Making History preview - critique and discussion

[LoSBoL]

3 hours ago, tater said:

@LoSBoL, then the spaceplane parts need to be scrapped. Pick one style.

Your "reusability' argument is completely backwards. A reused spaceplane should be dirty, not an expendable rocket that has never flow before.

Have you ever seen how dirty parts can get when found next to the road?  Nah, just kidding, fair point.

And why should one have to choose?  I saw a pic in one of the topics on this forum from the Apollo 11 lander and transfer stage, there was a comment on there that the lander and transfer stage didn't even look like they should be on the same vessel. Ans If I wanted to choose, there are 10, 20, 100? part packs one can choose from.

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

"Kerbals are dumb and fly in trash cans"

The game is meant to look near future. It was stated before by the ex-lead dev @HarvesteR himself. The way the game looks isn't even intended. It looks the way it looks because completing each part overhaul project never was a priority.

People should seriously stop talking about how trashy style is intended because it really isn't. You don't know the whole story behind the parts and the fact that "it says it so in the descriprition" doesn't mean the plan to change it never happened. It did. And it's pretty obvious that more than once.

It's true, I'm new to KSP, I judge it 'as is' and I'm not burdend by old wounds. Reality is that the world changes, intentions change, dev-teams don't even have to change for development taking other courses. Fact is that HarvesteR or Porkjet are no longer around to further develop KSP the way they intended to. 
And I don't blame Squad for the change in revamp intentions, when you can get 10, 20, 100? parts pack mods to change the look one wants it to be.

So maybe people should stop remenising from what was in the past, en what is probably not ever going to be. Like I said, I'm new to KSP, so I judge it 'as is', and mismatching parts seem to fit the way I percieve Kerbalkind. I am really surprised that it was going to look like 'near future'. Now that doesn't seem right to me as a new player who has just found KSP.
There was a cinematic made by Squad for the 'Loud and Clear' update. It was dead funny Kerbalnauts, the whole style of it was breathing 'funny' kerbals, Near Future just doesn't fit in to me as a new player.

[Stone Blue]

29 minutes ago, tater said:

The orange tank is the best of the 2.5m tanks, lol. It's got a Delta IV look to it as well as shuttle main tank.

Yup... yet I avoid it like the plague, simply because NOTHING else matches it...

[tater]

@LoSBoL, the KSC is pristine, and as modern looking as you could imagine. The trucks zipping around in the VAB... also modern. The spaceplane parts are pure science fiction, except for the Shuttle parts, which look like the actual Shuttle. The aircraft parts otherwise? Learjet? Not scrap.

I admit to no skill in making 3d parts, but I imagine that as parts go, a set of smooth cylinders cannot be that difficult. Tanks? Smooth cylinders, no rib around the top and bottom, dump the ugly textures. Decouplers? Ditto, using the same not-ugly new texture(s). Probe cores for same? Unsurprisingly, also cylinders, though they could get some greeble, perhaps (a few bumps here and there, look at real rockets near interstates for a sense of what they look like). The interstage texture that appears with the heat shield? That could also be smooth, or the same, frankly, just flush.

 

here's a real rocket (Atlas):

You can see horizontal lines., external piping, etc.It seems like you could borrow "clunky" elements from that, where the longer tank might have the external pipe (like the orange tank has in KSP), and the shorter tanks are 1-2 of the obvious metal segments shown above, then another that is 4, etc. Still looks fuse stacked, so that maybe the grebe (if any) is what shows that there are more parts. The little pips on the left side of the tank, for example.

[KSK]

20 minutes ago, tater said:

*snip*

Here's a real rocket (Atlas):

You can see horizontal lines., external piping, etc.It seems like you could borrow "clunky" elements from that, where the longer tank might have the external pipe (like the orange tank has in KSP), and the shorter tanks are 1-2 of the obvious metal segments shown above, then another that is 4, etc. Still looks fuse stacked, so that maybe the grebe (if any) is what shows that there are more parts. The little pips on the left side of the tank, for example.

I remember somebody posting a picture of a modded part that looked quite similar. It was a bit more obviously made of individual metal panels but it was clean and shiny whilst still looking like something you might build by hand in a very modestly appointed machine shop (or barn if you prefer  ). Not quite literally found by the side of the road but close enough to fit with that aspect of KSP canon if it's one you subscribe to. I remember thinking at the time that it would be a good look for stock 1.25m parts.

Edited April 9, 2017 by KSK

[CobaltWolf]

I haven't read the last page or so, but just wanted to jump back in and say that its not an issue for modders to decide - most of us strive to keep everything consistent with the game's style as a baseline so parts CAN be mix'n'matched. So yes, the stock style is important. Unless every modder agrees to follow a style laid out in some revamp, it would just add another incoherent style.

[Stone Blue]

I may be way off base, here, but based on the polar opinions on basically an "original" Kerbalized, Lego, "thrown-together-look" of "found by the side of the road parts", and a more "modern", consistent, matching look, I would like to see stock texture switching implemented... So the origianl "look" could be kept for those who want that, and going forward, any new, drastic rework could be done, and with texture switching, maybe overall, both camps could be mollified... ???

Maybe going in that direction, it may help Squad to more firmly decide on what they want for a new look, and not have to worry so much about ticking off half of their user base, depending on which way they go... Cuz you KNOW, no matter whether RD's look is IT, or something else comes along, half the people will be upset either way... Cuz per John Lydgate:
 

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.”

