How does Starfield compare to KSP2 (ship & base building, environment, IVA, HUD)?

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

As long as there is no official communication about what will be in the game, we are free to expect anything.

No, just no. It should be clear now KSP 2 isn't going to have intricate weather graphics and MMO elements - building expectations for this is, again, setting yourself up (and anyone taking these posts too seriously) for disappointment, and bound to lead to people getting angry to the devs over things they aren't making KSP 2 for. That would be unfair. You aren't free to expect anything because that is bound to make people treat the devs unfairly.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[Pthigrivi]

30 minutes ago, t_v said:

 It just sets people up for disappointment and a bad experience in what will be a good game. 

I sure hope it'll be a good game, and if it is it'll be because they stayed focused on good gameplay and clever mechanics rather than extraneous fluff. 

[Xelo]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

As long as there is no official communication about what will be in the game, we are free to expect anything.

Thats correct. You are entitled to have  these personal expectations and be potentially disappointed around 9 months down the line. The difference here being that you are presenting these personal  very subjective expectations as if it were some core design pillar that the developers missed. Saying the game is incomplete without what is essentially a glorified piece of eye candy is a tough sell to most here. I came to make interplanetary missles with kerbals attached, not to have my computer run hot trying to render a rainy day that drops visibility to nothing. >:D

[MechBFP]

Just now, Xelo said:

Thats correct. You are entitled to have  these personal expectations and be potentially disappointed around 9 months down the line. The difference here being that you are presenting these personal  very subjective expectations as if it were some core design pillar that the developers missed. Saying the game is incomplete without what is essentially a glorified piece of eye candy is a tough sell to most here. I came to make interplanetary missles with kerbals attached, not to have my computer run hot trying to render a rainy day that drops visibility to nothing. >:D

The goal is that they think by stating a bunch of stuff that obviously isn’t going to be in the game that they are going to trick the developers into providing information that they wouldn’t have otherwise.

I see this game played all the time for games in development. It never actually works lol. 

[Xelo]

Just now, MechBFP said:

this game played all the time for games in development. It never actually works lol.

Oh damn, do the devs even visit here? Id figure if you wanted that youd post something like that in new dev log within a few hours of its creation.

[MechBFP]

13 minutes ago, Xelo said:

Oh damn, do the devs even visit here? Id figure if you wanted that youd post something like that in new dev log within a few hours of its creation.

Regularly in fact. Personally I haven’t followed a game that isn’t considered “indie” with this type of community engagement  since Bethesda was developing Morrowind. It is nice, so enjoy it while you can if that is your thing  because it certainly is a rare and short lived commodity. 

[Vl3d]

14 hours ago, MechBFP said:

The goal is that they think by stating a bunch of stuff that obviously isn’t going to be in the game that they are going to trick the developers into providing information that they wouldn’t have otherwise.

I see this game played all the time for games in development. It never actually works lol. 

Obviously it does not work because I have not seen any in-depth recent info about Colonies / Resources / Logistics & Automation / Multiplayer / Weather / Lore / Modding.

So by the logic of economics, if there is zero profit, why would I state "a bunch of stuff that obviously isn’t going to be in the game that they are going to trick the developers into providing information that they wouldn’t have otherwise"?

1. You have no idea what is and what is not going to be in the game, like all of us.

2. It's actually a good thing to ask the devs about the roadmap, the game features, gameplay etc. It's the job of most gaming journalists.

3. I see a lot of comments that talk down and say nay: nay to better graphics, nay to multiplayer, nay to weather, nay to autopilots and automation, nay to more gameplay features that can be toggled by difficulty, nay to lore, nay to cities on Kerbin, nay to celestial bodies full of things to discover etc. KSP1 is so burned in the mind that "nay" is the default answer to any change.

4. And I also see a lot of comments that say "oh that should not be in the base game, there can be a mod for that". The devs are the people who actually put in the work and get paid for it. Don't expect the modders to implement features (that should be stock) for free after release.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Vl3d

[Bej Kerman]

15 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Obviously it does not work because I have not seen any in-depth recent info about Colonies / Resources / Logistics & Automation / Multiplayer / Weather / Lore / Modding.

So by the logic of economics, if there is zero profit, why would I state "a bunch of stuff that obviously isn’t going to be in the game that they are going to trick the developers into providing information that they wouldn’t have otherwise"?

1. You have no idea what is and what is not going to be in the game, like all of us.

2. It's actually a good thing to ask the devs about the roadmap, the game features, gameplay etc. It's the job of most gaming journalists.

