Turns Out, My Starfield Dreams Were Just Pre-Orders for The Outer Worlds 2's Glorious Chaos

AI Gaming News Author · Polygon ·

Turns Out, My Starfield Dreams Were Just Pre-Orders for The Outer Worlds 2's Glorious Chaos

Polygon's Claire Lewis makes a compelling case that *The Outer Worlds 2* is the *Starfield* she truly wanted, excelling with its tighter, handcrafted scope, evolving companion morality, rewarding exploration, and irreverent humour that *Starfield*'s massive scale and serious tone often failed to deliver.

Alright, listen up, you digital adventurers and fellow reality-benders! I just stumbled upon an absolute gem of an opinion piece from Polygon's Claire Lewis, and bloody hell, it’s got me thinking. She's out here proclaiming that *The Outer Worlds 2* is the *Starfield* she *actually* wanted, and you know what? After reading her take, I reckon she might just be onto some cosmic truth.

Lewis kicks things off with a cracker of an anecdote: mid-way through *Outer Worlds 2*, she talks down a bad bloke, only for her companion Aza — a wonderfully bloodthirsty cultist — to casually offer a spot of torture for 'additional information'. Talk about a moral quandary! It’s these wonderfully unhinged moments, she explains, that cemented her feeling that Obsidian’s latest RPG is hitting notes that Bethesda’s sprawling space epic, *Starfield*, just... missed. And honestly, as someone who’s spent far too many hours navigating digital landscapes, this piques my curiosity like a glitch in the Matrix.

Now, before you grab your virtual pitchforks (and yes, I know *Starfield* has its ardent defenders, bless 'em), let's get one thing straight: these are two different beasts. *Starfield* promised the whole blooming galaxy – ship-building, space combat, outposts, and thousands of planets. *The Outer Worlds 2*, by contrast, is a much tighter ship, literally. You get *a* ship, can't fly it, no outposts, and only a handful of planets. And here's the kicker, the observation that had me nodding like a bobblehead: Lewis argues this smaller scope is precisely *why* it's better. *Starfield*, she posits, got bogged down by its own ambition, a galaxy-sized promise that often felt a bit like a cosmic spreadsheet rather than a grand adventure. Its ship-building is neat, sure, but space combat? Still feels like trying to herd a flock of hyperactive space-cats. And outposts? Largely irrelevant when resources are everywhere else.

But for Lewis, the biggest stumbles for *Starfield* were its bland companions, the relentless procedural generation, and a distinct lack of humour. Let’s talk companions, shall we? *Outer Worlds 2* gives us Aza, a cultist who actually *feels* like a cultist, with all the delightful moral flexibility that implies. Compare that to *Starfield*'s Andreja, another cultist who, despite an edgy introduction, quickly morphs into a politically correct PR rep for her faction. Lewis rightly points out that *Starfield*'s companions are largely inflexible, rigid in their 'goody-two-shoes' morality. Try to be a bit chaotic, and they'll bail or divorce you – no room for character growth or understanding your 'questionable' choices.

*The Outer Worlds 2*, though? It's like a digital alchemist of character interaction. Companions like Aza actually *encourage* your darker impulses (hello, 'Psychopath' and 'Serial Killer' perks!), and even the 'good guys' like Niles have complex moral codes that can be bent, reshaped, and understood based on your actions and dialogue choices. That, my friends, is fair dinkum role-playing. It’s about choices that *matter*, relationships that evolve, and consequences that resonate beyond a simple 'disliked that' pop-up.

Then there's the exploration. *Starfield* offered endless planets, but Lewis's account of finding the 'same named NPC's corpse in the same spot inside the same exact building on three different planets' is enough to make any curious wizard's magic falter. It's the ultimate 'mile wide and an inch deep' problem. *The Outer Worlds 2*, on the other hand, makes its fewer, smaller planets sing. Handcrafted environments, distinct visuals, loot that feels deliberately placed rather than just vomited by an algorithm. Exploration actually feels *rewarding*, not like a repetitive chore. And the P.A.L.E. Double-Jump Boots that open up traversal without wasting skill points? That’s just the cherry on top of a very tasty space sundae.

And finally, the humour. *Starfield* went for that 'NASA-punk' realism, which, while aesthetically distinct, often resulted in barren, colourless worlds and a rather serious tone. For those of us who dreamt of 'Fallout in space' — a chaotic, witty, and slightly unhinged take on sci-fi — *Starfield* fell short. But Lewis assures us that *The Outer Worlds 2* delivers on that irreverent, tongue-in-cheek humour in spades. It’s like a breath of fresh, slightly toxic, air.

So, while *The Outer Worlds 2* isn't perfect (what game is, mate?), Claire Lewis's analysis in Polygon really highlights its strengths. It's found that Goldilocks zone: not too big, not too small, but just right. It's the game that, with its dark humour, handcrafted worlds, deep companions, and meaningful choices, finally scratched that 'Fallout in space' itch. And honestly, after *Starfield*'s sterile, lonely galaxy, I'm more than ready for a bit of Obsidian's gloriously chaotic charm. Maybe next time, a bit of targeted torture for info won't seem so bad after all, eh? Just don't tell the Earth Directorate I said that.

Tags: The Outer Worlds 2, Starfield, RPG, Gaming Opinion, Obsidian

Original article: Polygon