Meta Jonez Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) It's great that KSP 2 looks and sounds as it does. I just don't recall "Better graphics" and "Better sound" being at the top of anyone's list of things they wanted out of KSP2. I recall, in varying orders, the top three were Colonies, Interstellar, and Multiplayer. But I also recall, above all of these, was a desire for a clean codebase from which to build all these other new features. KSP1, for all it's wonder and brilliance, had it's coding issues. The game was built by people unfamiliar with the underlying organization needed to develop a game. The code was written by a handful of people, all of whom came and went between it's inception and it's sale to TakeTwo, and documentation of that code at times left something to be desired. The end result was bug-prone, at times unstable, and containing "quirks" in gameplay that were a result of nothing other than bits of code not playing well together; bits of code that were never going to play well together. The prime hope of the KSP community was that KSP2 would be that clean codebase. KSP2 would be a strong, solid foundation built by people familiar with both Kerbal Space Program and game development protocols from the start, and that codebase would support (without the use of mods to "fix" things) that aforementioned list of desires. Now, I should preface this by saying I do not write code. I am not a programmer, and my deepest interaction with mods was changing a specific parameter, in a specific document, for a specific result, all under the guidance of the mod writer. So, I cannot point to anything specific in KSP2 as evidence of poor coding, as I do not know enough to know if I am seeing things that need to be "tweaked" or refined, or if the underlying code is fundamentally flawed. Having said that, I recall the release of No Man's Sky. Here was a game that promised a universe of things to do and places to go, and delivered one of the most empty, mind-numbingly boring experiences gaming had to offer. But what was there worked, and as time went on it became clear that those things worked very well, and the initial release was a strong and powerful base for what became the Cinderella Story of gaming: Nineteen major updates that added a wealth of ships, base-building, multiplayer, an explosion of flora and fauna, and many other features, both new and originally promised by the developer. I don't see that strong codebase in KSP2. What we have doesn't work well. Some of the issues players encounter have an eerie similarity to the spaghetti-coded KSP1. Like many players, I would have been thrilled with a release that offered nothing but Kerbin and the Mun, a handful of parts to get there, and a flawless implementation of basic KSP gameplay. What we have, after 100+ hours in the game, appears to me like a lot of pretty that is varnishing over a quagmire of coding. Knowing something of the game's development (see reddit user jxjq's excellent post for more on this: KSP vs KSP2: an ugly development history), I would not be surprised if this assessment proves correct. I have also yet to see a post from anyone, on either Reddit or the KSP forums, who both codes for a living and believes we have a strong codebase with KSP2. I thought reddit user SpikeViper in particular illustrated well what he saw from the game in his reddit post: Outlook from a developer In addition, in so many aspects of KSP2, the developers seemed bent on re-inventing the wheel, and producing something less than what we had in KSP1. For all it's coding issues, there was a great deal that KSP1 got exactly right. There are decisions made here that makes me wonder if anyone working on KSP2 ever played KSP1. If they had, they would know that the Burn Timer ought to include Dv and time to burn calculation that are dependent on the actual burn taking place, rather than one that just assumes I'm doing what it tells me to do; it is not enough to just show me a burn bar moving from right to left, or a timer ticking down. They would know this WYSIWYG approach to the maneuver nodes is substandard to placing the node at a point and straddling that point with the burn. They would know that the average KSP player is not going to "trust" the game and want to be far more precise in the time, direction, and duration of the burn than KSP2 will allow (or is even capable of? I can't help but wonder.) The Burn Timer, and the placement and use of Maneuver nodes, in their present state, are both absurd. They would know that the visual cues in moving stages and stage components around in KSP2 are clearly substandard to that of KSP1. They would know that pinning the little boxes they put around Apoapsis and Periapsis readings get in the way of needed information and UI on the map screen. In contrast, KSP1 APO and PERI readings simply became transparent but readable if pinned, and did not interfere with other information on the screen. They would know that there was literally nothing to be gained by changing the camera controls in the VAB. They would know exactly how irritating it is when the game keeps resetting your VAB camera. They would know this whole "Workspace/Shipname" gimmick in the ship saving interface is actually a pain in the ass: If I cannot save multiple ships under one workspace, what the hell is the point? They would know that auto-populating the description with "Autosaved blahblahblah" also serves to further complicate things when trying to retrieve a saved ship. They would know that we like and have a vested interest in the fate of our Kerbals, and don't care for them disappearing without explanation after a mission. They would know the fonts they used look like they were lifted directly from the 1978 cabinet game Space Invaders, and that their map icons are similarly retro-looking, and that both detract from the game's supposed polish. They would know that the tutorials, while overly verbose and not voiced in KSP1, were organized in a way that made sense and gave a wealth necessary of information to the player. The KSP2 tutorials, while nicely polished, seem haphazardly organized and often information left out of the tutorials seemed to be left out because the game is incapable of letting the player make use of that info. The whole thing seems dumbed down. I am reminded of the moment it dawned on me that the second Star Wars trilogy was not for me: it was written and directed for a different audience, with different goals (can you say merchandising?) in mind than the first three movies. Is this what is happening with KSP? Are we getting a game where, if you just do what the game tells you to, burn when it says burn, don't worry yourself with Dv calculations or useful tools like a precision node editor or fuel management, you get to land on the Mun and learn absolutely nothing? Is Intercept hoping for a larger audience with a dumber product? As I said, I've got a little over 100 hours in KSP2. In KSP1 I've got over 900 hours registered through playing from Steam, and probably another 1500 in game time spread out over various mod implementations and pre-release versions. I started with v 0.19.0 in 2013. In it's current state, it is difficult to imagine I will get the same enjoyment out of KSP2. I hope I am wrong. I really do. Edited March 25 by Meta Jonez spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.