- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 11,105
Finished it. What an amazing game. Loved every minute of it. Highly recommended if you are a Star Wars fan.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Star Wars Outlaws
- Thread starter polonyc2
- Start date
- Status
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,933
Fix for texture issue:
Go to save location:
My Games\Outlaws
Open:
graphic settings.cfg
Go to:
["streamer dedicated budget"] = 1024,
The number should be 1024. It is often set to 64. Save as Read Only.
Aside from that, game is like an MMO which is lame for a single player game. Really shitty quest design. More or less run here, then run there, then run to another place, only to be gated by contradicting game design.
So many failures here it is astonishing. Objective name changes, objective location changes, mission name changes, can't see finished quest (except main quests) and whatnot. Makes it impossible to figure out what you're doing. You essentially start something, then it auto tracks you into an entirely different task, or renames the task so you have no idea what you're doing, then renames it back.
Clearly this was a bunch of artists told to make a map, then a few different people scripted some MMO style quests throughout the map and didn't even do a good job of it. Overall I think this feels like a 4/10 game. Typical Ubisoft, but even worse.
Go to save location:
My Games\Outlaws
Open:
graphic settings.cfg
Go to:
["streamer dedicated budget"] = 1024,
The number should be 1024. It is often set to 64. Save as Read Only.
Aside from that, game is like an MMO which is lame for a single player game. Really shitty quest design. More or less run here, then run there, then run to another place, only to be gated by contradicting game design.
So many failures here it is astonishing. Objective name changes, objective location changes, mission name changes, can't see finished quest (except main quests) and whatnot. Makes it impossible to figure out what you're doing. You essentially start something, then it auto tracks you into an entirely different task, or renames the task so you have no idea what you're doing, then renames it back.
Clearly this was a bunch of artists told to make a map, then a few different people scripted some MMO style quests throughout the map and didn't even do a good job of it. Overall I think this feels like a 4/10 game. Typical Ubisoft, but even worse.
Last edited:
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,933
I'm not getting much of that, though it is a demanding feature. The problem is if you turn down some of the settings reflections and whatnot look quite blurry, worse than many non-ray traced games with worse frame rates. One or two of the settings also makes things have a very bad shimmering affect, I cannot recall which, it really shows up when raining.
I was very close to quitting this game but thankfully they started giving some quests where it is okay to kill people. The first 8-10 hours are quite shit though. Very crappy stealth quests and excessive resource scavenging for basic things like smoke bombs. You don't need them, but then you'd really only have one way of taking down enemies for half the game which would be lame. I'm not really sure why they decided to make most of the game "stealth" but gate keep all but smacking someone in the back of the head to lame MMO style quests. Even when you get some of the better things it is still very basic. If they wanted to make a stealth game they needed to design it more like Dishonored or Splinter Cell.
It's actual running fine with RTXDI at medium. High and especially ultra is problematic.
Star Wars Outlaws sales were 'softer than expected,' so Ubisoft is releasing it on Steam early
Ubisoft has announced that Star Wars Outlaws will come to Steam on November 21st, and indicated that it's no longer going to do timed Epic exclusives on PC, a deal it has maintained with the Fortnite developer since 2019...when Assassin's Creed Shadows releases early next year, it'll be on Steam on day one...
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/actio...ovember-sales-have-been-softer-than-expected/
Ubisoft has announced that Star Wars Outlaws will come to Steam on November 21st, and indicated that it's no longer going to do timed Epic exclusives on PC, a deal it has maintained with the Fortnite developer since 2019...when Assassin's Creed Shadows releases early next year, it'll be on Steam on day one...
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/actio...ovember-sales-have-been-softer-than-expected/
Dion
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 4,061
The truth!
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 26,439
Yeah Epic reduces their games to 5.00 each no way to make a profit.
