Jump to content

Anyone else worried that KSP 2 will be bad?


Recommended Posts

On 3/16/2021 at 9:02 PM, K^2 said:

That's not terribly alarming in context. It really looks like after some back and forward, Intercpet has taken a nearly clean slate approach after taking over the development. So really the game has been in proper production since sometime in late spring to early summer of 2020. We're less than a year in. At this point, if developers are generous enough to share, all we expect to see is some art and janky pre-alpha screenshots and footage. So far, we've seen some art and janky pre-alpha screenshots and footage. The 2019 images and trailer are basically glorified fan art at this point.

Who then tried to deceive us that the game will be released in 2020? A studio that failed to develop the game? Or what happened? Well, that is, the postponement of the game for two years is evidence of something bad in the process of creating a game. This is not evidence that a good game was ready in 2020, but the developers decided to make a millennium game, for some reason showing us how the models of the central characters are made. But making a model of a kerbal is easier than a model of a hero of a game like cyberpunk, this should have been done in 2018, no later than.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I was deceived at all. I saw KSP on Scott Manley's channel - ages ago - and then once I'd bought a gaming PC about 9 months ago, it was on my list of "games to buy". At no point did they describe it as "this is version 1 but version 2 will be brilliant and will be released in 2020.....errr.....not long now..........actually, hang on until 2022". It was only through joining and reading the forum I learned of KSP2 and the vast majority of stuff I've read about it has been written by someone other than the devs. I am sure there is a story behind it all, but since it was made fairly clear it won't be until 2022, I've not really worried about the backstory and continue to enjoy version 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Omni122 said:

How on Earth am I implying that someone who doesn't know KSP should make the game? I'm implying quite the opposite.

I do apologize if I missed what your intended meaning was. The way your response was worded wasn't clear to what you were thinking. 

5 hours ago, Omni122 said:

As a player, it is my concern. If they prioritize sales over quality that is absolutely our concern.

But it’s out of your control. The studio may take note, but its the corporate masters who have the final say. Being concerned about something you can't directly control is wasted energy. As I said earlier, guarded optimism is the best route. You hope for the best but expect the worst. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Being concerned about something you can't directly control is wasted energy. As I said earlier, guarded optimism is the best route. You hope for the best but expect the worst. 

Exactly, and, may I add a thing, stop arguing for the worse with no proof and screaming "they're obviously lying!" every time the devs say something that doesn't coincide with your apocalypse prophecies.

Nobody is going to drop extra reveals to counter your apocalyptic scenario and since we're fan of KSP we're used to being hyped for the update of the century only to find out it was just 3 parts retextures at the expense of broken wheels and mod compatibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Alexoff said:

Who then tried to deceive us that the game will be released in 2020? A studio that failed to develop the game? Or what happened? Well, that is, the postponement of the game for two years is evidence of something bad in the process of creating a game. This is not evidence that a good game was ready in 2020, but the developers decided to make a millennium game, for some reason showing us how the models of the central characters are made. But making a model of a kerbal is easier than a model of a hero of a game like cyberpunk, this should have been done in 2018, no later than.

This is the proposed timeline. In May 2017 Take Two acquired rights to KSP. Immediately following that, Private Division starts looking for a studio to make KSP2. At this point, it is imagined to be an engine update of KSP with a couple of DLCs worth of new content. Namely, a new star system along with a few engines to get you there and ability to build simple colonies. Game enters pre-production at Star Theory Games the same year and is in full production no later than early 2018.

A year and a half later, the teaser trailer is presented at E3. It oversells the visual fidelity, colony feature, and we also get mentions of multiplayer and a few other improvements which were probably still speculative at that point. The trailer and speculation get phenomenal reception, which gives creatives at Star Theory leverage to push for expanding the scope. The multiplayer is now a core feature, colonies and orbital construction are critical part of progression, along with greatly expanded resource system and supply lines, overhauls to science and career, and far more graphical fidelity than was likely originally planed. Talks between Private Division and Star Theory stall and we get first indications of delays.

By 2020, talks break down completely and Take Two pulls the plug. A new studio, Intercept Games, is created around creatives who left Star Theory, and Intercept attempts to recover production after hiring about a third of former Star Theory staff. Pandemic, lockdown, more delays announced, all of that with scope of the game still being in flux and several key positions unfilled. By mid 2020 things at Intercept stabilize, new hires are in place, and it becomes clear that original production is not salvageable. New plan is developed, greenlit, and KSP2 finally enters its current production phase by late 2020 with a new release schedule.

