Jump to content

PDCWolf

Members
  • Posts

    1,551
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PDCWolf

  1. Graphics are probably one of the biggest elephants in the room right now. The game doesn't look "2023" in any aspect, and much less do the hardware requirements feel justified by graphical prowess. Whilst one can like the cartoony plastickyness, the game just falls short on impresiveness except for a singular situation, which is terrain from orbit. Even then, when the game looks its absolute best, it is still easily surpassed by mods on the first, and by any of its contemporaries. I still don't think it'd be worth $50 if it looked anything like that as the game is now. I simply wouldn't pay $50 for a graphics remaster, of any game.
  2. You might find this thread interesting, as it pertains to the same stuff you're postulating here.
  3. I voted No on all 3: For the first one, I don't think camera artifacts correctly communicate the stuff they should. Based on KSP1, you'll still be using the same probe cores near the beginning and at the end of the tech tree, so unless there's a clear visual evolution of the probe cores communicated, there's no way to tell the player that camera tech got better unless you specifically go out of your way to do so. As for the second, it's been said before that the point of map view is to be a tool, and that (back in KSP1) they didn't want players flying the ship entirely on map view. I agree with this. Flying with hull-cameras only requires a lot of work regarding orientation of those to be useful, way beyond the abilities of a new player. Even if you did that work for them automagically, flying first person can be a bit overwhelming and creates a lot of failure points for the entire experience (part of why airlines have control surface status displays on the cockpit, among a lot of other instruments, for example). It also makes extremely hard to communicate bad design choices and their consequences to the player. As for telescopes... I don't think it adds much. Telescope gameplay was never interesting to me in the prequel, don't see that changing.
  4. God, it's incredible how not a single word in that blog post aged well.
  5. I'd like to believe making such a public statement, officially the first signal of acknowledgement of the state of the game, is big enough to be part of such a meeting. I don't think it was the only thing discussed there, but I do think it's part of what came out of it. It's also the only meeting they've ever communicated publicly. Both those terms, "white knights" and "haters", not only are gross generalizations, but also pretty toxic to use methinks. Things are not as black and white, nor are people defending or criticizing KSP2 without reason, or doing just one of the two.
  6. The relationship I draw is entirely based on timing of the announcement of the meeting, and the "apology" coming right after the meeting.
  7. I think you only got one comment related to the game, so here's my attempt at summarizing: The early two weeks of august there was a moderately big outrage when Dakota insulted the Reddit community. This sent them into a "company wide IG/PD meeting". They posted a half apology blaming the players for having expectations. This message included an announcement that 0.1.4 launched in two weeks (25 aug) 8/11 was the last "automated" "every two weeks" K.E.R.B. post. 8/18 a delay was announced, 0.1.4 was pushed back because of a performance destroying bug. They confirm 0.1.4 is just fixes, no new parts or mechanics. Announce "big news" for next week. 8/25 they failed to post K.E.R.B. the big news was the Nertea AMA, which was very extensive but didn't really answer anything useful. You are here.
  8. [Snip] Professional developers should know that announcing a product to the public is not always related to the start of development, that's why I sourced claims that clearly put the start of development in 2017. How would they show gameplay on a trailer when they're supposedly just beginning work on it... yeah, 2+2. Are you now saying that those 3 to 5 indie dudes working on a game for the first time had a smoother road? [Snip] Which makes a total of 3 years of work. This is another can of worms that anyone with the smallest sense of what they imply would avoid: Did the biggest, most experienced publisher in gaming give Star Theory a date knowing there was no game? Did Star Theory lie about the state of the product to T2 prompting the "short" date? Did they throw the entire progress away and start from scratch? You got those quotes attributed backwards, very confusing.
  9. [Snip] 3 years at least, as per the sources. So, a group of about 15 people with an already existing base to look at and lift stuff from should totally work faster than 3 to 5 independent devs, most of which were working on games for the first time. Glad we agree.
  10. [Snip] Well then, it turns out it's great for the customer to have managers put such babble into real measurements. Now riddle me this: If hiring more people doesn't make progress faster, why not stick to small teams? I'm sure there's a tradeoff somewhere where hiring more people to work on the same thing or different aspects of it actually produces results, otherwise we'd all be one man bands.
