KSP Weekly: Longest Stay on the Moon

[klgraham1013]

...but it's Enhanced!  Of course saves will carry over.  Imagine if any other Super-Mega-Game of the Year edition couldn't use the base games saves.  People might get angry on the internet.  It's not like console players bought a beta or early access game.  Right, guys?  Right?

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

I've been thinking about this as well. If a creator is willing to put in the work, it sounds like you could do just about anything with these missions. If they really can be strung together, I think you'll be hearing a lot of "hey, you gotta try so-and-so's campaign; it's awesome". I'm really hoping it's true, cuz I'm already looking forward to it.

I too have given this some thought.  If you have some really ambitious and creative players out there, in theory (using what little we know so far about the mission builder), you could utilize a mixed media technique to deliver a story.

An example would be someone writing a Kerbal-verse story in the KSP Fan-Works section of the forum, with perhaps some carefully constructed and placed screenshots to add some visual context, and at the appropriate point in the story a hyperlink would allow the viewer to download a user mission.  That way the player could semi-participate in the story, like the "first Munar landing", or "conducting an emergency docking and rescue a crew from a falling space station", etc.  When the mission was completed, the player would return to the story and continue.

I've seen some of those Fan-Work stories where people construct entire rooms of stations or ships to conduct "Kerbal conversation" scenes.  So the Fan-Works section could fill in the storyline gaps between the flight scene portions of the story, which could be presented using Mission Builder.  Just some thoughts and a little preemptive speculation on my part. 

[Cheif Operations Director]

36 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

...but it's Enhanced!  Of course saves will carry over.  Imagine if any other Super-Mega-Game of the Year edition couldn't use the base games saves.  People might get angry on the internet.  It's not like console players bought a beta or early access game.  Right, guys?  Right?

Your mistaken it isn't happening it's a new game it's like Battlefront I and Battlefront II difference 

[Mako]

1 hour ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Your mistaken it isn't happening it's a new game it's like Battlefront I and Battlefront II difference 

First of all, the post you quoted is quite obviously written sarcastically and is poking fun at the new "Enhanced" title.

And second, that's not an accurate analogy. Those are two different products that each require a separate purchase to play. That is not anything like the situation with KSP.

I suspect the the main reason the re-release will be a separate product listing on the console marketplaces is because when it was originally launched it was owned by Squad, but now it's owned by Take-Two. Since re-launch is not a simple update but a full remake now owned by a different company it was probably easier to release it under a new listing. Despite it being a new listing with a whole new download, any owners of the current broken console versions will receive the re-launched version at no charge.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Mako

[Cheif Operations Director]

19 minutes ago, Mako said:

First of all, the post you quoted is quite obviously written sarcastically and is poking fun at the new "Enhanced" title.

And second, that's not an accurate analogy. Those are two different products that each require a separate purchase to play. That is not anything like the situation with KSP.

I suspect the the main reason the re-release will be a separate product listing on the console marketplaces is because when it was originally launched it was owned by Squad, but now it's owned by Take-Two. Since re-launch is not a simple update but a full remake now owned by a different company it was probably easier to release it under a new listing. Despite it being a new listing with a whole new download, any owners of the current broken console versions will receive the re-launched version at no charge.

It's a new listing it's confirmed as a free download, then don't make a new logo for an update only a new game. I didn't see it as sarcasm in hindsight I suppose your right

[Mako]

6 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

It's a new listing it's confirmed as a free download, then don't make a new logo for an update only a new game. I didn't see it as sarcasm in hindsight I suppose your right

Squad has given each recent major version update a fun name with a fun image/logo and none of those have been new games. Giving the console re-launch a name and a graphic doesn't make it a new game. It is an update, albeit one that had to start over from scratch after throwing away the entire base because it was unsalvageable.

1.0:

1.1: Turbo Charged

1.2: Loud and Clear

1.3: Away With Words

 

If a person wanted to be really cynical about the whole thing, they could claim that the reason Squad/Take-Two is putting it out under a new product listing is so that negative reviews of the broken version won't be attached to the update/re-release. You know, if a person wanted to be cynical.