 

The critical part you seem to fail to understand is that you can only expand the scope of the game so far before you can no longer just bolt additional features on. At some point, you have to scrap what you were making and make a bigger game. That effectively resets your development. Sure, you can salvage some art, some assets, and occasionally even some code. But no more than you would making a sequel. It's a completely new production. Star Theory probably could have shipped the game under original scope by some time in 2020. Likely, with a few months of delay, but still that year. That, however, doesn't mean that Intercept game had some working version of KSP2 in 2020. They scrapped the development and were building a completely new version of KSP2. And in 2020 it was at the very beginning of its production stage, with absolutely everything that has been shown completely matching what you expect from a game in early production.

 

Now, if you want to refute this timeline, take your best shot. Otherwise, your entire argument is a strawman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not worried at all.  From what the developers have already said about their game design philosophy for KSP2 , plus a couple of design decisions (interstellar flight most notably) I’ve already concluded that it’s probably not going to be a game that I’m particularly interested in.

That’s fine - I very much appreciate the clarity from the developers and if it turns out that I’m wrong and KSP2 does look unmissable, that will be a pleasant bonus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, K^2 said:

At this point, it is imagined to be an engine update of KSP with a couple of DLCs worth of new content. Namely, a new star system along with a few engines to get you there and ability to build simple colonies. Game enters pre-production at Star Theory Games the same year and is in full production no later than early 2018.

What is it based on? Are these your fantasies or the memories of the developers posted somewhere on the net? Why did a major publisher decide to make a new game in a new studio, taking a slightly updated engine and adding a few planets?

10 hours ago, K^2 said:

the teaser trailer is presented at E3. It oversells the visual fidelity, colony feature, and we also get mentions of multiplayer and a few other improvements which were probably still speculative at that point. The trailer and speculation get phenomenal reception, which gives creatives at Star Theory leverage to push for expanding the scope

What kind of fiction? The developer drew a trailer for the game in isolation from the publisher, after which the publisher allowed the game to be made like in the trailer, deciding not to worry about the release date and features in the trailer that were not planned? Was this a fake provocative trailer for the publisher? Can I read about this somewhere other than your comments?

10 hours ago, K^2 said:

Talks between Private Division and Star Theory stall and we get first indications of delays.

Well, that is, the publisher is not interested in multiplayer and colonies from the trailer? And so they decided to stop funding the studio altogether? Why didn't they take the same KSP 2 on the updated engine with new planets and release the game?

10 hours ago, K^2 said:

A new studio, Intercept Games, is created around creatives who left Star Theory, and Intercept attempts to recover production after hiring about a third of former Star Theory staff.

This is not true, most of the employees have moved to a new studio.

10 hours ago, K^2 said:

The critical part you seem to fail to understand is that you can only expand the scope of the game so far before you can no longer just bolt additional features on. At some point, you have to scrap what you were making and make a bigger game. That effectively resets your development.

Where is the logic? The publisher wanted the game simpler, the developer harder. The publisher destroyed the developer, hired employees to make an extended game with multiplayer and colonies? What for? Where is there any logic here?

So, my timeline. In 2017, the publisher bought a franchise, in the development of which, with the departure of key developers, there was a disaster, as we remember 1.3 was done painfully and contained mostly translations of the game. Which is certainly useful for players from other countries, but not very difficult technically. After conducting an analysis, a large corporation realized that things are not very good, but there should be profit. An indie studio was hired to create an ambitious new game, for which several creatives have carefully studied the dreams of the players on this forum. At the presentations, the management was shown beautiful presentations that the release will be in 3 years, there will be so many millions of players, the profit will be a hundred times higher than the costs. In 2019, a year before the release, it was necessary to make a trailer, on the creation of which a lot of effort was probably thrown. Sometime in October 2019, the publisher decided to finally check out how the work was going. And it turned out that everything is very bad, that for such an ambitious project, a studio is needed 5 times more (well, or 15 Chinese programmers, Dyson's sphere will not allow lying), that there is essentially nothing to release. Because of what, it was decided to say goodbye to the developer, who probably splurge and said that everything is under control. But since the money had already been invested, there were two options - either to stop developing the game and fix the loss, or to finish what was there and have some profit. In order not to force a new developer to make a game from scratch, performers from the destroyed studio were hired, who understood what they had done themselves. To keep the situation under control, the new studio reported directly to the publisher. Judging by the fact that they stopped showing us videos from the pre-alpha, and only show individual models in the editor, the core of the game itself will be subjected to serious changes and now it is not there. For me, Schreier's stories about good developers who did everything well, and bad publishers who took and simply destroyed the studio are not at all convincing. All this was said from the words of the developers, who are not guilty of anything in all the interviews of the journalist, and someone else wrote bad scripts for AI in cyberpunk. You can't just break the contract to create a game, it is obvious that the publisher had serious reasons to do so. And for some reason the studio did not sue him.

