FPS gives me a headache a bit; Plus i don't need a reminder of being in the military.

I wouldn't say i dislike Fallout games, some reason they don't click as well as they could (don't know, a nuclear waste scenario just doesn't sound appealing). Though New Vegas was decent enough.

Fair enough :)

To me it seems to be about exploring area I normally couldn't(albeit changed a bit due to artistic license and legalities) after a disaster of such magnitude without actually having to survive through such a disaster myself IRL, if that makes any sense.

(Sort of a bad what if scenario without any IRL downsides......well in most cases)

All debate about how "moral" Bethesda is or not, I can say I highly disagree with this. Outer Worlds is fun, but it's obviously very limited by its budget, relatively small for the genre and the writing isn't up to Obsidian's previous standard. I wouldn't rate it anywhere near New Vegas or Skyrim.

What do size matter if you can't fill it out with interesting content, that was my issue with Skyrim and the writing isn't any better than than the worst wriiten Obsidian game so i don't see how that makes it better than Outer Worlds.

Skyrims writing whether it's the Main Quest, Guilds, Most of the side quest which revolves around go here and kill this but a few exceptions do exist, characters are really barebones with no real depth to it. Same goes for F3.

Outer Worlds has a few issues like most games from what i have seen but i don't see it as being nowhere near Skyrim but it's your opinion.

I thought Skyrim's world was filled with interesting things to see and do. That's one of Bethesda Game Studios' talents, making open worlds that are great to explore. Outer Worlds is much worse in this area, just endless identical buildings filled with useless loot and smaller outside areas where all the interesting locations are directly tied in with quests. Agree to disagree I guess, but that's how I see it.

The writing isn't worse than Skyrim's, no, but it's a heck of a lot worse than New Vegas. I just expected more on that front, but it's one piece of a whole. It's not the whole issue.

Anyway, I still like The Outer Worlds, don't get me wrong. But I find the idea of "it's amazingly better than anything in the Fallout or Elder Scrolls franchises" line to be pretttttty silly. A lot of this post-Fallout 76 Bethesda hate seems to be fueling this exaggeration of Outer Worlds' merits.

I see, thanks for explaining more in depth about how you feel about the game. I haven't actually played The Outer World yet only seen a sizable amount of it and while not perfect it does seem like something i would like but had no real grasp about the world and exploration yet though.

I still have my issues with Skyrim though but i understand your view.

Then I do not buy anything ;)

Mafwek: *Stops buying food*, Also Mafwek: *Starves*

:( :( :(

I'm not particularly a Skyrim fan. I find the combat terrible and the world strangely generic, but I did like the interaction of enemies, a few of teh dungeons, and the fantasy-Viking thematics... er... Nords. Other than the world size and modding, I don't understand the cult of Skyrim. Anyway...

IMHO

I think the Outer Worlds hype is mainly because Obsidian used a fraction of Bethesda's usual budgets to craft a complete, unbroken, engaging RPG that stands alongside Fallout New Vegas. Meanwhile, Bethesda supposedly throws tons of money at broken messes that look more like cheap asset flips than full AAA games. When AA studios are producing experiences that are complete -- and fun -- games and the AAA studio can't seem to answer in same, you get the Outer Worlds hype.

Nothing stopping one from growing their own food... Unless they find themselves worthy of boycotting themselves?

I think the 'unbroken' is an important key word here... People have been known to shill out and buy something they don't want to continue to enjoy a game, but when the whole product is broken... it's hard to get around that.

Until the seed companies do something bad......Mafwek: *Continues to starve* o.0

Well i suppose there IS monsanto and them GMOing seeds, which is terrible.

So here's what you do.

1) Get some good seeds, say from home depot or fresh veggies and let them go to seed when you re-plant them
2) when you grow your own food, save the seeds.

Viola! Infinite seeds!

Course you can't live on veggies alone, so have a good knife and a good trapping skills or a break barrel .22. A handful of dollars can give you hundreds of pellets and you'll be fine for a long time so long as you don't always miss.

Like the Lex Luthor steals 40 cakes meme?

Also fwiw I care less about GMO(in general) and more on them making terminator seeds and patenting seeds/suing people when said sees blow into their fields

Then Monsanto comes along and patents the word seed and bam....using your own seeds=lawsuit city bucko. o.0

Eh, i'm too squeamish and lazy to go that route....I like my food in nice packages with labels on them. :D

Because having unnatural genes shoved into plants, and all derivatives of GMO crops and cross pollination of GMO crops which can have negative side effects... isn't a problem for the future at all.

Alas you can't patent a word. Or even copyright a word either.

Trademark... That's a different barrel of fish.

So you would starve.... Mafwek? probably not.

Actually, an interesting thing happens at about 3 days of hunger, you enter ketosis (fat burning) and can survive quite a while on only water depending on how much extra body fat you have. However your ingrained limitations of eww i wouldn't eat bugs... goes away... and you're at your core a living species preying on other living species.

It's not pretty... but survival is survival...

Sorry, but I don't paint all GMO with the same brush. I agree it should be tested more and some things are a bit iffy, but I still think they benefit us in some cases more than they harm us.

You got what I meant, though. ;)

True enough