3. I see a lot of comments that talk down and say nay: nay go better graphics, nay to multiplayer, nay to weather, nay to autopilots and automation, nay to more gameplay features that can be toggled by difficulty, nay to lore, nay to cities on Kerbin, nay to celestial bodies full of things to discover etc. KSP1 is so burned in the mind that "nay" is the default answer to any change. And I also see a lot of comments that say "oh that should not be in the base game, there can be a mod for that". The devs are the people who actually put in the work and get paid for it. Don't expect the modders to implement features (that should be stock) for free after release.

That doesn't explain why you're trying to raise KSP 2's expectations to comical levels. KSP 2 will not look like MFS2020, but that does not mean it should be written off as a bad game.

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

3. I see a lot of comments that talk down and say nay: nay to better graphics, nay to multiplayer, nay to weather, nay to autopilots and automation, nay to more gameplay features that can be toggled by difficulty, nay to lore, nay to cities on Kerbin, nay to celestial bodies full of things to discover etc. KSP1 is so burned in the mind that "nay" is the default answer to any change. And I also see a lot of comments that say "oh that should not be in the base game, there can be a mod for that". The devs are the people who actually put in the work and get paid for it. Don't expect the modders to implement features (that should be stock) for free after release.

Im sure it seems like that, and of course! I would love to see rain and snow, cities, and great graphics, etc. but my feeling is those "wow" moments are nice but somewhat fleeting. I would never argue they should be prioritized over the kinds of things that players will be thinking about and experiencing 98% of the time, which are good UI, navigation and landing and traversal challenges that drive new design and engineering solutions, broad strategic puzzles about where and how to extract and process and combine different resources to make cool new engines and fuels, whether time and life support and kerbal wellbeing need to be considered, and a million other aspects of real, nuts-and-bolts gameplay that actually matter. Out of your list I'd say autopilot and automation really matters, multiplayer dynamics really matter, having rich celestial bodies with complex resource extraction challenges and unique surface features for scientific study really matters. Those are the things that will make the game actually fun to play and drive thousands of hours of building and exploring. The rest are just very nice superficialities. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

. I see a lot of comments that talk down and say nay: nay to better graphics, nay to multiplayer, nay to weather, nay to autopilots and automation, nay to more gameplay features that can be toggled by difficulty, nay to lore, nay to cities on Kerbin, nay to celestial bodies full of things to discover etc. KSP1 is so burned in the mind that "nay" is the default answer to any change. And I also see a lot of comments that say "oh that should not be in the base game, there can be a mod for that". The devs are the people who actually put in the work and get paid for it. Don't expect the modders to implement features (that should be stock) for free after release

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) .

[Vl3d]

19 minutes ago, Master39 said:

It's not a missing feature but a conscious decision.

I know this. In all aspects I trust the creative and technical decisions of the dev team and we're probably going to get the best game possible. I know that they have thought about all this already and made choices.

22 minutes ago, Master39 said:

As for setting unrealistical expectations, that's what creates a "Cyberpunk" situation, even more than the actual state of the game at launch.

But the problem of KSP2 is actually the opposite - hype is too low, promises very few.

I want us to think about what this game COULD be until we find out what it actually is. Don't be worried about being disappointing - imagining the future is the most important thing. Someday there will also be KSP 3. Maybe all of these ideas could be implemented then. VR too.

[Bej Kerman]

8 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

But the problem of KSP2 is actually the opposite - hype is too low, promises very few.

Made up problems. The devs have promised a very ambitious project and hype can easily become unhealthy. Besides, the consensus is that random fluff like grass blowing with the wind and rain on windows is all surface-level junk that does not contribute to the game in any meaningful way.

[The Aziz]

And here I am, with my thread, all about what the game will be.

I could be an astronaut - but I'm not and I won't be, for various reasons, and it's not only about me not picking this career path when I was in high school. And I'm not going to be disappointed by this. And I'm not going to be disappointed by the game not having whatever features because I know Intercept will do their best (unless they won't and terribly screw things up, that's always a possibility) to deliver the product they wanted to make. I'm not going to dream about it.

[Alexoff]

On 6/28/2022 at 12:23 PM, Master39 said:

Discussion is not meaningless, comparing secondary features of a game with a game solely focusing on a similar feature is.

On 6/28/2022 at 12:23 PM, Master39 said:

And that only because other "space games" (another very loosely defined genre) have done it, completely disregarding KSP scope and gameplay style.

Why is it possible to discuss the shortcomings of any games, but you can not compare the graphics of KSP 2 with any other games? And if the graphics in KSP2 were better than in Starfield, would you also say that this is pointless to discuss? It's enough to just accept the fact that in KSP2 the graphics won't strike us with cyberpunk or Starfield looks, but for rocket science fans this is not so important. Or walking around the city on the other side of Kerbin.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Alexoff said:

Why is it possible to discuss the shortcomings of any games, but you can not compare the graphics of KSP 2 with any other games? And if the graphics in KSP2 were better than in Starfield, would you also say that this is pointless to discuss? It's enough to just accept the fact that in KSP2 the graphics won't strike us with cyberpunk or Starfield looks, but for rocket science fans this is not so important. Or walking around the city on the other side of Kerbin.

