Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WelshSteW

  1. I'll actually try to answer the question, something which not many have done I'll make it very clear that obviously I haven't played KSP2, so there's a lot of assumptions for how it might do things, and I haven't played Starfield, so I'm basing this purely on the details in the original post of this thread. Ship building It looks like KSP2 has made a bit of progress compared to KSP1, but I still think the ships produced will be very generic. I don't know if we'll be able to make interesting looking ship through clipping parts, and having parts overlapping as in KSP1. If we can't, that'll make things even more generic. If we can, it's still a poor way to build things. I guess we'll be able to download mods which have new parts in them. But in general, I don't hold out much hope for ship building in KSP2. The ship building in Starfield looks pretty good. It seems as though you're able to make ships that look interesting and cool, and it looks like you can colour them however you want. I'd give the Ship Building round to Starfield. Base building and resources This looks like it could be great fun in KSP2. I know we haven't seen an awful lot of it, but it was fairly decent in KSP1, and it's supposed to be a major part of the game in KSP2, so I have high hopes for it. This part of Starfield seems like it could be a bit simplistic? It looks like it's a basic 'select the building you want, then click where you want it'? It also sounds as though you wouldn't be able to set up a base near anything that isn't flat-ish terrain, something which doesn't look like it'd be a problem in KSP2. Resources will probably be similar in both games. They're there, you have to collect them. Not sure there's much more detail than that for either game? I'd give the Base building and resources round to KSP2. Exploration & environment This is an interesting one. I know people have gotten excited about something that was said in one of the KSP2 videos, about a pixel of light being a system you can visit, but I think that may have been misunderstood. I don't think every pixel of light will be somewhere you can travel. I think there will be multiple systems, and they'll be different and interesting, but I don't think travel between them will be very common. The fact you're meant to travel to a new system, and then set up a new space centre, means that once you're in a system, you'll use that space centre as you would use Kerbin Space Centre for exploring the Kerbol system. I also expect resources to be available in every system, so you want need to transport stuff from one system to another. Again, I don't know this will be how it works, because I haven't played it, but that's what I think at the moment. The planets that we've seen in the videos so far look amazing. I'd like some features that don't seem to be there, cave systems, flowing water, weather, different surface types and properties (ice should be slippery, boggy ground should be soft and have ships sinking....). Having said all of that, I don't know what the planets in Starfield will be like either! It looks like there will be other species in Starfield, so that's a plus. KSP2 probably won't have anything other than some basic trees and plants. Starfield says it'll have over 100 systems, and over 1000 planets, so I guess there's some procedural stuff going on. The pictures look pretty good, but I don't see it as anything ground-breaking. Probably the closest round, I'm going to call this one a draw. Ship IVA / flight deck / HUD I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on this too much, I very rarely (if ever) use IVA mode in KSP. I'm just not interested in it. Not when in space, not when driving rovers. It just isn't something I care about. I don't take Kerbals out for walks other than to plant a flag, drop some experiments, or move from a base to a rover. So I'll call this a 'no contest' round. Sorry.
  2. Anyone else got a funny feeling about this Friday? Maybe it's the heat, but I think something might happen
  3. I think I posted somewhere before that an early access / demo version would be good. Something really simple, just to show off the new UI. Limited parts, a system of just Kerbin, or maybe Kerbin and Mun. Probably a bit early for it at the moment, but something like that about 6months from release would be fantastic, imo.
  4. The new career mode they've come up with (adventure mode I think?). How will it work? Will it be contract / milestone driven? Will it be story driven?...
  5. How good a nice new video be today? Some actual 'proper' in game footage to shut up all the doom and gloom merchants.
  6. This is exactly it. Which is why I hope the devs aren't getting caught up in making KSP2 perfect. It doesn't have to be. It can be improved with patches, DLC, or it could even be followed at some point by KSP3. I said this in the thread with the timing update, but please don't aim for perfection. Just make it better than KSP1. It doesn't have to release with everything in place. I'm not interested in 100s of new planets, that can come later. Lots of little steps is better and easier than a few giant leaps.
  7. @RayneCloud It's a pedantic point, but @The Aziz is correct. Fiscal year 2023 ends 31st March 2023. Calendar year 2023 ends 31st December 2023, which is 9months later. So if you wanted to move the fiscal year to match the financial year, you'd have to move it 9months, and not the "3 months or so" stated in the OP.
