"First open-world Star Wars game"? Nah bro, I'm pretty sure that moniker is still firmly in the grasp of Star Wars Galaxies (R.I.P.) all the way back in 2003 which launched with 10 planets, each with 15km x 15km freely explorable areas
@@junewilkerson2349 those are not mutually exclusive. Level based just means it's an RPG. Fallout is open world and an RPG. As is mass effect and elder scrolls.
Even if someone did it wouldn't hold up today. It was good back in the day, top of the line, but in this day and age it's an insanely outdated concept that would require so many more features, which is why we ended up with Squadrons, and barely anyone even plays it.
@@rabidkangar00that is absolutely NOT true. In fact, I'd say the gaming community is looking for projects to get behind. You sound like one of those consultants who makes money telling these corporate suits that the consumers are the problem, not their lack of care and creativity. Aspects of the character look visually awful and aspects of the game play look bland and lazy, which is an industry/studio problem, not a consumer problem.
I jsut want to make my own character in a starwars game....This one, Jedi Outcast or whatever, I just cant get into non personalized characters in any game.
It wouldn't be so bad if: 1) the characters were actually cool and had a neat design like Starkiller did back with the Force Unleashed, and 2) they actually had a unique and cool story like Kyle Katarn, Dash Rendar and Starkiller had back in the day; most people did not complain about those games and their characters because they were well written and actually fit the lore and occupation of their story. Kay neither fits the lore they're trying to tell nor has any cool elements to her character whatsoever.
It doesn't look very Open for an "Open World" Seems to be heavily on rails with set pieces you have to walk through in a specific way rather than have any actual mechanical freedom in the game yourself
I think the graphics look pretty good for the most part, and certainly there's a lot of production value gone into some moments (like arriving at a destination from hyperdrive). The problem is that the actual moment-to-moment gameplay looks so bland and milquetoast, just corporate-curated slop that is afraid to do anything bold and just comes off as generic instead.
Reading all the comments, I’m glad that people are finally wising up and not pre-ordering games. And at $130 Ubisoft is about to learn a hard lesson about how much gamers will tolerate.
@@underleft If the game was actually awesome and groundbreaking, I would absolutely be willing to pay for it, but Star Wars Outlaws is absolutely not that game.
As with every Ubisoft game, I'm sure it's going to be an open world game with a ton of repetitive content, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, lots of people enjoy Ubisoft style games. I'll likely wait a year or so and pick it up either on a deep sale or as part of a bundle.
Exactly, Ubisoft’s open-world formula isn’t some grand mystery so everyone should already know what to expect with Outlaws. Some people hate Ubi’s formula and others like it (I’m one such person). At this point I think people should already know if a game will be up their alley depending on who is publishing the game. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t give it a try if they’re interested but I just think we’re well-beyond the point of people just complaining for the sake of complaining. Like, if a person hates Ubisoft and Ubi Connect and doesn’t like overly repetitive open-world gameplay then just keep walkin’ on down the road. There’s tens of thousands of other titles to play.
Even though I agree Tatooine has been overused I think it's appropriate for Outlaws seeing its "wretched hive of scum and villainy" Though a alternative location could of been Smuggler's Moon Nar Shaddaa (though not sure that's still canon) Apart from the boardgame Star Wars Outer Rim the games world has been bit void of the seeder and more interesting side to Star Wars universe the question what we are all thinking can Star Wars Outlaws deliver, quite a few doubts at the moment.
There's still too many cut scenes where the main character has the emotional range, facial structure, and movement of a bastardized cross between a Muppet and Thunderbird puppet. Some of it is better than it was in the first trailer, but it's still falling square in that uncanny valley of ugliness.
@@CornishCracker not going to give Ubisoft even a penny if my money. They’re game directors are full of lazy ideas, the games they make feel cookie cutter and lifeless, churned out to be spoon fed to the masses, without originality and lacking any kind of semblance of fun. I don’t play Ubisoft games at all, let alone buy them or get them for free.
I think you meant AB, if it doesn't release at the same time, but every other platform gets to be a beta tester basically, the game is only released when it comes to steam.
@emrebayram1778they didn't lie, they said from the start that there were only a few planets, you prefer 1000 procedural planets go to Starfield I prefer to have only 5 planets made by hand, Ubisoft tend to do a lot of repetitiveness on their game but their open world is still very nice to explore, it's just that they include a lot of activities which are not always interesting
@@heisenbergauxfinesherbes5 Full credit to Ubisoft they seem to have learnt how not to run a marketing campaign for a space game from Hello World and Bethesda . Personally wouldn't have minded if they pad out the game with a few procedural worlds, but that would investing in Hello World type technology and even Hello World have yet to perfect that tech.
My biggest issue with most Star Wars games. The lack of character customization, the IP I think works best having a say in your character. Hell I would've settled with what they did with Creed. Getting to option of two to pick from, the canon of whether the character was male/female/whatever still works. The Old Republic games are a great example. This though I think Ubi has no say in and probably a Disney requirement since everything has to fit perfectly in their canon
@@tylersmall634 I think it's actually that during peak development time of the game they were more worried about DEI rather than making a good game that people will want to play.
@@Ricolaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I dont buy it. Its the same argument in every game when its a woman or PoC. To claim DEI on a game that hasnt released and we've seen little story. People made the same argument for oddesy because you could play as s woman. Look at the Jedi games with Cal. Missed opportunity to have the same story yet we are locked in to the character. DEI isnt inherently bad when its handled correctly, . To use it as an argument this early serves nothing for anyone. Especially when its thrown around so casually. If Ubi gets the creative freedom to write the story/dialog I think its fine they typically handle that well without pandering and disrespecting people that would fall under DEI(shadows excluded, thats a whole different mess). Outlaws just looks like a largely bad game visually and mechanically
@@tylersmall634 Don't get me wrong it is bad all around or at least sub par. But there's a reason they lock you into playing a female character and it isn't because the fanbase wants it I can assure you of that. Whether you buy into the idea that it's due to DEI or not is up to you but it's pretty blatant that this game went into development during peak DEI investment. It may not be the sole reason for it but it definitely holds a strong influence over it. Cal made sense because the original plan was to bring him into the shows and movies which they haven't done yet. I can't see that being the case for this new character with how poorly done and how poorly received the Acolyte was.
@@Ricolaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa how is it blatant, yours and everyones only evidence is a time frame and a female character. Fan base didnt want Cal either. Show/movie inclusion or not doesn't matter as all you have to do is pick which gender or version is canon. Its more they wanted X actor to drive investment and who they expected to carry into the shows. I will bet its 100% the same reason for this. Disney has a plan to incorporate this and the actors involved into the wider universe. Seems odd even for Ubi to lock you in given their past and upcoming non star wars games Acolyte was bad because it was poorly written and executed it was a poor rehash of old legend stories (hearing that they want to do a Reven story next makes me sick for the same reason, they will trash one of the best legend stories and should be left alone to just merge into canon.) Didnt help Disney and the show creators crapped all over any critism as hate. Jacinto and the guy who played Sol were the only highlights of the show. Until we see the actual story play out saying that all the investment was heavily focused on DEI doesnt help. Ubi just makes bad games now. AAAA and calling their fan base wrong for the garbage Skull and Bones was is all the reason anyone needs to not give Ubi anything not because of any DEI reservations one might have. I think we've reached an impass and now just talking in circles. I appreciate the civility, hard to find nowadays
I really like a lot of what they're showing, but, and it's a big but, I think the first thing to get right to draw me in is a character I want to play, and I just don't really see her character as all that interesting to me. This game is made for a Han Solo type character, an iconic character in a universe filled with iconic characters, so unless there's a lot more to her than she appears to be, I think it will fall flat. Hopefully the character is good. Maybe a commander shepherd approach would have been better, male or female, or a customizable character screen to make it feel a little more personal, and a droid sidekick you could customize and outfit during the game.