And I am touched by the arguments that the main developer cares for the game. Can you imagine the opposite? This is his job, the well-being of him and his family for the next 10 years depends on how actively we buy the game. If he talks about difficulties, he will go to look for a new job. We must somehow muster up the courage and tell ourselves that something bad happened to the game, and not behave like a young man in the friend zone who thinks that since he was prodded, it’s out of great love. Otherwise, the publisher will decide that a game of any quality will work for us, how happy we are with everything, even the postponement to 2022

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 11:29 AM, Wubslin said:

How would you feel if your game had a thread about how it sucks and it isn't even out yet?

Fifteen years ago it would have truly upset me but by know I've grown a pretty thick skin and don't take critique personal. So, ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

What is it based on?

Many years of experience developing games, shipping games, creating development plans for the game, and working with every tier of production including engineers, artists, creatives, management, brand, marketing, legal...

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

Why did a major publisher decide to make a new game in a new studio, taking a slightly updated engine and adding a few planets?

Because it's a quick cash grab. You don't buy a niche IP with internal problems and then try to build a big game. You hand the IP over to a small studio that has shown itself with some ports and contract them to make a game for you. If they fail, you lose nothing. If the game is a rare success, you make a boat ton of money with very little investment. That's all that KSP purchase was to T2. That and some merch sales.

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

What kind of fiction?

Contract re-negotiation. Star Theory was not in a good place to negotiate initial contract. Just like with many ports, their royalties options would have sucked, if not completely non-existent. When the game looked like a big risk, nobody cared. When it became clear that KSP2 actually can become a high profile game, one that's basically guaranteed to break even, question of royalties becomes an important one. With expanded scope, PD would have to renegotiate milestones with ST, that can allow ST to renegotiate royalties. Best guess, both companies got greedy. Happens often enough.

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

The developer drew a trailer for the game in isolation from the publisher, after which the publisher allowed the game to be made like in the trailer, deciding not to worry about the release date and features in the trailer that were not planned?

Trailer was approved by publisher. That's not the issue. The issue is that this was supposed to be just an artistic cinematic for hype. It wasn't meant to represent the game as is. Couldn't and certainly didn't. But it set up expectations, which in vacuum, don't mean anything. What actually changed is the publisher's gauge for how wide the game can go. A niche little game suddenly became potentially a major release. And that changes the math drastically.

Cheap games ship entirely on their marketing budget. They get jack all in dev budget, and developers usually just get enough cash to pay the bills. Mid-range game budget is still dominated by marketing, but they are actually invested into, because there are enough reviews, influencer plays, etc. that are based on game's quality. You just don't make a cheap port or sequel for a niche audience the same way you make a proper game for broad audience.

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

Well, that is, the publisher is not interested in multiplayer and colonies from the trailer? And so they decided to stop funding the studio altogether? Why didn't they take the same KSP 2 on the updated engine with new planets and release the game?

Again, the key is money. ST is an external studio. If they take the standard royalties cut, which is like 70%-90% of revenue, T2 losses on a game that's position to sell several million copies are well over $100M. At this point both Star Theory and Private Division want to make a bigger game. Private Division just wants to keep all the sales.

You seriously don't think $100M is a good reason to dump the development team and start from scratch with an internal studio?

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

So, my timeline.

Your turn. What's your basis for any of this?

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

After conducting an analysis, a large corporation realized that things are not very good, but there should be profit. An indie studio was hired to create an ambitious new game, for which several creatives have carefully studied the dreams of the players on this forum.

Ha, ha, ha. Yeah. Because bean-counters in marketing would ever approve an ambitious game based on a niche fandom.

