That having been said it's still better than Fallout 4 imo.

 

[Deleted member 29464]

I strongly disagree. While it may seem the main story takes a backseat, a good RPG integrates it's world building and side content in a way that affects your perspective of the main story and adds value to it, and that is something I felt TOW did really well while balancing a small level of humour. There were a couple of things I would change about the last moments to make the choices more difficult but I felt very invested in the world by the end.

Fallout 4 was so poor to me, I couldn't force myself to play it anymore. It also seems like TOW is getting backlash for being something it is not, an open world game.

I really enjoyed it and just wish it was longer, I hope it gets expansions as it could really make it into something special. It will always at best be a cult hit though, something that won't appeal to the larger Bethesda audience, unless a sequel makes significant changes.

I hope Microsoft allows time for expansions and updates if Obsidian wants to them, and I hope a sequel isn't too standardised to appeal to a larger market. There were a lot of flaws with this, I won't deny that, but it was also so nice to get a KOTOR like RPG in 2019.

 

[ffvorax]

I didnt played Outer Worlds, but F4 was so bad that to be better, OW must be a terrible game...

 

[misho8723]

Yeah, naaaaah.. OW has problems, some big ones when it comes to its RPG systems and mechanics but is still way, way better RPG, has way better gunplay and way better writing, dialogs and worldbuilding than F4

 

[Pheace]

I finished TOW but I couldn't see myself ever going back to it. The perks were too vanilla/boring and the looting wasn't interesting so there's really little variance to play with for me. Sure, I could make some other choices in the story but I rarely even finish games, I probably only finished TOW because it was on gamepass and well, there really wasn't much else to do but keep going.

For me, I liked TOW, had plenty of fun with it, but it really... reaaaaally made me crave playing Fallout. I'll probably start another run in F4 sometime soon. I have *never* even finished that game, but I've had plenty of hours and fun in it. I'd play FO76 but I can't see myself going back to it, the multi just takes away from it, even if you can largely ignore them (or pay to be on your own...)

 

[ry-dog]

If Bethesda had made OuterWorlds it would have been pegged as one of the most disappointing games ever. The comparison between it and Fallout don't make much sense, it's not a systems game. The world is static, clothes aren't even get removed from npcs when looting, and quest givers stay still. People are praising it for fewer bugs, but like no shit, the game doesn't have the complicated stuff that makes fallout janky in the first place.

The game is 1/100 of the size but still has more reused environments than Fallout. And the skills system is straight up broken. Unless you only come to Fallout games for their dialog systems and story, I think you're comparing apples to gold. No one makes games like Bethesda do, and Outer Worlds didn't come close. It's a low budget Mass Effect game with a Fallout skin that was damn lucky to come out at a time when all people think about when they hear Fallout is Fallout 76

 

[unicornKnight]

Apples and Oranges. Those games look so similar on the surface but you quickly realize the vast differences. They don't even try to compete with each other.

It's like someone took the perfect dev team and split them. They complete each other, they should do a game together.

 

[Deleted member 29464]

TOW could get rid of all its stats and still be a better role playing game than FO4.

 

[Haze]

Apples and Oranges. Those games look so similar on the surface but you quickly realize the vast differences. They don't even try to compete with each other.

It's like someone took the perfect dev team and split them. They complete each other, they should do a game together.

Click to shrink...

This just simply isn't true. TOW wants so very much to be Fallout from top to bottom, gameplay to tone, that you can't help but draw comparisons

 

[ry-dog]

This just simply isn't true. TOW wants so very much to be Fallout from top to bottom, gameplay to tone, that you can't help but draw comparisons

Click to shrink...

But they're largely surface level similarities. It's missing most of the world systems and exploration that made Bethesda games standout. Its fallout on the outside and mass effect on the inside

 

[Haze]

But they're largely surface level similarities. It's missing most of the world systems and exploration that made Bethesda games standout

Click to shrink...

They are not surface level at all. The tone of the game is extremely similar to fallout, character progression, gunplay, dialogue, branching quest narratives, hell just about every single way the player interacts with the world.

there is a reason most people consider this a spiritual success to New Vegas. Because at its core it is sincerely trying to replicate that experience.

You can't say they are only surface level similarities because one is a connected open world and one has smaller open areas. Even when broken up, the way the player engages with the world is exactly the same as a Fallout game.

This game only has a couple of similarities to mass effect

 

[Deleted member 203]

Yeah agree with the entire OP. I never felt like I had an interesting choice to make in TOW either in story or in gameplay. It plateaus very, very early, and it's shallow in every aspect. Fallout 4 has a lot of faults (mostly the writing), but it at least gave you a sense of exploration and more interesting character-building choices. I fell off of TOW on Monarch because it just felt super repetitive and shallow.

 

[BarryFishFinger]

I've not played TOW, but I refuse to believe it can be worse than FO4 in terms of narrative, dialogue and world building.

I mostly enjoyed FO4 for a number of hours but that's despite the myriad flaws, some of them just bad and/or baffling. One of my major complaints is you see the nuke go off just over there as you enter the bunker and then 200 (200!) years later emerge and it all looks basically the same except the trees are dead and the timber houses are a bit run down. Felt like 2 years had passed, not 200.

 

[Mr.Deadshot]

They are not surface level at all. The tone of the game is extremely similar to fallout, character progression, gunplay, dialogue, branching quest narratives, hell just about every single way the player interacts with the world.

there is a reason most people consider this a spiritual success to New Vegas. Because at its core it is sincerely trying to replicate that experience.

You can't say they are only surface level similarities because one is a connected open world and one has smaller open areas. Even when broken up, the way the player engages with the world is exactly the same as a Fallout game.

Click to shrink...

Not really. The fragmented world is one of Outer Worlds biggest issues. There is no sense of exploration or adventure. Also the world is extremely static in TWO. Most NPCs don't move at all and there is no physics system. The world's in Fallout are also richer in almost every regard: more lore, more NPCs, more quests, more items, more enemy types, more weapons. Heck, there aren't even grenades in TWO. All of this combined kills a lot of what makes Fallout 3,NV and 4 so engaging.

 

[Haze]

Not really. The fragmented world is one of Outer Worlds biggest issue. There is no sense of exploration or adventure. Also the world is extremely static in TWO. Most NPCs don't move at all and there is no physics system. The world's in Fallout are also richer in almost every regard: more lore, more NPCs, more quests, more items, more enemy types, more weapons Heck, there aren't even grenades in TWO. All of this combined kills a lot of what makes Fallout 3,NV and 4 so engaging.

Click to shrink...

Just because this aspect isn't as fleshed out or as expansive in those games doesn't mean they aren't similar. It's just one of the things Fallout 4 does better.
Better =\= dissimilar

 

[Ushay]

FO4 obviously had a much bigger budget, and clearly was able to do things Outer Worlds couldn't because of that.

If you want to compare the story and writing. It's not even a match. Obsidian are so far above Bethesda,