their the same game one is unreal and one is creation engine, the only difference is obsidian can create an open world game where your character sounds human and from that universe where Bethesda your character sounds like a grown man child who is either super intelligent or a super moron with no common sense... and majority go for bethesda guess why?
If you dont like to become a god when you reach max level then that makes you in the MINORITY. There's no question the outer words are made based on fallout new vegas as the devs themselves confirmed this. And before fallout's reputation went down the drain starting at fallout 4. The fallout games were in the top 10 most popular game world wide and all the fan made stories were of a godlike character who becomes basically a god. Heck, even in the anime world where there are skill progression, all people care for how overpowered the mc will become next. So again, if you dont like that, you are the minority. Being godlike at the end is the reward far your hard work. It feels good. In 76, no matter how high level i get, i still lost pathetically to certain enemies when im alone and i hate that... I got to level 125, you'd think i'd be stronger and more resistant, but i decided to make new level character and turns out my lvl 125 is WEAKER! When realized that, i uninstalled 76 and never played it since! All this work to get weaker? What kind of reward is that? The ghouls and scorched that i easily defeat level 1, tho same aexact enemies nearly kill me everytime when im with my lvl 125 character. At lvl 1 i can fight the ghouls with melee weapon, barely any meds and no armor. At lvl 125, even with a full suit of legendary heavy combat armor, loads of meds and powerful guns, i have to spend half my time running away while trying to heal.... If you like that kind of gain where it gets more painful as you progress well it makes you very VERY WEIRD! Like a masoc**** wont say the full word cause we are on youtube.
Actually no you can't travel between planets in Loadingfield. Instead you got like 5 loading screen through space and when you arrive, you cant even go down onto the planet. You need to go through another loading screen. At least The Outer Worlds only has 2 loading screens, one to enter the ship and on to leave the ship when arrived. Loadingfield really has just a longer fast travelling system.
One thing to keep in mind: Outer Worlds was a AA-funded game Starfield is a AAA-funded game that had twice the time for development. Outer Worlds get a big W.
Tons of money but empty sand boxes. Where did the rest of the funding go? Not the storyline or gameplay that's for sure. Bethesda is the same games from 1990s repackaged in New graphics.
AAA is in a very tough place today, and with AA slowly starting to rise above the former with much more interesting titles, AAA can die for all I care.
I find the compactness of Outer Worlds and it more handcrafted environments make it feel more cohesive whereas playing Starfield feels really disjointed between very empty planets, space being a minigame and then cities that felt spread thin. I like both games but Starfield doesn't hold my attention as much as Outer Worlds, can't wait for the sequel!
Doesn't it almost feel like Outer Worlds came out after Starfield, and corrected its mistakes. Making the NPCs more interesting, pacing it better, trimming the fat.... I did complete Outer Worlds, and had very few sluggish moments. There were a few, but not many. I couldn't get through the first few hours of Starfield, I just didn't get pulled in.
Spread thin? Do some more exploring and talking to more random NPCs, I've found Starfield has the biggest and most lively cities, with more to do and find than any other Bethesda game
@@OGbrundle You're making my point. 'Do more exploring' means that the content is spread thin. I'd highly recommend watching Luke Stevens video on game interactivity.
@@sydhamelin1265 Well when you make the biggest game ever.... I think anything can feel spread thin. Have you ever gotten super in to a Bethesda game? It's hilarious to me that people are STILL crying about a game that was explicitly marketed as "empty" and "lonely" outside of the settled systems. The cities in the game are huge and if you do some exploring, there's actually four or five major cities. I spent my first SEVEN HOURS of gameplay just doing quests in New Atlantis before I ever even left the planet, not to mention the other settlements on Jamisen. I'm around 200 hours in and I'm still OVERWHELMED every time I open the side quest bar at how much stuff I haven't done. People who say this game is lacking content clearly either haven't played the game, or just blew through the main quest and felt unfulfilled because the game doesn't hold your hand and push things in your face. It's an RPG, play it as such.
@@OGbrundle Ok, so we agree the game is has a lot of empty space. The difference we have it that you find enjoyment in how that integrates into gameplay, and I don't. So maybe when I use the term 'spread thin' it insinuates that it wasn't by design, and I'll rescind that statement, to instead use your point, that it is by design. With that, it's just that you have fun with it, and I don't. Can't really call a right or wrong there. Funny enough, Starfield had me revisit FO4, which I've been playing again. Yes, I've really gotten into a few Bethesda games. Oblivion is the one that really, really grabbed me, but I found Skyrim and FO4 to be engaging. I get that the RP side of FO4 had some struggles, but just exploring the world, building up my town, loved all that. Skyrim is a zen masterpiece.
I played the Spacer's Choice edition after a couple of years from the original and realized that I actually love this game a lot. It was interesting to me how the second time through, things that I thought were "flaws" of the game seemed to be actually pretty well thought out. The story line, the humor, the progression. It really is one of the best RPG's to date in my opinion.
20 hours into Starfield I would have said Starfield is clearly the better game. But now after 70 hours in Starfield I think The Outer Worlds is very much the better game. Sure less "content" but more depth in the Outer Worlds. I really enjoy the beautiful, handcrafted environments in the Outer Worlds which is something Starfield lacks.
I did that with cyberpunk, even when it came out buggy as hell I did 4 playthroughs and now I have the explanation and new patch that I have to yet play. The only other game I put more time into was mgs5 I put over 400 hours 😂😂
@@user-vv9wt5qw3kobjectively outerworlds is better the space exploration and main quest line is not even serviceable it was very clear the main focus was the sidequestlines in starfield
@@Digger-Nick Sorry, but you are entitled to your wrong opinion. The truth is starfield is crap. nothing to do and nothing what you do, makes a difference.. and they have the guts to call it an RPG LOL
Of the two, I prefer The Outer Worlds. The various stories are more interesting and the conversations and characters are way more engaging. Plus, I like the humour.
@DominiqueSimpson-pg4bbwhat does that have to do with either game being good or bad though? Cyberpunk does the same thing but is still a fantastic game.
@DominiqueSimpson-pg4bb That is the only detractor of Outer Worlds. You cannot flourish your character really (unless you count the idle cam) or see them in dialogue. But this might change for the sequel.
starfield just gives me little fallout 4 vibes but nothing more, the game is shallow, the outer worlds is on another level, the storytelling of the outer worlds is just a masterpiece
The UC Vanguard and the Crimson Fleet side quest should have been the main quest. He’ll tie all the side quest together as the main quest and make the main quest the side quest in Starfield would have been better.
Never played Starfield, but i loved the outer worlds, it has its flaws but the characters and the world building are so endearing. Especially the companions. Reminds me of KOTOR's companion system.
