Daniel Vavra, co-founder of Warhorse Studios and lead writer of Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, just finished The Outer Worlds 2, and he has thoughts. The review score is a respectable 7/10. But the accompanying criticism is absolutely withering. Vavra didn’t just critique the game – he questioned whether Obsidian Entertainment, with 15 years of history and Microsoft’s resources behind them, has actually innovated anything meaningful in the RPG space at all. It’s a brutal assessment from a fellow RPG developer, and it’s raising uncomfortable questions about what Obsidian has actually accomplished.
What Vavra Actually Said
In a detailed post on X (formerly Twitter), Vavra explained his 7/10 score wasn’t just about The Outer Worlds 2’s individual quality. Instead, he expressed deep disappointment that Obsidian, the studio responsible for Fallout: New Vegas (which he cited as one of his favorite games ever), has “been unable, even after 15 years and with all of Microsoft’s money and latest technological advances, to come up with a single new game mechanic that could take this proven but ancient formula somewhere new.”
His specific criticisms focused on what The Outer Worlds 2 offers mechanically. He described the world as “static” and “scripted,” complained about loot boxes, maintenance shafts (loading screens), and level grinding, and challenged anyone to name a single new mechanic in The Outer Worlds 2 that wasn’t already in Deus Ex or the original Fallout games from over 25 years ago.
Then he issued a challenge to Obsidian: “Give me a living, simulated world! True non-linearity! Give me something more than loot boxes, maintenance shafts, loading screens and level grinding in a static scripted world.”
That’s not a constructive critique. That’s a direct challenge to a AAA studio’s ability to innovate.
The Uncomfortable Truth Behind the Criticism
Here’s what makes Vavra’s criticism particularly sharp: he’s not wrong. The Outer Worlds 2, for all its strengths, does feel like a refinement of existing systems rather than innovation. It’s a really good execution of Fallout-inspired mechanics that have been proven work for decades. But proven work and innovation aren’t the same thing.
Obsidian has three major games out in 2025: Avowed, The Outer Worlds 2, and Grounded 2 in early access. That’s an impressive output. But Vavra’s criticism suggests quantity and quality aren’t addressing the real issue – whether Obsidian is actually pushing the RPG genre forward or just successfully iterating on existing templates.
The challenge is particularly interesting because Vavra is speaking from a position of actual experience building immersive RPGs. Kingdom Come: Deliverance pioneered things like persistent schedules for NPCs, realistic medieval simulation, actual permadeath consequences, and elimination of level scaling. Whether you love or hate Kingdom Come’s design philosophy, it’s genuinely trying to do something different from the Bethesda/Fallout formula.
By contrast, The Outer Worlds 2 is fundamentally Fallout in a sci-fi skin. That’s not inherently bad – it’s proven formula. But it’s not innovative. Vavra’s point is that Microsoft’s resources and Obsidian’s talent should be aiming higher than “successfully execute proven formula.”
Microsoft’s Investment and What It Should Mean
The criticism becomes more pointed when you factor in Microsoft’s involvement. Since Microsoft acquired Obsidian in 2018, the publisher has poured resources into the studio. Microsoft also now owns Bethesda, giving them unprecedented control over the franchise landscape. In theory, Microsoft could direct Obsidian to take genuine risks because they’re not beholden to quarterly earnings reports like publicly traded publishers.
Vavra seems to be asking: if you have that freedom and those resources, why aren’t you innovating? Why are you iterating on Fallout mechanics instead of pushing the entire genre forward? It’s a fair question, and it’s the kind of question only another successful developer can really ask without sounding like armchair game design.
Obsidian isn’t failing at execution. They’re excellent at execution. But execution of proven formulas isn’t the same as innovation. And for a studio with Obsidian’s pedigree and resources, that gap is what Vavra is highlighting.