Look, here's how it works in game dev. The dev studios know games, they know how to make content that delivers enjoyable experience and build tech to drive it. Some better than others, but this is the actual objective that developers are solving.

Marketing, especially in a major publishing house, don't consider quality of the game as a factor unless it impacts sales. Their actual primary considerations are IP and how it can be sold. For something like KSP as it was in 2017, the idea of making a quality game, let alone an ambitious one, just wouldn't exist. You have number of impressions of the IP and how many users can be reached with a marketing strategy based on existing fan sites and influencers. None of it depends on making a good game. Or a big game. And given that they went with a cinematic teaser, they don't even care about making a good-looking game at that point. It's the same kind of money grab as your typical moive-tie in mobile game.

The only way this can change is if the game is shown to have much bigger reach than initially estimated. PD was basing their estimate on active community of KSP circa 2017. The actual community that was reached by the teaser trailer turned out to be orders of magnitude larger. And that's the only reason why a quick money grab turned into an ambitious project.

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

Sometime in October 2019, the publisher decided to finally check out how the work was going. And it turned out that everything is very bad, that for such an ambitious project, a studio is needed 5 times more (well, or 15 Chinese programmers, Dyson's sphere will not allow lying), that there is essentially nothing to release.

Yes. That's how it works. Publishers give developers a wad of cash and not check back on them for two years. :confused:

Setting aside weekly reports, money is only released from publisher to developer upon reaching milestone goals. Milestones are typically 3-4 months long, and each milestone is a major presentation on which artwork, content, and, most critically, actual gameplay is shown to a review panel, and unless the presented material doesn't clear the review, the developer doesn't get payed.

If things developed the way you present it, Star Theory would lose their pay check in early 2018. Based on the fact that ST relied on KSP2 contract as their primary meal ticket, they would have gone bankrupt long before the 2019 E3 presentation.

This scenario can only be imagined by somebody who has no idea how games are made.

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

But since the money had already been invested, there were two options - either to stop developing the game and fix the loss, or to finish what was there and have some profit. In order not to force a new developer to make a game from scratch, performers from the destroyed studio were hired, who understood what they had done themselves.

Yes. These people have failed for 2 years, so lets give them even more money! Especially, the creative director, who in your scenario has been lying about progress all this time! And yes, creative director is one of the people actually presenting milestone goals to the publisher. So again, setting aside the fact that this scenario couldn't have happened in the first place, if somehow ST really was going off and failing for 2 years without oversight, creative director would be the very first person fired from the project.

The fact that creative director is the one around whom Intercept was built is the clearest indication you can possibly have that the only disagreement on development between Private Division and Star Theory was MONEY. Because it's the only thing that's completely outside the creative's control.

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

Judging by the fact that they stopped showing us videos from the pre-alpha, and only show individual models in the editor, the core of the game itself will be subjected to serious changes and now it is not there. For me, Schreier's stories about good developers who did everything well, and bad publishers who took and simply destroyed the studio are not at all convincing.

Unity editor is using the game's runtime. There is literally no difference between showing something running in the game and running in the editor. Most of testing of how the game is running is done from within the editor.

But also yes. This is what restarting production means. That you scrap most of what you've done and start almost from scratch. Except, you are somehow insisting that they've taken a lot of the same people that according to you completely failed to make a game and gave them even more money to make the same game. You are basing your story on several glaring misunderstandings of how publishing of the game works.

As for the whole deal being a lot more complex than poor devs, evil publisher, sure. Problem is, we don't know exactly how the negotiations broke down and who was the truly unreasonable party. The way PD poached ST devs for Intercept before even announcing termination of contract is extremely poor taste. They have gutted Star Theory by using their financial backing as leverage. What we don't know is whether PD has given Star Theory a reasonable out or just went for scorched earth. That'd make a pretty big difference between evil profiteering and publisher just doing what it has to to protect its investment. And we don't know the details of negotiation necessary to differentiate. Not that it really matters to anything that has happened as far as development of the game is concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

Many years of experience developing games, shipping games, creating development plans for the game, and working with every tier of production including engineers, artists, creatives, management, brand, marketing, legal..

This means that there is no evidence, only your speculation. As a developer, you probably think that other developers always do their job well, and all problems come from bosses.

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

Because it's a quick cash grab.