The Outer Worlds feels like a complete and cohesive game. Where-as Starfield feels unfinished, buggy, and like a bunch of half-baked mechanics, that were started and never fleshed out or finished. Space flight and space combat definitely feels like its unfinished. There are no proper missions in space, no nav points to travel to, no in-planetary travel, you just load into these areas, and then load back out without actually traveling anywhere in your ship when you have actual control of it. Even the perk system and leveling up your character, I wanted to focus on ships, and space combat, and its kinda completely pointless. For example - just to get more people assigned to my ship, I'm supposed to unlock "ship command" but its in the Social perk tree, at the BOTTOM, meaning you have to sink a ton of points into a tree you dont want to focus on, on a bunch of skills that are compltely unrelated to ships, just to being unlocking it. The 'Social' tree has so many useless perks I don't even want, but I Was forced to spend points just to unlock the tier 4 Ship Command. Just obtuse and not well thought-out at all. And the combat and enemy AI in Starfield is atrocious. No difficulty at all. I started the game, cranked the difficulty all the way up, and was still mowing down everyone without ever being at risk of dying. Where-as Outer Worlds can be actually challenging at the higher setting, and requires proper grinding to get your characters feeling good and OP. And it feels EARNED in Outer Worlds, in Starfield, it feels like the enemy AI is all broken. I open a door to an area full of enemies, and they spend 3 seconds running into walls and yelling before they actually start combat. Just REALLY bad enemy AI and scripting. Gotta disagree with the video on combat. Starfield gets the gunplay down, sure, but the enemy AI ruins the entire experience. Again, I have the game on max setting and have not spent a single point in the combat tree, and I can't die unless I do it on purpose. There are much older FPS games that have WAY more advanced enemy AI. I even have the enemy combat mod, and it still doesn't make it challenging.
*I had no desire to play Outer Worlds again once I beat it the first time but its definitely better than Starfield in every way. if Outer Worlds had a Contracts/Bounty feature where you could hunt down random criminals forever, the game would actually be Perfect.*
@@Mrcheesythumbsit’s really not. The literal best thing the game has is ship customization.. which even then.. I’m essentially just customizing my loading screen lol.
I have put 18hrs into starfiled and cannot force myself to put anymore time into that game. Shooting is very bad, loading screens are constant, graphics are mediocre (performance on xsx is terrible). Cannot convince myself to go back to that game. Looking to start outer worlds for the first time.
Really liked this comparison, great job of showing similarities and differences. The cyberpunk city in Starfield....that feels like they may have actually taken the aesthetics from the Groundbreaker. I'd say the other 2 cities, no...but that one seems really similar. People have gaming itches that get scratched by different activities, and Bethesda has mastered open world exploration. For me, I enjoy it, but only in portions, so I prefer Outer Worlds. Although the combat is really, really rough to go back to. I also don't remember it feeling as awful as it is, but playing it again, the combat makes it rough to replay. I only got a couple hours into Starfield and realized I was just totally checked out. I didn't find the combat that great, but it wasn't painful. The third game that's being thrown in the mix is the 2.0 patched Cyberpunk. I will say, with the 2.0 patch, I think that makes it my favorite of the 3 games. I would still say Bethesda does a better job with the open world exploration, but I prefer the setting and gameplay of Cyberpunk.
The Outer Worlds sounds like the mission First Contact in Starfield. So the best side mission in Starfield just so happens to be a ripe off from Obsidian. Genuinely, idk why Zenimax doesn't buy Obsidian. Fire everyone at Bethesda and replace them all.
I really ask myself why The Outer Worlds is not getting more attention! Espacially because its pretty similar to starfield but better. I always wait for it to come up during reviews but it doesnt happen..
It honestly it pretty mid. It just definitely excels in writing and quests. I mean it’s obviously better than loading screen simulator. Starfield is for people who are okay with playing fallout 4 but in space with a not nearly as interesting universe and lore behind it. I mean the fact that a AAA game with such an ocean of a team and all the years they had to develop it is being compared to by a AA game that was made in like half the time is hilarious.
I guess without spoiling it, in Starfield: Are there any equivalent moments-of- coolness such as Liberty Prime's rampages (FO 3/4) or the first appearance of the Prywden?
I am so glad that the Prydwen entrance wasn’t spoiled for me, it was one of the best moments of gaming for me. But Starfield was massive dissapointment while Outer Worlds is still massive enjoyment for me
Outer Worlds is an entertaining game and enjoyable with good stories. I give it a 8/10. Starfield is not that enjoyable, very grindy, and gets boring. The game started as a 7/10, but the more I play it, the lower the score goes. It's a 5/10 for me. At this point just trying to finish the faction and main quest so I can go play Phantom Liberty.
@@joaquinbaca1880Phantom Liberty is fantastic on every level, never a dull moment. For me Starfield was the universe of boredom, but I'm happy for the people who have fun with it.
Tbh i loved outworlds i was sad that 2 wasnt out when i was finished i played and looked everywhere for everything dialogue wise and hidden references for such a small game they put a lot in it made it feel bigger in a way. The style is so unique and refreshing. The worlds they put it the game had a purpose. I'd say obsidian did so good with what money they had and it turned out great and i dont regret playing hours on it. I cant wait to see their next one now that they have a better budget im so excited. ❤❤
I noticed an error slipped in ; you can see the title under the different chapters of the review say "DOS2 v BG3", which I assume is a mistake from your other comparison vid from those games.
Starfield is fine and all, it just feels super vanilla, especially for a Bethesda game. You can complete most of the side quests with virtually no consequences. I miss when you had to pick a side and you had that opportunity to become evil or good. I compare these games more with Bioshock and Borderlands than Fallout and Skyrim.
I agree but how isnt skyrim vanilla ? Its like parody of vikings. i like it more than oblivion, but its shallow and childish. Like starfield is. Starfield atleast gives more dialogue options and consequences than skyrim.
I just abandoned Starfield because I couldn't stomach it any more. The bugs alone was killing me. Since Outer worlds was free with DLC on EPic store I got it and played it again. Originally I played the base game with no DLC. The first thing I'm noticing is how wonderful it is with minimum loading screens, and how everything just works. No bugs. I'm re-enjoying Outer worlds, far more than I enjoyed Starfield. And guess what, apparently you can now play Outerworlds in VR.
Noticing whenever you have a conversation with two people, in OW they actually turn their head to talk to another character. In starfield, both characters just stare at you, even if they are talking with each other. Very off-putting.
Awesome video! Honestly, I would say that both games are a solid 8/10. Both are really good with their own set of weaknesses. I do disagree with you on one point. The companions, I think they’re better in Starfield. The companions in outer worlds are cool, but their personal quests feel a bit mediocre in my opinion. The companion quests in Starfield is a bit more entertaining and plus you can romance those companions. For some odd reason obsidian just doesn’t like romance in their games. I prefer Starfield because I love the outpost and spaceship building 😎👍🏼.
@@rtsvoid Lets be real it was marketed as an exploration game with the whole 1000 planets thing and ship travel shown in ever trailer. to say this is an rpg game is laughable, you cannot be evil. choices do not matter and almost none of the quests have different outcomes. I loved skyrim and even fallout 4, so i don't mind rpg games that have simple mechanics but this game feels like it has even less than those two.
5 years of support lol.. okay.. more like a mid dlc or two before they abandon it so the mods can do it justice. Bethesda has legitimately been known for trash post game support ever since FO3. Unless you count 76.. but that game was so bad it might as well have been a scam lol.
I agree with your take on the companions, I have no idea why bethesda decided to make them all from constellation. This game is really lacking if you want to be a bad guy.