[Vanamonde]

Hey guys, I do not know exactly what is happening here, but I personally would not rely on any game-related information that didn't come through official, public Squad channels. 

[Raptor9]

18 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Hey guys, I do not know exactly what is happening here, but I personally would not rely on any game-related information that didn't come through official, public Squad channels. 

Are you saying that I can't rely on my friend's cousin's girlfriend's co-worker's roommate for insider information??  </sarcasm> 

Reminds me of that scene from Ant-Man.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Raptor9

[Mako]

41 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Hey guys, I do not know exactly what is happening here, but I personally would not rely on any game-related information that didn't come through official, public Squad channels. 

I would, much more than just personally, advise everyone that that is the best way to go about things.

For clarity's sake: as for my activity in this thread if it isn't obvious in the posts themselves, I don't claim to have any official or unofficial news to share; my posts are generally just speculation in the absence of official information and most (perhaps all) people can and probably should disregard them. I really do tend to talk too much.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Mako

[Deddly]

16 hours ago, tater said:

It's about consistency, not the overall graphics quality.

 

15 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Kerbal now is not consistent and those old rockomax tanks are a prime example

 

15 hours ago, passinglurker said:

please stop trying to deflect and discredit us by trying to make it sound like this is about the old pc "moar gphx!" Stereotype

I do apologise if I have drawn the wrong conclusion, guys. So you mean that if everything was done in the style of the Rockomax decoupler, you would be happy? Fair enough, in that case I had completely misunderstood your point. It was not at all my intention to discredit anyone, nor was I taking sides - you might notice that I have not mentioned my opinion on this subject. Having said that, I believe I'm correct to say that, to some people, the graphics [consistency/quality] is important, but others don't care. I believe we can all agree on that, no?

But, Passinglurker, who are you referring to when you say "us"? Because many comments in this thread seem to be to indicate that people would love improved graphics, not simply consistent graphics:

Quote

I really enjoy building rockets that look "visually appealing"

 

Quote

how about working in those PBR shaders? Because the mods that use them sure look sweet!

 

Quote

It looks like it took five minutes to make. It's too uniform, too bland and sterile looking

 

Quote

I find it unfortunate that normal maps a great tool for increasing fidelity is just being used to mask completely sterile swaths of texture.

 

Quote

They are not complex objects, yet the stock 2.5m tanks, as the obvious example look terrible. Not "meh," it's like they were intentionally made ugly.

 

Quote

outdated graphics

 

Quote

only the most tediously contrary player could defend these jarringly outdated models.

 

Quote

Textile density is off, textures are wasteful and inefficient, etc...

 

12 hours ago, tater said:

Is there a single person who thinks the smallest three of the 2.5m tanks are anything but awful looking?

...

Not caring that they are ugly is not the same as not thinking they are ugly

 

These are examples of comments that led me to think that the quoted commenters would like better graphics. If I have appeared to discredit anyone, then please accept my apologies, it wasn't intentional.

[Capt Snuggler]

19 hours ago, Red Shirt said:

But I like big orange. I added a mod (Munar Industries) that gives me a shorter orange and some and coned orange tanks. To each his own.

That's fair. I have little problem with big orange though he could do with a bit of a clean up. I mostly take issue with the steam age cast iron grey boiler tanks.

[monstah]

 

12 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

So like I said it wasn't a super secret leak also if I "misunderstand" that would imply a SQUAD Member did reply to me.

Just to make this clear, what you're saying is that while you sent a message to a Squad member with a question, you've had no response?

[fourfa]

15 hours ago, tater said:

I don't care what they look like, either, because I don't use them any more.

Not caring that they are ugly is not the same as not thinking they are ugly. Are they ugly, or attractive?

Well since you seem interested, and this thread is pretty derailed...

