RPG Rivalry: Kingdom Come 2, The Outer Worlds 2, and the Future of Obsidian

The next wave of role-playing games is being shaped not just by trailers and previews, but also by unusually blunt commentary from developers themselves. A recent example is the director behind Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, who publicly described The Outer Worlds 2 as a solid but unremarkable “7 out of 10” and urged Obsidian Entertainment to spend “all of Microsoft’s money” on more daring RPGs in the spirit of Fallout: New Vegas. The remarks sparked discussion about what players really want from big-budget RPGs: comfort and polish, or risk and reinvention.

This article unpacks that debate, exploring how the exchange reflects deeper tensions in RPG design, where Obsidian stands after its Microsoft acquisition, and why games like Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 and The Outer Worlds 2 embody two very different philosophies of what a modern RPG should be.

From Cult Classics to Corporate Backing: Obsidian’s RPG Legacy

To understand why a comment about one game’s “7/10” status matters, it helps to look at Obsidian’s trajectory. Long before The Outer Worlds, the studio built a reputation for complex, often messy, but deeply loved RPGs.

Obsidian’s reputation for risky storytelling

Obsidian is widely recognized for its narrative depth and player choice. Some of its most well-known titles include:

• Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II – remembered for its morally ambiguous storytelling and philosophical tone.
• Fallout: New Vegas – often cited by critics and players as one of the best open-world RPG narratives, with intricate faction systems and branching outcomes.
• Pillars of Eternity – a crowdfunded isometric RPG that proved there was still strong demand for classic CRPG design.

Even when their games launched with technical issues, Obsidian’s writing and reactivity helped them earn long-term goodwill in the RPG community.

The Microsoft era and production stability

In 2018, Microsoft acquired Obsidian as part of its push to bolster first-party content for Xbox and PC. Microsoft described Obsidian as part of a strategy to promote ambitious, content-rich projects on its platforms.¹ For Obsidian, this meant more financial stability and the ability to build larger scale projects without relying on crowdfunding or external publishers.

Since the acquisition, Obsidian has:

• Released The Outer Worlds (with Private Division publishing), a satirical sci-fi RPG.
• Announced The Outer Worlds 2, a bigger sequel built with Microsoft’s backing.
• Revealed Avowed, a first-person fantasy RPG set in the Pillars of Eternity universe, published by Xbox Game Studios.²

With this support, expectations around Obsidian shifted. Players began to ask not just whether the games would have clever writing, but also whether the studio would use its new resources to push boundaries in gameplay and systems design.

What The Outer Worlds Did Right – And Where It Played Safe

The critique from the Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 director centers on the idea that The Outer Worlds 2 appears too familiar, building on a foundation that some already view as conservative compared to Obsidian’s past work.

The promise of The Outer Worlds

The original Outer Worlds pitched itself as a compact, story-driven alternative to huge open-world RPGs, focusing on:

• Strong narrative and witty satire of corporate-dominated futures.
• Multiple solutions to quests based on skills, choices, and companions.
• Smaller, handcrafted zones rather than a single giant open world.

Many reviewers praised its writing and humor, while noting that the core structure felt familiar: recognizable shooter-RPG combat, dialogue trees, and a largely expected mission format.

The sequel and expectations of innovation

With The Outer Worlds 2, expectations are higher. Obsidian has larger budgets, an established IP, and more time to plan. Fans naturally wonder:

• Will the combat and systems evolve beyond incremental refinements?
• Can the game world feel more reactive and systemic without losing authored narrative?
• Will Obsidian take mechanical risks, not just narrative ones?

The Kingdom Come director’s “7/10” remark taps into this anxiety: that Obsidian could settle into making polished, safe sequels that retain their voice but stop reinventing the genre.

Kingdom Come 2: A Very Different RPG Philosophy

On the other side of this debate sits Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, a game that aims for immersion and historical realism over satirical sci-fi and conventional RPG power fantasies.

Grounded realism vs. sci-fi satire

Kingdom Come: Deliverance made a name for itself by avoiding fantasy tropes. There are no dragons or fireballs; instead, it offers:

• Historically grounded locations inspired by 15th-century Bohemia.
• Complex, timing-based melee combat that demands practice.
• Simulation-style survival mechanics like hunger, fatigue, and reputation.

The sequel appears poised to continue this direction, promising a more detailed open world, expanded systems, and a focus on lived-in realism rather than spectacle. The development team’s critique of The Outer Worlds 2 fits that ethos: a belief that RPGs should challenge familiar formulas, not just refine them.

Two design approaches compared

Neither approach is inherently superior. One prioritizes immersion and simulation, the other wit and accessibility. But the tension between them explains why one director might publicly prod another studio to aim higher with its sequel.

Are RPGs Innovating Enough, or Just Iterating?

Underneath the social-media-friendly soundbites lies a serious question: are mainstream RPGs innovating at the pace players expect, especially given rising budgets and development times?

Rising costs and risk aversion

Modern AAA game development is extremely expensive and time-consuming. Industry analyses estimate that major titles can require hundreds of developers and budgets that rival Hollywood blockbusters.³ With so much money on the line, publishers often favor:

• Sequelizing proven IPs over backing entirely new concepts.
• Refining existing mechanics rather than building untested systems from scratch.
• Designing around broad demographics to maximize reach.

From a business standpoint, a polished “safe” RPG can be rational. But from a creative standpoint, it risks stagnation. The critique of The Outer Worlds 2 is less about that specific game and more about this broader pattern.

Innovation can be incremental or radical

Innovation in RPGs does not always mean inventing a completely new genre. It can look like:

• Incremental innovation: deeper reactivity, better AI companions, improved quest logic, more nuanced morality systems.
• Radical innovation: unusual settings, experimental combat, systemic worlds where mechanics interact in unpredictable ways.