I played through The Outer Worlds and the 2 DLCs, had a boatload of fun, and when the Spacers Choice Edition came out I played through it again. I played through Starfield, it felt like I'm doing chores, I won't buy a DLC and I won't touch it again. The story, the characters, the dialogs, the additional mechanics like flying a spaceship or "exploring" wasteland planets, all of it is too boring to revisit.
Man lost me after exploration, starfield has the worst exploration out of any Bethesda game, also while starfield has better shooting the AI is awful, come on man
Haven’t played Starfield so I can’t say who wins, but I love Outer Worlds. The funny writing, really varied and likable companions, and difficult moral choices made it a total blast. Combat isn’t really a huge priority of mine in these kinds of games because I’m far more interested in the story, so while objectively the combat leaves much to be desired, I don’t really mind. That said, I love that you didn’t rag on either game. The Internet is the Internet, so I’ve seen a lot of people bash Starfield as trash, and a lot of people do the same with Outer Worlds. It was great to see someone who wanted to genuinely weigh them both as good games with flaws, rather than use negativity for views.
Starfield felt like it was punishing you for wanting to play it like a Bethesda rpg. They made exploration into menu the game with added loading screens.
I like both Games, but I will admit this: Starfield is what Outer Worlds should’ve been in terms of the factions choices, combat, exploration, ship travel, including ship combat, and Character Creation. But, the Outer Worlds is a better game for how compact it was, the look and feel, I didn’t experience a whole lot of bugs like Starfield and honestly, I liked how low stakes it was, really in Outer Worlds. Like I’m fine with high stakes that involve the universe but there’s been a bit too much of High Stakes stories. Outer Worlds only involved its closed setting and I liked how different that was because the only stakes were focused on the fate of one world/corporation, that being Halcyon. Both are great games in their own ways, but even though I like what Starfield improved upon what Outer Worlds did, I like Outer Worlds a bit better. Maybe they’ll improve more to be similar to Starfield in The Outer Worlds 2 but who knows??
The outer worlds colour pallete I would describe as being painted. It looks like real life if done by a painter in oil paints. When you were saying, cartoonlike but not cartoon I think painted is what you might have been looking for. Outer worlds pisses on anything bethesda has ever made. It was a finished working game from the start and bethesda games are broken, lazy messes that they expect modders to fix. Obsidian do not expect modders to fix their games, they fix their own shit. FPS in Starfield is garbage, in my game now the audio is a mess, missing dialogue or lipsynch not linked to audio. Some ambient/music segments just go quiet for a few seconds. Waypoints are now bugging out...current quest waypoints are missing and other waypoints are on screen...relogging the game fixes that until the next quest is active and you have to relog to get those waypoints up. I have had lockups and crashes to desktop. In Outer Worlds I have had zero issues, zero crashes. It is a much tighter game, they made a game they could handle so, yes it is smaller, but they made a game that worked whereas Uncle Todd just says that his game just works...when it doesn't.
I will never get over the fact Obsidian always gets the short end of the stick in game development!!! Give them the budget and give them the time to make a AAA game!
The only bugs I noticed in Outer worlds was with the storage container and fridges onboard the unreliable was items you put in them would disappear but dispite that is was one of my favourite games of the last generation which were few and practically all the Others I liked were remasters or remakes of older games
Bethesda is always empty sandboxes that modders end up fixing. The stories are shite and there are no consequences. Obsidian is quality vs quantity. Which is why New Vegas was better than anything Bethesda did with fallout that and the fact that a lot of the developers know the DNA of the game since they came from interplay. There's this quirkiness that can't be matched by the uncreative Bethesda bots.
Absolutely spot on! I'm looking forward to Avowed and the Avowed vs Skyrim comparisons.... I always say, in 90% of the cased where developers create an open world, a hub based approach would have been a far better choice. It allows to create a more meaningful story and progress through the story. Freedom doesn't come from where you can go location-wise, freedom comes from where you can go story-wise. I think Baldurs Gate 3 underlines this statement as well.
I mean I’d say the gunplay is better in F4.. but yeah literally EVERYTHING else has been done better in NV. Lol Bethesda will never forgive Obsidian for making the (to this date) best fallout game.. arguably the best RPG game ever made that’s tied to them as well.
Starfield is literally Outer Worlds on steroids and is better in pretty much every objective category. And that's coming from someone who got a platinum in OW! The only two things in which OW is better are the writing of comanions (specifically Parvati and Vicar Max - everyone else are on Starfield's level) and the ability to kill every NPC in the game (which is kinda cool if you want to try out a murderhobo route once, but nothing particularly gamechanging). Everything else is purely up to personal preferences.
At least you can have more than one companion in the outer worlds whereas in Starfield you can only have one companion which really sucks in any RPG nowadays especially that you can have multiple crew mates when selecting the Ship Command skill. Only if you can have multiple companions when you select the Leadership skill one per rank having up to 5 companions at a time for rank 4 but Bethesda as always has to restrict it one companion at a time no matter the Leadership skill rank.
Not saying that one is better than the other in the grand scale of things, but comparing the two to me is like comparing Mafia to GTA; Outer Worlds is linear with very little variance in choice/choices don’t matter. Starfield at least you can just do whatever you want after the intro and travel the galaxy.
15:59 You kind of loose legitimacy a bit with "there's empty planets but that's how it be" because, you know, they were designed to BE a part of the game
I think the combat system in Starfield is lacking in how you engage your enemies. That is to say, when you are shooting, you are typically standing right out in the open, not making use of nearby cover at all. Being used to playing games like Wildlands, Breakpoint and Battlefield where using cover is important and part of the combat system, it is lacking in Starfield. I also find the characters in Starfield to be very 2 dimensional and not very engaging, at least to the extent that I've played the game. These other games I've played, there are characters who have character, who I want to engage with or not, who I like and want to help or eliminate. So far, I haven't had that kind of experience in Starfield. The user interface in Starfield leaves something to be desired as well, their lack of in game sort of "tutorials" to let you know how to do stuff is missing. As one example, there is no instruction about docking when in outer space, I had to search for information about that here on TH-cam. Personally, I think that is a huge flaw and detracts from game engagement. All of these things are why I've been watching reviews of The Outer Worlds, to see whether I'd like it more than Starfield, and so far, (not having played The Outer Worlds,) and considering the reviews I've seen, I may enjoy TOW more.
Kinda meh on both honestly. Idk, I feel like these big open world rpgs are hard to do right once you go into space. Andromeda, Outer Worlds, Starfield. Honestly, i dont mind more linearity like Mass Effect or KOTOR. The concept of exploring space is great, but a lot of space is just empty floating rocks sadly.
Which one is best? The one that you enjoy playing more. Starfield is objectively a bad game that I've dumped 1,200 hours of my life into. I clearly enjoy playing it, despite its many, many flaws. I didn't even bother with Outer Worlds. First of all, it's made by Obsidian, the same people that made New Vegas. New Vegas was good but the anti-Bethesda crowd hypes it up like it's the second coming of Shakespeare. It ain't. It was passably enjoyable for a few hundred hours but it has become the rallying cry for people that hate Bethesda just because it's the trendy thing to do. Secondly, when a corporation makes a video game denouncing the incompetence of corporations, that comes off a bit hypocritical. That they later sold to Microsoft just sort of sealed the deal. Finally, and most damning, it released as an Epic exclusive. I'm not interested in games made by companies that do that. If you don't value your Steam customers enough to release it on both platforms simultaneously, then I don't value you enough to buy your product. So which on is better? Don't care. I enjoy playing Starfield. I will likely never own or play Outer Worlds. Starfield wins by default, despite its many, many flaws.