  11. [Snip] KSP1s first public version was 0.7.3, which you can still download for free (direct download so don't click if you don't want it). KSP1 entered public Early Access the 24th of June 2011 and yes, it was very basic, making all the progress of those 3 years look even more amazing, specially when compared to the sequel's progress. Sadly, time is the only non abstract concept that can be experimented by customers, and it follows a very basic principle that, until a certain point, more people working with more resources behind them should, by all means, equal faster progress. You're trying to sell people the notion that KSP2 is taking more effort because of reasons, when they already have an extensive base of knowledge from a successful product that mostly works (and it's confirmed they lifted systems off the first game) and have 10 times the team and financial resources (Nate confirmed development until 1.0 already funded). No one is gonna buy that the "wider scope" (of systems they apparently haven't even designed yet) is holding progress down.
  12. You have literally no information or official source to make that judgement. We also do know that the game was 3 years in development by that point [1][2]. For comparison, KSP1 had its first prototype back in 2010 [Source]. This already invalidates most of your wild source-less speculation. If something happened to the game that was there in 2019, and is not the same one we have now, we haven't been told and, by quotable sources the only real thing we can say is KSP2 has been worked on for six years to date. Now if you wanna do comparisons... KSP1 in 3 years had gone from a flat plane and 2.5d rocket to what you could find in 0.18.3. It had tutorials, the full solar system, scenario system, docking, maneuver nodes, automatic fairings/interstages, action groups, science parts, a complete redesign of most parts, probes for the first time, resource flow system for the whole ship, electricity, lights, the jet engine rework, and the first round of PQS overhauls. In 3 years, KSP2 went from a full game developed by Star Theory set to launch in 2020 to... not existing. In 6 years, KSP1 reached 1.2, full game done and post 1.0 updates. Meanwhile KSP2 today... barely reached feature parity with 0.18.3
  13. There's a clear divide between having hopes and dreams for the game, and telling people to trust marketing statements when they've been clearly proven to be untrustable and then getting mad at people for bringing the examples up. It feels like what some people want is for certain stuff to be ignored, or plainly not brought up at all, and when someone does, they're the one "spamming every thread with the same argument in bad faith". How is literally quoting marketing statements that haven't been fulfilled bad faith? Or, even better, how is telling people to believe those same statements when the majority of them aren't true not bad faith? The best example is the recent Microtransactions thing. Yeah, the text is very clear, "no microtransactions", but that text comes from the same people that told us a collection of "borderline" (as some like to grade them) lies before. It's no wonder a group of people is no longer up to take any past or future statement entirely at face value.
  14. I mean we've gone from being the most welcoming community ever here and on Reddit to thAt's nOt thE tExtUAL qUOtE when trying to deflect yet another criticism. We're way past ignoring the literal lie that the game was ready to release as a full product. A clear lie that they repeated 3 times. Like there's not even an argument anymore, the only thing is "wahh spam argument", when it's always the same types inciting the reply by trying to pass misinformation or their own hopes and dreams as reality.
  15. It'll become both more and less unstable as time goes on. Everything breaks frequently anyways. It's a lot of work now? Imagine the work it's going to be when it's completed, to the point where it looks like a huge one-off task nobody wants to go through instead of a small update or two every 6+ months. It'll end up just like KSP1s API documentation: non-existent. I dare them to develop the game slower. Speed stopped being a concern to anyone about 3 months ago, they're factually, comparatively, universally and by every metric, painfully slow, so that excuse and ship has sailed.
  16. Feature series EP5. "We want your vessels to perform roughly how you'd expect based on your experiences from KSP1" "Under the hood we're making numerous improvements to that experience to make it more performant, more robust, and allow for the scale and scope of vessels that we have here, and allow them to be built without the Kraken getting you. We're killing the kraken- that's a hell of a claim to make, you can edit it out... Our ultimate goal is to slay the kraken [...]" I'm falling more and more in love with how the only arguments are becoming straight up semantics. The game, its advertising, marketing, and communications about it have become so undefendable that we're looking at verb tenses, expressions made when the thing was said, and in some cases straight up hoping people don't remember what was said at all OR, even better, saying it's all water under the bridge. It's such an experience, honestly.