There is a certain something about the stock aesthetic that I like, and that includes the cast iron boilers.  I have also used Ven's etc, and I like those too.  Honestly I don't understand having strong opinions on the subject at all, but that's (apparently) just me.  I'm here for the creative engineering challenge and the feeling of accomplishment from working hard at a difficult task and learning a lot along the way.  I am utterly unaffected by what the parts look like while doing it.

Really not looking to argue about it though; I have ample evidence that many people care deeply and that's fine too

Edited December 13, 2017 by fourfa

[Cheif Operations Director]

7 hours ago, Mako said:

Squad has given each recent major version update a fun name with a fun image/logo and none of those have been new games. Giving the console re-launch a name and a graphic doesn't make it a new game. It is an update, albeit one that had to start over from scratch after throwing away the entire base because it was unsalvageable.

1.0:

1.1: Turbo Charged

1.2: Loud and Clear

1.3: Away With Words

 

If a person wanted to be really cynical about the whole thing, they could claim that the reason Squad/Take-Two is putting it out under a new product listing is so that negative reviews of the broken version won't be attached to the update/re-release. You know, if a person wanted to be cynical.

Ok so we are getting Xbox 1.2. loud and clear and just. Game name change to Kerbal enhanced edition for no reason?

We're already getting that fun name it's loud and clear so why call it enhanced edition if it's not a new game?

1 hour ago, monstah said:

 

Just to make this clear, what you're saying is that while you sent a message to a Squad member with a question, you've had no response?

I got a response From one of Them

Are we ever going to get parts with a diameter of 25 feet and 15 feet?

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

Hey, @Raptor9, was it your friend's cousin's girlfriend's coworker's roommate who recommended watching Ant-Man? If so, I'd cut ties. 

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, fourfa said:

I'm here for the creative engineering challenge and the feeling of accomplishment from working hard at a difficult task and learning a lot along the way.  I am utterly unaffected by what the parts look like while doing it.

..but what if you could have both interesting gameplay...and nice art...all in one game.

I mean, the "graphics don't matter" crowd can't honestly say that if two identical games were released, except one had poor art and one had attractive art (to them), that they wouldn't choose the version with attractive art.  They would just flip a coin and be cool with the outcome.

My main issue with the whole argument is it somehow comes down to graphics vs gameplay.  When, the truth is, everything matters.  Gameplay, art, sound, story.  Every piece of every game, movie, etc. contributes to the whole.  To say one doesn't matter is disingenuous.

[tater]

4 hours ago, Deddly said:

I do apologise if I have drawn the wrong conclusion, guys. So you mean that if everything was done in the style of the Rockomax decoupler, you would be happy? Fair enough, in that case I had completely misunderstood your point.

Yes, then it would be consistently ugly, but they could claim ugly was the style they were going for. Since they don't think ugly spaceplanes are OK, why are ugly rockets OK, exactly?

 

4 hours ago, Deddly said:

These are examples of comments that led me to think that the quoted commenters would like better graphics. If I have appeared to discredit anyone, then please accept my apologies, it wasn't intentional.

The spaceplane parts were added more recently than the crappy rocket parts. The new screenshots show that the parts are nice looking. Clearly their goal is "not ugly," therefore. So fix the old, ugly parts. The problem in THIS thread is that while they clearly don't want "ugly," they feel the need to make the new parts somehow match the older parts, and the old rocket parts are UGLY. If the goal had been to match the spaceplane parts exclusively, we'd be seeing even nicer new parts.

[sh1pman]

23 minutes ago, tater said:

Yes, then it would be consistently ugly, but they could claim ugly was the style they were going for. Since they don't think ugly spaceplanes are OK, why are ugly rockets OK, exactly?

 

The spaceplane parts were added more recently than the crappy rocket parts. The new screenshots show that the parts are nice looking. Clearly their goal is "not ugly," therefore. So fix the old, ugly parts. The problem in THIS thread is that while they clearly don't want "ugly," they feel the need to make the new parts somehow match the older parts, and the old rocket parts are UGLY. If the goal had been to match the spaceplane parts exclusively, we'd be seeing even nicer new parts.

Maybe they want spaceplanes and rockets to have different styles? 