Hah, hahaha. Even Epic either doesn't want to pay more for it or Ubisoft is that desperate for more money via Steam sales. Probably both. I assume you will still need to use ubisoft/uplay via Steam anyway. It always made the Epic deal so dumb. You still have to link to Uplay/Connect program so why bother, just buy the game on ubisoft directly. I think the only difference was that with the Epic version, once linked and bought, you could just run uplay program by itself whereas the Steam versions of Ubi games always require both programs running.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 5,108
When did they do this? I'd gladly buy it for $5.00
Ubisoft probably thinks that having their games available Day 1 on Steam will make a big difference in terms of sales...I'm sure it'll make a small difference but they should focus on making their games better versus blaming it on the gaming platform
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,933
I don't understand that either. If they are going to not sell it on Steam, why not just go to Uplay exclusively? They cut out all middleman fees there.
robbiekhan
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2004
- Messages
- 965
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 26,439
During sales but I noticed they increased the prices again I remember seeing the Division 2 for like 5.99.
looks like the Steam launch is a sort of unofficial reboot
Star Wars Outlaws First Story DLC Slated for November 21
Massive has revealed that the first story DLC (SW Outlaws: Wild Card) will be available on November 21st...they also mentioned various improvements coming to the game in a series of upcoming patches...
https://x.com/StarWarsOutlaws/status/1838971704820801966
Star Wars Outlaws First Story DLC Slated for November 21
Massive has revealed that the first story DLC (SW Outlaws: Wild Card) will be available on November 21st...they also mentioned various improvements coming to the game in a series of upcoming patches...
https://x.com/StarWarsOutlaws/status/1838971704820801966
"It’s unrealistic, the current business model that they have,” he said. “It doesn’t reflect where the world is today in terms of game distribution.” quote from UBI VP back in 2019 about steam. 
i bet long term, outlaws will probably end up selling more on steam than ubi/epic combined.
i bet long term, outlaws will probably end up selling more on steam than ubi/epic combined.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,933
If the first DLC is more of that Sabacc stuff I will probably not even bother. Couldn't figure it out at all and skipped the few quests where it was required. I do appreciate they seemingly recreated a Star Wars universe card game, but I don't want to read a dozen tutorials on how to play a card game in a video game. I hate every card game in all video games. I find them just as dull as I do in the real world.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 13,485
The game definitely flopped, because it keeps triggering my sale alerts, down to $37 on gray market sites. It launched at $58.
This is a faster drop than Suicide Squad.
This is a faster drop than Suicide Squad.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,327
Oh it’s been a hard flop for sure. Hard to find any positive coverage of it honestly.
I mean at this point, you've either Ubi+'d it or are waiting for Steam
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,479
Most reviews are fairly positive, in the 7/10tprange
exactly...people are seeing what they want to see...it wasn't a massive hit in terms of sales or reviews especially in comparison to the recent Jedi: Fallen Order series but a 7/10 is a good game...people nowadays are so jaded and expect every game to be a 10/10...anything less and the game 'sucks' according to them
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 15,510
7/10 would be a good game if we could trust mainstream reviews to be truthful and accurate. The scale for AAA games seems to only go from 6 to 10 for IGN and company. Based on that a 7 is more like a 3 or 4 at best.
Carlyle2020
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2020
- Messages
- 292
After owning an Epic account for a few years and not beeing happy with it i´ve chosen to let it be.
Some 500 bucks worth of self bought games on there.
But after work nothing drives me to the Epic-launcher. No community, no comments and a bad settings menu.
And the free games just make me feel like a drug addict beeing handed a free fix. No thanks.
I´ve also not bought any EA-Launcher, Ubi-Launcher or Blizzard-Launcher game for over 5 years now.
For me personally:
If its not an steam and can be played without a third party launcher: It does not exist.
Some 500 bucks worth of self bought games on there.
But after work nothing drives me to the Epic-launcher. No community, no comments and a bad settings menu.
And the free games just make me feel like a drug addict beeing handed a free fix. No thanks.
I´ve also not bought any EA-Launcher, Ubi-Launcher or Blizzard-Launcher game for over 5 years now.
For me personally:
If its not an steam and can be played without a third party launcher: It does not exist.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 15,510
I saw gameplay of it and if anything it made Starfield look like a masterpiece. Most NPCs don't even react to your existence in Outlaws. So at best you can roleplay as a force ghost.
so if 'mainstream 'reviewers give a game you dislike a 7/10 they are not truthful or accurate...yet if they give a game you like high scores all of a sudden they become trustworthy?...I'm not saying to trust all review sites but there has to be a few that you actually respect...or are you saying to trust the [H] members that hate every game and go on and on about Sweet Baby or DEI every chance they get?...those are the people who you deem to be pillars of the gaming review community LOLOL?