  17. The 2 "unofficial" subreddits all were born of trying to allow only positive content, and they're all promptly dead. The one true subreddit, r/kerbalspaceprogram has gotten sick of the game to the point discussion of it is chased away, because every thread becomes work for the mods, with every user throwing snipes or outright insults at the devs/pub/cm for what is perceived to be continuous borderline lying. Add to that the recent debacle where Dakota insulted Reddit and yeah, they're not gonna be happy to see him. In 4chan, the KSP general has been dead for at least 4 years, since SQUAD/Star Theory failed to keep up their promises regarding KSP1. There was one or two generals about KSP2 but they were so dead nobody even bothers anymore. Steam... yeah, I'd say avoid that, as it's even somehow worse than reddit. The only places where you can read any sort of clearly, majoritarian positive outlook on KSP2 is the Discord and maybe Twitter depending on what is posted. Even this same forum has had a clear degradation in positivity as belief is stretched thin with every single thing they do wrong or fail to do.
  18. It's much more than that. Take a tour of anywhere that isn't the forums, or much less the Discord, and you'll have a good idea of what the public opinion is.
  19. This but for people who post here. Honestly it feels more like "you're arguing in bad faith" is the new "I have nothing to say but I still want to disagree". Subjectively, the art style is deplorable. Everything from Kerbals to rocket engines looks overly plasticky, with blinding levels of bloom. The clouds look disjointed as hell from every system, even lighting, as they're just fullbright white puffs. The only thing that's, subjectively, better is rocket exhaust effects, yet they decided for some reason that they'd give them the wrong shape. It is obvious they're going for cartoony, and even toy-like, but they've overstepped a bit into BabyTV territory, with overly saturated colors and parts that lack any sort of detailing or layering and only have broad, long color lines. In some planets, their color choices are not even questionable, just outright wrong, and I'm sure to be promptly proven right by recolor, remodel and just outright graphical remaster mods coming in. For me, the game just plain and simply looks bad, and thus performance problems are even more unjustified. Now objectively, yet limited by my own judgement and knowledge. PQS+ from space looks great, but it's being overdriven, and deciding to keep the old system is shooting their own foot. PQS already had problems (still has) in KSP1, where you lose performance when going from high to low orbits (or just going fast and low), specially on atmosphere-less bodies where you can really get close to terrain, and it seems they pushed the detail further without even looking at those problems which have plagued KSP1 ever since they left the old proc-terrain system behind. As of now in KSP2, terrain from orbit looks stellar, but anything closer and it looks bad. Not bad as in "I don't like it", but bad as in clearly outdated in terrain technology when compared to literally anything else that's from around the same age. Lighting has a lot of potential, even more so if they actually switch to HDRP. However, if they actually plan to fulfill their statement of bringing requirements down, HDRP might not be the way to go, as it has higher base hardware requirements, which can sour whatever performance headroom they're able to produce. On the other hand, lighting is still severely limited, and doesn't look good in the game when you add the well known overly reflective planetary surfaces, and what seems to be a jarring job at color grading and light balancing. I seriously hope they're not banking on HDR magically fixing their technical problems and/or bad decisions regarding visual design.
  20. Well, that's funny considering the following: He said "or so" btw so we're completely fine. We just expected too much.
  21. I've been publicly slandered and defamed on the discord, for sure, that doesn't mean I'm in it.
  22. You forgot the part where they mention a lot of stuff but we're not supposed to believe them because nothing is a promise, and even then they still fail to live up to anything they say. Credibility isn't black and white, there's levels to it, but they certainly have been actively working to degrade it further and further. Once again, part of the community doesn't believe there's a middle ground between having the magic ball and making 100% accurate, compromised promises and shotgunning statements all over the place that you consistently fail to fulfill.
  23. The discord thing only shows Mike saying no news, can you post the rest? since they clearly can't be bothered.
  24. New bug status should come out today... supposedly. Lack of communication at this point is nothing but lack of professionalism.
  25. And we go back to the circles: You expect people to believe that from the same guys that stated re-entry heating was gonna be in on release, and then "shortly after", plus all of the already sourced claims they failed to fulfill. Good thing we're not supposed to take anything they say at face value since those are not promises, right? Can't have the cake and eat it. Either their words are trustable, or they aren't. So far, facts have more often than not failed to align with anything they say. This is the last bug status report. Of course it doesn't mean that any of those bugs are gonna make it, since compromise is always assumed to be 0.
×
×
  • Create New...