The Outer Worlds 2 (Series X): A Conversation Piece

Obsidian Entertainment made a name for themselves as an RPG sequel developer, the most notable titles being Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (2004) and Fallout: New Vegas (2010). With the original The Outer Worlds, Obsidian had a chance to do their own version of the game's that put them in the spotlight: an original science fiction RPG where they could indulge in their brand of role playing on their own terms. Appropriately for Obsidian, the sequel folk, it is only with The Outer Worlds 2 where they have come into their own. They may be building on their own template this time but The Outer Worlds 2 is the Obsidian playbook through and through: an expanded, deeper version of what came before with more satisfying systems and interesting reputation dynamics.

If there is an overriding issue with The Outer Worlds 2, it is the same issue that this year's Avowed – also from Obsidian and also, arguably, a sequel to their own work – had in that, for all its strengths, it never rises above being 'another one of those'. By this I mean The Outer Worlds 2 exists in a clear subgenre-template in which it shines but pushes nothing forwards. To briefly compare the year's two Obsidian RPGs (not to mention that Obsidian also put out Grounded 2 this year, yet another Obsidian sequel), though Avowed has a much stronger narrative, and a more interesting central combat system, The Outer Worlds 2 isn't prey to the same copy and paste design – and has more interesting role playing systems, as well as better companions. Though the game takes place across a number of contained locations (mini open worlds), there isn't the feeling that you are just doing the same gameplay loop each time, as each location feels distinct and focused around giving you unique quests that define your playtime there. The Outer Worlds comes from the Fallout mode of roleplaying systems where you always have a lot of expressive options (facilitated by the setting). To an extent, it is this to a fault, falling into predictable rhythms where your knowledge of this subgenre will bleed into your time with this game. It is a satisfying loop of making your way through well designed locations full of things you can lockpick or hack, finding terminals and loot, then folding this into dialogue interactions (where uncovered information can alter things) or just giving you the option to reframe a combat encounter. Enjoyable stuff but nothing you haven't done before.

The rhythms are all there and the game is only playing the hits. It's a science fiction RPG so your first companions are a robot and 'just some guy', later you're going to get a cybernetic character (or this world's version of that) and then some folks who nicely link to in game factions. You'll either shoot or stealth your way through zones, then see a person standing in the middle of an area waiting for you and you know it will be a dialogue encounter. In that dialogue encounter you will be able to pick options informed by your skills that can give you the upper hand. You will open up vents and crawl through them; you will be able to pickpocket people if you have the perk; hell, you'll have a perk system but also be able to put points into key stats. Your hub is a spaceship where you can catch up with your crew; each planet will either be linked to a faction from the game or be a warzone between those factions. Your positioning will be that you are from some separate authority and therefore able to be a third party, with a choice to ally yourself how you want along the way. To be blunt, everything is from the authorised textbook of this kind of RPG. This is no bad thing but it does make for a relatively unambitious experience. It's certainly a more polished and expansive game than this year's (actually terrific) Atomfall but that game at least tried to rethink core systems and structures. In Atomfall, what missions you chose to take defined the narrative path of the game, giving you ownership over the structure and making the progression far less rote. Though The Outer Worlds has a lot of divergent points it is divergent in a way that promotes replaying to see the other options rather than divergent in a way that feels like you carving out your own experience.

Still, within these (admittedly lightly disappointing) constraints, The Outer Worlds 2 is quite excellent. The first strength is the world itself. This is a sequel to the first game but it's standalone and primarily includes new major factions – and entirely new locations. There is some carry over of tone, The Outer Worlds being a broadly satirical and irreverent series, but the strongest point here (unsurprising for an Obsidian game) is the factions. The game is always humorous but not everything is a joke, this is most evident with the factions who – even when farcical – are well thought out and have a sincere heft that matches their satirical nature. For example, a scientific order that worship mathematics and believe that there is a grand equation that can solve the universe is all very silly. The game knows this is very silly but the game also knows that most ideologically driven groups are very silly, and therefore takes them as seriously as those groups. The joke always works, with great tongue in cheek dialogue about predicted percentages all the time, but the power and influence this faction have – combined with how ridiculous they are – is a threatening combination and makes for real stakes. This is how each faction is designed, the ultra-capitalists are a joke but the harmful nature of ultra-capitalism is still considered with sincerity. The authoritarian dictatorship with the brainwashing regimen are a caricature but it is this caricatured nature that makes them scary, and that allows the game to cut from comedy to pathos on numerous occasions with surprising skill. In general, each faction is very well thought out and this is true even on an aesthetic level. The way they interact is even more fascinating and makes the game more compelling as it goes.

This is the real strength of The Outer Worlds 2: its design philosophy means it keeps getting better. On a narrative stakes level, as factions start to overlap and compete, things get far more interesting and you get more autonomy. The first game really lacked friction but, though as a wider gameplay experience you could say the same here, the narrative design here really fronts conflict in a textured way. Plates keep spinning and then start to overlap and this is very investing, culminating in a well realised world with engaging stakes in which you feel you have real autonomy. It all just gets better. The gameplay is the same, also. There isn't a revolutionary approach to roleplaying systems but there is a really interesting and well executed approach to them. Every system is improved from the first game, paring things down in a way that means you have to specialise. Skills are more general and you have fewer points to spend in them (there is only one speech skill (it's speech) for example, and you can only spend up to 20 points in it). Each skill is tempting with a clear utility, things like Science and Explosives – but also Leadership. Each skill also has a clear combat or wider game utility, Observation will obviously aid you in dialogue checks, and helps you to pick up on things in investigation based quests, but it also gives you better damage against weak points. It is a well designed skill system where things speak to each and therefore decisions matter. There's also no ability to respec, which really works here: you build a character as you go and the game reacts to this. This is because of a perk system, where new traits (you can pick one every other level with a level cap of 30) are offered due to the skill base you have. Some of them exist because one skill is high, some of them exist because your improved skills talk to each other. Importantly, they are all interesting and have an obvious impact.