@@rabidkangar00 Well what do you think? If you've seen all the movies and in particular Solo, and you know which scoundrel this character is inspired by, he's the yardstick which she will be measured by. Tough gig right. The rug rat on her shoulder is no Chewbacca, another great character. I just think of all the run ins he's had with syndicates, and all the friends he's made within the universe, if you're making a Han Solo game, make a Han Solo game and double down on it. She's done plenty of TV and movies, other games, so hopefully she's nailed it and will be a great character if they've written one for her.
@@rabidkangar00 There's been a total of an hour's worth of gameplay on display at this point and Kay comes across as insufferable and annoying. If the lead character is that way over the course of a cumulative of an hour's worth of footage, then it doesn't matter what her arc is, it's simply a bad character. Just like you don't have to play 14 hours of SS: KTJL to know that that game is a turd.
@@Timmy51m Stop acquiescing to the people trying to guilt you into giving leeway to corposlop. You already expressed that she's no Han Solo, and multiple gameplay sessions has revealed that she did not nail the role because the role is terrible and she is one of those Twitter-tier, non-stop talking smarmy you-know-whats. The character is completely misplaced and makes no sense within the game or Star Wars' lore -- Han Solo is based on real-life smuggling archetypes (some of which I can't name here due to YT), all of whom are men. The entire character of Kay is just a gender-swap for DEI purposes but her story nor her characterisation makes zero sense to what she's doing because no actual vvoman in her scenario would be doing what she's doing.
Don't worry. It's a Ubisoft game so after a few minutes you'll be running around and collecting space flowers to dye your clothes. The actual character will not bother you for long.
(1) It’s an Ubisoft game so every single person should already know exactly what to expect. It’s not some grand mystery. (2) Game’s not even out yet so how can it already be so divisive? Silly if you ask me. (3) Personally I don’t like a lot of the decisions Ubisoft has made over the years but their overall game formula/world-building is one that I really enjoy, as such I’m looking forward to at least trying Outlaws to see if it’s worth my time. I don’t care much for Star Wars these days but it can still nonetheless be a good game, I think.
The problem with taking something and making it into a game universe is very challenging because you’re ultimately building a game around a specific universe. And when that happens you end up with more of a story telling device vs a new game, new IP, new experience. And giving Star Wars a end all be all universe is as challenging as making star citizen. And we all know how that story has been going.
Jabba is on Tatooine. If you do a Star Wars game about Outlaws and criminal cartels, particularly during the OT time period, and not feature Jabba, why are you even bothering?
There's a lot of infighting of it being open world and it not being open world as well as it should be an RPG where you make a character vs it's a narrative game with a preestablished character. When it comes to the first internet battle it really can't be won by either side because do open-world games even exist? Yes... No... Sort of? All open-worlds have limits, all have load screens somewhere, all have out of bounds stuff you can't access, some are bigger, some are smaller, some are more linear, some have lots of space and fluff, some are pretty empty and lifeless. So arguing about how open-world it is or isn't will never get resolved as most people are too emotionally immature and lack the analytical comprehension to look at it reasonably. The other big argument is just purely an opinion-based preference so is quite literally impossible to resolve. Some people (if youtube and reddit are to be believed) are completely incapable of empathizing and relating to a female character in a narrative. Why? Literally no idea. Female characters in the real world are 1 in every 2 people we should all be pretty acquainted with them and we're both human. At the end of the day Ubisoft wants a personal narrative journey with a pre-made protagonist and we've got Kay, tough tit, it's what we have. Personally aside from a bit of cringey Disneyfied dialogue here and there I've not found much wrong with her. For all the stuff Ubisoft does badly and all the tropes it repeats across it's titles (including to an extent Outlaws as well) writing characters is actually one of the few things they've always been good at consistently for the last 20+ years.
This is what we call a motte and bailey. 1) Absolutely no one argues about good open-world games that actually make use of their sandbox, such as Sleeping Dogs, GTA, Just Cause, Elder Scrolls, or the Red Dead games. People generally love those games and there approximately zero arguments out there about "infighting" about those games being open world or not because they were properly designed to be sandbox games with a lot of activities themed around their... open world. 2) Absolutely no one is complaining about being incapable of "empathiising" with the character. That is a structure hanging on a stick dressed as a man filled with straw. The issue is multi-fold: 1) all of her dialogue is basically cringe-worthy and sounds like someone from Twitter wrote it. 2) She's completely misplaced in a game that should have simply starred Han Solo, and she makes zero sense in the role she's been given because there is nothing about her role that's remotely believable. 3) There are approximately zero cool aspects to her character. What's embarrassing is that your comment actually highlightys one of the main problems: you've not found much wrong with her, but you can't name anything good about what makes her worth being a main character int he game over Han Solo, and thus, any redeeming qualities to lure you in. Starkiller had an awesome look and cool force powers, so a lot of people were instantly drawn to him as a character. Dash Rendar had a cool look and brazen personality, so it was easy to sell gamers on his story. Kyle Katarn had a nice redemption arc that was marketed across Dark Forces, Jedi Outcast, and Jedi Academy. Even the player-made Revan had a well-written story and while they didn't market KoToR around your character they did market it around the mystery (and tyranny) of Revan and Malek. Here? Kay is marketed as an annoying chatterbox who is a gender-swap of Han Solo. It's a complete 200% mark-missing shot at the target demographic. The fact that this even has to be explained shows just how deep into accepting the DEI slop today's gamers are.
To me it seems, publishers make games have an open world to tick a box on a PowerPoint slide and not because it would help that particular game achieve its vision.
Game reviewers are like movie critics; take what they say with a heavy dose of skepticism. Play the game for yourself and if you find it fun and engaging worth spending time playing, awesome money well spent. Case and point Star Wars Jedi series loved them played and beat them all. Never had a single crash or anything note worthy or game breaking during my time spent was awesome for me. Reviewers : "ohhhh the frame drop and I dont like all these icons on the map and screen I want explore more. " Now Ubisoft comes up with a star wars game where maybe you can explore more, and they bitch about that too. Can't please everyone.
While I agree with your point about being skeptical regarding reviewers, that's exactly why you don't pay atttention to the opinion parts. You find reviewers that offer up more technical details and take that info onboard to help you decide. As for your second sentence, the problem with that is that it gets very expensive to try these games out for yourself, especially if you want to play around launch. $70 or more is not a small amount for a lot of people and if you don't find it fun or value, then it isn't "awesome money well spent." It's wasted money. Without knowing anything about you I can guarantee you've judged plenty of games without playing a single second of them. Simply because there's no way you've bought and played them all. So you are just as guilty of doing what you are mocking others for doing. The rest of your reply is immature, so I won't bother addressing that.
The different is the cost, it cost 70 quid for a new game, cost me 10 quid to go to the cinema, 20 if I buy some popcorn, 50 if I end up in the pub afterwards. I hope we see more demos but then again that seem to be both a blessing and a curse for games.
Why do people like Obsidian Ant complain about a feature in a current game that's in other games like Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2 and no one complained then. The time slow down to target and then execute multiple enemies is in Red Dead, it's an option you don't have to use and I'm pretty sure it's an option in this game as well. People are just being nickpicky cause it's ubisoft at this point.
The demo video they put out was extremely underwhelming. Choppy animation, looked akin to Galaxies, which is 30 years old. For 130$ , they better get that turd good and polished.
first of all it didnt look as bad as galaxies if you actually played galaxies and compared them side by side outlaws looks 20X better but i get that you mean it looked like a ps4 game in some aspects but as its xbox controls im guessing they used an xbox series s for the showing which is quite weird. the reason for me thinking this is multiple people who played the game in previews says it doesnt look how it did in the gameplay vid for example luke stephens so im guessing its just ubisoft picking the wrong platform to send footage from but the performance issues could be worrying unless its ign who has terrible video resolution and alot of frame drops.
@@rysing-alexhd5078 Periods man. Please. If I were a gaming company, with millions of dollars riding on my games good reception. I would take the time to find the BEST platform to demo on. Not half ass it (like the rest of the game is likely to be). I did play Galaxies, and what I meant was. The combat looks super clunky. Just like Galaxies. Granted we're almost 30 years in the future now, so the tech is better. But for their asking price, it looks extremely sub par. The animations are horrible. The explosions, you can almost see each frame of the animation as it happens. Instead of a cohesive animation that looks natural, it looks incredibly jerky. Not a good showing, when this is their tech demo a mere month before they plan to launch.
