Tbh I get both sides of the argument. I definitely agree that the game is incredibly narratively focused with the coop gameplay reflecting the narrative messaging of parents working cooperatively to be better parents for their child. The issue is that the game also seemingly narratively contradicts this in a lengthy sequence in which the game forces the players to use that gameplay/narrative "parental cooperation" to chase down, mutilate, and throw a helpless child's toy elephant off a cliff as it begs for mercy--all so the parents can gleefully bathe together in their child's consequent tears. As Andrew points out, even when the parents realize that their dumb shared plan to become human again by bathing in their daughter's tears didn't work they never substantially reflect on or even acknowledge the harm they needlessly caused their child by destroying her toy and instead selfishly whine about how they're still stuck as dolls. Despite the entire sequence being so cartoonishly antithetical to everything the gameplay and narrative had been building up until that point, the game pretty much ignores all of the section's thematic implications and uncritically proceeds with rekindling the parent's marriage "for the kid's sake" despite the game previously showing that the 2 parents cooperating as a parental unit doesn't necessarily bode well for the child's wellbeing. So yeah the gameplay mechanics is deeply intertwined with the narrative, but the narrative those mechanics are attached to is also a contradictory and thematically incoherent mess. In a game so fundamentally about the importance of parental cooperation, it is baffling how it so blatantly shows how potentially toxic, negligent, and downright abusive said cooperation can be and then refuses to acknowledge itself letting that particular cat out of the bag for the rest of its story. Thus, it makes sense why a lot of people like Andrew walk away from the game not only feeling repulsed by the 2 parents ending up together but also alienated from the game's entire narrative and mechanical focus.
Trilogy movies where you can jump into the last book after only seeing the movie: The Hunger Games. There's some context and details you might miss, but PLOTWISE it actually lines up 1:1. Same with the early Harry Potter, though later there becomes a lot of context you're lacking. Big difference being those series have a single protagonist, as well more clearly delineated periods of time (school years, hunger games...) that mean shuffling stuff around is harder.
IMO Outer Worlds leaned a bit too much into the Borderlands "wacky shooter" vibe, which makes the world building and characters feel shallow because everything is just a joke. I don't think it was completely vanilla, but I do wish it was a bit more serious/fallout-esque.
I barely got through two worlds in the outer worlds before I put down the game and never picked it back up again. I know people who loved that game and really recommended it, but it just felt so generic and I didn't really like the art style and the companions felt really meh, and in general it just felt like a pretty shallow experience compared to what I was looking for.
Wasn't expecting "it takes two" to be the most conteoversial topic this podcast. 😮
Tbh I get both sides of the argument. I definitely agree that the game is incredibly narratively focused with the coop gameplay reflecting the narrative messaging of parents working cooperatively to be better parents for their child. The issue is that the game also seemingly narratively contradicts this in a lengthy sequence in which the game forces the players to use that gameplay/narrative "parental cooperation" to chase down, mutilate, and throw a helpless child's toy elephant off a cliff as it begs for mercy--all so the parents can gleefully bathe together in their child's consequent tears. As Andrew points out, even when the parents realize that their dumb shared plan to become human again by bathing in their daughter's tears didn't work they never substantially reflect on or even acknowledge the harm they needlessly caused their child by destroying her toy and instead selfishly whine about how they're still stuck as dolls. Despite the entire sequence being so cartoonishly antithetical to everything the gameplay and narrative had been building up until that point, the game pretty much ignores all of the section's thematic implications and uncritically proceeds with rekindling the parent's marriage "for the kid's sake" despite the game previously showing that the 2 parents cooperating as a parental unit doesn't necessarily bode well for the child's wellbeing. So yeah the gameplay mechanics is deeply intertwined with the narrative, but the narrative those mechanics are attached to is also a contradictory and thematically incoherent mess. In a game so fundamentally about the importance of parental cooperation, it is baffling how it so blatantly shows how potentially toxic, negligent, and downright abusive said cooperation can be and then refuses to acknowledge itself letting that particular cat out of the bag for the rest of its story. Thus, it makes sense why a lot of people like Andrew walk away from the game not only feeling repulsed by the 2 parents ending up together but also alienated from the game's entire narrative and mechanical focus.
I'm one of the people who are listening to the audio. I usually just switch to X2 speed during the inaudible parts.
I think the Outer Worlds was superb, it's Snarky Writing was the selling point for me mostly.
The writing starts strong on the first planet, but quickly becomes both sparsely distributed and less interesting as the game drags on.
Trilogy movies where you can jump into the last book after only seeing the movie: The Hunger Games. There's some context and details you might miss, but PLOTWISE it actually lines up 1:1. Same with the early Harry Potter, though later there becomes a lot of context you're lacking.
Big difference being those series have a single protagonist, as well more clearly delineated periods of time (school years, hunger games...) that mean shuffling stuff around is harder.
I played the Steel Hunters beta, and there is no indication that any of those world of predatory mechanics are in the game.
never seen a video listed as uploaded an amount of seconds ago before
Oh hell YES it's that time
IMO Outer Worlds leaned a bit too much into the Borderlands "wacky shooter" vibe, which makes the world building and characters feel shallow because everything is just a joke. I don't think it was completely vanilla, but I do wish it was a bit more serious/fallout-esque.
I barely got through two worlds in the outer worlds before I put down the game and never picked it back up again. I know people who loved that game and really recommended it, but it just felt so generic and I didn't really like the art style and the companions felt really meh, and in general it just felt like a pretty shallow experience compared to what I was looking for.
Intergalactic looks good, but this whole retro space theme is so overdone.
yo
yup