Forget the hype: in a bubble, the KSP 2 cinematic is one of the best game trailers in half a decade

[Concodroid]

3 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

My problem is that this attitude seems to bring out a crows which tends to resist introducing things into the game that actually try to teach you something, because it makes it less "Kerbal".

That is a valid argument, however, remember the game we're talking about here. Apart from the likes of EVE Online and stuff this game has the hardest learning curve. Once those people actually tried the new model and etc they quieted down. This isn't an easy game, not by a long shot, and yet people still play it because of the explosions.

I joined because of the explosions (or partly because of them) and I stayed for the lithobraking.

 

That's the story of many people here.

 

People don't just play for the explosions. 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Concodroid

[steuben]

A bad trailer just shows "blow the money" scenes.
A good trailer sells the story or the 'verse. 
A great trailer sells the story and the 'verse.
An epic trailer sells the story and the 'verse, with the right amount of "blow the money" scenes.

It does sell the 'verse. It touches a bit on the story. Which makes it a really good trailer, or a lesser great trailer. 

As for the kerbal-ish aspects versus serious... you can do both. I play the game fairly kerbally. But, when I write the fan-fics it's fairly serious. 

 

[TheFrizz]

I think the lolsokerbal thing has a bit of nuance to it. As an anecdote, I found out a friend played KSP and invited him over to fly a mission together. I basically found out that he only really blew things up and kind of had the attitude of "when do we crash this thing?" and he kind of assumed that all I did was blow stuff up as well. I kind of feel like he was robbing himself of so much of the game with this attitude.

I definitely think the idea of KSP being about failure isn't quite correct. An important piece of KSP is taking the sting out of failure so that players don't get discouraged by it and are motivated to press on towards success. But ultimately the game is about success in space. Most games would guarantee success by balancing the game until the progression was easy and straightforward enough for all players to succeed. KSP doesn't do that because it wants to be bounded by physics. So the conundrum is, if the game isn't easy enough for players to readily succeed how does it still stay fun? And the answer is definitely in making the failures more entertaining and less painful. Which is an important aspect to the game. But that should not be confused with failure somehow being the point of the game.

I think the trailer would have been better without the collapsing colony at the end. I think better would have been perhaps a botched landing where the rocket maybe tips off the landing legs and is saved by fast thinking opening of a large hatch door that swings down and acts as the 3rd leg for the rocket to come to rest sideways. Probably the devs wanted to show the colonies as being a part of the dynamic scene as opposed to a static construct because it shows off a large and difficult aspect of the game they have been building. But to me it was too repetitive of the previous gaff.

I think there are many aspects to the lolsokerbal mindset that are not detrimental to the game (or the community):

• The kind of moar boosters, making large overbuilt rockets because $$$ isn't really limited in KSP like it is in the real world
• The unrealistically easy engineering aspects like fuel lines allowing asparagus staging.
• That kerbals live forever allowing some mistakes to result in unexpectedly fun rescue missions when disaster strikes (be it Kraken, glitch or human error)
• The wobbly rockets when players neglect fairings or make a rocket with too much fineness. This is much more fun way to receive feedback than a popup message letting the user know that they've exceeded the height limit of their fuel tank or whatever.
• The fun, cutesy, part names. SpaceX is building their next generation rocket prototypes out in the open in a field. I think, in a small way, this dovetails in.
• The risk level Kerbals are willing to take. It's important to realize that the number of failures encountered in KSP reflects the player and kerbals diving into a "learn while flying" mindset, which is something that is at odds with the classic adage of "Failure is not an option". The game being structured to allow for failure I think positions players well to appreciate the tradeoff of accepting some level of risk for increased rate of flight.

But I think that there's this idea that KSP is more or less angry birds, a physics simulator for disasters that sets people up to miss out on most of the best parts of the game.

Now, did the trailer make KSP seem like Angry Birds with rocket parts? No. Instead I feel like the "lolsokerbal" bits of the trailer were kind of an apology of sorts acknowledging that this is a super brainy game involving math and physics but don't worry people at games convention, there's explosions and lolsokerbal moments that any gamer can enjoy so please consider this a broad audience game. I kind of feel like there is a fine line between making the game accessible to people starting out who will eventually love the game and misrepresenting a game to an audience that will never really appreciate it.

