This game qas just so uninteresting. I couldn’t get past a couple hours
I think a big part of it for me was the perks. Almost none of the perks significantly change gameplay mechanics much – they’re small percentage tweaks to stats.
The firearms were pretty similar, other then the science weapons.
The game played in a pretty linear fashion, even though it was technically open-world. Not much backtracking.
I almost never stumbled across interesting things going on in the world a la Fallout. Just in cities.
None of those features individually made the Fallout series, but collectively not having them adds up.
Was pretty bug-free, which was nice.
It wasn’t awful and it did share a lot of similarities with Fallout, but it didn’t have the mixture that made Fallout “click” for me.
I really liked it. It was a good visual novel. I’m definitely going to play the sequel
It was pretty light on the RPG mechanics, but to call it a visual novel is an unfounded insult that game simply doesn’t deserve
My intention was not to insult them. I want to promote them.
What would you call a game that has a rich environmental storytelling element, but not a lot of agency?
While I do believe your intent, saying Outer Worlds is a visual novel is like saying Warcraft is a tower defense game.
Take a look here, if you want to know what actual visual novels look like. We’re talking Disco Elysium and Phoenix Wright.
At worst, if you’re really dissatisfied with the RPG elements of OW, you would call it an FPS, which I would personally already feel is downgrading it.
How would you describe the outer worlds in terms of gameplay? What descriptive phrase would you use?
On rails FPS with sci-fi environmental elements?
Interactive narrative?
I simply do not see or agree with the diminutive characteristics you’re peppering your responses with. To me it’s as much of an RPG as Skyrim / Fallout / Starfield. Just with a tighter budget. And I’m pretty certain that’s what the devs had in mind.
I always mix up Outer Worlds and Outer Wilds