The Outer Fields

Very many years ago, when the moons were still young, I remember remarking about how strange it was that the two best Western open world RPG makers in the industry were both striking out to start their space-game franchises in the same moment; as though the stars were aligning. Obsidian's The Outer Worlds was going to be their grand return to action RPGs after the seminal Fallout New Vegas totally rocked our worlds, and although Bethesda had yet to officially announce that Starfield was in development- this was back in their 'leaky ship' days when we knew practically every move the studio was going to do several months in advance. (In fact, it might very well have been those leaks that led to Starfield not being unveiled during that one star-themed Bethesda conference they did at the time. Remember that?)

And, fool that I was, I remember gawking at the fact that The Outer Worlds was going to be with us so soon. "Too bad, Bethesda!" I remember thinking (and maybe writing, but that is far too vague a sentence to go scrubbing through my early years of this blog to prove.)  "Obsidian got you beat!" Because after living with New Vegas bouncing around my head rent-free, knowing how much it ran circles around Bethesda's home grown sequel, I was all in my fandom feelings- celebrating the space opera that was to come. I couldn't imagine a world where the future of these beloved companies wasn't creating vast and impressive space games that brought back all those wonderous emotions of their heyday in a totally expansive playspace unlike any they had made before. And now I kind of wish they went back.

The Outer Worlds was a good game, I attested to such at the time, but it wasn't the classic sequel to Fallout New Vegas that I desperately wanted it to be. Starfield too was a good game, I very much enjoyed my time with it- but to call it a pale imitation of the kind of roleplaying grandeur Skyrim, Oblivion and even Fallout 4 brought to the table feels like a no brainer. (Can't believe I'm calling Fallout 4 superior at roleplaying! God, that hurts!) So now that both those games are out there, I'm starting to feel like maybe I just don't like space games because neither did it for me. Although I am trying, largely because I want to know what was so good about The Outer Worlds that it deserved a sequel and what is so apparently enduring about Starfield that so many people play it day in and day out. I would love to slide into either one of these head spaces. Which is probably why I'm playing both of them.

Yes, I'm finally going through the Spacer's Choice Edition of Starfield (which will be my first time experiencing the DLC packs that came with the game, despite having bought them.) and I'm picking at Starfield's newest update and gawking about just how much more I'm enjoying what was ostensibly a tiny systems update. Both games have some sort of hold on me, it would seem- I just need to decide which is the better all around experience- and therein lies the conundrum. Of course I wish success on Starfield's DLC which is getting revealed in the coming couple of weeks and if The Outer Worlds 2 can really leapfrog my expectations I will be a thrilled as anyone else; but neither will dissuade my opinions on the here and now.

Much has been said about how Spacer's Choice Edition does a number on the original game, and I don't know if any fixes were implemented but personally I don't seem to be having many problems on my end regarding performance. (There's some truly odd stutters in the Groundbreaker, but that's about it.) Most noticeably on my end, however, is the changes to the visuals done with lighting and though there are some sceptical comparison screenshots online, when the set-up is done contrast and gamma are done right, (instead of just set to defaults like I'm sure most people automatically do) Spacer's Choice The Outer Worlds looks darn gorgeous! Too dark in some areas, to be sure- but like a dream in those twilight/dawn hours. Starfield looks good too, in the right instances, but I've never seen a sunrise and paused to take it in like I do for Outer Worlds. Maybe that's the benefit of being able to tailor-make your background for the environment, but The Outer Worlds visually holds up better.

In terms of gun and gameplay there's a bit more nuance here. Both games try at first person shooting in a decent stab, pulling tricks of the trade and giving a satisfying combat experience. I genuinely have no serious qualms about either. Both feel good to shoot, offer satisfying guns that sound and kick great- The Outer Worlds generally has a much more sensible TTK, but with Starfield's newest update that can be totally within the hands of the player with the best adaptive difficultly set of features I've ever seen! (Speaking of- did you know Starfield just added a survival mode secretly in it's difficulty settings? Seriously, they went unexpectedly hard with that update!) In terms of raw shooting gamefeel, I think Starfield just about edges it out for simply how versatile you feel as well as the sheer range of weapons you can collect which are all so much fun to use- although The Outer Worlds still gets points for having actual Legendary weapons instead of the mess that Starfield goes for! 

Story is a bit more nuanced, especially since I don't think either game does an outstanding job here. Both create stories tailor made for their style of game, meaning Starfield's is more open-ended allowing for free exploration and The Outer World's is a bit more hyper focused on it's singular thread. I'd argue both work to the detriment of the overall scenario and though I personally like Starfield's twist after chewing over it a bit, The Outer Worlds does certainly feel like a lot more of a coherent narrative with substantive plot threads and set-ups with arguably satisfying resolutions. Still think neither studio was exactly working with their 'A-game' so-to-speak; but The Outer Worlds certainly leans closer towards my personal preferences with an open world game narrative.

So though it absolutely confuses me to say this, I might think of The Outer Worlds as the better game, when comparing the two in their raw un-DLC state. Seeing everything that Bethesda put into the update for Starfield actually really slapped me around the head and said "Hold on- they are actually paying attention to what people are saying!" Seriously, if Bethesda work a bit more on improving the feel of space travel and improving world generation as well as providing satisfying DLC content- Starfield may have more legs to stand on then I thought. And The Outer Worlds has been keeping me invested in my current playthrough again, not enough to care about the world but just enough to recall how great most of the character writing is. Except for Felix. Felix is boring. I really hope neither one of these studios prematurely throws in the towel and we get to really see the pinnacle of Western Space action RPGs at some point down the line. Any game that can make me feel as many butterflies as Rogue Trader would do me just fine!