Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


2,519 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

4,190 profile views
  1. Having realistic expectations and wanting the game to be true to its design pillars it's not negativity. A lot of those "nays" you're listing are things that are good as mods but would change the identity of the game to something that isn't KSP. And no, it's not expecting someone to "fix" the game for free, KSP doesn't need to be "fixed" by (example) adding weapons and shift the gameplay towards conflict. That's not a fix it's a radical change in the game's nature and gameplay, not just a thing "you can disable if you don't want it" as it affects the balance of all gameplay systems surrounding it. The same goes for a ton of other arguments, autopilots, light delay, random failures, active weather, the game being an MMO, they are not "missing features" but element of gameplay that can fit (or not) a specific design vision. The game not having those features is not a problem to fix, but a specific design decision. Just like they decided to ignore interstellar debris when they worked on the interstellar ship design. It's not a missing feature but a conscious decision. As for setting unrealistical expectations, that's what creates a "Cyberpunk" situation, even more than the actual state of the game at launch. With Cyberpunk it got to the point of having actual Devs being ignored on the official Reddit when they tried to correct mistranslations and the over inflation of every bit of info and those same things then populating the "broken promises" viral videos after launch (that's what happened with the "every citizen has a daily routine" thing) .
  2. It's not a difficulty thing but rather a fundental change in the design pillars of the game. Without an autopilot would turn KSP into Zachtronics like programming game, with an autopilot would turn most of the difficulty away, replacing the player with the autopilot in most situations. You're changing the POV of the entire game, from the player being the craft to the player being a guy sitting in mission control. We can then argue if we want it or not, but it's not "just a difficulty setting" it's a fundamental change in the identity of the game.
  3. I want programming in KSP2, even visual if it's needed, but lightspeed delay would be an instant refund for me. It's not fun, in any way or form. Leave the craft without an antenna and the result it's exactly the same. Or implement your own version of signal delay into the probe's programming, it wouldn't be the hardest part of pre-programming a whole space mission at all. Back in topic, this: The position of planet and moons should be the same regardless of the difficulty settings. Let's also remember that with colonies being able to launch their own rockets It will be quite easy to set up different starts other than Kerbin if you want a different set of challenges for the beginning of your space program. I'd love to have a "stranded colony" option when you begin a new game that allows the player to start with a self-sufficient colony set up on a planet or moon of your choice.
  4. My reply it's probably granted since I've written it a dozen of times in different threads over the months, but since this is the topic dedicated to this discussion I'll write it here too. All your premises considered I still say: mainly a "building and flying" game, one that is very laser focused on that when considering every other feature and its implementation. That doesn't mean that other system have to be simple, or basic, just that most problems should have a new rocket to design and fly somewhere as the solution, and most gameplay loops should revolve around being able to design or fly the right craft for the challenge. Example: Resource extraction and management? Having more resources spread all over the place forcing the player to build several mining outposts and cargo transport landers is a better idea than having 15 production steps with different ratios, converters, factories and byproducts between extracting a metal and building a rocket tank with it. Prospecting and mapping? Not a system that requires 15 different antennas on your satellites but one that requires 5 or 6 different satellites on different orbits. And so on.
  5. If you don't consider the game as a whole when making those comparisons you only end up setting yourself up for disappointment. No matter how good of a game it will be, the flight model in Starfield won't be as good as any of the simulators or other piloting dedicated games out there, and there's no problem with that. When you pick up FS2020, a game that used its entire budget on making the planet and atmosphere look as realistic as possible (a budget backed by one of the biggest tech companies, Microsoft), and set that as what you expect or want from KSP2 you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
  6. I tried FS2020 on the gamepass, 3 days of download for 30 minutes of play, then I got back to VTOL VR, I choose gameplay over pretty graphics. So nope, I wouldn't want that graphics or that plane in KSP, not if it stand in the way of good gameplay. FS has only one planet to deal with, if I just wanted a plane simulator I wouldn't choose KSP2 for that. Once again you're making a comparison between a game that has a few fixed models of planes and a single planet to fly them in with a game that gives you hundreds of parts to put together in whatever combination you want, to build your own planes and fly them wherever you want in a map that has several solar systems in it and more than a few different atmosphere/gravity combinations to build planes for.