those are the last people (and that's not an exaggeration) I would ever trust for opinions on any game...games like Suicide Squad failed for a number of reasons but the Sweet Baby preachers will say it failed because of that agenda lol...so what about the games that succeeded with Sweet Baby?...God of War Ragnarok on PS for example (PC doesn't really count because most PS ports don't do boffo numbers years after their console release)...in the first ten weeks after its release, God of War: Ragnarök sold more than 11 million units worldwide
Last edited:
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 15,510
IDK where you are getting that from. They are never trustworthy. If they give a high score to a game I like it is coincidental and probably for very different reasons than why I like the game. It doesn't matter if they give something a low or high score I'm no more informed about whether the game is good or bad.
I wish there was a site like that, besides my own
Even if someone is genuine and truthful they can have wildly different taste to me. But mainstream sites don't even check the genuine box, as they are nothing but the marketing arm of big publishers like ubisoft or sony etc.There are a few members whose opinion I trust because i know what they liked in the past. Reposting the latest clickbait YT video is not part of that. Second hand or in that case god knows how many hand information is rarely completely accurate.
That said the involvement of narrative consultants and sensitivity readers and such grifters whether it is sbi or something else is always a giant red flag. But in the case of outlaws I don't even know if they were involved, I've seen enough in trailers and let's plays to confidently decide this game is not worth my time.
The influence of sbi is clearly detectable on ragnarok, but it is always up to the developers how long leash they give to outside consultants. In Suicide Squad they were given free reign it seems. I mean king shark was monolouging about progressive talking points in it. I would not have believed it if i didn't see / hear it myself. That's on a whole other level compared to god of war. Of course it is not the only reason SQ failed, but a contributor. And usually the extreme pushing of the message goes hand in hand with bland uninspired game design. Ex.: Saints Row remake, Forspoken, Alan Wake 2, Dustborn, Concord, Suicide Squad, Dragon Age Veilguard. These heavily influenced games often feel like imitations of a videogame.
What I mean by that is as if they were made by people who don't understand what makes videogames fun, they only have a superficiial surface level understanding of what a game should look like and they try to recreate that outsider perspective.
Like the diference between actual geeks, and the image of geeks living in the head of normies.
The last people I'd trust the opinions of on any game, or any media for that matter are employees of mainstream publications.
Defenders of Sweet Baby Inc. and their ilk want to prop up God of War Ragnarok as proof that they aren't the problem. Yet, the one or two examples propped up to prove this point ignore the failures that probably outnumber the successes. At the very least its hard to argue that any game that they were involved in was better off for having said involvement. The only game I personally played they were involved in is Starfield and that involvement made its NPC's boring bland and inoffensive as possible. They literally all have the same opinions about every choice the player makes. They all judge you for behaving in a way they don't like regardless of whether or not your actions make sense. This is a huge step backwards compared to other Bethesda games.
All that shit aside, IGN and a lot of mainstream game reviewers have had a skewed system for awhile. Even before all the DEI bullshit started, if a game journalist rated something at a 7/10 it was probably garbage. They were almost incapable of giving negative reviews to anything but the few titles they'd lose what little credibility they had at the time by praising. In those cases, they'd give more honest reviews. Games that actually got good reviews were always 8.5/10 - 9.5/10. I can't recall too many that scored above 9.5 / 10. The scoring never made sense as a 3/5 or a 6/10 would be slightly above average but that's not how they are weighted. 7/10 for a mediocre or even a bad game doesn't look that bad to publishers or people not well versed in how the scoring really works. They are called the access media for a reason. Most media outlets are afraid to allow their reviewers to be honest for fear that they'd lose access to titles prelaunch, etc.
The bottom line is that most of the mainstream media outlet reviews are worlds apart from that of the general public. If that's the case more often than not, then something isn't right. In any event, what good are reviewers when their opinions never align with that of the vast majority of gamers?
I only brought up Ragnarok because I looked at a list of games that Sweet Baby consulted on and most of them I never heard of or are indie titles...there are only a handful of big AAA releases and most of them were successful to hugely successful (Alan Wake 2, Spider-Man 2) along with 2-3 big failures like Gotham Knights and Suicide Squad but I don't think SBI had anything to do with why those games failed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,933
Yeah I am not sure why Hershy is saying you can "just exist" as gameplay options are very limited. For a supposed "outlaw" you can't do any bad things. The game is also quite restrictive in how you do approach situations because of the odd faction system which generally limits you to playing stealth/avoid fighting or loose access to upgrades/items/bases. In turn, you'll have to do very basic quests which I believe are randomized and never ending to improve your faction level so you can return to those areas.