Starfield's main story is almost all fetching things. The NASA mission was the only one that was even remotely interesting. The choices in the game were without consequence. The companions were boring in an extreme sense. Their quests were all bad (some of them I finished without even knowing I was about to finish them.) The faction quests were OK (the Ryujin quest line was good). But none of the factions had anything to do with the main game. The side quests were, like the main quest, almost all "fetch" quests. I don't care about framerates, loading screens, bugs, etc. I want a good story, and Starfield does not have that, at all. After I finished Starfield, I started Outerworlds. I love it. I was hooked from the beginning, but I fell in love when I was sent to a secret lab and there was a large sign on it that said "Secret Lab."
Outer worlds is eye rape. The design, color saturation, and extreme contrast, made the game unplayable for me. I was very excited for the game but couldnt last longer than five hours in candyland. Also the constant similarities to Boarderlands was offputting
Hiring practices that focus on diversity over quality. Boeing, the jetliner manufacturer, had to pause production because their planes started falling apart in the air due to the aforementioned hiring practices. Similar thing happening with Bethesda.
The outer worlds captures something that starfield didn't. Maybe it's the depth of the game. Maybe it's the story. Maybe the gameplay. It's hard for me to say. Maybe it's a bit of it all. But what I can say for sure is outer worlds gripped me and never let go. Starfield had me but quickly lost me.
I don't think you can compare them properly since both games have entirely different premises and other things too different. It's like comparing apples to oranges because both are fruits. Or comparing Wipeout to Ridge Racer because both are racing games.
“Starfield has tons of exploration” Bro once you’ve been to like 3 planets.. you’ve been to them ALL. Sometimes there isn’t anything.. sometimes there’s an outpost to shoot at. So boring it’s unbelievable. BOTW had exploration.. because there’s stuff to actually do lol.
These two games can't be compared. Starfield isn't a game so much as a platform. Outer Worlds has depth of story, interesting characters and entertaining plots. Starfield is more of a 'example' of a series of kinds of things that might be supported on their platform. But there really is no game to Starfield
Outer Worlds: Goes to Fallbrook, goes to funny gingers store, ask to ask questions. Says hit me, I won't hit back. Gives him a fucking instant blackeye. Asks why you did that. Tell him you told me to. Tells me his leader and me will get on great. Gets faction reputation. 💀 Starfield: more Bethesda copy paste. But in space! ☝😃
The Outer Worlds didn't land for me. I felt bored almost all the time. Starfield also has some of this and it was because the worlds of both games feel sterile somehow. I cannot nail it down, just last night as I was walking in Neon doing the Ryujin quests and something was off. I know one thing: the game's music feels detached and doesn't evoke much. I can say one thing tho The Outer Worlds loses for me. I finished and promptly forgot the game.
since Bethesda made a poor job on fallout 4 and even worse job with 76.... I dont even need to play starfield to know its gonna be bad. Repeatitive tasks, lazy ai generated quests and lore that makes no sense when compared with previous games. That last part is also true with that fallout tv series where the bos who are supposed to be a small tribe of tech addict military descendants who do not recruit outsiders and lastly only cares about taking technology away from people. They will shoot on sight if you have a laser pistol for example. And the tv series says those techno-RAIDERS called the Brotherhood of Steel will restore order in the wasteland........... Why would they care when they themselves destroy anything resembling order outside the BoS just because they had one suit of powerarmor that didnt even work. The BoS according the all the first few games would kill to whole village to take that power armor.
Man Ouer Worlds sucked. I was hyped for a Bethesda competitor since New Vegas was goated but Outer Worlds was a huge let down in terms of depth and exploration. I actually thought Starfiled looked better just because i found Outer Worlds so dull and stale gameplay wise. To hear that Bethesda managed to do even worse than that ks so disheartening. I fear for elder scrolls 6
Who wins, in your opinion?
🔔 Social Media 🔔
► ►Twitter: twitter.com/NorZZaTV
► ►Instagram: instagram.com/NorZZaTV/
► ►Discord: discord.gg/S5ydpYm
their the same game one is unreal and one is creation engine, the only difference is obsidian can create an open world game where your character sounds human and from that universe where Bethesda your character sounds like a grown man child who is either super intelligent or a super moron with no common sense... and majority go for bethesda guess why?
Sorry to say it but I recently replayed both, and I had a better time with The outer worlds :o
If you dont like to become a god when you reach max level then that makes you in the MINORITY. There's no question the outer words are made based on fallout new vegas as the devs themselves confirmed this. And before fallout's reputation went down the drain starting at fallout 4. The fallout games were in the top 10 most popular game world wide and all the fan made stories were of a godlike character who becomes basically a god. Heck, even in the anime world where there are skill progression, all people care for how overpowered the mc will become next. So again, if you dont like that, you are the minority. Being godlike at the end is the reward far your hard work. It feels good. In 76, no matter how high level i get, i still lost pathetically to certain enemies when im alone and i hate that... I got to level 125, you'd think i'd be stronger and more resistant, but i decided to make new level character and turns out my lvl 125 is WEAKER! When realized that, i uninstalled 76 and never played it since! All this work to get weaker? What kind of reward is that? The ghouls and scorched that i easily defeat level 1, tho same aexact enemies nearly kill me everytime when im with my lvl 125 character. At lvl 1 i can fight the ghouls with melee weapon, barely any meds and no armor. At lvl 125, even with a full suit of legendary heavy combat armor, loads of meds and powerful guns, i have to spend half my time running away while trying to heal.... If you like that kind of gain where it gets more painful as you progress well it makes you very VERY WEIRD! Like a masoc**** wont say the full word cause we are on youtube.
Its a crime to call this Starfield, its real name is Loadingfield. There are way too many loading screens.
Actually no you can't travel between planets in Loadingfield. Instead you got like 5 loading screen through space and when you arrive, you cant even go down onto the planet. You need to go through another loading screen. At least The Outer Worlds only has 2 loading screens, one to enter the ship and on to leave the ship when arrived. Loadingfield really has just a longer fast travelling system.
One thing to keep in mind:
Outer Worlds was a AA-funded game
Starfield is a AAA-funded game that had twice the time for development.
Outer Worlds get a big W.
such a great point !!! and 10 X the money to pump into it
Tons of money but empty sand boxes. Where did the rest of the funding go? Not the storyline or gameplay that's for sure. Bethesda is the same games from 1990s repackaged in New graphics.
Having played both thoroughly I got to say The Outer Worlds left me wishing there was more after finishing while Starfield left me feeling empty.
AAA is in a very tough place today, and with AA slowly starting to rise above the former with much more interesting titles, AAA can die for all I care.
@@DCJiuJitsuGeelong This is why I want to see what Obsidian can do with a bigger budget
I find the compactness of Outer Worlds and it more handcrafted environments make it feel more cohesive whereas playing Starfield feels really disjointed between very empty planets, space being a minigame and then cities that felt spread thin. I like both games but Starfield doesn't hold my attention as much as Outer Worlds, can't wait for the sequel!