  7. Kerbin should have cities and nations capable of supporting a space program, and instead is populated by a bunch of old buildings, and few other Easter eggs. The focus of development is already away from Kerbin in KSP1. That doesn't mean at all that the Devs should ignore Kerbin, just that working on it has a smaller impact than spending the same amount of time working on a destination planet or moon. An hour spent by an artist manually editing the cliff of a crater on Mun or Duna to make it more interesting or challenging to explore is likely going to be more inpactuful than several hours spent on making the grass on Kerbin follow the wind or making a wet terrain texture for when it rains. We saw a small decorative shower of sparks when connecting parts in the VAB, spending time in making that small cosmetic detail follow the gravity of the planet the VAB you're using is sitting on is going to have a bigger impact than realistic grass, waves or explorable details on Kerbin. But this is a tangent of a tangent of a tangent, back in topic and to the original argument, the point is not "they should ignore Kerbin" but "they are going to focus their attention where the gameplay is". For KSP that means managing an entire space program and spacefaring civilization later by building and flying around ships, and occasionally do so e EVAs. For Starfield it means following the personal story of a single character you create and his quests, and fights, which occasionally involves flying or building ships. Both a car and a house have doors and windows, but the difference between the two objects makes any direct comparison kinda pointless. The fact that my house keys doesn't make the house make a sound to find it in case i misplaced it like my car key fob does it's kinda obvious and quite useless as a comparison.
  8. No, because it's a space game focused on exploring other worlds. I love planes too, but still, KSP is a game about going to space, overall you'll always have more people walking around the moon than you have walking around Kerbin, so the focus of interesting activities to do while exploring on foot is going to be put on those far away places to explore, not on the starting planet.
  9. Or on a mun colony, or from a Laythe orbital city, or from a outpost and shipyard near Eloo. And, even if all of those weren't an option how many players spend more time doing EVAs on Kerbin compared to other planets? Even if every mission leave from Kerbin you don't usually walk to the rocket.
  10. We've barely seen kerbin and those views were from very early into the development process, but even if that was the final asset ([almost] no point in making placeholder assets for other systems planets and moons but you need to have at least Kerbin and mun very early if you want to do any testing whatsoever) I'd argue that most palyer are not going to spend much time landing on Kerbin. Yes, you can play the game however you want, but it's a space game about building rockets to go to other planets (and colonize them), I personally wouldn't put the focus on making Kerbin intresting. At the same time being the first destinations and probably the biggest target of repeated missions from player I would put more effort on Mun and Minmus (and maybe Duna as well). My point is about focusing the effort where the players will spend their time. Players are going to spend more time in the VAB alone in KSP2 than they will spend in both the shipbuilding interface and flying combined in Starfield, and, at the same time, they will spend less time walking around in KSP2 than they will flying around in space in Starfield. It's obvious the focus is going to be different. 80% of Starfield gameplay is going to be walking around and fighting things, and it's developed by a studio that has decades of experience in refining a specific type of gameplay and in making intresting maps to cover on foot, in a sci-fi setting that allows for aliens, space pirates, warring factions and all sort of things you can spread around on planets to make them more interesting. In Starfield the veichles are the exotic feature, in Kerbal on foot EVAs are. Making comparisons is just purposefully setting ourself up to be disappointed of both games. Not going to enter the minefield that defining what even is an RPG is. The definition is solely based on how much the angry gamer crowd hates a particular game. There are RPGs with no character creation, RPGs with no choices in how the story goes, RPGs with only a fixed weapon, RPGs without an open world map. Whatever your parameter for defining an RPG is there will be one or ten examples of beloved "RPGs" that don't meet those parameters. Is considered an RPG only because of its fantasy setting, put it into an urban environment, even add all of those core RPG gameplay features that it doesn't have and... Well... Cyberpunk is not considered an RPG. Discussion is not meaningless, comparing secondary features of a game with a game solely focusing on a similar feature is. We can stay here all day saying that GTA flying mechanics are worse than the last flight simulator 2020 ones, but stating the obvious is objectively meaningless. Even worse, nonsensical comparisons shift the discussion toward equally nonsensical requests, in KSP2 case we've already seen the effects in how popular the idea of a procedural galaxy is. A procedural galaxy, in a game in which it takes hours to go to the nearest moon if you already know what you're doing and weeks of playing to learn how to go interplanetary. And that only because other "space games" (another very loosely defined genre) have done it, completely disregarding KSP scope and gameplay style.
  11. You're asking for GTA-like gameplay in Cities: Skylines, for Halo-like gameplay in Stellaris. I play KSP to build and fly spacecrafts and manage a space program of epic proportions, I love messing around with my friends while trying to collectively drive a wonky craft, but to do that we play Sea of Thieves (and Guns of Icarus before that).