Even better still is the Flaws system, which reveals that the game is tracking all kinds of things. At certain points, a pop-up will appear to ask if you if you want to accept a flaw, this means a new positive and negative trait. A great example was that because I kept picking 'lie' options in dialogue, I could accept a compulsive liar flaw which meant that I could then no longer avoid lie options, if a dialogue tree included a lie then suddenly that dialogue tree is empty apart from that lie. The positive side is that lies no longer had any other skill requirement, meaning you would have access to some potentially very interesting and powerful lies your build wouldn't allow – but that you would be forced into them. Even without this arguable positive, the effect was already brilliant, creating interesting circumstances where I couldn't just optimise my way through. You can feel the game pushing back here and it pushes you into failure scenarios in a game where failures can produce more interesting results. This whole system is great, it makes everything you do feel like it matter s and makes the whole experience far more reactive and expressive. You don't have to accept flaws – though there's a flaw you can accept that means you have to accept flaws – but they are mostly really great to roll with. It truly showcases how open ended the game can be and how different approaches make for different experiences (and legitimises the approach in which respeccing isn't an option).

Regarding roleplaying systems, dialogue is excellent. Though it can be a bit too jokey – and there is a perennial problem where the game caricaturizes everything at the expense of making an interesting stance. The writing mostly shines though in terms of the options you have to reply. Skills factor into dialogue nicely, as does information you've picked up elsewhere. The game shows you when you've got an unlocked option (and what unlocked it) as well as showing other things locked off (usually saying that a certain skill would give an option here but not showing what that option is). The limitation is interesting, as you are faced with your choices. It's actually great to know that you don't have another path through sometimes but that you could have done if you had built things differently. Choice feels like it matters and navigating conversations is often more focused on being strategic and logical rather than just brute forcing through by having high speech. Sure, a high speech skill will give you persuasive options but these might not be as strong as the science options or the leadership options you ended up speccing away from – and having found the right information that convinces your interlocutor will give you an upper hand still. Picking dialogue is thoughtful and engaging, with loads of interesting options, not just bland optimisation.

Conversation is also where companions shine. You can take up to two people with you on your travels – from a bench of six you pick up throughout the game. Recruitment feels very natural, with side quests ending up with allegiances that don't at all feel contrived. This is one aspect where the game escapes its otherwise formulaic trappings. In combat, companions are useless. You can put points into leadership, which makes them supposedly better. However, this being a shooter, you don't need them. Your offensive options through weaponry alone (and a few ability-esque options like limited slow-mo or an energy shield) make you very self-sufficient. There's an array of weapons that you can also modify to make more powerful. Weapons have elemental affinities that work better on certain enemy types. Though, from my experience, having one specific rapid fire electricity gun (one of numerous legendary weapons I found) just destroyed everything. Ammo is scarce as a resource to find but you can get perks to work against this and you can just buy ammo. Notably, money is not scarce. This meant I almost always had vast ammo reserves and later had a perk that gave me health regeneration in combat that scaled to my ammo reserves. I also had a perk that gave me another whole health bar at the start of combat, and half of an extra health bar if a companion died. I spent a lot of the game with full health and the same electricity gun – its effect bounces off foes and amplifies damage over time – and just destroyed everything. Companions have abilities but they aren't very interesting and, for a long time, you can't use them that often. For me, companions were a resource due to dying, part way through an encounter they would die and give me more health. Occasionally I would look at what they were doing in battle and, unsurprisingly, they were terrifically gifted at being useless (staring at walls, being in exactly the wrong place, etc.). Luckily, outside of combat they're great. Their role in dialogue is brilliant, they will chime in interestingly and, at points, you can defer to them. Overall, the companions are great (with some exceptions), though less as people and more as catalysts. This isn't a game where you have a squad you will care about; in this instance it is that they are independently interesting figures that tie to the game's lore nicely and that you will want to see how the game reacts to them. I kept one companion around most of the time because they were chaotic – and from a chaotic faction – and the game kept reacting to this in fun ways.

This is why The Outer Worlds 2 is ultimately great: it lets you poke at it and it reacts interestingly. It is only ever working in constraints you know but does such cool things within them. Quest design is open and, at several points, I was really rewarded for 'I wonder if...' moments. I could avoid things really cleverly, do something that I didn't think the game would allow (this was often just killing an NPC) and things persistently impressed. Though, there are numerous instances of overly restrictive quest design, primarily when you have to find a specific thing and the game is terrible at telling you where to go. Far too many quests are 'search this area for blah', giving you a wide zone to go in and then you just poke around until you find the one thing that works (and occasionally it is bugged). These are balanced out by quests that allow you to creatively divert and subvert them and, in the end, it is these moments that elevate the whole game. All in all, it's a great experience that snowballs together nicely. Yes, I felt like I broke the combat but I broke it in a gleeful way where intertwining circumstances all paid off. It felt like I had autonomy and that through a combination of me making choices and the game reacting, I had ended up in this place. It all comes down to conversation, that's the best part of the game. Whether it's the well written conversations that give you great options or how many of the mechanics feel like they are in conversation with each other, this makes the game a better conversation piece. It is very much the game you expect but it is a really great version of that with some of the better implemented systems in the subgenre.