Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To continue the current slew of announcements...

https://www.pcgamer.com/star-wars-outlaws-looks-like-the-best-thing-ubisoft-has-made-in-years/

FPS Crime Stealth game. Fixed protagonist character, which is always a bit of a let down, but for my money, the Underworld is the best part of Star Wars, so this looks intriguing.

Multiple planets, space combat is apparently meh (at the moment?) sneaking and various guns, factions (with reputation system) and jobs.

Set in the Original Trilogy, between Empire and Return.

2024 release (planned, anyway)

Fixed protagnist makes it instantly meh to me, would've preferred at least limited character creaton like that old Jedi Academy game. It doesn't look horrid, but I really want a Star Wars adventure where I have more control of who my character is.

Well, it’s not EA, so that’s something.

I’m…cautiously optimistic. Provided Ubisoft keep in mind “it’s Star Wars!” does not in fact mean it’ll be a good game, we might be in for a treat.

Game looks good to me. I'm not worried about gameplay. I enjoyed Division 2. If they keep it as smooth as that and with a more prominent stealth option, and vehicles to spice things up, I'm actually pretty optimistic about it.

Set character? Yeah, that's one of those things. But eh, I kind of expect that from a Star Wars game. I hope she has some visual customization options, though.

I like that the article describes space combat as easy mode. It's probably not to the taste of most people, but I'm no flyboy and I'm not getting better with age. Space combat that isn't frustrating suits me just fine.

Side note: It's always been on my wishlist to be wanted for tax evasion. This is the right game for me!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Well, it’s not EA, so that’s something.

I’m…cautiously optimistic. Provided Ubisoft keep in mind “it’s Star Wars!” does not in fact mean it’ll be a good game, we might be in for a treat.

Ubisoft is like EA, but somehow also has sexual harrassement issues ontop of that. Well that and stale forumalic design and designers attempting to make fun of other game design like a certain now infamous incident torwards Elden Rings open world design.

So saying it's not EA like that is a good thing is like saying that atleast it's not the devil and opening the door to the Beelzebub.

I'm surprised how many people take issue with fixed protagonist. I've honestly come to prefer it. Blank slate characters are so boring, and fixed characters are easier to write around to pull you in with a better story. After playing Horizon, God of War, and Ghost of Tsushima, I don't know if I can go back to the build your own character format of yesteryear

Probably because of this modern obsession over "representation" and the idea that every single possible permutation of person must be selectable in a game so that people can "identify with the protagonist". Only makes less sense when you consider that this is SW. The last time they gave us a character choice I didn't even play a human.

As far as this game, I mean, it's an Ubisoft Game™. Between this and Farcry: Pandora they're showing that they have perfected their three game templates and can slap anything into one of those three (Assassin's Creed, Farcry or Siege) and call it a day. I'm sure this game will continue all the standard Ubisoft practices:

1. Very long single player campaign.
2. A map you can't see because of the collectable icons covering every square millimetre.
3. 11 different versions at launch with varying levels of cut-content masquerading as DLC and other useless tat.
4. Endless DLC.
5. Cosmetics and "XP Boosters" for a single player game that must be paid for with real-world money.

Only now we have a snarky main character spouting Marvel humour. Great.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I'm surprised how many people take issue with fixed protagonist. I've honestly come to prefer it. Blank slate characters are so boring, and fixed characters are easier to write around to pull you in with a better story. After playing Horizon, God of War, and Ghost of Tsushima, I don't know if I can go back to the build your own character format of yesteryear

I can only speak for myself but for me it's the difference between watching someone else's character and roleplaying my own. Video games are interactive and you as the player are enabled and outright asked to make choices for your character. The more open world a game gets, the more you take the helm.

My issue with fixed characters is that when the story parts happen, usually in conversations or cutscenes, there's a disconnect between the character I played and the character the creators envisioned and then present to me. And again, the more open world a game gets and the more choices I get to make for "my" character, the harder it is for the player character and the played character to line up. Set characters only contribute to making a story better if creative control, if you will, remains in the hands of the storyteller. Giving that control up to the player will lead to a whole range of results, from working as intended to jarring story moments that clash with the player's previous experience in the game. Some players get lucky because their playstyle aligns with what the creators envision, others very much don't.