Doesn't it almost feel like Outer Worlds came out after Starfield, and corrected its mistakes. Making the NPCs more interesting, pacing it better, trimming the fat....
I did complete Outer Worlds, and had very few sluggish moments. There were a few, but not many. I couldn't get through the first few hours of Starfield, I just didn't get pulled in.
Spread thin? Do some more exploring and talking to more random NPCs, I've found Starfield has the biggest and most lively cities, with more to do and find than any other Bethesda game
@@OGbrundle You're making my point.
'Do more exploring' means that the content is spread thin. I'd highly recommend watching Luke Stevens video on game interactivity.
@@sydhamelin1265 Well when you make the biggest game ever.... I think anything can feel spread thin. Have you ever gotten super in to a Bethesda game? It's hilarious to me that people are STILL crying about a game that was explicitly marketed as "empty" and "lonely" outside of the settled systems. The cities in the game are huge and if you do some exploring, there's actually four or five major cities. I spent my first SEVEN HOURS of gameplay just doing quests in New Atlantis before I ever even left the planet, not to mention the other settlements on Jamisen. I'm around 200 hours in and I'm still OVERWHELMED every time I open the side quest bar at how much stuff I haven't done. People who say this game is lacking content clearly either haven't played the game, or just blew through the main quest and felt unfulfilled because the game doesn't hold your hand and push things in your face. It's an RPG, play it as such.
@@OGbrundle Ok, so we agree the game is has a lot of empty space. The difference we have it that you find enjoyment in how that integrates into gameplay, and I don't. So maybe when I use the term 'spread thin' it insinuates that it wasn't by design, and I'll rescind that statement, to instead use your point, that it is by design.
With that, it's just that you have fun with it, and I don't. Can't really call a right or wrong there.
Funny enough, Starfield had me revisit FO4, which I've been playing again. Yes, I've really gotten into a few Bethesda games. Oblivion is the one that really, really grabbed me, but I found Skyrim and FO4 to be engaging. I get that the RP side of FO4 had some struggles, but just exploring the world, building up my town, loved all that.
Skyrim is a zen masterpiece.
I appreciate The Outer Wolrds even more now, with my second playthrough, since Starfield left me pretty dissapointed
I played the Spacer's Choice edition after a couple of years from the original and realized that I actually love this game a lot. It was interesting to me how the second time through, things that I thought were "flaws" of the game seemed to be actually pretty well thought out. The story line, the humor, the progression. It really is one of the best RPG's to date in my opinion.
20 hours into Starfield I would have said Starfield is clearly the better game. But now after 70 hours in Starfield I think The Outer Worlds is very much the better game. Sure less "content" but more depth in the Outer Worlds. I really enjoy the beautiful, handcrafted environments in the Outer Worlds which is something Starfield lacks.
I’ve played Outer Worlds at least seven times. I’ve played Starfield one and a half times before I realized it was no Outer Worlds.
I did that with cyberpunk, even when it came out buggy as hell I did 4 playthroughs and now I have the explanation and new patch that I have to yet play. The only other game I put more time into was mgs5 I put over 400 hours 😂😂
in short .. the outer worlds ofcourse.
In your opinion
@@user-vv9wt5qw3k you mean your opinion is as valid/invalid as mine :)
@@user-vv9wt5qw3kobjectively outerworlds is better the space exploration and main quest line is not even serviceable it was very clear the main focus was the sidequestlines in starfield
What do you mean of course? Outer worlds was low tier trash. Obsidian can do MUCH better
@@Digger-Nick Sorry, but you are entitled to your wrong opinion. The truth is starfield is crap. nothing to do and nothing what you do, makes a difference.. and they have the guts to call it an RPG LOL
Outer Worlds gives me the Bioshock vibes
Love this. Wonder what Obsidian could do with the BioShock IP.
Of the two, I prefer The Outer Worlds. The various stories are more interesting and the conversations and characters are way more engaging. Plus, I like the humour.
I just uninstalled Starfield & updated & played Outer Worlds & Outer Worlds is better. I found Starfield dull & uninspired.
@DominiqueSimpson-pg4bbwhat does that have to do with either game being good or bad though? Cyberpunk does the same thing but is still a fantastic game.
@DominiqueSimpson-pg4bb That is the only detractor of Outer Worlds. You cannot flourish your character really (unless you count the idle cam) or see them in dialogue. But this might change for the sequel.
The Outer Worlds felt like a blueprint for Starfield even tho they are two different team
starfield just gives me little fallout 4 vibes but nothing more, the game is shallow, the outer worlds is on another level, the storytelling of the outer worlds is just a masterpiece
The UC Vanguard and the Crimson Fleet side quest should have been the main quest. He’ll tie all the side quest together as the main quest and make the main quest the side quest in Starfield would have been better.
Lmao play more games if you think it’s a masterpiece.
It’s not as boring as Starfield either, it’s packed with things to do and I love the dialogue humor, I was tired of series rpg’s lol
Hands down The Outer Worlds, it's a small masterpiece.
Outer Worlds is so underrated
Never played Starfield, but i loved the outer worlds, it has its flaws but the characters and the world building are so endearing. Especially the companions. Reminds me of KOTOR's companion system.
The Outer Worlds is such a phenomenal game. It was way better than I thought
The Outer Worlds feels like a complete and cohesive game. Where-as Starfield feels unfinished, buggy, and like a bunch of half-baked mechanics, that were started and never fleshed out or finished. Space flight and space combat definitely feels like its unfinished. There are no proper missions in space, no nav points to travel to, no in-planetary travel, you just load into these areas, and then load back out without actually traveling anywhere in your ship when you have actual control of it. Even the perk system and leveling up your character, I wanted to focus on ships, and space combat, and its kinda completely pointless. For example - just to get more people assigned to my ship, I'm supposed to unlock "ship command" but its in the Social perk tree, at the BOTTOM, meaning you have to sink a ton of points into a tree you dont want to focus on, on a bunch of skills that are compltely unrelated to ships, just to being unlocking it. The 'Social' tree has so many useless perks I don't even want, but I Was forced to spend points just to unlock the tier 4 Ship Command. Just obtuse and not well thought-out at all.
And the combat and enemy AI in Starfield is atrocious. No difficulty at all. I started the game, cranked the difficulty all the way up, and was still mowing down everyone without ever being at risk of dying. Where-as Outer Worlds can be actually challenging at the higher setting, and requires proper grinding to get your characters feeling good and OP. And it feels EARNED in Outer Worlds, in Starfield, it feels like the enemy AI is all broken. I open a door to an area full of enemies, and they spend 3 seconds running into walls and yelling before they actually start combat. Just REALLY bad enemy AI and scripting. Gotta disagree with the video on combat. Starfield gets the gunplay down, sure, but the enemy AI ruins the entire experience. Again, I have the game on max setting and have not spent a single point in the combat tree, and I can't die unless I do it on purpose. There are much older FPS games that have WAY more advanced enemy AI.
I even have the enemy combat mod, and it still doesn't make it challenging.
THIS!
This is what I’ve been trying to say for about a month now. Thank you!!
No.
RPGs do not have a lot of bugs naturally.