Everything with the Star Wars name on it has been trash since the Mouse got her claws in it, so I'm not really surprised. _edit:_ oh, whoa, an overpowered Force Is Female™ protagonist? well, guess I was wrong! how different! _edit2:_ and, at last, we get to revisit Tattooine too?! wow I was way off the mark with this; it's not been tainted by the "K. K. Kurse" of DisneyWars® at all!
Wait a minute, you are saying bullet time has no place in games...are you mad? I could spend ages listing the games that use bullet time to great effect....are you saying the Red Dead games shouldn't have Deadeye? Oh and one more thing, true Star Wars fans will never get tired of visiting Tatooine
People who say "true Star Wars fans" are not true Star Wars fans. 😁 I agree that visiting places like Tatooine helps make it seem like a SW game. A combo of existing and new locations is the best IMO. Without any known planets, there's less point in having the SW licence, just make a fresh space game.
@@underleft Yeah but it only works if you actually need it. In this case, there is no shoot dodge, so bullet-time makes absolutely zero sense here. In games like Wet, Max Payne, Dead to Rights, Oni and True Crime, bullet time made perfect sense because you could slow down time to dodge out of the way. In this case, Kay has no shoot-dodge mechanics, and has a press-melee-to-win-button, so it really is basically designed as making an already super easy game even easier.
@@Antares-Dragon In Red Dead you could disarm opponents by shooting the gun out of their hands, sometimes resulting in non-combat resolution thereafter. You cannot do that in Outlaws. Also, in Red Dead you had to be smart about it because if you had the wrong gun or didn't have the proper equipment, you absolutely could get wrecked. You only have a default blaster in Outlaws, so you are always equipped to wreck everyone else, which is lame. The whole thing is just lame, though, because it was not designed around intuitive and engaging mechanics to scale. But some people really like mediocre corposlop with boring gameplay and derivative mechanics.
If they were aiming for the cartoon style look, it wouldn't be a problem, but it certainly doesn't look like they are so the graphics look pretty dated, like PS3 to early PS4 level graphics at best.
This is a bit random and off topic, but I absolutely despise how bland and boring everything is becoming because of dei and corporate greed. It truly is the death of creativity and fun.
Not off-topic at all, your comment perfectly encapsulates how some of us feel about gamesl ike Outlaws. What's most disheartening is everyone chiming in about how much they love Ubisoft games and will give this game a try. That makes me weep for humanity.
The secondary main problem of this game (The primary is being developed by bugisoft with a DEI agenda) , is that......what it wants to be, an open world game....already exists. No Man's Sky KILLED this game releasing a mayor update before this game.
That like to dislike extension is totally inaccurate. Test it on some of your own content. It literally said one if mine had 150ish likes and nearly 300 dislikes, but it only has like 20 dislikes.... that's beyond inaccurate, that's just wtf 😂
Ubi had to get Disney's approval for everything that you see in the game so the latter gets the blame too. On the other hand, Ubi gets 100% blame for their own Assassin's Creed IP.
When I saw the Sarlacc quest, my first though was 'why do we need to visit Tatooine again?' Can't they create a brand-new desert planet with unique creatures and such?' Coruscant I can understand, it's the capital of the Old Republic, Empire, and I'm sure is still a major planet in the New Republic even if it lost it's status as the capital in the 3rd trilogy. Tatooine is supposed to be a world in the outer rim of no real importance other than to some outlaws and smugglers dealing with the Hutts. We really should only go there if it involves the Skywalkers or the Hutts in my opinion since the planet is so overused. Also, since the game is from Ubisoft, I'm generally inclined to avoid the game, especially when I saw the price points for the game itself and that it's loaded down with microtransactions even though it's a single player game.
It a problem both Star Wars and Star Trek face they just can't evolve away from certain locations or characters. I do get a feeling some people would moan if Tatooine wasn't in the game, same as some people would moan if none of the characters Star Trek didn't show up in a series set in that era. This franchises can't seem to win whatever they do.
@@DavidKnowles0 No one would moan if Tatooine was not in the game. It has absolutely zero importance in an open-world game like this where they could have gone buck wild with unique planets the way Battlefront 2 did on the PS2 and OG Xbox.
From the very first trailer, I was quite excited about this game. But the more and more I see, I've been cooling off. Nowadays, I'm not really expecting much at all and will be waiting for a sale at best unless if reviewers I trust all strongly endorse this game. But things are looking like I'll just give this one a pass. It's so sad growing up a big Star Wars fan, that I haven't been rewarded my excitement for a new Star Wars product in so long that it's so hard to get hyped on anything on the franchise I used to love.
It's not out yet, so obviously I withhold my judgement about the game. However, I was really hoping it was going to go in a different direction than what we're seeing. I'd much rather play an open-universe Star Wars game where you can create your own character, and set out to explore the galaxy's adventures. With travel and trade like Elite Dangerous/Escape Velocity, and different quests and plots like Skyrim. Having an "open world" game with a specific character telling (what appears to be) a specific story just feels like it will be a slightly bigger Jedi: Fallen Order. I guess I was hoping Outlaws would have a little bit more of a sandbox element to it.
Its actually extremely hard to mess up a star wars open world space game. Its pretty much every person’s childhood dream to grab a ship and just pick a direction. They should have delved deeper, had fleet battles, jedi and sith and the ability to live as an outlaw or become a jedi or sith. Kinda like a beefed up star wars galaxies. Should have set this in the clone wars era at the height of everything.
I have played The Division 1 and 2 and Avatar and all are amazing. Massive Entertainment always build interesting worlds with compelling stories. I totally trust them with this game. All these complaint social media posts that we are seeing are just how social media works these days. Outrage culture seems to affect every game these days so I just ignore it.
@@underleft No they were not ambitious at all. There was nothing ambitious about either game; they were essentially Far Cry in an urban environment with bullet-sponge enemies and no vehicles.
When this game was first announced back in 2019, it was branded as an open world co-op game, much like The Division. And now we get this garbage? I love Star Wars, but this just isn't what me or anyone I know are looking for.
Game studios are milking the creativity cows as much as possible... in other words, they are lazy and money hungry. Most game studios are like that lately....
The problem I have with these franchise games is they just keep releasing similar feeling games and don't really tap into the potential of the lore or the world itself. They're all arcady feel, generic missions, and based on some loner, edgy character. Give me an open world survival game with exploration, custom character, ship building, and rich storyline quests where I could be good or bad. Like if Skyrim mashed up with space engineers in a Star Wars universe.
This! Something like Vocalnoids but with a bigger budget behind it, but set in the Star Wars universe where you go around, scavenge for parts and attempt to escape from a planet by repairing a ship. Just having one planet be the location would be good enough, and if it had drop-in co-op where your buddies could help you explore the world, fight off local fauna, and take on some interstellar gangs, then it would make for a grand 'ole time. There is a ton of easy potential with the franchise and Ubisoft's own internal engine tools, yet they opt to go the lazy DEI way instead.
They made Avatar bland last year, and this year it is Star Wars turn. For Star Wars the game being bland though, feels like it will fit in neatly with much of the current state of the franchise though, like most of their TV series.
I was very excited for Outlaws, but the newest gameplay video has made me very concerned. For all of the reasons you mentioned in your video, Obsidian. UBISoft really needs to get ahead of this and explain what is going on, reassure people that the full game is going to be fine.
Honestly for me I just want a true Star Wars space simulation game. on the scale of elite dangerous a real 1 for 1 of that galaxy. Could even make it multiple games with different time lines. I just want to hop in and live in that universe. buy me some land make me my own base/house and live it up.
