Also forgot to add, more games with more nuanced choices to pick from?

>>3984404
Been replaying it (sporadically) ever since I got the ending where Jodie bell refuses to stay on to get the one where the rangers take over everything completely. Don't think it was anywhere dogshit enough to match up to the only alternative wasteland simulator ive played besides shithesdas fallout even if its not 100% all the time.

Yeah, result-oriented people seem to have a problem with having to actually make decisions when there's no "obviously good choice" given and with the outcome being less-than-ideal no matter what you do. Most games unfortunately seem to facilitate that type of brain circuitry; The Outer Worlds is precisely that type of slop.

>>3984406
I hear Iron Tower games are like that.

>>3984404
See I'd have liked it more if it actually stuck to its guns with that theme, but there is absolutely an ending designated by devs to be the best one and it really shows once you get it

>>3984479
It's the same mentality. You might end up making a decision that will lead to a less than ideal outcome and you'll just have to live with it. But for people like you, that's not good enough because you either want the best outcome possible, or you want all outcomes to be equally bad/good so you don't feel like you've "lost".

>>3984490
What the fuck are you talking about, that barely has anything to do with what I wrote. Are you just making up a person to get upset at?

>>3984495
You said you would have liked it more if there wasn't an ending that was designed to be the best one, which implies you didn't like that fact and would have preferred this wasn't the case. "Once you get it" implies that you didn't get the supposedly good ending the first time, which suggests frustration related to this outcome. Presumably you would have preferred to either have all endings be made "equal", or perhaps none of this would be a problem to you if only you got the "good" ending the first time.

>>3984496
How you manage to interpret it correctly up to a point and then make a huge swerve into assumptions is baffling to me.
It feels like you're desperate to have someone fit your boogeyman here.

>>3984499
I made assumptions because you didn't give me much to go on and I wanted to keep the discussion alive. I even explained my reasoning. You, on the other hand, have made no effort to clarify your position, but have doubled down on accusing me of making things up. The alleged "desperation", namely to avoid actual discussion and turn this into a shit-flinging contest, is all yours.

>>3984479
>but there is absolutely an ending designated by devs to be the best one and it really shows once you get it
Oh shid really? Im looking at google and apparently Rangers take over?

The gameplay is good. Fun and not too complicated. The music is great. There are some really good cover songs that sound a bit weird at first, but really fit the mood. The story was too one-dimensional, but I don't really have a problem with that. Normally story means more to me than gameplay, but this was one of those cases that the gameplay was entertaining enough for what I wanted to do that I didn't really care about the story.

>>3984618
>The gameplay is good.
Do enemies always just hit you? Even with speed at 7 and some armor mods for evasion and in cover, it still feels like enemies will always hit you. So it seems the optimal strategy is to go first and kill everyone before your teams turn ends.

>>3984611
Yeah. Well, there's a few variants of the November Reigns route, but there is a classic 'golden ending' in which you prove to be a unifying force for the Colorado factions and stabilize the entire region with very little fuss. And you get to see the Patriarch completely deflate and surrender as he realizes both the Marshals and Families are backing your coup.