  8. Am I reading too much into this - Or does that sound to other people as though KSP2 might not be the only Kerbal game being worked on right now?
  9. I wonder if they took on too much for KSP2, and if they'd have been better holding some things back for DLC or even KSP3?
  10. A delay isn't great, but at least this will (hopefully) stop some of the hand wringing that's been happening lately. And, if I tell myself that I can have if for my birthday (which is in May), I shouldn't be too far wrong
  11. Yeah, I kind of wgree with Ahres here. Plus, if Nate was going to comment, he'd have done it already. This stuff has been going on for a good few weeks now.
  12. I am now less confident about something happening today But, I still think these are good signs, and that we'll hear something positive pretty soon
  13. I can't say for 100%, but I'm fairly certain I've never seen a data on there before. As far as I can remember it's always just been 'coming soon'. I'm really excited now. I reckon today's the day that we get a release date, or at the very least a confirmation that it is indeed still releaseing in 2022.
  14. I'm not an expert, but I think if you look at the source code for the webpage (you can right click on the page, and choose 'view page source' or 'view source' or something similar), you can do a search for the word 'timer' and you can see there are bits of code where it says stuff like 'launching in X days', 'launching in X hours'... So it looks like the code is in place for a countdown. I'm taking this as really good news. You wouldn't update the website if the game was aaaaages away, would you?? I'm going to put my money* on something happening today. *metaphorically 1st half, I would have thought.
  15. How to inflate hype around a game, prior to release? 'Leak' a fake snippet of a report showing the game will be delayed. This will get the fanbase up in arms, threads on forums will be created, discussion / arguments will ensue. When the real report is released, have the release date in it. Have the release date surprisingly close. This will create shock and excitement, forum threads will explode, chatter around the game will be crazy. Fans will be hyped. I mean, we can hope, right??
  16. @linuxgurugamer Hiya. I've just had an issue with DatedQuickSaves, which looks to be related to the new 'rename' option. Basically, it wasn't working. Whenever I did an F5 and then an F9, I got an on screen message saying 'quicksave Does Not Exist'. If I turn off the rename option in the settings, everything is fine. It looks as if the quickload is still looking for the quicksave.sfs file, even though it's been renamed. Not a game breaker or anything, just thought I'd let you know.
  17. Selfishly, I kind of hope this isn't true. I hope nothing of the single player game has been compromised in order to crowbar multiplayer in. I say selfishly, because I know some people really really want multiplayer, but for me, I'll never use it.
  18. All the signs are that the marketing will kick up a notch fairly soon. The little hidden picture thing in the videos is complete, the little sequence at the end of the videos looks like it will be done when the next video is released. To me, that means that the pre-build up is done, and the marketing campaign for release will start. We just have to have a little more patience. Just a little bit. We've made it this far, another month or so shouldn't be too much. I honestly believe that's all it'll be. It's coming, and it's coming soon.
  19. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have terrain deformation. I'm not arguing against it being in the game, I just don't think that clip shows it. I think I've posted this somewhere else, but all of the colonisation stuff we've seen has had structures built around terrain, rather than terrain changed to accomodate structures. I know that's on a much larger scale than footprints or impact damage, but if the mechanics of deformation are there, I'd imagine they could be used for terraforming as well as footprints and impact damage.
  20. Yeah, I was wondering how to word it tbh. The terrain is the same as it always was, it's just coloured differently. It's got black marks on it, to try to show it's been burnt. But it's just a visual thing, there's no 'damage' as such.
  21. Is it the overhead shot you mean? The black lines? I think that's just a graphical effect to suggest 'charring' of the ground.
  22. Let's all play nice, eh? I think it's fair to say we could have an idea of how big KSP2 will be. We can reasonably expect it to be bigger than KSP1 for a start. We've seen that at the very least, there'll be one extra system to visit, so that would make it around twice as big as KSP1, in terms of available playing area. We've also seen some truley massive ships, so we can guess that part-wise it'll be bigger as well. Those two together mean that it'll have a lot more options in terms of playability than KSP1. It would be fair to think that we haven't seen everything that'll be in the game, there's likely to be more than one extra system, there will be more variation in the types of planets / mooons / systems... So yeah, I think it'd be fair to say KSP2 will be several multiples of the size of KSP1.
  23. It'll sound silly, but it was the April Fool's stuff. There's no way they post jokes if the game's in trouble, imo. They must be feeling at least vaguely confident about it.
  • Create New...