Outlaws being presented as an open world game suggests to me that the game will have no shortage of such moments. Even a game as railroaded as Jedi Fallen Order has that. You're allowed to murder Stormtroopers that pose no threat to you or aren't even aware of you. Of course that's not the Jedi way and you might come to think of your character as a bit dodgy, or at least damaged by the Purge to act so callously. At least until one cutscene tells you Cal is living by Jedi standards to the best of his abilities and has standards he won't compromise. Unless you get to control his actions, at which point he very much does. Outlaws' story will face the same problem, but amplified by the need to let you make more choices because it's leaning heavier in the open world direction.

I don't think of open world games as the genre in which you realize a story that revolves around a set player character that is also the protagonist of the story. It's a much better place for player created characters that influence NPCs and drive the story indirectly and in line with player choices. It just works better and does not require the story writers or players to reconcile uncharacteristic switches in the protagonist's behavior.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Probably because of this modern obsession over "representation" and the idea that every single possible permutation of person must be selectable in a game so that people can "identify with the protagonist". Only makes less sense when you consider that this is SW. The last time they gave us a character choice I didn't even play a human.

As far as this game, I mean, it's an Ubisoft Game™. Between this and Farcry: Pandora they're showing that they have perfected their three game templates and can slap anything into one of those three (Assassin's Creed, Farcry or Siege) and call it a day. I'm sure this game will continue all the standard Ubisoft practices:

1. Very long single player campaign.
2. A map you can't see because of the collectable icons covering every square millimetre.
3. 11 different versions at launch with varying levels of cut-content masquerading as DLC and other useless tat.
4. Endless DLC.
5. Cosmetics and "XP Boosters" for a single player game that must be paid for with real-world money.

Only now we have a snarky main character spouting Marvel humour. Great.

Whilest i disagree with the charachter editor bit... The Rest is spot on. I guess people don't want to remember or only barely remember things nowadays... Guess it shows the difference between a custommer and a consumer.

What a load of nonsense (the 'obsession' with representation is clearly on the other foot).

Its a very simple 'my character' vs 'their character.' When playing a game (especially for 60-80 hours), I want immersion, not a movie.

4. Endless DLC.

Ubisoft cut the DLC quite short on their last few open world games. The last two assassins creeds and the Horizon games have quite short lists of DLC.

Incidentally they also didn't do so great either.

I just don't trust Ubisoft. I don't expect the finished game to look anything like that video, and whilst they aren't the scum-sucking bottom-feeders that are WB Games, they're still pretty rotten in their anti-consumer practices.

(Though, to give credit where credit's due, I think Siege is one of the few successful 'Live Service' games where everything just seems to work very well, so hats off to that particular development team/s).

I see the "my character" vs "their character" thing like complaining that you can't change the description of a character in the novel that you're reading.

To each their own, I suppose.

Watched the video. The protagonist's robot companion says "I told you not to trust her" right after the protagonist chose not to trust the Imperial officer. Which suggests to me that the choice to bribe said officer is probably a false one: bribe her or don't, but either way you'll be put on the "wanted" list.

If so, lame. Different player choices should result in different outcomes.

The gameplay looks a lot like Farcry-style sneaking and base clearing; I'd guess that most of the game probably revolves around that, with some gated narrative-advancing scenarios, as per Ubisoft's usual. I don't particularly want high difficulty, but spaceship combat looked boring.

Could be decent.

I wonder how much "go anywhere we want" will apply, and how many of the character's skills won't just be reskins of Farcry moves. Will you be able to dabble in the classic Star Wars build types, light side, dark side, and Han Solo?

 Talking Banana wrote:
Watched the video. The protagonist's robot companion says "I told you not to trust her" right after the protagonist chose not to trust the Imperial officer. Which suggests to me that the choice to bribe said officer is probably a false one: bribe her or don't, but either way you'll be put on the "wanted" list.

If so, lame. Different player choices should result in different outcomes.

Good observation. I think you might be right. It certainly wouldn't surprise me. Player choice that meaningfully changes the story seems to have gone out of fashion.

Too be fair, it was never really in fashion, more of an ideal.

Its an incredible amount of work for anything but main quest and alternative ending slides, especially if you have NPCs reacting to those choices (and if you don't, much of the impact is gone).

It quickly goes into exponential growth in variables, flags and dialogue trees, and unfortunately, 'voice acting for everything' as the industry standard makes that prohibitively expensive.



---
I don't see much evidence of base-clearing though. The gameplay video is more 'get out and disengage' (and maybe elude semi-scripted pursuers) rather than 'empty the base'

Voss wrote:
Its an incredible amount of work for anything but main quest and alternative ending slides, especially if you have NPCs reacting to those choices (and if you don't, much of the impact is gone).

