GoldForest

I'm not disputing that, but from what I can tell, the only real parts missing are the DLC parts that, from what I can tell, hardly anyone uses because mods do it so much better. So, can they really be called "Missing" if no one uses them? It's not just visuals right now. We have new parts, new UI, new mechanics. Map view, objectively better in KSP 2. UI, objectively better in KSP 2. New parts, which offsets the missing parts, imo at least. Better coding under the hood, 1000 times objectively better than KSP 1. KSP 1 was literally held together by broken code. The fact that it worked is a miracle. Ask any vet of the game, I'm 100% sure they will tell you the same thing. All these improvements and you're stuck on "Bad performance." and "Missing DLC parts" in an early access game. Yeah, I don't have tunnel vision. Yes, bugs are a thing. Game breaking bugs in a "Complete" game shouldn't be. No, KSP is not completely playable if I have to restart the game every 30 mins. It is a broken mess, because it crashes every 30 mins, you need mods to fix issues, there's literally an entire mod dedicated to trying to fix most if not all issues in KSP 1. That's the literal definition of "broken mess."

No. There's not. One petition that didn't get accepted means they are ignoring feedback, because, that's not feedback. That's a petition. Two totally different things. As to why they didn't accept it, probably could have been that they already contracted the voice actor/actress that we've heard in the videos.

There's no proof they're not listen to feedback.

You missed one major part of my comment. Later on in my comment, I add this: I change my comment later on to be "After it is fixed." You either missed it, or purposely didn't include it. Idk which, so I won't comment on it missing. The settings weren't allowed to be changed, yes, but if you go watch SWDennis' video, he shows the graphical settings. Everyone was playing on ULTRA settings. Now, I will admit, a 4080 not being able to handle ultra settings when they said a 3080 would be needed to handle "High" settings is a bit alarming, but this is early access. Very early access. Bugs and poor performance are expected. People are freaking out, for nothing! KSP 1 literally went through the same woes. I remember a few performance shattering updates, that were patched within days to weeks. They aren't "Failing to deliver." Is this a 1.0 release? No? Then they haven't "delivered" the product yet. It's early access. Meaning open beta, meaning the game is NOT released yet. People treating this like this is the actual release of the game is kind of ridiculous. Things will improve and get better. Cultish behavior? No. No it's not. I'm not defending their poor performance. I'm pointing out the fact that KSP 2 is objectively better than KSP 1. Even with its poor performance, which will improve as EA goes on. You're free to 'rag' on the game but do so in a critical way. Don't just go, "Performance bad. Game bad. No buy. Worse sequel ever." Because that's what I'm getting from your comment. I agree that $50 bucks is a little high, but then again, the game has a lot more than KSP 1 has, imo, even with the missing features. On top of that, you're going to get free updates that will literally take the game and increase it's size 10-fold. Literally in some aspects. Is that worth a $50 premium? You have to decide that for yourself. I for one, do think it's worth it, because the game will get improvements and updates in the future. And yes, the price will increase after EA is over. It's been confirmed, and with how games are moving from $60 bucks to $70 bucks, I'm assuming it will be $70. Which some people will be willing to pay, because if the game is worth it, it's worth it. You can't say people won't pay $70 dollars, you aren't everyone. The state of the game is bad, yes, but it will improve. That's what Early Access is for. The devs shouldn't feel bad. They know they're releasing an unfinished game, but they're doing so with the intent to make it better. I am not on any "copium". KSP 2 is objectively better than KSP 1. Sure it has poor performance, but that's all that's bad with it. If you look at everything else, KSP 2 is better than KSP 1. Don't tunnel vision on the bad performance and miss everything that's new and improved. KSP 1 is not 'very much playable for 99% of people.' Where's your source? Because the fact is quite the opposite. It IS a broken mess. Go looking around the forums. You'll find dozens of new complaints every day about how people have crashes or have to restart KSP because something broke. Release dates aren't really promises though, because as we've seen with KSP 2, they change all the time. Exactly my point. Early Access. I've played several EA games now, and some of them had super poor performance until a major update or two. Garbage? No. It's not. Objectively, it is not. Garbage would be if nothing worked. You are tunnel visioning on the bad performance and ignoring all the improvments. But, go right ahead and call it garbage. You're opionion. Because constructive criticisim is better than what you're giving out. Opinions that mean nothing, that ignore everything the game has just because of bad FPS. It's EA, poor performance is expected. If you're going to complain about the game, do so in a constructive and critical way, otherwise you're just wasting your energy on a post no one will take seriously. You don't have to be nice to a 'faceless company.' to be constructive and critical.

They didn't even promise anything, afaik.