*I had no desire to play Outer Worlds again once I beat it the first time but its definitely better than Starfield in every way. if Outer Worlds had a Contracts/Bounty feature where you could hunt down random criminals forever, the game would actually be Perfect.*
Replaying it differently with diff builds is goated
@@Mrcheesythumbsit’s really not. The literal best thing the game has is ship customization.. which even then.. I’m essentially just customizing my loading screen lol.
I have put 18hrs into starfiled and cannot force myself to put anymore time into that game. Shooting is very bad, loading screens are constant, graphics are mediocre (performance on xsx is terrible). Cannot convince myself to go back to that game. Looking to start outer worlds for the first time.
Do it. I enjoyed TOW from the first mission on, I played 80 hours of Starfield searching for the moment when it “clicks” and it just never did.
Really liked this comparison, great job of showing similarities and differences. The cyberpunk city in Starfield....that feels like they may have actually taken the aesthetics from the Groundbreaker. I'd say the other 2 cities, no...but that one seems really similar.
People have gaming itches that get scratched by different activities, and Bethesda has mastered open world exploration. For me, I enjoy it, but only in portions, so I prefer Outer Worlds. Although the combat is really, really rough to go back to. I also don't remember it feeling as awful as it is, but playing it again, the combat makes it rough to replay.
I only got a couple hours into Starfield and realized I was just totally checked out. I didn't find the combat that great, but it wasn't painful.
The third game that's being thrown in the mix is the 2.0 patched Cyberpunk. I will say, with the 2.0 patch, I think that makes it my favorite of the 3 games. I would still say Bethesda does a better job with the open world exploration, but I prefer the setting and gameplay of Cyberpunk.
The Outer Worlds sounds like the mission First Contact in Starfield. So the best side mission in Starfield just so happens to be a ripe off from Obsidian. Genuinely, idk why Zenimax doesn't buy Obsidian. Fire everyone at Bethesda and replace them all.
Microsoft owns them all if I remember correctly. I could be wrong however.
Sooo...Parvati mod for Starfield when?? 🤔
I really ask myself why The Outer Worlds is not getting more attention! Espacially because its pretty similar to starfield but better. I always wait for it to come up during reviews but it doesnt happen..
Because outer worlds isn't good lol.
@@Digger-Nick what do you not like about it?
It honestly it pretty mid. It just definitely excels in writing and quests. I mean it’s obviously better than loading screen simulator. Starfield is for people who are okay with playing fallout 4 but in space with a not nearly as interesting universe and lore behind it.
I mean the fact that a AAA game with such an ocean of a team and all the years they had to develop it is being compared to by a AA game that was made in like half the time is hilarious.
@@summerking-wq1sd agreed
Outer worlds was way better 😭Good luck getting a starfield 2 with a budget as big as their first one 😭
I guess without spoiling it, in Starfield: Are there any equivalent moments-of- coolness such as Liberty Prime's rampages (FO 3/4) or the first appearance of the Prywden?
Nah
I haven't played Starfield, but just looking at it, it has nothing on Fallout 4, especially when it comes to Far Harbor.
@@EnnuiPilgrim don’t waste your time
I am so glad that the Prydwen entrance wasn’t spoiled for me, it was one of the best moments of gaming for me. But Starfield was massive dissapointment while Outer Worlds is still massive enjoyment for me
Outer Worlds is an entertaining game and enjoyable with good stories. I give it a 8/10. Starfield is not that enjoyable, very grindy, and gets boring. The game started as a 7/10, but the more I play it, the lower the score goes. It's a 5/10 for me. At this point just trying to finish the faction and main quest so I can go play Phantom Liberty.
Phantom liberty was great but I don't think people will like it and starfeild gets more entertaining the more times you complete the game
@@joaquinbaca1880Phantom Liberty is fantastic on every level, never a dull moment.
For me Starfield was the universe of boredom, but I'm happy for the people who have fun with it.
Tbh i loved outworlds i was sad that 2 wasnt out when i was finished i played and looked everywhere for everything dialogue wise and hidden references for such a small game they put a lot in it made it feel bigger in a way. The style is so unique and refreshing. The worlds they put it the game had a purpose. I'd say obsidian did so good with what money they had and it turned out great and i dont regret playing hours on it. I cant wait to see their next one now that they have a better budget im so excited. ❤❤
Starfields story is so bad tho 😂 once you start to pick it apart it makes no sense
The Outer Worlds actually feels like an rpg whereas Starfield does not a lot of the time. Case closed.
I noticed an error slipped in ; you can see the title under the different chapters of the review say "DOS2 v BG3", which I assume is a mistake from your other comparison vid from those games.
Starfield is fine and all, it just feels super vanilla, especially for a Bethesda game. You can complete most of the side quests with virtually no consequences. I miss when you had to pick a side and you had that opportunity to become evil or good. I compare these games more with Bioshock and Borderlands than Fallout and Skyrim.
I agree but how isnt skyrim vanilla ? Its like parody of vikings. i like it more than oblivion, but its shallow and childish. Like starfield is.
Starfield atleast gives more dialogue options and consequences than skyrim.
The Main story in Starfield is just a simplified retelling of the dragonborn story in Skyrim.
They just can't stop making skyrim
Actually, Skyrim was better
the outer worlds, cant wait for part 2 !
I just abandoned Starfield because I couldn't stomach it any more. The bugs alone was killing me. Since Outer worlds was free with DLC on EPic store I got it and played it again. Originally I played the base game with no DLC. The first thing I'm noticing is how wonderful it is with minimum loading screens, and how everything just works. No bugs. I'm re-enjoying Outer worlds, far more than I enjoyed Starfield. And guess what, apparently you can now play Outerworlds in VR.
Noticing whenever you have a conversation with two people, in OW they actually turn their head to talk to another character. In starfield, both characters just stare at you, even if they are talking with each other. Very off-putting.
Awesome video! Honestly, I would say that both games are a solid 8/10. Both are really good with their own set of weaknesses. I do disagree with you on one point. The companions, I think they’re better in Starfield. The companions in outer worlds are cool, but their personal quests feel a bit mediocre in my opinion. The companion quests in Starfield is a bit more entertaining and plus you can romance those companions. For some odd reason obsidian just doesn’t like romance in their games. I prefer Starfield because I love the outpost and spaceship building 😎👍🏼.
I’m glad we get two great Space RPG series. Starfield is supposed to get at least 5 years of support and we are eventually getting The Outer Worlds 2.
Starfield isn't "Great" by any means. It's hollow... empty... mid... lackluster... and outdated.
@@Rude_Boiit's a rpg, not an space exploration game..
@@rtsvoid Lets be real it was marketed as an exploration game with the whole 1000 planets thing and ship travel shown in ever trailer. to say this is an rpg game is laughable, you cannot be evil. choices do not matter and almost none of the quests have different outcomes. I loved skyrim and even fallout 4, so i don't mind rpg games that have simple mechanics but this game feels like it has even less than those two.
@@Rude_Boiluckily mods are a thing hopefully they make a coop pvp mod 😂
5 years of support lol.. okay.. more like a mid dlc or two before they abandon it so the mods can do it justice. Bethesda has legitimately been known for trash post game support ever since FO3.
Unless you count 76.. but that game was so bad it might as well have been a scam lol.