  12. We've already seen many planet sneak peaks and we know they're going to be way better than KSP1. KSP1 is the baseline, you can't get much worse than that unless you remove science as a thing altogether. Same goes for resource gathering and producing fuel and stuff, 1 "ore" and 1 irsu module is a s basic as you can get, and we already know KSP2 will expand on that. Difference in size, budget and studios involved accounted for the amount of attention Starfield is going to put in the planetside activities is probably the reason the flight model is going to be barebones, we already know there won't be a seamless transition from space to the surface, for example. And the official reason for that is that the amount of time and resources required by such a feature was not worth for the role that flying has in the game. KSP2 on the other hand is going to focus hard on the building the craft and traveling phases. With a whole lot of RPG elements more. Compared to Cyberpunk no GTA game has a story or a combat system worth mentioning. ... Because of the lack of guns, cars and urban environments. Fantasy games gets a free RPG pass. When you add those elements then the comparisons start. No, it's not, it's just meaningless. You can say that in Cyberpunk you can't talk with everyone and most people are just lifeless puppets while in previousa RPGs you could talk with everyone and everyone would have something to say. It's true, but it's meaningless, if you keep in mind that in Cyberpunk you have hundreds of people on screen at the same time while in Skyrim the whole population of the capital is a few dozen people, guards included. Same will go for any comparison between KSP2 and Starfield. The first is a space travel and veichle game that in the sequel will have a bit more ground activities, the second is a RPG from a Studio that only previously had horses as veichles dipping their foot in space travel for the first time, there will be a bit of overlap between the games, but they are focusing on opposite sides of their gameplay systems, every conclusion you can get from the comparisons is just obvious from the get go.
  13. Planetary surfaces an map-making are not the thing I was thinking about, that's pretty comparable if we keep just to the map side of things, if you instead start to get down on what we can do once we are landed then it all stop making sense, in KSP is a matter of biomes, resources and scientific experiments, Starfield will probably be more a matter of bases, dungeons, random encounters and, yes, probably a small portion of exploring and resource gathering. But that's not what I'm talking about, what I'm talking about are comparisons like your last example: This, is my point, you can't. Or rather, yes, you can compare the two, GTA 3 has a better crowd reaction system (with 1/10 of the crowd) and a better police system, but it sucks compared to Cyberpunk at combat, quest design (all GTA are basically glorified mafia taxi driver simulators), shooting gameplay, storywriting (again, all GTA games feel like they are written by an edgy 13 years old kid), map design (have you seen Night City?). We can demolish all games if we pick one feature at a time and compare it with a game dedicated to that single feature. GTA 5? Have you compared its shooting with CS:GO? Its story with [insert here your favorite RPG]? Its driving with any GT game? Its flying with X Plane? Sandbox and RPG games are the easiest to demolish this way, since it's their nature to have a bunch of options that are usually not there in dedicated games, pick combat as an example, there's always, always that guy that start a rage on how much the shooting sucks in [insert here hated RPG of the year]. Completely disregarding the fact that, in an RPG, you can choose to go stealth, melee, ranged, with bow and arrow or with a power armor. It's quite natural that none of those options are going to be as good as a game explicitly dedicated to a single one of them. For Starfield we're going to see a bunch of comparisons with the likes of NMS and Elite, and I bet that all of those comparisons are going to forget that in Elite and NMS you don't have an entire TES/Fallout worth of RPG to play with. They won't consider that its not designed as a Space game but as an RPG with some space game features tackled on as a side dish. I don't want to make it sound like I hate the GTA saga, it's one of the funniest OW sandbox games and I've spent way more hours than I care to admit doing stunts and messing around, but the game ends there, yes, the police systems of GTA3 are better than those of Cyberpunk2077, and they'd better be, since they're basically the only worthwhile element of gameplay in the whole saga.
  14. There's a reason such comparisons doesn't make sense in the first place: The games are from different genres. It's useless to compare features from different games in different genres, and it's usually a perfect recipe to over-hype and then over-criticize games. KSP is mainly a build-and-fly vehicle sim, with a side dish of a bit of management, resource mining and base-building. Its resource and manufacturing elements are going to be simpler and more basic than games like Factorio or DSP, its base building is going to be simpler and more basic than games like Astroneer or Space Engineers and its colony management side is going to be way simpler than Oxygen Not Included or Surviving Mars. Just like the rocketry in all those games is not up to par with even the earliest playable alpha of KSP.
  15. NMS plus a full Skyrim worth of RPG into it. Even at its worst (random encounters and radiant quests in Skyrim and babysitting settlements in FO4) Beth quests and stories are better than the best of what "traditional space games" like NMS, Elite or X4 can offer.
  • Create New...