[53miner53]

Honestly, I liked the cinematic, but to me, every time it was about to give me goosebumps, some sort of failure that would never happen in KSP (IE random part failure) pulled me out of it. I would have no issue if it didn’t seem so much like a terrible comedy movie rather than the game I’ve been playing. 

Of course, this could mean that KSP2 will allow for a small impact from a kerbal to completely disassemble your lander’s landing gear, or allow a random part failure to take down your well established colony, which would probably satisfy me in terms of the trailer, but neither one is confirmed to be KSP2 stock behavior, so it still annoys me

[Concodroid]

14 minutes ago, 53miner53 said:

I would have no issue if it didn’t seem so much like a terrible comedy movie rather than the game I’ve been playing.

 

That's just Kerbals, we need that for the marketing. There were like 3 crashes in total over 2 minutes, and the sort of "oh, it always goes wrong every single time" attitude is what makes Kerbals... kerbal.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Concodroid
An extra period in the quote.

[Kerbart]

19 hours ago, TheFrizz said:

I think there are many aspects to the lolsokerbal mindset that are not detrimental to the game (or the community):

• The kind of moar boosters, making large overbuilt rockets because $$$ isn't really limited in KSP like it is in the real world
• The unrealistically easy engineering aspects like fuel lines allowing asparagus staging.
• That kerbals live forever allowing some mistakes to result in unexpectedly fun rescue missions when disaster strikes (be it Kraken, glitch or human error)
• The wobbly rockets when players neglect fairings or make a rocket with too much fineness. This is much more fun way to receive feedback than a popup message letting the user know that they've exceeded the height limit of their fuel tank or whatever.
• The fun, cutesy, part names. SpaceX is building their next generation rocket prototypes out in the open in a field. I think, in a small way, this dovetails in.
• The risk level Kerbals are willing to take. It's important to realize that the number of failures encountered in KSP reflects the player and kerbals diving into a "learn while flying" mindset, which is something that is at odds with the classic adage of "Failure is not an option". The game being structured to allow for failure I think positions players well to appreciate the tradeoff of accepting some level of risk for increased rate of flight.

You’re spot-on with this, and it pretty much all boils down to the fact that while the game tries to depict real life physics, it also wants to be a game. Unrealistic contraptions, lack of gore & blood when things go wrong, the plays on names (but that’s also a link to realism/real world rocketry), etc.

I tend to view some of the “unrealistic” aspects of KSP with an attitude of relativism. Fuel lines as depicted in the game are not realistic — pumping fuel flows that would put a Saturn-V through a yellow tube with the thickness of an arm is inconceivable — but it’s more like an indicator: “hey, we’re running a fuel line between these tanks.” Those that oppose to that practice? Don’t use it!

Flexing is something similar. Flexing is an issue and problem in real life mechanics. Every bridge flexes when you drive over it, but we don’t see it. As you mention, it would be more realistic to see a rocket explode without advance warning, but not  half as fun. Now you get to experience these white-knuckle rides into space! And a learning aspect: a rocket can be strong, but clearly it also needs to be stiff.

Quote

Now, did the trailer make KSP seem like Angry Birds with rocket parts? No. Instead I feel like the "lolsokerbal" bits of the trailer were kind of an apology of sorts acknowledging that this is a super brainy game involving math and physics but don't worry people at games convention, there's explosions and lolsokerbal moments that any gamer can enjoy so please consider this a broad audience game. I kind of feel like there is a fine line between making the game accessible to people starting out who will eventually love the game and misrepresenting a game to an audience that will never really appreciate it.

Yes, you get it!

For a Private Division, there’s a serious risk if the game is presented as “this is a highly realistic simulation, offering rewards only for braniacs who are obsessed with space exploration. Don’t bother if you’re not a rocket scientist” and that is, that they end up selling the game only to braniacs who are obsessed with space exploration and who are professional rocket scientists. And that’s not a big audience to sell the game to.

Maybe I’m biassed. What sold the game to me was seeing three Kerbals (well, two—Jeb was there) with an expression of  terror on their faces as my rocket turned sideways. Had the first dozen failure been just that — dry failures — I probably would have given up. “This game is too hard,” and missed out on a whole lot of things. Instead, I didn’t consider a failure to orbit as a complete failure. I got the crew out alive, after all. Let’s try again!