The least they could do is have the robot say an alternate line that acknowledges your choice not to trust her. As it is, his dialogue makes no sense.

Voss wrote:
I don't see much evidence of base-clearing though. The gameplay video is more 'get out and disengage' (and maybe elude semi-scripted pursuers) rather than 'empty the base'

I guess we'll see. It looked like an enemy base set-up to me, with an attempt at sneaking that was foiled when she was spotted, quickly turning into an open firefight, a la FarCry. The pursuit sequence, on the other hand, was new for Far Cry mechanics.

If the game doesn't become an extended exercise in taking facilities from bad rival gangs and securing them for your gang, who will move in immediately after you clear it and declare "This is all me!", I'll be impressed.

 Talking Banana wrote:


The least they could do is have the robot say an alternate line that acknowledges your choice not to trust her. As it is, his dialogue makes no sense.

It's also possible that the two things aren't connected, but were put together purely for the trailer.

 Talking Banana wrote:

Voss wrote:
I don't see much evidence of base-clearing though. The gameplay video is more 'get out and disengage' (and maybe elude semi-scripted pursuers) rather than 'empty the base'

I guess we'll see. It looked like an enemy base set-up to me, with an attempt at sneaking that was foiled when she was spotted, quickly turning into an open firefight, a la FarCry. The pursuit sequence, on the other hand, was new for Far Cry mechanics.

If the game doesn't become an extended exercise in taking facilities from bad rival gangs and securing them for your gang, who will move in immediately after you clear it and declare "This is all me!", I'll be impressed.

That's a bit reductive. She steals from people, organized criminals or otherwise. Of course they have places to keep their stuff (ie, bases) before it gets stolen, with guards, defenses, and etc. That's not unique or indicative of Farcry in any way- that's just one of many open world games with the same basic setup.

Think of it more like a new Thief game, in you need another computer game parallel. There's no need to have 'base clearing' just because there are buildings with guards. If anything, getting seen and identified rather than getting away clean seems like a partial fail state.

She's a criminal on the move in a section of galaxy thats 'open world' to some degree. Her ship is her base (and I'd expect part of the gameplay loop is ship upgrades). Places on the ground are likely fleeting.

The least they could do is have the robot say an alternate line that acknowledges your choice not to trust her.

The droid's trust line is about the fixer, it never met or knew about the Imperial. Regardless of whether you bolt or pay off the Imperial, you got screwed over by your contact, who should have done a discreet payment for a handoff without anyone else present..

A good point about the fixer, Voss.

I basically don't trust Ubisoft to develop a robust system for this game that isn't derived from their leading properties - Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, or even Watchdogs. That's where my point about base clearing, which I understand you're not fond of, came from. I'm not inclined to liken the new Star Wars game to "Thief" for the simple reason that Ubisoft doesn't already own that property or the systems that underpin it (and if they did, that game is so old now that they'd need to reinvent those systems anyway.)

Developing new gameplay systems / engines costs a lot of money, which is why Ubisoft have preferred to run franchises updating their established systems rather than release lots of brand new games with brand new mechanics.

So yes, I'm skeptical that this game will be much more than an expensive licensed Star Wars skin over already existing Ubisoft game systems. What we've seen so far is just a preview, and previews should always be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently there will be pursuit after raiding a base, which seems new, and they're adding starship combat, which so far looks lacking, which makes sense - space combat is something they'd have to program from scratch, meaning it's unlikely to be good unless they invest the development time, playtesting, and money to make it so.

Will it be a worthwhile game in the end? I have no idea, but I won't be investing in it before reading reviews.

Story trailer:

So who is excited for the season pass and $130* digital deluxe edition?


*Or region equivalent.

Ugh. Only available through the Ubisoft store, all sorts of cosmetic and DLC bundles.

It looks shiny and grimy (as outlaw things should be), but they're building one hell of a gated community around it.

It's not a Ubisoft game if it isn't monetized to the gills. Truly a certified AAAA game, where the extra A stands for A*sholery.

I had actually assumed this had been cancelled >.<

I'll wait and see but I haven't bought an Ubisoft game since.... Rayman Legends? I guess I did buy the Scott Pilgrim re-release.

Actually had to look this up because I was curious. Outside of the Scott Pilgrim re-release I the last game of their I bought was Watch Dogs 2 in 2016. Yipes.

Same. I thought they'd cancelled it s couple of months ago. But I guess that must have been something else.

I had forgotten about it and thought it was the Visual Novel type game that the Detroit: Become Human developers were making.