Compare Avowed vs The Outer Worlds 2

Reviewers noted useful accessibility and comfort controls such as camera, subtitle, difficulty, and arachnophobia-related options, though colorblind support was called out as missing.

One reviewer specifically framed Avowed as more appropriate for older teens and adults because of its complex themes and mature material.

Enemy AI was considered serviceable but not especially smart; later impressions suggested fights remain engaging without feeling brain-dead.

Enemy AI was sharply split between smart tactical behavior and complaints about idling, aggro, detection, or rough enemy decisions.

Aiming and first-person spell placement drew criticism when ground-targeted abilities were hard to place precisely.

Aiming was mostly better and more natural, but one reviewer still found the reticle a little slippery.

Animation feedback was mixed, with stiff NPCs and less impressive presentation keeping the game from feeling fully modern.

Animation quality was mixed to negative, mostly due to janky or weak animation comments.

Most reviewers praised the bold, colorful, alien fantasy art direction, though a few disliked the cartoony look or felt presentation was uneven.

Art direction was mostly praised for color, personality, and alien worlds, though one reviewer preferred the first game's grounded look.

The Living Lands’ vivid tone, music, and dreamlike spaces were repeatedly praised for creating a distinctive atmosphere.

Atmosphere was praised for oppressive planets, overwhelming corporate spaces, and a strong sense of place.

Boss design was criticized as disappointing, with bosses feeling like tougher versions of regular enemies rather than unique encounters.

Bug reports varied widely: some reviewers found almost none, while others hit quest bugs, map-edge bugs, or issues that required reloads.

Bug frequency was mixed, with several reviewers noting annoying or persistent bugs and others saying issues were minor.

Camera-related options were appreciated, especially the ability to adjust head bob and camera shake for comfort.

Third-person camera implementation was criticized as uncomfortable by one reviewer.

Character creation was generally praised as solid or deep, with later updates adding more races and appearance options.

Character development split reviewers: some found companions distinct and engaging, while others thought characters were bland or hard to care about.

Character development was mixed, with some praise for relationship growth but several complaints about unmemorable or thin characters.

The companion roster was often seen as small or limited, though some reviewers still liked the four supporting characters.

The companion roster drew mixed reactions, from mostly memorable faction representatives to a separate view that no one truly stood out.

Build and class flexibility was praised because Avowed lets players mix archetypes freely, though balance sometimes favored magic or specific styles.

Combat was one of the most consistently praised elements, especially magic, responsiveness, and build variety, despite repetition and gear-gating complaints.

Combat was widely seen as a major improvement, especially gunplay, though melee feel and RPG-shooter limitations kept some scores mixed.

Companion combat AI was mixed: some found companions self-sufficient or improved by patches, while others called them weak or unnecessary in fights.

Companion AI drew negative comments for reckless combat behavior and frequent deaths.

Reviewers liked the dense zones and amount of side content, although some felt the scope was restrained rather than sprawling.

Content variety was mixed, with one review arguing expanded quantity sometimes came at the cost of depth.

Controls and combat feel were commonly praised for responsiveness, impact, and keybind flexibility, with a few targeting frustrations.

Controls were praised for snappier, more responsive shooting and better weapon heft.

The core loop was divisive: strong combat and exploration were often undermined for some reviewers by gear-tier repetition and open-zone structure.

The main loop of talking, looting, fighting, and resolving problems your way was praised as satisfying and strongly role-play driven.

Crafting was mixed to negative, with several reviewers calling it threadbare, expensive, or too tied to gear-tier progression.

Crash stability varied by platform and version: some reviewers reported no crashes, while another had severe startup crashes before fixes.

Crash stability was mixed, from one-crash praise to reports of hard crashes or repeated crashes in a specific area.

Cross-save support was positively noted when saves moved between Xbox and PC.

Dialogue quality ranged from standout and well acted to overly wordy, forced, or limited in the options it offered.

Dialogue was praised for branching options, smooth integration of background choices, and rewarding nonviolent solutions.

Difficulty balance was one of the most debated areas, with some finding it fair and flexible and others criticizing gear checks, sponginess, or uneven scaling.

Difficulty was mixed: some liked the challenge and fairness, while others noted reverse difficulty or uneven spikes.

Resource balance divided reviewers: some liked the meaningful economy, while others felt crafting materials and upgrade resources were too scarce.

Economy balance drew criticism from one reviewer who found bits and faction standing underdeveloped.

Emotional impact came mostly from moral choices, consequences, and companion moments, though some endings or fallout felt muted to critics.

Emotional impact was limited in mixed reviews, with satire and tone sometimes keeping decisions from landing deeply.

Endgame content was criticized because the original experience did not allow continued post-story play and lacked New Game Plus at launch.

Endgame content drew criticism when the level cap arrived before some arcs or final hours, reducing reward momentum.

Enemy variety was a recurring concern; many reviewers felt the same bears, spiders, skeletons, and humanoids appeared too often.

Enemy variety was a repeated low point in IGN-aligned reviews, especially repeated creatures across planets.