Well, that is, it is speculation that T2 decided to make a simple game and get some money. KSP sold more than one million copies and with a price tag of 60 bucks it would have brought more than one hundred million. T2 is worried about their games and their reputation, they decided not to release a raw VTMB2, but sent it to the finalization of another studio.

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

Trailer was approved by publisher. That's not the issue. The issue is that this was supposed to be just an artistic cinematic for hype.

Is this also speculation? Are there any other examples of T2 approving a trailer for a major event that contained elements of the game that no one had planned?

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

ST is an external studio. If they take the standard royalties cut, which is like 70%-90% of revenue, T2 losses on a game that's position to sell several million copies are well over $100M.

Continuous speculation - the studio was closed because the game turned out to be so epic and promising that the publisher decided not to share such royalties. The figures are based of course on your personal experience, the contract probably contains 99% of royalties. T2 bought a franchise for 1000 bucks, they don't need profit at all, they can give most of the money from the sale of the game to indie studios because of great love. And of course, this behavior is not provided by law in any way, you can easily stop development, and the indie studio will remain silent. It is strange that they did not change the agreement, since no one will be suing it. Would write 5% royalty and that's it.

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

The only way this can change is if the game is shown to have much bigger reach than initially estimated. PD was basing their estimate on active community of KSP circa 2017. The actual community that was reached by the teaser trailer turned out to be orders of magnitude larger.

Or maybe the publisher knew all about the game's sales? By 2017, 2 million copies were sold, and it's probably no secret that since there is no protection on the game, many players use the pirated version. One hundred million dollars is a large share of the publisher's profits.

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

Marketing, especially in a major publishing house, don't consider quality of the game as a factor unless it impacts sales.

This does not apply to T2, VTMB2 was postponed indefinitely due to poor game development. This is a niche project for fans that have spent a lot of money on it, but will spend more, as obviously the publisher knows something about the word "reputation"

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

Publishers give developers a wad of cash and not check back on them for two years. :confused:

Setting aside weekly reports, money is only released from publisher to developer upon reaching milestone goals. Milestones are typically 3-4 months long, and each milestone is a major presentation on which artwork, content, and, most critically, actual gameplay is shown to a review panel, and unless the presented material doesn't clear the review, the developer doesn't get payed.

And the developer cannot deceive the publisher, promise that everything will be soon? We've seen quite a bit of gameplay in 2019, rocket take off, planets, spaceships, stuff like that. Now the FPS is low, but we will do everything, work on it. This is not a reason to stop funding, is it?

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

Yes. These people have failed for 2 years, so lets give them even more money! Especially, the creative director, who in your scenario has been lying about progress all this time!

Not really, they did their job on some level, but it didn't come together well into one game. And the creative director could have been left for many reasons. Perhaps the game was based on his ideas all this time. Perhaps he was able to blame all the problems on the technical part of the team, which did not cope with the ideas, maybe on the ST bosses who forced him to do what he did. And perhaps so that people like you can say that everything is fine. After all, the face of the game was not removed - then everything is fine!

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

There is literally no difference between showing something running in the game and running in the editor. Most of testing of how the game is running is done from within the editor.

Yes, so it makes no difference whether we show the engines in real game at different heights or in the editor.

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

Except, you are somehow insisting that they've taken a lot of the same people that according to you completely failed to make a game and gave them even more money to make the same game.

I think not everyone has coped with their task. The game ideas were good, the part models and the planets too. But the technical performance is not very good, someone was not taken. And the department of planetary bases consisted of one person, who could not cope with his work, because the breakup of relations occurred precisely with the bosses of the studio, who could not establish production in full with the allocated funds.

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

You are basing your story on several glaring misunderstandings of how publishing of the game works.

I explain my understanding of the process by my knowledge of working in the top management of large corporations. You explain your thoughts with the hopes that everything is really good.

On 3/19/2021 at 3:18 AM, K^2 said:

Not that it really matters to anything that has happened as far as development of the game is concerned.

32E7489E6642271CFEF8A94FDEA294A86C3DB1B5

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of my big wishes are being taken care of, afaik. 

Better graphics, more to do, better navigation tools, interstellar, easy to build on-site, automated missions, better mod support...

At this point, I see no reason to be pessimistic. Timeline moving to the right is upsetting, but other than that, I'm on break from KSP until KSP2 comes out. It's supposed to fix/add all of the things KSP lacked/got wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TLTay said:

All of my big wishes are being taken care of, afaik. 