I agree with your take on the companions, I have no idea why bethesda decided to make them all from constellation. This game is really lacking if you want to be a bad guy.
I played through The Outer Worlds and the 2 DLCs, had a boatload of fun, and when the Spacers Choice Edition came out I played through it again. I played through Starfield, it felt like I'm doing chores, I won't buy a DLC and I won't touch it again. The story, the characters, the dialogs, the additional mechanics like flying a spaceship or "exploring" wasteland planets, all of it is too boring to revisit.
Man lost me after exploration, starfield has the worst exploration out of any Bethesda game, also while starfield has better shooting the AI is awful, come on man
Haven’t played Starfield so I can’t say who wins, but I love Outer Worlds. The funny writing, really varied and likable companions, and difficult moral choices made it a total blast. Combat isn’t really a huge priority of mine in these kinds of games because I’m far more interested in the story, so while objectively the combat leaves much to be desired, I don’t really mind.
That said, I love that you didn’t rag on either game. The Internet is the Internet, so I’ve seen a lot of people bash Starfield as trash, and a lot of people do the same with Outer Worlds. It was great to see someone who wanted to genuinely weigh them both as good games with flaws, rather than use negativity for views.
Put them together and we'd have the game we wanted.
I like them both for different reasons
Starfield felt like it was punishing you for wanting to play it like a Bethesda rpg. They made exploration into menu the game with added loading screens.
Man, this guy's hitting the copium like it's crack. Starfield having a good story and good combat!? That's fucking hilarious!
I wish I could play Star field but I don’t have an Xbox.
I like both Games, but I will admit this:
Starfield is what Outer Worlds should’ve been in terms of the factions choices, combat, exploration, ship travel, including ship combat, and Character Creation. But, the Outer Worlds is a better game for how compact it was, the look and feel, I didn’t experience a whole lot of bugs like Starfield and honestly, I liked how low stakes it was, really in Outer Worlds. Like I’m fine with high stakes that involve the universe but there’s been a bit too much of High Stakes stories. Outer Worlds only involved its closed setting and I liked how different that was because the only stakes were focused on the fate of one world/corporation, that being Halcyon.
Both are great games in their own ways, but even though I like what Starfield improved upon what Outer Worlds did, I like Outer Worlds a bit better. Maybe they’ll improve more to be similar to Starfield in The Outer Worlds 2 but who knows??
Your a Vibe bro, W video, copped a sub💪
Appreciate that
The outer worlds colour pallete I would describe as being painted. It looks like real life if done by a painter in oil paints. When you were saying, cartoonlike but not cartoon I think painted is what you might have been looking for.
Outer worlds pisses on anything bethesda has ever made. It was a finished working game from the start and bethesda games are broken, lazy messes that they expect modders to fix. Obsidian do not expect modders to fix their games, they fix their own shit.
FPS in Starfield is garbage, in my game now the audio is a mess, missing dialogue or lipsynch not linked to audio. Some ambient/music segments just go quiet for a few seconds.
Waypoints are now bugging out...current quest waypoints are missing and other waypoints are on screen...relogging the game fixes that until the next quest is active and you have to relog to get those waypoints up. I have had lockups and crashes to desktop. In Outer Worlds I have had zero issues, zero crashes. It is a much tighter game, they made a game they could handle so, yes it is smaller, but they made a game that worked whereas Uncle Todd just says that his game just works...when it doesn't.
Well said. Outer worlds wins hands down.
I will never get over the fact Obsidian always gets the short end of the stick in game development!!! Give them the budget and give them the time to make a AAA game!
hydrogen bomb vs dying baby
both are coughing babies, FNV would be the hydrogen bomb.
I’m looking forward to seeing what kind of dlcs Bethesda throws at starfield. There’s tons of room to add more content.
Picking attributes in the Outer Worlds before your appearance IS picking WHO you are before WHAT you are.
The only bugs I noticed in Outer worlds was with the storage container and fridges onboard the unreliable was items you put in them would disappear but dispite that is was one of my favourite games of the last generation which were few and practically all the
Others I liked were remasters or remakes of older games
Bethesda is always empty sandboxes that modders end up fixing. The stories are shite and there are no consequences.
Obsidian is quality vs quantity. Which is why New Vegas was better than anything Bethesda did with fallout that and the fact that a lot of the developers know the DNA of the game since they came from interplay. There's this quirkiness that can't be matched by the uncreative Bethesda bots.
Absolutely spot on! I'm looking forward to Avowed and the Avowed vs Skyrim comparisons.... I always say, in 90% of the cased where developers create an open world, a hub based approach would have been a far better choice. It allows to create a more meaningful story and progress through the story. Freedom doesn't come from where you can go location-wise, freedom comes from where you can go story-wise. I think Baldurs Gate 3 underlines this statement as well.
I mean I’d say the gunplay is better in F4.. but yeah literally EVERYTHING else has been done better in NV. Lol Bethesda will never forgive Obsidian for making the (to this date) best fallout game.. arguably the best RPG game ever made that’s tied to them as well.
@@summerking-wq1sd yeah how dare obsidian be creative and passionate about their craft. The nerve!
Ah yes, the space rpgs DOS2 and BG3
I remember the Outer Worlds announcement trailer
“From the original creators of Fallout” (this is how you make a proper fucking RPG, Bethesda)
Starfield is literally Outer Worlds on steroids and is better in pretty much every objective category. And that's coming from someone who got a platinum in OW!
The only two things in which OW is better are the writing of comanions (specifically Parvati and Vicar Max - everyone else are on Starfield's level) and the ability to kill every NPC in the game (which is kinda cool if you want to try out a murderhobo route once, but nothing particularly gamechanging).
Everything else is purely up to personal preferences.
I'm liking and playing The Outer World's much more than Starfield. 😊
*Outer Worlds is FREE on Epic games from 4th of April to the 11th*
At least you can have more than one companion in the outer worlds whereas in Starfield you can only have one companion which really sucks in any RPG nowadays especially that you can have multiple crew mates when selecting the Ship Command skill. Only if you can have multiple companions when you select the Leadership skill one per rank having up to 5 companions at a time for rank 4 but Bethesda as always has to restrict it one companion at a time no matter the Leadership skill rank.
Exactly! I thought we solved this problem back in the Bioware days with Dragon Age and Mass Effect.
Not saying that one is better than the other in the grand scale of things, but comparing the two to me is like comparing Mafia to GTA; Outer Worlds is linear with very little variance in choice/choices don’t matter. Starfield at least you can just do whatever you want after the intro and travel the galaxy.
Outer Worlds is smaller and travel is very limited but it has a more enjoyable story and is more of an RPG than Starfield
15:59 You kind of loose legitimacy a bit with "there's empty planets but that's how it be" because, you know, they were designed to BE a part of the game
I think the combat system in Starfield is lacking in how you engage your enemies. That is to say, when you are shooting, you are typically standing right out in the open, not making use of nearby cover at all. Being used to playing games like Wildlands, Breakpoint and Battlefield where using cover is important and part of the combat system, it is lacking in Starfield.
I also find the characters in Starfield to be very 2 dimensional and not very engaging, at least to the extent that I've played the game. These other games I've played, there are characters who have character, who I want to engage with or not, who I like and want to help or eliminate. So far, I haven't had that kind of experience in Starfield.
