Jump to content

Bej Kerman

Members
  • Posts

    4,668
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,877 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

13,458 profile views
  1. If someone pulls the "space stuff" card, I wouldn't consider taking it too seriously. While KSP is about the journey and not the destination, the journey would be pointless without the destination. Hence why we have rover parts (+ a Tylo cave and a Vall lake) in the first place! I'd dig subterranean gameplay, especially considering the possible near-future exploration of Europa IRL.
  2. That is a very funny definition of "options". Players who want QOL have to tediously bind everything to an action group, and players who are tedious can enjoy the tedium. You realise if you don't like this change, you can just ignore the science button, right? Players still have "options", just that the ones who want QOL are spared action group tedium.
  3. Those are massive gameplay changes and therefore bad analogies. Reducing the tedium of clicking 5 experiments to 1 button does not change the 5 experiments besides not wasting the players' time - it's functionally the same. If you hate this change though, do you hate the positive QOL change or do you hate the shallow nature of the gameplay loop that the QOL adjustment makes impossible to ignore?
  4. Unsure what this has to do with the layout of the KSC. No innovation at all, in terms of career mode at least.
  5. I wrote a bullet list on why all four of these points are incorrect, but it became clear to me when you accused it of having the "same KSC layout" you're just doing this for the sake of it. A completely different KSC is literally one of the first things new players will notice, and if someone claims it's the same, I have no reason to believe they've actually even played KSP 2. It's an objective fact that a top-down view of KSP 2's KSC model will not match up with a top-down view of KSP 1's KSC model.
  6. You neglected to mention that's not been true since Squad as a whole picked it up, then that got backed by a large company. This would be like saying "Starfield is an indie title" just because a small dev team at Bethesda was responsible for a prototype of the game years ago. That latter part is a massive [citation needed].
  7. Discussed this in a PM, but figured this was worth echoing here as a PSA-lite. $0.16 was the Yen-Dollar conversion, which does not mean the game was on sale for $0.16. It means that the lowest price in Japan was equivalent to $0.16 Dollars. The lowest the game's ever been in Dollars is $9.99 (75% off - this has been the default discount since May 30, 2019). Thought I'd throw this out there before more confusion stems from Steam's currency conversions.
  8. I checked the price history myself, it has never gone below£7.49. I think it's absurd to suggest that Steam's databases would not record lower prices. I stand corrected. KSP was free up to 0.13.x, and the two Demo releases, obviously. I made a confusion with the 1.0.0 Demo being free (but with reduced content). My apologies. I see, thanks for clarifying.
  9. Super efficient engines in a game about unlocking increasingly efficient engines?
  10. I don't see what this has to do with KSP 2. Although I do agree it was lackluster and Squad was doing themselves and everyone else a disservice by helping set that precedent.
  11. How many tons of air and water are there in the atmosphere of Kerbin? Good luck manufacturing a fraction of that.
×
×
  • Create New...