I simply do not trust Ubisoft. When they said "...you'll constantly be to distracted to notice..." in reference to planets being small, all I heard was an excuse. An unsolicited qualifier. When I read between those lines what I really heard was " We didn't make planets big cus you think they are boring! Instead we made them small and packed them full of things to annoy you". I don't care if the planets are small. What I care about is the language they use, and it tells me they are lying/hiding things to keep the hype train alive. All I really want is honesty, and they never are. Both the publisher and developer have lied to us in the past (The Division release vs E3 footage) and I have zero faith that they are telling the truth now. As it stands now i think it will be a shallow, whimpering, meh of a game. I hope I am completely wrong and the game is the best game of all time but as it stands right now I just don't see it.
What you’re describing here, Obsidian, is basically every game ever made because there are no perfect ones. If you feel let down by games a lot, it’s because your expectations were too unrealistic. Lots of games have both good and bad points, so if you really want the game of your dreams, you need to make one yourself.
I'm really sick of studios being handed a SW game and thinking "It's Star Wars! We can just do whatever generic crap we want, and people will buy it!" When will we get a game where the studio says: "This is Star Wars! Let's give it the attention it deserves and make a game people would want to play if it was set in a completely unknown universe."?
One: They lost a HUGE amount of potential by not doing the Mass Effect thing and letting you just create your own character(male or female) and using two voice actors to read the lines depending on which you chose; and they could have expanded it further by allowing you to potentially choose alien races that can speak the 'common tongue' as read by the voice actors; though put through filters to fit the races on offer. Two: Unless this game is offered through Steam/Epic and doesn't require the Ubisoft launcher; odds are I'll be skipping it entirely. After the Ubisoft CEO said on record that we should 'get used to spending $70+ on 'AAAA' games" and that we should also get used to not actually OWNING our games(I believe there was something going around this past year that Ubisoft can and has removed the games from people's accounts who had been inactive for awhile); I just can't buy from Ubisoft directly anymore. The CEO basically stating that we should pay $70+ for games that we'll never actually own, only pushes people into piracy; and it's not something consumers should have to deal with when we're plinking down $70-$120+ on these games(and Ubisoft is known for shoveling expensive games with cash shops, cosmetics, boosters, etc). I'll play a mid-tier game if it's fun, it doesn't need to be an 8 or 9 out of 10 for me to have fun; but I damn well expect purchase to NOT be taken away or my money to just be 'expected' from shitty devs or publishers. Plenty of stuff to play, at one point these big publishers and studios could sell you something and you'd clamor to have it, but anymore there are much smaller studios pushing out higher quality and more polished games that are well below the $50 price point. Worst case scenario; I wait a year or two when it's on sale for $20 with all the DLC and has been patched and polished.
I'll play it, you know because it's scifi and Star Wars. Every Star Wars game is different than the next, or the one that came before, and these people that downvote without playing it for themselves aren't being fair to the genre. That being said, it often feels like the big names in game development aren't digging deep enough in their toolbox to bring us something that truly sparks my interest. There's a big difference between playing something because I'm excited about it and playing it to check it off the list.
I am not a Star Wars nut so forgive my ignorance but: Tatooine and a Sarlac again? There is a whole universe full of unique stuff and this is something to go back to? I may be in the wrong here and I will admit it but a universe to explore mentally and all that they came up with is the same old stuff again. Ofcourse rhis could be some se-/prequel to the original story but it seems weak to me to the originality.
No, you're not ignorant about it, you're absolutely spot on, mate. They are recycling the exact same stuff over and over... and over... and over again. This game is the epitome of formulaic.
I'm getting more than a whiff of Starfield here. Nice in theory but turns out filling a huge open world/galaxy with cool stories and compelling characters is a mite tricky. Also why no character customisation and (presumably) no ship customisation?
I think its way to early to openly pass judgments, I'll wait until we have the game in hand and see the different difficulty levels to judge the NCPs and how OP we feel as a protag... we are the "hero" of the story after all.
Star Wars execs still have never figured out the characrters were its strength not its planets. So we get Tatooine a million times. But a Darth Vader game? A Han Solo and Chewbacca game? No. Here, have some Hoth.
Putting Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard on the "Ignore list" really cleared up the Steam storefront for me personally. Really good feature.
Do you ever use the storefront though? To me the entire storefront could just be gone and replaced by a search button.
Smart move. Add Bethesda to that list.
@@nullvoid244 Bethesda has a nice seat on that list until I see some redemption from their side.
@@davicl they've certainly earned it with their mediocre overhyped releases over the last 10 years or so
I mean, Ubisoft doesn't sell their new games on Steam, but...
"First open-world Star Wars game"?
Nah bro, I'm pretty sure that moniker is still firmly in the grasp of Star Wars Galaxies (R.I.P.) all the way back in 2003 which launched with 10 planets, each with 15km x 15km freely explorable areas
There is also Star Wars: The Old Republic mmorpg as well. Needless to say Outlaws is not the first open world Star Wars game.
@@urazz7739 First open world single player Star Wars game.
@@yeastydynastyKotOR
@@Droogie128kotor is level based not open world lmao
@@junewilkerson2349 those are not mutually exclusive. Level based just means it's an RPG. Fallout is open world and an RPG. As is mass effect and elder scrolls.
Can someone just remake Tie Fighter and be done with it.
Ah good ol days. I spent hundreds of hours in that and x-wing. Back when windows 3.11 and dos was still primarily used
Tie remains the best Star Wars game as far as I'm concerned. Even in 1994 it didn't feel arcade-y, it had a great flight model and was so cool!
Even if someone did it wouldn't hold up today. It was good back in the day, top of the line, but in this day and age it's an insanely outdated concept that would require so many more features, which is why we ended up with Squadrons, and barely anyone even plays it.
Squadrons in VR is pretty dang intense....
I'd like the original Bioware crew to make another Star wars game.
The main problem of Star Wars: Outlaws is Ubisoft.
I love Ubisoft games. Division, Avatar, AC Odyssey, Mario vs Rabbids, Rainbow 6 are all great.
Nah, it's the gaming community at large. Just can't be satisfied by anything anymore. It's a hive mind and it's a problem 🤷♂️
@@rabidkangar00that is absolutely NOT true. In fact, I'd say the gaming community is looking for projects to get behind. You sound like one of those consultants who makes money telling these corporate suits that the consumers are the problem, not their lack of care and creativity. Aspects of the character look visually awful and aspects of the game play look bland and lazy, which is an industry/studio problem, not a consumer problem.
Great minds think alike.
@@rabidkangar00You should get a job at Ubisoft. You’d be perfect.🤡
The fact that Ubi didnt disclose pre-order numbers in their investors call should tell it all.
We are in the age of AI but game developers are still churning out the same NPC AI from the 90s.
Some folks are expecting this to be the next great thing and somehow forget Ubisoft's track record...
We will have to keep going through this song and dance with every new AAA release and people still won't learn.
Particularly over the last year.
You just know it'll be a quintessential Ubislop game
It has tower climbing that reveals the map doesn't it
I jsut want to make my own character in a starwars game....This one, Jedi Outcast or whatever, I just cant get into non personalized characters in any game.
It wouldn't be so bad if: 1) the characters were actually cool and had a neat design like Starkiller did back with the Force Unleashed, and 2) they actually had a unique and cool story like Kyle Katarn, Dash Rendar and Starkiller had back in the day; most people did not complain about those games and their characters because they were well written and actually fit the lore and occupation of their story. Kay neither fits the lore they're trying to tell nor has any cool elements to her character whatsoever.
@@Billy-bc8pk She/he's a wanna be Han Solo done horribly wrong.
It doesn't look very Open for an "Open World"
Seems to be heavily on rails with set pieces you have to walk through in a specific way
rather than have any actual mechanical freedom in the game yourself
I’ll wait till it’s on deep sale for 4,99
Been burned by Ubisoft to many times now
Then why give them 4,99
@@H4ppyCustom3r I guess he values an ubsioft experience 4,99
When Ubisoft wants your money, You gotta say No.
There are 2 issues I see with this game.
Ubisoft, and Sweet Baby's involvement.
Also, this game looks pretty formulaic.
Imagine paying 70 bucks for a digital download you don't own.
Welcome to the future...