Environmental detail was strongly praised through dense secrets, vistas, caves, and handcrafted spaces, even by some otherwise mixed reviewers.

Environmental detail was praised for purposeful design, interiors, environmental storytelling, and handcrafted spaces.

Exploration was one of the strongest consensus positives, with dense maps, secrets, vertical paths, and constant rewards keeping reviewers engaged.

Exploration was generally rewarding and purposeful, though some reviewers found open stretches empty or unrewarding.

Facial animations were criticized in later impressions as not matching next-generation expectations.

Returning Eora fans often felt Avowed was faithful to the Pillars of Eternity world, while still accessible to newcomers.

Faithfulness to the franchise was praised for refining the series, keeping its soul, and moving closer to Obsidian's RPG promise.

Fast travel was viewed as convenient and generous, making it easy to revisit areas without friction.

Fast travel was useful and sometimes praised, though lack of interplanetary fast travel frustrated one reviewer.

Frame-rate stability varied: some reviewers saw stable performance, while others reported hitches, drops, screen tearing, or stuttering.

Frame rate evidence ranged from smooth 60 FPS praise to concerns about 4K performance and quality/performance tradeoffs.

Fun factor leaned positive overall, especially for combat and exploration, though some reviewers found the experience merely solid or underwhelming.

Fun factor was mostly positive, though some reviewers tied their enjoyment to tolerance for repetition, pacing, or familiar design.

Gameplay mechanics were generally praised as streamlined and flexible, but a few reviewers felt RPG systems lacked depth or reactivity.

Reviewers generally liked the RPG systems, build options, and reactive mechanics, though a few found familiar systems less imaginative.

Graphics quality was divisive but often positive, with praise for stunning vistas and vivid visuals alongside criticism of poor or compromised visuals on some platforms.

Graphics were generally positive, with vibrant worlds and improved visuals, though some character models or performance-mode compromises drew criticism.

Grind level was a common complaint tied to gear upgrades, resource hunting, and spongy combat loops.

Grind level was mixed: IGN found the RPG grind compelling, while RPGFan said repetitive tasks and level-cap timing hurt motivation.

Steam Deck suitability was considered playable and verified, but the visual tradeoff was significant.

Haptic support was platform-dependent: one PS5 review praised DualSense vibration, while another noted missing haptic and trigger use.

HUD clarity improved through options to reduce clutter, adjust opacity, and toggle display elements.

Immersion was helped by dense worldbuilding and atmosphere but hurt for some by static NPCs and limited world reactivity.

Immersion was limited in one review where the ship never felt like home.

Innovation was usually described as limited; reviewers saw Avowed as confident and enjoyable rather than genre-changing.

Innovation was split between praise for the flaws system and criticism that broader mechanics felt unimaginative.

Learning support was helped by reference and lore systems that made Eora’s terminology easier to understand.

One reviewer found the broader RPG structure easy to grasp despite its added ambition.

Level design was praised for verticality, density, handcrafted routes, and spaces that felt larger than their footprint.

Dense openings and dungeon spaces earned strong praise, with reviewers singling out alternate routes and thoughtful layouts.

Post-launch support was viewed positively, with free updates improving stability, customization, build options, and quality-of-life features.

Load times were praised as reasonably short in one cross-platform review.

Loot opinions were mixed: unique items and progression could be satisfying, but many chests and rewards felt predictable or unexciting.

Loot was praised as meaningful, rewarding, and varied enough to support distinct builds.

Lore depth was consistently praised, especially the in-game books, history, politics, and reference systems that made Eora feel rich.

Lore depth was praised where new factions made Arcadia feel deeper and more distinct than the first game.

Map and navigation design was mixed, with missing custom markers criticized before later updates added them.

Navigation drew criticism for unclear markers, map cursor issues, and unintuitive routes.

Menu and ability-wheel usability was mixed; some quality-of-life systems helped, but radial wheels and limited hotkeys disrupted combat for others.

Menus and inventory drew mixed-to-negative reactions, especially inventory patience, UI bugs, and clutter.

Mission design drew criticism when quests felt repetitive, fetchy, or like back-and-forth errands, though some standout missions remained.

Major missions and tentpole scenarios were praised for puzzle-box structure, role-play opportunities, and varied routes.

Mission variety was criticized by one reviewer who felt objectives repeated too often.

Movement feel and parkour were strongly praised for making exploration fluid, vertical, and enjoyable.

Movement was usually considered improved and freer, helped by mobility options, though fall damage and melee sluggishness drew criticism.

Narrative quality was usually a strength thanks to mystery, choices, and world stakes, but some reviewers found the main plot predictable or underwhelming.

Narrative quality ranged from excellent political intrigue and strong story beats to complaints about a weak, predictable, or flat core story.

Onboarding was praised when it taught by doing, though lore-heavy openings could feel steep for newcomers.

Onboarding and character setup were mostly praised for immediately expressing background, traits, and build identity.

Open-zone design split reviewers: many liked curated, dense hubs, while others found the world restrictive, lifeless, or not interactive enough.

Open-zone design drew mixed reactions, with compact areas praised but barren spaces and shallow depth criticized.