Another good example of an open world game (well technically, a few small open world maps) that doesn't really know what to do with it. All this space, but such limited and forced gameplay choices.
Last edited:
that old wives tale doesn't apply to big sites like IGN or GameSpot etc...do you really think IGN gives a shit if they get free review codes?...they'll just buy the game on their own dime...the only people that matters to are the small independent YouTuber's and review sites...even popular reviewers like ACG always buy retail copies
what does a bad review even mean?...you want scores in the 1- 3 range?...or a zero score?...even subjectively bad games are not a complete zero...I can find things to like even in games I didn't really care for...so a 5 or 6 score is fine to denote a subjectively bad game...you rarely see 10's either...most games are not 10's or 0's...they fall in the middle...and most sites review games as such
the_sextein
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2024
- Messages
- 208
My game time is limited and I see no reason to buy a game that isn't 9/10. However, I never have trusted mainstream sites because they are influenced by publishers and developers in terms of getting insider information to report on and early access to the finished game so they can get their reviews out before the game launches. When I was in college IGN would give games an 8 that were good but not great. If you were a fan of a series like Hitman Code Name 47 and the game got an 8.5 then you could trust that it would be a pretty good game if you are into those types of games. If it got a 9/10 then that meant it was a great game and it was geared towards a more mainstream audience. 10/10 never really happened and if it did, it was usually just a stunt to express how pleased they were with a game. 7/10 has been considered average or not worth your time for as long as I can remember. Concord got a 7 out of 10 because it doesn't matter once you fall into that category, it's just a sea of garbage. If IGN gives it a 7 out of 10 then most real world users will give it a 5 out of 10. On metacritic you can see that this game got a 7 critic score and a 5 user score pretty much sums up what it's always been. Not worth your time or money. If I got a 7 out of 10 or 70% on a test my parents would tell me to do better. Why would I buy a 70% game when I can buy a 90% one?
SBI's involvement isn't the only reason for the failure of the games that haven't done well but I don't think any game was better off having them work on it.
Starfield suffers from the exact same problem.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,933
It isn't the copy of the game that matters but rather the inside news and interviews. IGN and other sites often get information first that they release before anyone else. It is often exclusive access, which the other sites will copy/paste after. But those initial clicks is what matters.
Starfield has much, much more player agency though. It isn't as much as the older Fallout games but is still in an entirely different category from Outlaws.
Outlaws seems to match up fine with most gamers who think it's an average 7 game...or 8 on the high end and 6.5 on the low end...it's only a small minority that exaggerate everything and says "Outlaws is the worst game ever...worst SW game ever etc"...or focus on silly things like "the lead female is ugly"...legit complaints should be about gameplay or story or characters or performance etc...yes stealth is a legit issue, the open world emptiness is a legit issue...performance on PC, graphics etc
when you need to make your point by exaggerating and calling things the worst ever you lose all credibility
when you need to make your point by exaggerating and calling things the worst ever you lose all credibility
You do not understand the business model of the review world. As someone with nearly two decades in it, I think I have a good understanding of that world. Yes, IGN and other sites care about free review codes. It's not because they are free. They need early access to the games if they want the review to be finished by the time the game launches. It's because a review that's not out there by launch day isn't worth the cost of writing it and publishing it. Writing a bad review, in virtually any industry can get you blacklisted from certain PR firms and companies. The issue isn't the cost of the hardware, software or whatever. It's about the timing and having your review out there with everyone else's. There is a reason why a launch day review has everyone scrambling until the last minute to get things done on time because you are rarely given enough time to do things as well as you'd probably like.
When it comes to review scores, I'm simply stating that using a 7/10 makes the game seem better than it is. This is likely by design. A 7/10 if you were talking about almost anything else would be pretty good. When talking about a game reviewed by IGN, not so much.
The main protagonist in a 40+ hour game being ugly is a valid complaint. I'm not saying it should be top of the list but people want attractive characters in their entertainment which is a form of escapism.
Last edited:
- Status