I think the graphics look pretty good for the most part, and certainly there's a lot of production value gone into some moments (like arriving at a destination from hyperdrive). The problem is that the actual moment-to-moment gameplay looks so bland and milquetoast, just corporate-curated slop that is afraid to do anything bold and just comes off as generic instead.
Reading all the comments, I’m glad that people are finally wising up and not pre-ordering games. And at $130 Ubisoft is about to learn a hard lesson about how much gamers will tolerate.
@@underleft If the game was actually awesome and groundbreaking, I would absolutely be willing to pay for it, but Star Wars Outlaws is absolutely not that game.
As with every Ubisoft game, I'm sure it's going to be an open world game with a ton of repetitive content, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, lots of people enjoy Ubisoft style games. I'll likely wait a year or so and pick it up either on a deep sale or as part of a bundle.
Exactly, Ubisoft’s open-world formula isn’t some grand mystery so everyone should already know what to expect with Outlaws. Some people hate Ubi’s formula and others like it (I’m one such person).
At this point I think people should already know if a game will be up their alley depending on who is publishing the game. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t give it a try if they’re interested but I just think we’re well-beyond the point of people just complaining for the sake of complaining. Like, if a person hates Ubisoft and Ubi Connect and doesn’t like overly repetitive open-world gameplay then just keep walkin’ on down the road. There’s tens of thousands of other titles to play.
Even though I agree Tatooine has been overused I think it's appropriate for Outlaws seeing its "wretched hive of scum and villainy" Though a alternative location could of been Smuggler's Moon Nar Shaddaa (though not sure that's still canon)
Apart from the boardgame Star Wars Outer Rim the games world has been bit void of the seeder and more interesting side to Star Wars universe the question what we are all thinking can Star Wars Outlaws deliver, quite a few doubts at the moment.
There's still too many cut scenes where the main character has the emotional range, facial structure, and movement of a bastardized cross between a Muppet and Thunderbird puppet. Some of it is better than it was in the first trailer, but it's still falling square in that uncanny valley of ugliness.
Wow, you Star Wars fans are just unsatisfiable: they've managed to create a protagonist just like Rey Palpatine, and you're still not happy smh
I want to believe...
He says for the umpteenth time with AAA titles.
This seem to be the best attempt yet at a space game from a triple A publisher.
@@DavidKnowles0 And it's not a very good attempt.
I believe.
But will know 1-2 months after release. Possibly a full year after release.
I'll play this when;
A: It's on Steam
B: It's on deep sale.
@@CornishCracker not going to give Ubisoft even a penny if my money. They’re game directors are full of lazy ideas, the games they make feel cookie cutter and lifeless, churned out to be spoon fed to the masses, without originality and lacking any kind of semblance of fun. I don’t play Ubisoft games at all, let alone buy them or get them for free.
C: it’s on gamepass
D: It comes free with your graphics card. I'll install it give it a go for maybe an hour or two then uninstall it.
I think you meant AB, if it doesn't release at the same time, but every other platform gets to be a beta tester basically, the game is only released when it comes to steam.
Not even if i get it for free
Freely explore the galaxy? there are grand total of 5 planets and some space stations.
I hate liar developers.
@emrebayram1778they didn't lie, they said from the start that there were only a few planets, you prefer 1000 procedural planets go to Starfield I prefer to have only 5 planets made by hand, Ubisoft tend to do a lot of repetitiveness on their game but their open world is still very nice to explore, it's just that they include a lot of activities which are not always interesting
@@heisenbergauxfinesherbes5 5 planet vs 1000 planet, yet 5 planets have no access anywhere you want to land.
@@heisenbergauxfinesherbes5 5 planets copy paste "world missions" gonna be a sleeping pill game.
@@heisenbergauxfinesherbes5 Full credit to Ubisoft they seem to have learnt how not to run a marketing campaign for a space game from Hello World and Bethesda .
Personally wouldn't have minded if they pad out the game with a few procedural worlds, but that would investing in Hello World type technology and even Hello World have yet to perfect that tech.
My issue is I wanted to be able to make my own character. I won't buy it until it's under 10 bucks. So in around 6 months after release.
My biggest issue with most Star Wars games. The lack of character customization, the IP I think works best having a say in your character. Hell I would've settled with what they did with Creed. Getting to option of two to pick from, the canon of whether the character was male/female/whatever still works. The Old Republic games are a great example.
This though I think Ubi has no say in and probably a Disney requirement since everything has to fit perfectly in their canon
@@tylersmall634 I think it's actually that during peak development time of the game they were more worried about DEI rather than making a good game that people will want to play.
@@Ricolaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I dont buy it. Its the same argument in every game when its a woman or PoC. To claim DEI on a game that hasnt released and we've seen little story. People made the same argument for oddesy because you could play as s woman. Look at the Jedi games with Cal. Missed opportunity to have the same story yet we are locked in to the character. DEI isnt inherently bad when its handled correctly, . To use it as an argument this early serves nothing for anyone. Especially when its thrown around so casually. If Ubi gets the creative freedom to write the story/dialog I think its fine they typically handle that well without pandering and disrespecting people that would fall under DEI(shadows excluded, thats a whole different mess). Outlaws just looks like a largely bad game visually and mechanically
@@tylersmall634 Don't get me wrong it is bad all around or at least sub par. But there's a reason they lock you into playing a female character and it isn't because the fanbase wants it I can assure you of that.
Whether you buy into the idea that it's due to DEI or not is up to you but it's pretty blatant that this game went into development during peak DEI investment. It may not be the sole reason for it but it definitely holds a strong influence over it.
Cal made sense because the original plan was to bring him into the shows and movies which they haven't done yet. I can't see that being the case for this new character with how poorly done and how poorly received the Acolyte was.
@@Ricolaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa how is it blatant, yours and everyones only evidence is a time frame and a female character. Fan base didnt want Cal either. Show/movie inclusion or not doesn't matter as all you have to do is pick which gender or version is canon. Its more they wanted X actor to drive investment and who they expected to carry into the shows. I will bet its 100% the same reason for this. Disney has a plan to incorporate this and the actors involved into the wider universe. Seems odd even for Ubi to lock you in given their past and upcoming non star wars games
Acolyte was bad because it was poorly written and executed it was a poor rehash of old legend stories (hearing that they want to do a Reven story next makes me sick for the same reason, they will trash one of the best legend stories and should be left alone to just merge into canon.) Didnt help Disney and the show creators crapped all over any critism as hate. Jacinto and the guy who played Sol were the only highlights of the show.
Until we see the actual story play out saying that all the investment was heavily focused on DEI doesnt help. Ubi just makes bad games now. AAAA and calling their fan base wrong for the garbage Skull and Bones was is all the reason anyone needs to not give Ubi anything not because of any DEI reservations one might have. I think we've reached an impass and now just talking in circles. I appreciate the civility, hard to find nowadays
Ubisoft making a Star Wars game and people expected good things?! Lmao. Don’t forget about the DRM making modding impossible, and the in-game shop.
1:48 just sounds like dead-eye from red dead redemption
More like the execute mechanic from some splinter-cell games
It's probably more simplified Red dead you could place the actual shots. It's not going to be cool like Max Payne either.
I really like a lot of what they're showing, but, and it's a big but, I think the first thing to get right to draw me in is a character I want to play, and I just don't really see her character as all that interesting to me. This game is made for a Han Solo type character, an iconic character in a universe filled with iconic characters, so unless there's a lot more to her than she appears to be, I think it will fall flat. Hopefully the character is good.
Maybe a commander shepherd approach would have been better, male or female, or a customizable character screen to make it feel a little more personal, and a droid sidekick you could customize and outfit during the game.
I mean, they aren't going to lay her entire character arc out for everyone to see before the game is even out...
@@rabidkangar00 Well what do you think? If you've seen all the movies and in particular Solo, and you know which scoundrel this character is inspired by, he's the yardstick which she will be measured by. Tough gig right.
The rug rat on her shoulder is no Chewbacca, another great character.