I agree that the true enjoyment in the games comes from the exploration aspect. Not just the grandiose views that will be absolute stunning in KSP2, but also the exploration of your own knowledge; picking up engineering skills, learning orbital mechanics, and reading about astronomy and spaceflight triggered by the game. The Kerballoz have very little contribution to that, true. But to get there, they are indispensable.

Making the game more serious might take away a (perceived) annoying aspect of the game that can easily be ignored if you don’t care for it. But it also takes away the opportunity for, thousands of potential players to all the wonderful extras the game has to offer for those who don’t know the game, and who’d feel it’s too “brainy” for them to try it out in the first place, or wrestle themselves through that rough initial learning curve.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Kerbart
Spelling

[Concodroid]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

Making the game more serious might take away a (perceived) annoying aspect of the game that can easily be ignored if you don’t care for it. But it also takes away the opportunity for, thousands of potential players to all the wonderful extras the game has to offer for those who don’t know the game, and who’d feel it’s to “brainy” for them to try it out in the first place, or wrestle themselves through that rough initial learning curve.

No other arguments can be made!

[klgraham1013]

On 9/1/2019 at 8:07 PM, 5thHorseman said:

I find it funny that the only people who I ever see saying any combination of "lol" and "so kerbal" are those saying they hate it. I really think that I'd not encounter the phrase were it not for them.

The first I saw it was from Regex I believe.  It's true, the side you oppose created the phrase, but that doesn't make the phrase any less valid.  I'm opposed to the use of words like yeet and bae, but that doesn't mean those words are any less valid to the people using them.

[Guest]

Rocket engineering is serious business. Even the acronyms are serious.

RUD for example.

[The Aziz]

9 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I'm opposed to the use of words like yeet and bae

You will use BAE, it's the official name - Base Assembly Editor, confirmed by lead dev 

Edited September 7, 2019 by The Aziz

[BudgetHedgehog]

On a technical level, the trailer is amazing. The substance is up for argument, but I was blown away by what the trailer actually was - great work from whoever made it.

RE the explosions and all that - I've always taken them to be a stand in for player mistakes. In the game, the only time things go wrong is when the player makes it so (and they do, often. Anyone who says they haven't crashed in KSP is a liar). But having player mistakes in cinematics would, in my mind, be weird - in game, kerbals aren't autonomous and RUDs don't happen, but bad player piloting and design is absolutely a thing. Given that kerbals are a space-age and now interstellar species, it's safe to assume they have some kind of in-universe training - bad piloting and design can't be a thing or what's shown in the trailer wouldn't make sense. So, in a cinematic/trailer, the only way to show the idea of a failure in a game where the only thing that can fail is the player, is by having something that isn't the player fail - hence the RUDs and explosions etc.

[The Aziz]

30 minutes ago, BudgetHedgehog said:

it's safe to assume they have some kind of in-universe training - bad piloting and design can't be a thing or what's shown in the trailer wouldn't make sense. 

Oh but it does. See, all of these Kerbals managed to get an approval to join the agency.

Saying that Kerbals are so well trained and experienced in building space stuff isn't really true - it is up to the player 

[BudgetHedgehog]

 

42 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Saying that Kerbals are so well trained and experienced in building space stuff isn't really true - it is up to the player 

They are though - unless the engines and vacuum capable command pods grew on trees or whatever. But yes, the player can and does make silly decisions but they're yours to make. It's the difference between 'why would they build/fly it like that?' and 'why did I build/fly it like that?'. They can build rocket engines so they can build and pilot rockets - RUDs happen, mistakes don't. You can't build rocket engines but you can build rockets - mistakes happen, RUDs don't. Like I said, I've always seen it as a way to translate player mistakes and learning to a way that makes sense in a trailer. If I wanted to watch player built rockets crash while landing due to poor piloting, I'd watch peoples first attempts at the game on YouTube. If I wanted to watch kerbal built rockets crash while landing due to the landing leg collapsing, I'd watch the trailers.

It's all failures at the end of the day, one makes sense as a game, one makes sense as a cinematic. Kerbals are smart but in an idiot savant kind of way, players are dumb but eager to learn - two sides of the same coin, failures are part of the experience either way so there needs to be a way for them to happen in both cases.

Edited September 7, 2019 by BudgetHedgehog

[Snark]

On 9/12/2019 at 2:16 AM, Lu K. said:

Definitely a great trailer, my favourite tho was the space oddity version

Okay, that's pretty great.