The best-loved RPGs often combine both. Fallout: New Vegas, for instance, didn’t revolutionize first-person RPG combat, but it pushed narrative reactivity and faction interplay far beyond most contemporaries, which is a key reason it remains so influential.

Microsoft’s Money and the Obsidian Wish List

When the Kingdom Come director jokes that Obsidian should spend “all of Microsoft’s money” on RPGs more like Fallout: New Vegas, there’s a serious subtext: big companies like Microsoft have the resources to fund more ambitious, risk-tolerant RPGs—if they choose to.

What more funding could enable

In practical terms, stronger backing could allow Obsidian to:

• Invest in richer, more reactive quest design and branching storylines.
• Develop more experimental combat or stealth systems rather than modest tweaks.
• Support longer iteration cycles on AI, world simulation, and emergent systems.
• Prototype unconventional settings or structures without the same financial pressure to play it safe.

Microsoft has presented its acquisitions, including Obsidian, as part of a long-term content ecosystem for Xbox Game Pass.¹ Subscription models can, in theory, reduce pressure on single-title sales and make room for games that take creative risks. How much that potential is realized depends on corporate strategy and internal priorities.

The weight of the Fallout: New Vegas legacy

Calling for “more games like Fallout: New Vegas” is not just nostalgia. That game is still referenced by critics and fans for its:

• Layered factions with overlapping agendas.
• Consequences that reshape the world and ending in meaningful ways.
• Freedom to role-play divergent philosophies rather than simply good vs. evil.

It set a benchmark for narrative reactivity that many subsequent RPGs, including some of Obsidian’s own output, are measured against. When people worry that The Outer Worlds 2 might play it too safe, they are essentially asking whether Obsidian can push that bar higher again rather than merely revisiting past glories.

Healthy Rivalry or Unnecessary Drama?

Public criticism between studios can look like drama, but it can also reflect healthy creative rivalry. In film, literature, and music, influential works often arise from artists trying to outdo or respond to each other. Games are no different.

Why blunt commentary resonates with players

Reasons this particular critique caught attention include:

• Transparency – Players are used to heavily managed PR. A director speaking candidly feels refreshing.
• Shared frustrations – Many players already felt that mainstream RPGs can blur together mechanically.
• Fandom identities – Fans of historically grounded RPGs and sci-fi RPGs sometimes see themselves as supporting different philosophies of design.

At the same time, the games industry is relatively small. Developers often know each other, and public criticism can be sensitive, especially when livelihoods and studio reputations are involved.

Constructive rivalry vs. personal attacks

The line between constructive rivalry and counterproductive sniping is important. Critiquing a game’s mechanics or ambition can be useful; attacking individuals or stoking harassment is not. So far, most of the discourse around this specific exchange has focused on ideas—innovation, risk, and ambition—rather than on personal feuds, which is where the conversation can be most productive.

What RPG Fans Actually Want Next

The debate ultimately circles back to players. What do RPG fans expect from the coming generation of games like Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 and The Outer Worlds 2?

Common desires across different subgenres

Even though tastes vary, many RPG fans tend to value:

• Meaningful choice and consequence – Decisions that produce distinct outcomes, not just different dialogue lines.
• Systems that support role-play – Skills, factions, and mechanics that allow different play styles and character identities.
• Coherent worlds – Settings where lore, environmental design, and mission structure feel consistent.
• Respect for player time – Depth without unnecessary grind or filler.

Whether a game is historically grounded like Kingdom Come or satirical sci-fi like The Outer Worlds, these pillars remain crucial.

Balancing comfort and surprise

Most players actually want a balance of familiarity and novelty. Too much change and a series can lose its identity; too little and it feels like a reskin. For studios like Obsidian, the challenge is to preserve their recognizable strengths—sharp writing, reactive quests—while experimenting boldly enough with mechanics and structure that their new games do not feel like safe retreads.

In that light, the Kingdom Come director’s “7/10” comment can be read as a kind of backhanded compliment: the assumption is that Obsidian is capable of more than merely good RPGs; they are expected to deliver genre-defining ones.

FAQs

Is The Outer Worlds 2 confirmed as an Xbox exclusive?

Obsidian’s work as a Microsoft-owned studio means its major projects, including The Outer Worlds 2, are expected to launch on Xbox platforms and Windows PC, with day-one availability on Xbox Game Pass, in line with Microsoft’s stated first-party strategy.¹

Does public criticism between studios affect development?

Direct comments from other developers rarely change core plans, but they can influence community expectations and discourse. Studios may privately take note of feedback—especially from peers—but large projects are generally too far along to pivot dramatically based on public remarks alone.

Why is Fallout: New Vegas still brought up in these debates?

Fallout: New Vegas remains a reference point because of its nuanced faction system, reactivity, and role-playing freedom. Many later RPGs are judged against the level of narrative consequence it offered, especially when the same studio, Obsidian, is involved in new projects.

Are historically grounded RPGs becoming more common?

Historically inspired RPGs have a smaller niche compared with high fantasy and sci-fi, but titles like Kingdom Come: Deliverance and expansion of historical action-adventures have shown there is an audience for more grounded settings. Major publishers still tend to favor broadly marketable fantasy and sci-fi, but digital distribution and mid-budget projects have created more space for experimental historical games.

Can big-budget RPGs still be experimental?

Yes, but experimentation carries higher stakes at large budgets. Some publishers offset risk by combining familiar frameworks with specific areas of innovation—for example, pairing conventional combat with highly reactive narrative design. Subscription services like Xbox Game Pass may also encourage more experimentation by reducing reliance on single-release sales spikes.¹