I just think of all the run ins he's had with syndicates, and all the friends he's made within the universe, if you're making a Han Solo game, make a Han Solo game and double down on it.
She's done plenty of TV and movies, other games, so hopefully she's nailed it and will be a great character if they've written one for her.
@@rabidkangar00 There's been a total of an hour's worth of gameplay on display at this point and Kay comes across as insufferable and annoying. If the lead character is that way over the course of a cumulative of an hour's worth of footage, then it doesn't matter what her arc is, it's simply a bad character. Just like you don't have to play 14 hours of SS: KTJL to know that that game is a turd.
@@Timmy51m Stop acquiescing to the people trying to guilt you into giving leeway to corposlop. You already expressed that she's no Han Solo, and multiple gameplay sessions has revealed that she did not nail the role because the role is terrible and she is one of those Twitter-tier, non-stop talking smarmy you-know-whats. The character is completely misplaced and makes no sense within the game or Star Wars' lore -- Han Solo is based on real-life smuggling archetypes (some of which I can't name here due to YT), all of whom are men. The entire character of Kay is just a gender-swap for DEI purposes but her story nor her characterisation makes zero sense to what she's doing because no actual vvoman in her scenario would be doing what she's doing.
Don't worry. It's a Ubisoft game so after a few minutes you'll be running around and collecting space flowers to dye your clothes. The actual character will not bother you for long.
Just say no to Ubisoft
Still better than EA, Activision, and Blizzard.
I especially say no to you
Say yes to Massive
@@CBadgernot really, no. They're at least as bad. Look at their pricing alone.
It’ll be dross like 95% of AAA titles
This is what happens when you play it safe to release a game on time.
(1) It’s an Ubisoft game so every single person should already know exactly what to expect. It’s not some grand mystery.
(2) Game’s not even out yet so how can it already be so divisive? Silly if you ask me.
(3) Personally I don’t like a lot of the decisions Ubisoft has made over the years but their overall game formula/world-building is one that I really enjoy, as such I’m looking forward to at least trying Outlaws to see if it’s worth my time. I don’t care much for Star Wars these days but it can still nonetheless be a good game, I think.
The problem with taking something and making it into a game universe is very challenging because you’re ultimately building a game around a specific universe. And when that happens you end up with more of a story telling device vs a new game, new IP, new experience. And giving Star Wars a end all be all universe is as challenging as making star citizen.
And we all know how that story has been going.
Just seems like the same old UbiSlop. Assassin's creed with a starwars skin.
I don't think it's divisive at all. There's not too many people on the positive side of the divide.
Gona be another hollow game looks good with no depth .. I hope I'm wrong but I'm sure we are all accustom to it at this stage
7:13 Why the hell robot wears a coat. It doesn't look like it's trying to disguise itself as a human. No human would fall for this.
Ubisoft doesn't want me to own their games and after that gameplay reveal I'm happy to oblige.
Jabba is on Tatooine. If you do a Star Wars game about Outlaws and criminal cartels, particularly during the OT time period, and not feature Jabba, why are you even bothering?
Plus, it's so easy to model. Model sand dune, copy, adjust size, rotate, paste, go to lunch early.
There's a lot of infighting of it being open world and it not being open world as well as it should be an RPG where you make a character vs it's a narrative game with a preestablished character. When it comes to the first internet battle it really can't be won by either side because do open-world games even exist? Yes... No... Sort of? All open-worlds have limits, all have load screens somewhere, all have out of bounds stuff you can't access, some are bigger, some are smaller, some are more linear, some have lots of space and fluff, some are pretty empty and lifeless. So arguing about how open-world it is or isn't will never get resolved as most people are too emotionally immature and lack the analytical comprehension to look at it reasonably.
The other big argument is just purely an opinion-based preference so is quite literally impossible to resolve. Some people (if youtube and reddit are to be believed) are completely incapable of empathizing and relating to a female character in a narrative. Why? Literally no idea. Female characters in the real world are 1 in every 2 people we should all be pretty acquainted with them and we're both human. At the end of the day Ubisoft wants a personal narrative journey with a pre-made protagonist and we've got Kay, tough tit, it's what we have. Personally aside from a bit of cringey Disneyfied dialogue here and there I've not found much wrong with her. For all the stuff Ubisoft does badly and all the tropes it repeats across it's titles (including to an extent Outlaws as well) writing characters is actually one of the few things they've always been good at consistently for the last 20+ years.
This is what we call a motte and bailey.
1) Absolutely no one argues about good open-world games that actually make use of their sandbox, such as Sleeping Dogs, GTA, Just Cause, Elder Scrolls, or the Red Dead games. People generally love those games and there approximately zero arguments out there about "infighting" about those games being open world or not because they were properly designed to be sandbox games with a lot of activities themed around their... open world.
2) Absolutely no one is complaining about being incapable of "empathiising" with the character. That is a structure hanging on a stick dressed as a man filled with straw. The issue is multi-fold: 1) all of her dialogue is basically cringe-worthy and sounds like someone from Twitter wrote it. 2) She's completely misplaced in a game that should have simply starred Han Solo, and she makes zero sense in the role she's been given because there is nothing about her role that's remotely believable. 3) There are approximately zero cool aspects to her character.
What's embarrassing is that your comment actually highlightys one of the main problems: you've not found much wrong with her, but you can't name anything good about what makes her worth being a main character int he game over Han Solo, and thus, any redeeming qualities to lure you in.
Starkiller had an awesome look and cool force powers, so a lot of people were instantly drawn to him as a character. Dash Rendar had a cool look and brazen personality, so it was easy to sell gamers on his story. Kyle Katarn had a nice redemption arc that was marketed across Dark Forces, Jedi Outcast, and Jedi Academy. Even the player-made Revan had a well-written story and while they didn't market KoToR around your character they did market it around the mystery (and tyranny) of Revan and Malek.
Here? Kay is marketed as an annoying chatterbox who is a gender-swap of Han Solo. It's a complete 200% mark-missing shot at the target demographic. The fact that this even has to be explained shows just how deep into accepting the DEI slop today's gamers are.
“It will be a massive open world” from a certain point of view.
To me it seems, publishers make games have an open world to tick a box on a PowerPoint slide and not because it would help that particular game achieve its vision.
0:06 That ship flies right into the wall.
Game reviewers are like movie critics; take what they say with a heavy dose of skepticism.
Play the game for yourself and if you find it fun and engaging worth spending time playing, awesome money well spent.
Case and point Star Wars Jedi series loved them played and beat them all. Never had a single crash or anything note worthy or game breaking during my time spent was awesome for me.
Reviewers : "ohhhh the frame drop and I dont like all these icons on the map and screen I want explore more. "
Now Ubisoft comes up with a star wars game where maybe you can explore more, and they bitch about that too. Can't please everyone.
While I agree with your point about being skeptical regarding reviewers, that's exactly why you don't pay atttention to the opinion parts. You find reviewers that offer up more technical details and take that info onboard to help you decide.
As for your second sentence, the problem with that is that it gets very expensive to try these games out for yourself, especially if you want to play around launch. $70 or more is not a small amount for a lot of people and if you don't find it fun or value, then it isn't "awesome money well spent." It's wasted money.
Without knowing anything about you I can guarantee you've judged plenty of games without playing a single second of them. Simply because there's no way you've bought and played them all. So you are just as guilty of doing what you are mocking others for doing.
The rest of your reply is immature, so I won't bother addressing that.
The different is the cost, it cost 70 quid for a new game, cost me 10 quid to go to the cinema, 20 if I buy some popcorn, 50 if I end up in the pub afterwards.
I hope we see more demos but then again that seem to be both a blessing and a curse for games.
Ubisoft is a predatory company and their games do tend to have QA issues outsized for their scope and budget on PC. Please don’t defend them.
RIP Star Wars
It wasn't true in '99, and it's not true now, so the hyperbole is very old at this point.
After playing 2 hours of their pirate game… I am not excited.
Why do people like Obsidian Ant complain about a feature in a current game that's in other games like Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2 and no one complained then. The time slow down to target and then execute multiple enemies is in Red Dead, it's an option you don't have to use and I'm pretty sure it's an option in this game as well. People are just being nickpicky cause it's ubisoft at this point.
