Bethesda will take players into space with Starfield, and Obsidian Entertainment will be doing the same with The Outer Worlds 2, but the two games need not compete. Both projects will inevitably invite comparisons due to their scale and sci-fi premise. However, there is a good chance both games will be vastly different from each other even if a common backdrop is shared, particularly when it comes to tone and style. Both could end up being financial and critical successes and that would be best for not just players but the genre as a whole.
Starfield is shaping up to be a very Fallout-like game but set in space. Promising gameplay features such as ship and base building, space battles, and even full exploration of over 1000 planets has led to Starfield being compared to No Man's Sky. Features like this properly implemented into a Bethesda game is exciting fans already and have brought much hype for the game. The Outer Worlds 2, on the other hand, isn't receiving as much attention. While not much is known about this sequel - minus that it will be set in a new star system with a new crew - it is fair to expect it will be similar to the first. Exploring a corporate-dominated outer system where players get to decide whether to support the people, the corporations, or simply look after themselves was a winning premise with the first game, and one would expect that to continue with the sequel.
The issue The Outer Worlds 2 may feel releasing a good bit after Starfield is the need to compete with it, mainly when it comes to scale. Even though The Outer Worlds received positive reviews, one of its biggest weaknesses was its scale, as planets - especially in the second half of the game - got relatively small and could feel restrictive. So with Starfield promising over 1000 fully explorable planets, Obsidian may feel pressure to maybe not fully compete, to but somewhat scale up the size of the sequel. While the game should be a good bit larger than the original, there is no need for it to be near the size Starfield is purported to have.
The Outer Worlds 2 Doesn't Need Starfield's Size
What Obsidian should probably do is focus on the locations planned for The Outer Worlds 2 and simply make sure they are fleshed out. There is absolutely nothing wrong with only having a handful of planets, but making sure they're of sufficient scale and explorability is vital to making sure the sequel isn't as short as The Outer Worlds was. For example, the asteroid Scylla was so small that, while a good number of quests took players there, the call to explore and want to return was minimal. Meanwhile, the planet Monarch gave players larger areas and secrets to explore, along with an abundance of quests to entertain and direct. The best solution for The Outer Worlds 2 would be making more locations like Monarch - the kind that inspires exploration and a sense of vastness.
Comparisons between The Outer Worlds 2 and Starfield are inevitable, but the two games are likely to differ in direction, tone, presentation, and of course gameplay. Starfield and its 1000 planets can be a rich, explorable universe that allows players to get their fill and build what they desire while enjoying the stories planned within. The Outer Worlds 2, conversely, can be a story-rich, comical adventure that takes players to a handful of well-developed and unique locations. While competition between games can be healthy and propel them onto another level, there is no need for The Outer Worlds 2 to try and be another Starfield.