You were never "promised" anything. They said they would release in 2019, then they delayed it a year, and then they delayed it again by a year, and then they delayed it indefinitely, then they said they were changing plans to release a full game to releasing in early access. Not once did they "Promise" us anything. Delays are good, most of the time. If they had released in 2019, I promise you, your disappointment would have been immeasurable. "Nothing here." Mmhmm, sure. Just ignore all the improvements to graphics, new parts, all the FREE updates that will be coming. Not to mention the fact that stock KSP 2 is 100 times better than stock KSP 1. Even if they weren't going to give us colonies, interstelalar, etc. Just having a revamped KSP 1 is worth $50 alone. Because KSP 1 is held together by rubberbands and paperclips. It's literally unplayable for some. KSP 2, after it fixes it's issues, will be so much better than KSP 1. That and that alone, makes it worth $50 in my opinion.

You are wrong though. Early access is all about them making changes! They said it themselves! It's not "Harder." Squad was just lazy about changing things. Intercept won't be. Most of the things were set in stone due to the deadline to get KSP 2 out by February 24th, but after KSP 2 goes into EA, they can start taking our suggestions seriously. So make the suggestion to make Hydrolox a primary fuel source for a few of the engines on or after the 24th.

No, because you can't compare them. MSFS is aimmed at mostly kids above the age of 14, because not many if any kid is going to play MSFS. KSP 2 is aimed at ALL ages. So the voice has to be engaging to children. Nate Simpson's daughter watches the tutorials and he says she LOVES them. She's like... 5... I think... maybe younger? idk, she's really young though, but the tutorials engage her, and she learns from them. That's what the tutorials are aiming for. To engage people. Most adults can't engage kids. Though, I think I've come up with a solution. Have multiple voice actors. Have the game ask for your age group. 1-6, 7-10, 11-15, 16-20, so on and so forth, then have a specific voice actor for each group.

Honestly, after hearing the voice in this video, it doesn't sound like a kid's voice to me anymore. Sounds more like a female voice that's higher pitched than most others.

Could you stop posting that in every thread? We're not going to 'move on.' We're going to discuss the topic of the thread. Intercept can't listen because the game isn't out yet and they aren't taking feedback. When the game comes out, they will be taking feedback. When that happens, send in feedback, and get the community behind you. They will listen if enough people say they want something. Just like weather. They said they want to add it, but they're worried the community might not, and thus, they're waiting for us to tell them that we do. I agree that there should be more than just Methalox and Hydrolox, but that will only happen if we tell them. "Hey, we think it should be like this."

Very likely actually. See, Squad wasn't willing to change it, but Intercept has said multiple times, even emphasizing it. "We want your feedback! We want YOU to make this game better." So yeah, if enough of the community goes, "Make KS25 Hydrolox." I'm sure they would listen.

KSP is about getting away from Earth and the 'known.' KSP is about exploring the unknown. I have no doubt though that KSRSS will get ported to KSP 2 once modding is fully unlocked.

I agree it doesn't make sense to make the KS-25 Methalox, but tbf, it was lfo fueled, and all LFO got converted to Methalox. Maybe with feedback, they'll change it to Hydrolox.

56 hours, 18 minutes and 50 second as of right now.

By not voting.

Shuttle will return after the next launch. But they are going to use a new Shuttle Saturn derivative for said next launch.

Again, copies sold do not make it niche. The target audience and what the product does make it niche. Spaceflight simulators are niche. Nothing you say will change that. KSP is niche.

No, @Gargamel changed it. See his post 4 spots above yours.

Yeah, I know, I did agree with this after Vl3d pointed it out.

Yes. One of the CC's asked about it and Nate said it was coming, just not a priority as of right now, iirc.

Cubic strusts I do agree with you there, but fuel tanks, no. Once auto struts are reintroduced, stacking 5 tanks won't be a problem.

Apologize, I meant to say "I Believe the majority of us like the new parts look." Stupid phone. Rockets are made out of metal and are reflective, even with paint on them they can be shiny enough to reflect light. Not all of it. And the parts in KSP 2 aren't very reflective. If you watch the game play trailer, there's not much reflection to the painted parts, which, imo, is how it should be. I see no problem with the textures, although, I've only seen then second-hand. I would need to see them firsthand on the 24th to really make a sound judgement. But from what little I've seen, they look fine to me.

Procedural parts are lazy to the player's. It doesn't encourage creativity or problem solving. Individual parts do. Procedural parts should only be used to solve problems that would be a real problem like the million part wings. Anything else would be pure laziness just having procedural everything, imo. Tanks shouldn't be procedural, because you have several lengths, even long ones that are fine being stacked.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. THe majority of us, I belive, like the new part looks.

Yes, and it would stifle creative thinking to solve problems. Which KSP is kind of about. I agree that procedurally parts would be nice for certain items, but not everything. It might do more harm then good. If you want procedurally parts, wait for a mod to come out.