Better graphics, more to do, better navigation tools, interstellar, easy to build on-site, automated missions, better mod support...

At this point, I see no reason to be pessimistic. Timeline moving to the right is upsetting, but other than that, I'm on break from KSP until KSP2 comes out. It's supposed to fix/add all of the things KSP lacked/got wrong.

Be cautiously optimistic, the chance of KSP 2 releasing as you'd expect is not 100%. The fact we've only seen a handful of screenshots and videos of basic gameplay is a red flag in my eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too concerned that it will be 'bad'.   I may not like it as much as I hope I will, but that doesn't in itself make it bad, that's personal preference.

We all have  our hopes and expectations, we will all be disappointed about some aspects not being as we expected,  or wanted them to be.

Not seeing much gameplay wise so far doesn't really  bother me, yes I am curious, and a little impatient too, but I can't play it yet anyway so it makes no difference.  Anything they do show will be assumed to be 'final' by many, irrespective of if, or how boldly, they say 'Work in progress - subject to change' on stuff.  Look at what happened  with the images of the UI we saw and all the 'less than constructive' opinions that generated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 4:31 PM, Omni122 said:

I feel like they'll just overpolish and oversimplify it down to nothing.

Ive watched hours of interviews with the developers and i remember that they said it was gonna remain the same difficulty, but the tutorials will be better so in a way it will be easier, but it wont really matter.

Also im pretty sure that take two knows that the community wont enjoy an oversimplified game, making fewer people buy the game and then it will be less popular. Which is because they have promised to not include any microtransactions (except possible future dlcs but thats already in ksp 1 so who cares) because the community didnt like it.

 

 

edit: For those who are saying there is too little gameplay footage, this is all the pre - alpha footage so far 

 

Edited by Kosmix1
video
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel we're deluding ourselves into thinking that the original is "good". It's boiling over with gamebreaking, time wasting, and demoralizing bugs and glitches, the controls are difficult to learn and unintuitive, the graphics are charmingly outdated at best, and the main focus of the game- space exploration- is left really vague. You can go out to planets and it's cool, but then what? You can look at 'em? The community and modders and using your green guys to make your own story is what made the game last this long and keep a dedicated following, not because the original game is "good". This is meant in no offense to Squad- they've kept it wonderfully updated and running superbly for a long while now, along with being great at interacting with the community- but the game itself is ageing noticeably. I believe there's a good chance that 99% of the content in KSP 2 will be a direct upgrade from that of KSP 1. 

 

Yes, the "go look at 'em" part is a bit hyperbolic and intentionally simplified for the sake of comedy, but I feel my point still stands. "But you can make bases and refuelling stations!" To do what, make it easier to look at the planets? Whee!

Edited by Kernel Kraken
How do I expect my rants to be entertaining to read when I spell "game" with an N? I need an autocorrect.
Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to calm down about the lack of gameplay videos or feature reveals. As a game dev myself, I can tell you that there is a fine line between spoiling the whole game and showing features. If you give away too much people won't play the game. So you shouldn't worry about the lack of updates.

The devs all play KSP and they seem very excited to work on it. I wouldn't worry about it not being good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only speaking for myself, I'm just nosy and would like to see the updates to satisfy curiosity since it's been so far pushed back. Not really worried about it tho.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 5:41 PM, Kerminator K-100 said:

As a game dev myself, I can tell you that there is a fine line between spoiling the whole game and showing features.

What can be spoiled in KSP 2? An unexpected plot twist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/16/2021 at 3:31 PM, Omni122 said:

I mean, I feel like there's a good chance that the devs will fail to replicate the charm that the original KSP has. I feel like they'll just overpolish and oversimplify it down to nothing. I feel like they'll just make a game that's Modded KSP but with a shiny coating.

I'm so used to every other year releasing a hyped "oh the directors know what they're doing" game that ends up flopping badly, that I won't be surprised if KSP 2 also flops. Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's gonna be fine I have confidence in the devs 

also as far as the lack of  pre-release  content I have never seen a game in dev be exactly open about their development just chilax  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, asap1 said:

it's gonna be fine I have confidence in the devs 

Every other year games are said to be "in the right hands" before spectacularly flopping. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Every other year games are said to be "in the right hands" before spectacularly flopping. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Absolutely, but what I have seen makes me think otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...