The demo video they put out was extremely underwhelming. Choppy animation, looked akin to Galaxies, which is 30 years old.
For 130$ , they better get that turd good and polished.
The whole point of that expression is that you can't polish a turd.
@@gyneve I don't expect them too. Which is why I used it.
@@ugib8377 Fair enough.
first of all it didnt look as bad as galaxies if you actually played galaxies and compared them side by side outlaws looks 20X better but i get that you mean it looked like a ps4 game in some aspects but as its xbox controls im guessing they used an xbox series s for the showing which is quite weird. the reason for me thinking this is multiple people who played the game in previews says it doesnt look how it did in the gameplay vid for example luke stephens so im guessing its just ubisoft picking the wrong platform to send footage from but the performance issues could be worrying unless its ign who has terrible video resolution and alot of frame drops.
@@rysing-alexhd5078 Periods man. Please. If I were a gaming company, with millions of dollars riding on my games good reception. I would take the time to find the BEST platform to demo on. Not half ass it (like the rest of the game is likely to be).
I did play Galaxies, and what I meant was. The combat looks super clunky. Just like Galaxies. Granted we're almost 30 years in the future now, so the tech is better. But for their asking price, it looks extremely sub par.
The animations are horrible. The explosions, you can almost see each frame of the animation as it happens. Instead of a cohesive animation that looks natural, it looks incredibly jerky. Not a good showing, when this is their tech demo a mere month before they plan to launch.
It’s Assassin’s Creed in space with a Star Wars skin.
Everything with the Star Wars name on it has been trash since the Mouse got her claws in it, so I'm not really surprised.
_edit:_ oh, whoa, an overpowered Force Is Female™ protagonist? well, guess I was wrong! how different!
_edit2:_ and, at last, we get to revisit Tattooine too?! wow I was way off the mark with this; it's not been tainted by the "K. K. Kurse" of DisneyWars® at all!
Wait a minute, you are saying bullet time has no place in games...are you mad?
I could spend ages listing the games that use bullet time to great effect....are you saying the Red Dead games shouldn't have Deadeye?
Oh and one more thing, true Star Wars fans will never get tired of visiting Tatooine
As a decrepit husk zombie in my 30s, bullet time is the only time I'd hit anything smaller than the Death Star.
People who say "true Star Wars fans" are not true Star Wars fans. 😁 I agree that visiting places like Tatooine helps make it seem like a SW game. A combo of existing and new locations is the best IMO. Without any known planets, there's less point in having the SW licence, just make a fresh space game.
@@underleft Yeah but it only works if you actually need it. In this case, there is no shoot dodge, so bullet-time makes absolutely zero sense here. In games like Wet, Max Payne, Dead to Rights, Oni and True Crime, bullet time made perfect sense because you could slow down time to dodge out of the way. In this case, Kay has no shoot-dodge mechanics, and has a press-melee-to-win-button, so it really is basically designed as making an already super easy game even easier.
I'd rater phrase it:
..... are you in Payne
@@Antares-Dragon In Red Dead you could disarm opponents by shooting the gun out of their hands, sometimes resulting in non-combat resolution thereafter. You cannot do that in Outlaws. Also, in Red Dead you had to be smart about it because if you had the wrong gun or didn't have the proper equipment, you absolutely could get wrecked. You only have a default blaster in Outlaws, so you are always equipped to wreck everyone else, which is lame. The whole thing is just lame, though, because it was not designed around intuitive and engaging mechanics to scale. But some people really like mediocre corposlop with boring gameplay and derivative mechanics.
Too cartoonish, too simple gameplay. Should have gone more simulation style. But we know that won't happen with Ubisoft
If they were aiming for the cartoon style look, it wouldn't be a problem, but it certainly doesn't look like they are so the graphics look pretty dated, like PS3 to early PS4 level graphics at best.
This is a bit random and off topic, but I absolutely despise how bland and boring everything is becoming because of dei and corporate greed. It truly is the death of creativity and fun.
Not off-topic at all, your comment perfectly encapsulates how some of us feel about gamesl ike Outlaws. What's most disheartening is everyone chiming in about how much they love Ubisoft games and will give this game a try. That makes me weep for humanity.
For me I was basically losing interest with the little buddy. We have this in every damn 3rd person game now!
The secondary main problem of this game (The primary is being developed by bugisoft with a DEI agenda) , is that......what it wants to be, an open world game....already exists. No Man's Sky KILLED this game releasing a mayor update before this game.
That like to dislike extension is totally inaccurate. Test it on some of your own content. It literally said one if mine had 150ish likes and nearly 300 dislikes, but it only has like 20 dislikes.... that's beyond inaccurate, that's just wtf 😂
Ubisoft again.. what a surprise
if I want to play open world Star wars Game, then I prefer to play Starfield with Mandolarian mods, not Ubisoft's Cheap AAAA game.
It's Ubisoft. It's going to be crap, because they don't understand how to make good games anymore.
Ubi had to get Disney's approval for everything that you see in the game so the latter gets the blame too.
On the other hand, Ubi gets 100% blame for their own Assassin's Creed IP.
Letdown could of had so much more potential where are jedi and sith creation of the lightsaber and the smallest timeline ever
When I saw the Sarlacc quest, my first though was 'why do we need to visit Tatooine again?' Can't they create a brand-new desert planet with unique creatures and such?' Coruscant I can understand, it's the capital of the Old Republic, Empire, and I'm sure is still a major planet in the New Republic even if it lost it's status as the capital in the 3rd trilogy.
Tatooine is supposed to be a world in the outer rim of no real importance other than to some outlaws and smugglers dealing with the Hutts. We really should only go there if it involves the Skywalkers or the Hutts in my opinion since the planet is so overused.
Also, since the game is from Ubisoft, I'm generally inclined to avoid the game, especially when I saw the price points for the game itself and that it's loaded down with microtransactions even though it's a single player game.
It a problem both Star Wars and Star Trek face they just can't evolve away from certain locations or characters.
I do get a feeling some people would moan if Tatooine wasn't in the game, same as some people would moan if none of the characters Star Trek didn't show up in a series set in that era.
This franchises can't seem to win whatever they do.
@@DavidKnowles0 No one would moan if Tatooine was not in the game. It has absolutely zero importance in an open-world game like this where they could have gone buck wild with unique planets the way Battlefront 2 did on the PS2 and OG Xbox.
From the very first trailer, I was quite excited about this game. But the more and more I see, I've been cooling off. Nowadays, I'm not really expecting much at all and will be waiting for a sale at best unless if reviewers I trust all strongly endorse this game. But things are looking like I'll just give this one a pass.
It's so sad growing up a big Star Wars fan, that I haven't been rewarded my excitement for a new Star Wars product in so long that it's so hard to get hyped on anything on the franchise I used to love.
It's not out yet, so obviously I withhold my judgement about the game. However, I was really hoping it was going to go in a different direction than what we're seeing. I'd much rather play an open-universe Star Wars game where you can create your own character, and set out to explore the galaxy's adventures. With travel and trade like Elite Dangerous/Escape Velocity, and different quests and plots like Skyrim.
Having an "open world" game with a specific character telling (what appears to be) a specific story just feels like it will be a slightly bigger Jedi: Fallen Order. I guess I was hoping Outlaws would have a little bit more of a sandbox element to it.
Its actually extremely hard to mess up a star wars open world space game.
Its pretty much every person’s childhood dream to grab a ship and just pick a direction.
They should have delved deeper, had fleet battles, jedi and sith and the ability to live as an outlaw or become a jedi or sith. Kinda like a beefed up star wars galaxies.
Should have set this in the clone wars era at the height of everything.
I have played The Division 1 and 2 and Avatar and all are amazing. Massive Entertainment always build interesting worlds with compelling stories. I totally trust them with this game. All these complaint social media posts that we are seeing are just how social media works these days. Outrage culture seems to affect every game these days so I just ignore it.
How can it be either? It hasnt released yet.
