The Outer Worlds Review (Fractal)
Having now played through it a third time since it launched in 2020, I think I can compare it to Fallout: New Vegas (which guided much of Obsidian's work for this game) and Starfield (which is the closest thematically equivalent game from Bethesda).
Relative to Fallout: New Vegas: Within the limited double-A studio budget that Obsidian had, I think they managed to preserve most of the key behaviours expected by fans of F:NV such as factions, melee/ranged load-outs, companions, perks, and a consequential protagonist. The missing aspects either were a result of not having access to Bethesda's Creation Engine (such as mods) or streamlining the game to better fit the studio's budget (such as no mini-games). Using UE4 also meant Outer Worlds had considerably less bugs at launch than any Bethesda game at any point in their lifecycle (Private Division's re-release of Outer Worlds notwithstanding). The two main factions (good mad scientist vs evil incompetent corporations) are not as evenly balanced as New Vegas' NCR and the Legion in part because a corporate board is more nebulous than a single tyrant; and because I think Obsidian wasn't that inclined to flesh out the bad guys. All-in-all, the lack of modding hurt Outer Worlds replayability compared to F:NV but a bug-free roam across beautiful bug-infested Monarch still has the same charm it had on launch.
Relative to Starfield: Starfield was in development for so long, I suspect all the design decisions that crippled Starfield's broader uptake were made before Outer Worlds was released - but not before the Mass Effect series was released; so they don't have excuses for some of the mistakes they made for a space-based first-person RPG shooter. While both Outer Worlds and Starfield present pretty sky-boxes and set-pieces for their space-themed play environments, Outer Worlds' crafted maps edge out Starfield's gravity-physics procedurally-desolate maps as the core conceit of trekking across a landscape on foot works better on denser maps with landmarks to ooh and aah over. On the other hand, Starfield's spaceship designer is a clear delight; as Outer's World spaceship is a transition house (similar to the Normandy) without much worth doing in or with it. While Outer Worlds had minimal effective replayability, the companions are enjoyable and the story is relatable (if a less effective critique of corporations than Cyberpunk 2077). In contrast Starfield's stated replayability falls flat due to lower quality quests and companions in a procedural meta-game loop that strips narrative agency from the player. All-in-all, Starfield should have been better than Outer Worlds (with much more content and modding) but poor design decisions in pushing their Creation Engine in directions it is ill-suited for and a general loss in quality across the board at Bethesda means that a single play-through of Outer Worlds is simply better than a single play-through of Starfield.
TL;DR: Outer Worlds is not a drop-in replacement for either Fallout: New Vegas or Starfield; but it is a reliable serviceable experience if the general intent is a first-person RPG game with the mechanics of a Bethesda game - being newer than Fallout: New Vegas and more narratively satisfying than Starfield.