According to IGN, Daniel Vavra, the co-founder of Warhorse Studios and lead writer of Kingdom Come: Deliverance, has finished playing The Outer Worlds 2 and settled on a 7/10 review score. Vavra specifically criticized Obsidian Entertainment, which is owned by Microsoft, for failing to innovate in the RPG space despite having 15 years and Microsoft’s financial backing. His main complaint is that The Outer Worlds 2 doesn’t introduce any new game mechanics that weren’t already present in Deus Ex or the original Fallout games from over 25 years ago. Vavra called for “a living, simulated world” and “true non-linearity” rather than what he described as “loot boxes, maintenance shafts, loading screens and level grinding in a static scripted world.” The review has sparked significant online debate about Obsidian’s development approach and what players should expect from modern RPGs.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The innovation question
Here’s the thing about Vavra’s critique – he’s not wrong, but he might be missing the point. In his social media review, he essentially asks whether anyone can name a single new game mechanic in The Outer Worlds that wasn’t already in games from the 1990s. And honestly? That’s a tough question to answer. But is innovation always about completely new mechanics, or can it be about refining and combining existing ones in fresh ways?
Some players are pointing to the Flaw system as something innovative – where the game observes your playstyle and offers you perks with built-in drawbacks. If you crouch-walk constantly, you might get Bad Knees that makes you faster while crouched but creates noise when standing up. Vavra dismisses this as nothing new since Fallout had Traits with negatives. But there’s a difference between choosing traits at character creation and having the game dynamically respond to how you play. It’s like having a dungeon master who’s actually paying attention.
Expectations versus reality
Now let’s talk about Vavra’s call for a “living, simulated world.” This is where his critique might be hitting a bit harder. The Outer Worlds 2 absolutely isn’t trying to be Skyrim or Starfield. It’s not building massive, systemic worlds where every NPC has a schedule and the environment reacts dynamically to your actions. Obsidian has clearly carved out a different lane – they’re making focused, narrative-driven RPGs that are manageable to develop and complete.
And honestly, that might be the smart move. Obsidian has released three games this year alone – Avowed, Grounded 2, and The Outer Worlds 2. They’re one of Microsoft’s most productive studios. Could they build the kind of living, simulated world Vavra wants? Probably. But at what cost? Development timelines would balloon, budgets would explode, and we’d likely get fewer games. There’s something to be said for knowing your scope and executing well within it.
The Microsoft money myth
Vavra’s comment about “all of Microsoft’s money” is interesting because it assumes that big corporate ownership equals unlimited creative freedom. But the reality of modern game development, especially under Xbox, is reportedly quite different. Studios are under pressure to deliver profits, which often means keeping development costs controlled while maximizing returns.
It’s not like Microsoft is just handing out blank checks for dream projects. If anything, the business environment has become more conservative, with studios needing to prove they can deliver consistent, quality products without blowing budgets. The idea that Obsidian has this magic money tap but chooses not to use it feels disconnected from how actual game publishing works today.
What players actually want
Here’s the real question: do most players want revolutionary innovation, or do they want polished executions of proven formulas? Looking at what actually sells well in the RPG space, it’s often the latter. Players loved Baldur’s Gate 3 not because it invented completely new mechanics, but because it executed existing ones exceptionally well.
Vavra’s critique comes from a very specific perspective – he’s the creator of Kingdom Come: Deliverance, a game that deliberately pushed against RPG conventions with its realistic systems and historical accuracy. But that’s his studio’s niche. Obsidian has found theirs – making smart, well-written RPGs that respect your time while delivering satisfying narratives. Maybe that’s enough. Or maybe, as Vavra suggests, we should be demanding more from our RPG developers after decades of iteration. What do you think?