Originality was limited; reviewers often described Avowed as familiar comfort-food fantasy rather than a bold genre evolution.

Originality was moderate, with one reviewer describing the sequel as incremental rather than transformative.

Pacing was mixed, with slow starts, downtime, filler quests, and late-game repetition weighing against an otherwise easy-to-follow story.

Pacing was the most consistent caveat, with slow first acts, uneven zones, or late-game drag appearing in several reviews.

Performance optimization varied sharply across versions, from stable and improved after patches to demanding, stuttery, or poorly optimized on some PCs.

Performance optimization was mixed but generally acceptable, with strong platform reports offset by rough PC or ray-tracing complaints.

Platform-specific support was praised for PS5 performance modes, Sony-platform feel, and PC features such as DLSS.

Platforming precision was a pleasant surprise, with simple mantling and vertical puzzles adding a welcome exploration layer.

Polish improved over time but remained uneven, with reviewers citing jank, lack of gloss, or presentation limits alongside strong craftsmanship.

Polish was mixed, balancing technical reliability improvements against uneven design and jank.

Progression systems were divisive: some liked flexible builds and added points, while others found midgame growth stagnant or too gear-dependent.

Progression, perks, flaws, and no-respec commitment were widely praised, though level-cap and respec complaints created some friction.

One reviewer enjoyed shaping an idiot-savant commander, supporting protagonist role-play appeal.

Puzzles were generally light but appreciated when they used environmental elements, timing, and exploration paths.

Puzzle support was praised where gadgets expanded both combat and puzzle-solving options.

Quest design ranged from excellent side stories and meaningful follow-ups to fetchy, inconsistent, or repetitive tasks.

Quest design was split: several reviewers loved the branching checks and side content, while others saw busywork or inconsequential side quests.

Replay value improved with choices and post-launch New Game Plus, though some reviewers felt repeated runs changed too little.

Replay value was a major strength, with reviewers wanting additional runs for alternate builds, choices, paths, and endings.

Sandbox freedom was limited compared with full open-world RPGs, though some reviewers still appreciated freedom in story choices or builds.

Reviewers strongly praised the freedom to solve situations through speech, stealth, combat, skills, traits, and prior discoveries.

Save reliability was a concern for at least one reviewer who needed more careful saving because of bugs.

Side characters and companions were highly divisive: some found them memorable and heartfelt, while others thought they were shallow or uninspired.

Side characters and companions were divisive: many praised their faction ties and quests, while others found them uneven or unmemorable.

Skill trees were praised for flexibility but criticized by others as simple, shallow, or uneven across archetypes.

Skill depth was praised for meaningful specialization, tough choices, and builds that affected both dialogue and combat.

Sound design was praised for impactful effects, combat feedback, and strong weapon audio.

Sound design and radio presentation were praised for adding flavor and helping scenes land.

Soundtrack reception was generally positive but often stopped short of calling the music unforgettable.

Soundtrack quality was mixed: radio and themed music were liked, while several reviewers found the score sparse or not memorable.

Stealth was criticized as underdeveloped or nearly useless, with little support for stealth-focused play.

Stealth was often viable and rewarding, especially with builds and gadgets, but some reviewers found it imbalanced or merely serviceable.

The tutorial was praised for teaching systems naturally and creating meaningful choices early.

Upgrade systems were sharply divisive, with some liking gear longevity and many others criticizing tiers, scarcity, or number-go-up design.

Weapon and gear upgrades were usually liked for customization, but some reviewers found mod limits or specific systems clunky.

UI options such as text sizing and subtitles were appreciated as useful interface support.

Interface design was split between a UI that stayed out of the way and a cluttered UI complaint.

Value for money was mixed: reviewers praised Game Pass or lower pricing but questioned the original premium price for the scope.

Value was mixed-positive: Game Pass and standard pricing were praised, while some reviewers recommended waiting for broader opinions or a sale.

Visual effects, especially magic, were repeatedly praised for impact, color, and satisfying feedback.

Visual effects were praised by one reviewer for good-looking special effects and reflections.

Voice acting was mostly praised as strong or outstanding, though one reviewer found performances unable to save weaker writing.

Voice acting was considered strong or solid, with performances generally supporting the setting and comedy.

Weapon balance and variety were mostly praised for experimentation and flexible loadouts, but some reviewers felt magic outclassed melee or guns.

Weapon balance ranged from fresh, satisfying arsenals to overpowered or underwhelming weapons and uneven biomass guns.

World-building was one of Avowed’s clearest strengths, especially its politics, cultures, history, and Eora continuity.

World-building was a major strength, with reviewers praising factions, moral dilemmas, environmental context, and a lived-in universe.

World interactivity was one of the most common criticisms, with many reviewers finding NPCs, theft, objects, and systems too static.

World interactivity was praised where obvious environmental solutions and discovered information could be acted on directly.

Writing quality was widely praised for lore, companion dialogue, and sharp prose, but a minority found it wordy, pretentious, or mid.

Writing was one of the best-supported strengths, especially satire, dialogue, humor, and faction commentary, despite a few complaints about patchiness.