Why This Matters Beyond Just Obsidian
Vavra’s criticism reflects a broader issue in AAA gaming: the fear of genuine innovation. Most publishers would rather fund a game that iterates on proven formulas because the risk is lower and the ROI is more predictable. But that approach results in creative stagnation.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance succeeded commercially and critically partly because it was genuinely attempting something different, even if some of those differences made it less accessible than mainstream RPGs. Microsoft and Obsidian could theoretically take that same approach – use their resources to actually innovate rather than refine.
Instead, Obsidian has become known for “the best execution of established game design.” That’s valuable and respectable, but it’s not pushing the medium forward. Vavra’s critique is essentially saying: you have the resources to be pushing the medium forward, and you’re not.
The Broader Conversation About Obsidian
This criticism ties into ongoing discussion about Obsidian’s recent direction. Some fans have complained that games like Avowed, while well-made, lack the depth and player agency of Obsidian’s older work like Alpha Protocol or New Vegas. There’s a perception that Obsidian has traded unconventional design for broader appeal.
That’s not necessarily a bad trade commercially. Avowed received strong reviews and strong sales. The Outer Worlds 2 appears to be performing well commercially despite being criticized by some for playing it safe mechanically. Obsidian is succeeding by conventional metrics.
But Vavra’s point seems to be: success by conventional metrics isn’t the same as moving the industry forward. And for a studio with Obsidian’s pedigree, shouldn’t the goal be both?
FAQs
What score did Daniel Vavra give The Outer Worlds 2?
Daniel Vavra gave The Outer Worlds 2 a 7/10, which is a respectable score. However, his accompanying commentary was much more critical than the score might suggest.
What was Vavra’s main criticism?
Vavra’s main criticism was that Obsidian has failed to innovate in 15 years, and despite Microsoft’s resources and modern technology, can’t introduce a single new game mechanic that wasn’t already in Deus Ex or the original Fallout games from over 25 years ago.
Who is Daniel Vavra?
Daniel Vavra is co-founder of Warhorse Studios and lead writer of Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2. He’s known for making opinionated statements on social media about game design and the gaming industry.
What did Vavra specifically criticize about The Outer Worlds 2?
He criticized the static, scripted world design, loot boxes, maintenance shafts (loading screens), level grinding, and lack of true non-linearity. He called for more living, simulated worlds and genuine player agency.
Is Vavra’s criticism fair?
That depends on your perspective. His technical points are valid – The Outer Worlds 2 does use proven mechanics rather than new ones. Whether that’s a problem depends on whether you value innovation over execution of existing formulas.
How does Kingdom Come: Deliverance differ mechanically?
Kingdom Come: Deliverance features persistent NPC schedules, realistic medieval simulation, actual consequences for player death (permadeath in hardcore mode), and elimination of level scaling – all attempts to create immersive simulation rather than traditional RPG mechanics.
Has Microsoft responded to this criticism?
No official response from Microsoft or Obsidian has been made to Vavra’s specific criticism. They typically don’t engage with individual developer critiques on social media.
What did The Outer Worlds 2 actually review well for?
The Outer Worlds 2 received praise for its writing, character development, presentation, and strong execution of proven Fallout-style gameplay. The criticism isn’t about quality of execution but about lack of mechanical innovation.
Does this affect Obsidian’s credibility?
Not in terms of execution quality. Obsidian remains one of the best studios at producing well-made, narratively strong RPGs. The criticism is about ambition and innovation, not competence.
What does Vavra want to see from Obsidian?
He wants to see Obsidian use Microsoft’s resources and their own talent to genuinely innovate the RPG formula rather than refining existing templates. He specifically called for living simulated worlds and true non-linearity.
Conclusion
Daniel Vavra’s criticism of Obsidian and The Outer Worlds 2 isn’t harsh because the game is bad – it’s harsh because Vavra believes Obsidian is underachieving relative to its resources and talent. A 7/10 game from a talented studio is respectable. But a 7/10 game that doesn’t innovate from a studio with Microsoft’s backing, 15 years of history, and all modern technological advances feels like missed potential. Whether you agree with Vavra depends on whether you believe AAA studios have a responsibility to push their mediums forward or whether successfully executing proven formulas is enough. For Obsidian, it’s a fair question to ask why they’re not doing both.