[tater]

Just now, sh1pman said:

Maybe they want spaceplanes and rockets to have different styles? 

Clearly. Rockets are ugly, spaceplanes are not. Because reasons.

[sh1pman]

Just now, tater said:

Clearly. Rockets are ugly, spaceplanes are not. Because reasons.

That's what I'm getting from it. Making new rocket parts consistent with old ugly ones. Consistency isn't always good.

[Deddly]

35 minutes ago, tater said:

Clearly their goal is "not ugly," therefore. So fix the old, ugly parts.

I have no argument against that. But it also seems like you might be concerned about something that is already being worked on. From the OP of this thread:

Quote

The art team...dived into the current part inventory and found ways to revamp some of them... Remember our FL-R25 RCS Fuel Tank? We, this is one of the parts that has been given a fresh new look.

 

[passinglurker]

8 hours ago, Deddly said:

So you mean that if everything was done in the style of the Rockomax decoupler, you would be happy?

If the rockomax decoupler was the pinnacle of kerbal aesthetic and everything was styled to look good along with it then yes I would be happy.

So at present pj's work sets the standard having the highest number of well made parts in the game so it's only natural to want all the other assets to follow suit with in reason. I'm not saying everything needs be sleek aerodynamic, and light grey, but pj's work adheres to a certain self imposed rules of quality and detail that should either be respected or surpassed (respect being obviously being the easier of the two options)

As for who "us" is. Comments about post processing effects were a long ways back in the thread and I consider arguments that want clouds, blur, and bloom, etc... To be completely separate from arguments about rocket part consistency. So when you posted your comment after a string of recent criticism about the state of the rocket parts I believed you were directing this solely at the rocket part consistency critics and not at the graphics advocates and consistency critics combined, and still I would appreciate it if you did not lump us in with agurments about bloom, and clouds it's a completely different issue.

[Mako]

5 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Ok so we are getting Xbox 1.2. loud and clear and just. Game name change to Kerbal enhanced edition for no reason?

We're already getting that fun name it's loud and clear so why call it enhanced edition if it's not a new game?

It's been very clear for a long time that the new console version is just 1.2.2 rebuilt from scratch and with whatever improvements Blitworks has been able to make. As far as I'm aware, some improvements have been made to graphics and controls. I fail to see how that would be considered a new game.

As to why it would be listed separately in the marketplaces, that's already been discussed in this thread so feel free to look back for details. It's all speculation of course, but to summarize it's legal reasons (new owner of the software) and marketing.

And lastly, and I just pointed out in my last post that you quoted, Squad has a history of giving updates fun names and logos. By your logic each new update to the PC versions would be considered new games. This is not the case, and frankly I'm not sure what your point is anymore.

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 hours ago, Mako said:

It's been very clear for a long time that the new console version is just 1.2.2 rebuilt from scratch and with whatever improvements Blitworks has been able to make. As far as I'm aware, some improvements have been made to graphics and controls. I fail to see how that would be considered a new game.

As to why it would be listed separately in the marketplaces, that's already been discussed in this thread so feel free to look back for details. It's all speculation of course, but to summarize it's legal reasons (new owner of the software) and marketing.

And lastly, and I just pointed out in my last post that you quoted, Squad has a history of giving updates fun names and logos. By your logic each new update to the PC versions would be considered new games. This is not the case, and frankly I'm not sure what your point is anymore.

Ahh I mean New download like Minecraft better together nad Minecraft Xbox one edition. So it is pretty much a new game, mojang called better together a update too 

[Mako]

35 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Ahh I mean New download like Minecraft better together nad Minecraft Xbox one edition. So it is pretty much a new game, mojang called better together a update too 

If you're getting hung up on what it's called: don't. What it's called is arbitrary. Call it an update, call it a new game, call it a pineapple; it doesn't change what it is.

What it is is a re-release of the console port that features a working, updated version with some improvements and requires a new full download because it was completely rebuilt from scratch. Anything else said about it is business and marketing stuff that doesn't change what is being delivered by the end of January (if they hit their deadline).