The user interface in Starfield leaves something to be desired as well, their lack of in game sort of "tutorials" to let you know how to do stuff is missing. As one example, there is no instruction about docking when in outer space, I had to search for information about that here on TH-cam. Personally, I think that is a huge flaw and detracts from game engagement.
All of these things are why I've been watching reviews of The Outer Worlds, to see whether I'd like it more than Starfield, and so far, (not having played The Outer Worlds,) and considering the reviews I've seen, I may enjoy TOW more.
Outer Worlds 2 gonna be a certified banger
Dont have a meltdown. Get both or get none. Main thing, just have some fun playing either.
They are both great games.
... 🤨
Outer Worlds.
Kinda meh on both honestly. Idk, I feel like these big open world rpgs are hard to do right once you go into space. Andromeda, Outer Worlds, Starfield. Honestly, i dont mind more linearity like Mass Effect or KOTOR. The concept of exploring space is great, but a lot of space is just empty floating rocks sadly.
@4:51 why does it say divinity origin 2 vs baldurs gate 3
Which one is best? The one that you enjoy playing more. Starfield is objectively a bad game that I've dumped 1,200 hours of my life into. I clearly enjoy playing it, despite its many, many flaws.
I didn't even bother with Outer Worlds. First of all, it's made by Obsidian, the same people that made New Vegas. New Vegas was good but the anti-Bethesda crowd hypes it up like it's the second coming of Shakespeare. It ain't. It was passably enjoyable for a few hundred hours but it has become the rallying cry for people that hate Bethesda just because it's the trendy thing to do.
Secondly, when a corporation makes a video game denouncing the incompetence of corporations, that comes off a bit hypocritical. That they later sold to Microsoft just sort of sealed the deal.
Finally, and most damning, it released as an Epic exclusive. I'm not interested in games made by companies that do that. If you don't value your Steam customers enough to release it on both platforms simultaneously, then I don't value you enough to buy your product.
So which on is better? Don't care. I enjoy playing Starfield. I will likely never own or play Outer Worlds. Starfield wins by default, despite its many, many flaws.
I really really liked the storyline and jokes in the outer worlds.
Starfield's main story is almost all fetching things. The NASA mission was the only one that was even remotely interesting. The choices in the game were without consequence. The companions were boring in an extreme sense. Their quests were all bad (some of them I finished without even knowing I was about to finish them.) The faction quests were OK (the Ryujin quest line was good). But none of the factions had anything to do with the main game. The side quests were, like the main quest, almost all "fetch" quests. I don't care about framerates, loading screens, bugs, etc. I want a good story, and Starfield does not have that, at all. After I finished Starfield, I started Outerworlds. I love it. I was hooked from the beginning, but I fell in love when I was sent to a secret lab and there was a large sign on it that said "Secret Lab."
Outer worlds is eye rape. The design, color saturation, and extreme contrast, made the game unplayable for me. I was very excited for the game but couldnt last longer than five hours in candyland. Also the constant similarities to Boarderlands was offputting
lol talk about a childish complaint. Game has a vibrant style!.. okay go play play grey looking games
It is baffling how utterly pathetic the development of Starfield is, Bethesda is so incompetent.
Hiring practices that focus on diversity over quality. Boeing, the jetliner manufacturer, had to pause production because their planes started falling apart in the air due to the aforementioned hiring practices. Similar thing happening with Bethesda.
The outer worlds captures something that starfield didn't. Maybe it's the depth of the game. Maybe it's the story. Maybe the gameplay. It's hard for me to say. Maybe it's a bit of it all. But what I can say for sure is outer worlds gripped me and never let go. Starfield had me but quickly lost me.
The Outer Worlds is way better than Starfield.
Hope The Outer Worlds becomes a large franchise with many sequels.
Outer worlds being not as good as New Vegas still milles ahead from slyrim mod.
I don't think you can compare them properly since both games have entirely different premises and other things too different. It's like comparing apples to oranges because both are fruits. Or comparing Wipeout to Ridge Racer because both are racing games.
Both games are great to me, but Starfield is my favorite of the two.
“Starfield has tons of exploration”
Bro once you’ve been to like 3 planets.. you’ve been to them ALL. Sometimes there isn’t anything.. sometimes there’s an outpost to shoot at. So boring it’s unbelievable. BOTW had exploration.. because there’s stuff to actually do lol.
Look they're having a mid-off
Also there is no romance in outer worlds
Love both, but I find myself enjoying Starfield more.
The outer worlds, everything from its art design to its actual color palette and presentation, were far inferior.
These two games can't be compared. Starfield isn't a game so much as a platform. Outer Worlds has depth of story, interesting characters and entertaining plots. Starfield is more of a 'example' of a series of kinds of things that might be supported on their platform. But there really is no game to Starfield
I can resume the video, Obsidian>>>Bethesda itself
Outer worlds was great. It wasn’t as good as their past work like new Vegas but it was still a really good game.
Outer Worlds: Goes to Fallbrook, goes to funny gingers store, ask to ask questions. Says hit me, I won't hit back. Gives him a fucking instant blackeye. Asks why you did that. Tell him you told me to. Tells me his leader and me will get on great. Gets faction reputation. 💀
Starfield: more Bethesda copy paste. But in space! ☝😃
I love Starfield and eating crap. There's nothing shameful about eating crap. Just don't show it in public.
"The three main cities of each game are very similar.....It's clearly not on purpose". HMMmm........are you sure about that?🤔
I'd take OW over SF any day
The Outer Worlds didn't land for me. I felt bored almost all the time. Starfield also has some of this and it was because the worlds of both games feel sterile somehow. I cannot nail it down, just last night as I was walking in Neon doing the Ryujin quests and something was off. I know one thing: the game's music feels detached and doesn't evoke much.
I can say one thing tho The Outer Worlds loses for me. I finished and promptly forgot the game.
Outer Worlds is better than Starfield by a light year
since Bethesda made a poor job on fallout 4 and even worse job with 76.... I dont even need to play starfield to know its gonna be bad. Repeatitive tasks, lazy ai generated quests and lore that makes no sense when compared with previous games. That last part is also true with that fallout tv series where the bos who are supposed to be a small tribe of tech addict military descendants who do not recruit outsiders and lastly only cares about taking technology away from people. They will shoot on sight if you have a laser pistol for example. And the tv series says those techno-RAIDERS called the Brotherhood of Steel will restore order in the wasteland........... Why would they care when they themselves destroy anything resembling order outside the BoS just because they had one suit of powerarmor that didnt even work. The BoS according the all the first few games would kill to whole village to take that power armor.
Man Ouer Worlds sucked. I was hyped for a Bethesda competitor since New Vegas was goated but Outer Worlds was a huge let down in terms of depth and exploration. I actually thought Starfiled looked better just because i found Outer Worlds so dull and stale gameplay wise. To hear that Bethesda managed to do even worse than that ks so disheartening. I fear for elder scrolls 6
Outer Worlds, obviously.
Obsidian is a good storyteller, but a poor designer. Bethesda is the opposite. Imagine if they were combined.
Its not the best choice, but it's spacers choice
Hell yea it's better! There is NO comparison.