The slow down time thing might work well if it's done the same way as Red Dead Redemption or Max Payne 3
Sure, but only if the game has good ragdolls or dodge mechanics, both of which Outlaws lacks.
Max Payne was awesome, this is so not that … what is up with this protagonists model wow
Nobody would ever accuse Ubisoft of creating an 𝙖𝙢𝙗𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 open world game.
In my opinion, Valhalla is an excellent open world game. Maybe even black flag to some extent. Rock Star did it best with RDR 2
@@underleft No they were not ambitious at all. There was nothing ambitious about either game; they were essentially Far Cry in an urban environment with bullet-sponge enemies and no vehicles.
The glaringly main problem is that they wont let us create our own character and stick us with YET ANOTHER strong female character nobody wants.....
Ubisoft is doing an excellent job at maintaining the standard of story telling established by Disney Lucas Arts.
When this game was first announced back in 2019, it was branded as an open world co-op game, much like The Division. And now we get this garbage? I love Star Wars, but this just isn't what me or anyone I know are looking for.
If you want to have a female smuggler, we have Platt Okeef from the 90's.
Nice not to have to worry about what it's like because I'll never touch a Ubisoft title again. Can almost guarantee it'll require Denuvo as well.
Game studios are milking the creativity cows as much as possible... in other words, they are lazy and money hungry. Most game studios are like that lately....
The problem I have with these franchise games is they just keep releasing similar feeling games and don't really tap into the potential of the lore or the world itself. They're all arcady feel, generic missions, and based on some loner, edgy character. Give me an open world survival game with exploration, custom character, ship building, and rich storyline quests where I could be good or bad. Like if Skyrim mashed up with space engineers in a Star Wars universe.
This! Something like Vocalnoids but with a bigger budget behind it, but set in the Star Wars universe where you go around, scavenge for parts and attempt to escape from a planet by repairing a ship. Just having one planet be the location would be good enough, and if it had drop-in co-op where your buddies could help you explore the world, fight off local fauna, and take on some interstellar gangs, then it would make for a grand 'ole time. There is a ton of easy potential with the franchise and Ubisoft's own internal engine tools, yet they opt to go the lazy DEI way instead.
Looking forward to it. I tend to enjoy Massive Entertainments work so this might be good. :)
Ubisoft: we will make a game that looks nice.
I'm gonna really enjoy this game in a year or two when it's available on Steam in a gold edition with all the content for like 20 bux
Still waiting for either a remake or sequel of Republic Commando.
They made Avatar bland last year, and this year it is Star Wars turn. For Star Wars the game being bland though, feels like it will fit in neatly with much of the current state of the franchise though, like most of their TV series.
I was very excited for Outlaws, but the newest gameplay video has made me very concerned. For all of the reasons you mentioned in your video, Obsidian. UBISoft really needs to get ahead of this and explain what is going on, reassure people that the full game is going to be fine.
Honestly for me I just want a true Star Wars space simulation game. on the scale of elite dangerous a real 1 for 1 of that galaxy. Could even make it multiple games with different time lines. I just want to hop in and live in that universe. buy me some land make me my own base/house and live it up.
I simply do not trust Ubisoft. When they said "...you'll constantly be to distracted to notice..." in reference to planets being small, all I heard was an excuse. An unsolicited qualifier. When I read between those lines what I really heard was " We didn't make planets big cus you think they are boring! Instead we made them small and packed them full of things to annoy you". I don't care if the planets are small. What I care about is the language they use, and it tells me they are lying/hiding things to keep the hype train alive. All I really want is honesty, and they never are. Both the publisher and developer have lied to us in the past (The Division release vs E3 footage) and I have zero faith that they are telling the truth now. As it stands now i think it will be a shallow, whimpering, meh of a game. I hope I am completely wrong and the game is the best game of all time but as it stands right now I just don't see it.
What you’re describing here, Obsidian, is basically every game ever made because there are no perfect ones. If you feel let down by games a lot, it’s because your expectations were too unrealistic. Lots of games have both good and bad points, so if you really want the game of your dreams, you need to make one yourself.
Makes me wonder if this started out as Beyond Good and Evil 2 then got altered to a Star Wars game.
I think I’m going to pass, I’m tired of Theme Parks, I want an RPG set in the Star Wars universe (see KOTOR).
I'm really sick of studios being handed a SW game and thinking "It's Star Wars! We can just do whatever generic crap we want, and people will buy it!" When will we get a game where the studio says: "This is Star Wars! Let's give it the attention it deserves and make a game people would want to play if it was set in a completely unknown universe."?
One: They lost a HUGE amount of potential by not doing the Mass Effect thing and letting you just create your own character(male or female) and using two voice actors to read the lines depending on which you chose; and they could have expanded it further by allowing you to potentially choose alien races that can speak the 'common tongue' as read by the voice actors; though put through filters to fit the races on offer.
Two: Unless this game is offered through Steam/Epic and doesn't require the Ubisoft launcher; odds are I'll be skipping it entirely. After the Ubisoft CEO said on record that we should 'get used to spending $70+ on 'AAAA' games" and that we should also get used to not actually OWNING our games(I believe there was something going around this past year that Ubisoft can and has removed the games from people's accounts who had been inactive for awhile); I just can't buy from Ubisoft directly anymore.
The CEO basically stating that we should pay $70+ for games that we'll never actually own, only pushes people into piracy; and it's not something consumers should have to deal with when we're plinking down $70-$120+ on these games(and Ubisoft is known for shoveling expensive games with cash shops, cosmetics, boosters, etc).
I'll play a mid-tier game if it's fun, it doesn't need to be an 8 or 9 out of 10 for me to have fun; but I damn well expect purchase to NOT be taken away or my money to just be 'expected' from shitty devs or publishers. Plenty of stuff to play, at one point these big publishers and studios could sell you something and you'd clamor to have it, but anymore there are much smaller studios pushing out higher quality and more polished games that are well below the $50 price point.
Worst case scenario; I wait a year or two when it's on sale for $20 with all the DLC and has been patched and polished.
Ubisoft specifically said that we don't own their games when we buy them, which means that we're not stealing if we pirate them.
Let's all face it, this may be worse than Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League. 🤦🏻♂️
Tatooine, the most politically significant planet in the Star Wars galaxy.
I'll play it, you know because it's scifi and Star Wars. Every Star Wars game is different than the next, or the one that came before, and these people that downvote without playing it for themselves aren't being fair to the genre.
That being said, it often feels like the big names in game development aren't digging deep enough in their toolbox to bring us something that truly sparks my interest. There's a big difference between playing something because I'm excited about it and playing it to check it off the list.
Does it have black samurais 😂
I am not a Star Wars nut so forgive my ignorance but: Tatooine and a Sarlac again? There is a whole universe full of unique stuff and this is something to go back to? I may be in the wrong here and I will admit it but a universe to explore mentally and all that they came up with is the same old stuff again.
Ofcourse rhis could be some se-/prequel to the original story but it seems weak to me to the originality.
No, you're not ignorant about it, you're absolutely spot on, mate. They are recycling the exact same stuff over and over... and over... and over again. This game is the epitome of formulaic.
Something I find odd lore wise is how many neimodian shuttles we see in the previews
I'm getting more than a whiff of Starfield here. Nice in theory but turns out filling a huge open world/galaxy with cool stories and compelling characters is a mite tricky. Also why no character customisation and (presumably) no ship customisation?
I think its way to early to openly pass judgments, I'll wait until we have the game in hand and see the different difficulty levels to judge the NCPs and how OP we feel as a protag... we are the "hero" of the story after all.
I enjoy ubisoft games. I'd rather have too many things to do than too few. I'm happy dialing down map clutter as I see fit on my play through.
Star Wars execs still have never figured out the characrters were its strength not its planets. So we get Tatooine a million times. But a Darth Vader game? A Han Solo and Chewbacca game? No. Here, have some Hoth.
I'm not letting the Internet tell me what to do. I'm excited and will buy it. Anyone have a problem with that?
I guess it will be as good as the first Avatar open world game.