I honestly don't think repeating myself again would be useful to the discussion, so I'll just quote the relevant part:

On 6/28/2022 at 11:23 AM, Master39 said:

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.

 

If you want me to join the "overhyping with absurd comparisons and purposefully setting impossible requirements" trend I'll say mine: KSP2 will not be a complete game and it will suck if the farming mechanics for life support supplies are not up to par with the last Farming Simulator.

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

KSP2 will not be a complete game and it will suck if the farming mechanics for life support supplies are not up to par with the last Farming Simulator

There's a big difference between HAVING ANY and having THE BEST.

You're arguing with your straw man.

[Alexoff]

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

If you want me to join the "overhyping with absurd comparisons and purposefully setting impossible requirements" trend I'll say mine: KSP2 will not be a complete game and it will suck if the farming mechanics for life support supplies are not up to par with the last Farming Simulator.

What is absurd in comparing the graphic performance of planets or spaceships? After all, this is similar to declaring the comparison of facial animations in HalfLife 2 and Mass Effect Andromeda as absurd. After all, in HalfLife 2 the player travels along the corridor and does not have the possibility of alternative passage, which means that facial animations cannot be compared. We are not comparing the dialogue system or RPG component of KSP2 and Starfield, because it is obvious that they will not be in KSP2, and it may be good that they will not be.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

KSP2 will not be a complete game and it will suck if the farming mechanics for life support supplies are not up to par with the last Farming Simulator

There's a big difference between HAVING ANY and having THE BEST.

You're arguing with your straw man.

It's not a straw man. If anything, Master39's sarcastic suggestion makes more sense than "KSP 2 will not be complete without fluff like snow and rain effects" because farming would constitute as actual gameplay. It would sill detract from the core pillars of KSP 2, but at least there would be added gameplay as opposed to just fluff.

[Vl3d]

I think this video with a demo game made in Unity shows the level of graphical quality we can expect from KSP2. At least we know what's possible in the engine.

 

[t_v]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I think this video with a demo game made in Unity shows the level of graphical quality we can expect from KSP2. At least we know what's possible in the engine.

 

Spoiler

Good news that KSP matches and even surpasses those graphics! If you look at the screenshot that I've post back here, you can see that the sunlight is pretty accurately represented and the shine off of the ground is actually better than what is shown in the demo. Part reflectivity as well, in my opinion. On top of that, KSP is better than that demo because there is no atmospheric scattering here on Minmus, and the shadows and lack of godrays reflect that. If the environment seems less populated, that is an aesthetic choice; if you have ever been to a desert, you know that even the liveliest planet has lots of flat, empty spaces. Since we are picking pretty much unrelated footage to compare KSP to, I'll include this to even out the comparisons:

Wow, look at that game, made with Unity! Game engines are all so powerful these days that you can make pretty much anything with them; KSP could obviously do better with its graphics, even Starfield could (I mean c'mon, not even nanometer-scale normal maps?) but it could also do a lot worse. The graphics on KSP are really quite good!

[Vl3d]

What is irony?

 

[Alexoff]

My friend once said that children should dream of becoming homeless. When they grow up, their dream will come true or everything will be even better for them.

As I wrote, the main problem of KSP2 is disgusting PR. First silence, then a deafening announcement and a promise to release the game in less than a year, an interview with the developers. Wow, it's time to abandon KSP1 and wait for a new game, I want it! And then the news that the team was reorganized, the previous leaders were fired. Then the game was delayed, we saw some very basic things on the forum, for example, the texture of kerbals. Now they show us almost nothing and another delay of the game. From the outside, we can confidently say that the development of the game is not going as expected, and it is taking twice as long as expected. I'd really like to know what else can be done on the planets, excepting to stick a flag and jump.

[Gargamel]

[snip]
 

Anyways     This thread is not about beards, or stress, or not anything that isn’t starfield vs KSP.   Please stay on topic. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Vanamonde

[Vanamonde]

Some comments removed. Please avoid making personal remarks about the game's makers, or anyone else. They are people with feelings, after all. 

[fragtzack]

This forum thread seems out of place in a forum category devoted to Kerbal Space Program 2. 

Starfield is not even worth comparing to KSP(1 and 2) , as the intended purposes of the games listed are vey far apart. 

 

Move this thread to "The Lounge" please!