[Wjolcz]

@LoSBoL the game can be funny and look good at the same time. The "funny" part doesn't need rocket parts that look awful. These two elements don't have to gear together to make for a good game.

Let's take one of my all time favourite games as an example: Portal. The chambers there were simple and well-designed and the lines delivered by GLaDOS were fairly witty and intelligent.

Now, in KSP there's a certain imbalance as if the devs haven't decided (yet) how they wanted the game to look like. We see silly and reckless kerbal pilots flying in trashy rockets that were presumably built by intelligent kerbal engineers/scientists (because rocket science isn't actually easy if you haven't guessed already). Why can't we have this simplicity and intelligence Portal had? The whole philosophy of KRAAAAZY KERBALS simply hurts game's looks by making people believe that the parts were meant to look like flying barrells and trash cans but in fact it's just an artifact of past part overhauls.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Veeltch

[minepagan]

6 hours ago, tater said:

Spaceplanes are apparently really popular (from reading this forum). I never make them for a number of reasons.

Could it be that they are popular because the parts are not ugly?

^^^This.

Heck, I'm bad enough at making planes, let alone spaceplanes. But I usually try to sneak in as many spaceplane parts into my rockets as I can (when I'm playing stock)

(edit: Sorry I'm a page late, I forgot such things existed...)

Edited April 9, 2017 by minepagan

[LoSBoL]

Thanks to @passinglurker and @KSK for sharing the article, I had not read it while typing my previous post. It was a good read and gives good insight in how the writer envisioned KSP/kerbalkind and why part of the early adopters of the game feel so strong about this.
Like I said, it surprised me that the game was envisioned to look 'Near Future' while the game was in Alpha stage. Nearly 4 years later Squad looks like it was 180 degrees opposite on Harvester's vision, just about every cinematic trailer Squad made to promote the game is about silly kerbals, and the 'silly' parts they use.

 

On ‎9‎-‎4‎-‎2017 at 11:57 PM, Veeltch said:

@LoSBoL the game can be funny and look good at the same time. The "funny" part doesn't need rocket parts that look awful. These two elements don't have to gear together to make for a good game.

Let's take one of my all time favourite games as an example: Portal. The chambers there were simple and well-designed and the lines delivered by GLaDOS were fairly witty and intelligent.

Now, in KSP there's a certain imbalance as if the devs haven't decided (yet) how they wanted the game to look like. We see silly and reckless kerbal pilots flying in trashy rockets that were presumably built by intelligent kerbal engineers/scientists (because rocket science isn't actually easy if you haven't guessed already). Why can't we have this simplicity and intelligence Portal had? The whole philosophy of KRAAAAZY KERBALS simply hurts game's looks by making people believe that the parts were meant to look like flying barrells and trash cans but in fact it's just an artifact of past part overhauls.

Let me give you another viewpoint, Squad has not put a priority of 'professionalising' the rocketparts because they could have thought that sleek, proffesional rockets could actually hurt the game. If you look at every trailer they made they tried to emphasise on the fact that 'conquering space was never this easy', while we all know that orbital mechanics and the game in fact has a steep learning curve. 
So they make fun trailers containing easy 'distinguishable and exagerated parts'. Parts that, without even knowing anything about orbital mechanics, give away there exact function, The KISS (keep it simple, stupid and straightforward) design of the parts actually eleviate the steep learning curve because they virtually scream engaging simplicity. They give a feeling that if the rocket looks simple and get in to space, 'I can build that and get it in space!'.

A sleek looking rocket, making the game look 'more serious' could actually hurt sales.

I really don't relate strong in how the parts look, either way would be fine by me, but I can imagine why Squad would market the game in another way than HarvesteR had in mind. I must however say that KSP has gone a very very long way in development since the Alpha stage, and I am not dissapointed that they chose other priorities in expanding the game over an part update.

That the rocketparts did get vamped and the rocketparts didn't could be marketing to, lure potential gamers with easy looking parts, and when they get the hang of building rockets, they can step up and build more professional and shiny spaceplanes.

 One question I really can't answer is, why did HarvesteR think that seeing Kerbalkind as silly would hurt the game? The only thing I can really imagine is that some people who are interested in building 'beautifull rockets' are being held back in stock. To be truthfull, that is just one of the million ways people can enjoy KSP, and all have different objectives and visions of what is fun.
 

Edited April 11, 2017 by LoSBoL

[LoSBoL]

On ‎9‎-‎4‎-‎2017 at 7:22 PM, tater said:

Spaceplanes are apparently really popular (from reading this forum). I never make them for a number of reasons.

Could it be that they are popular because the parts are not ugly?

That sounds way to simplistic to me. Could it be that people tend to have fun building a plane like it was LEGO and fly your homemade creation in somewhat realistic atmosphere?

Flying also has always had big attraction by humankind, people dream of piloting for ages, and to a great extent, it's reachable for a human being to do so in reality, much more so than being an astronaut, which is much further away in reality. Flying planes is just nearer to reality than getting your ass hauled up in to space.

So I am not at all surprised that building and flying (space-)planes is more populair than building rockets.

I also see people making planes, boats, sharks, trucks and even fully detailed batmobiles! so I guess people tend to find fun in many different ways.

 

On ‎9‎-‎4‎-‎2017 at 8:02 PM, tater said:

@LoSBoL, the KSC is pristine, and as modern looking as you could imagine. The trucks zipping around in the VAB... also modern. The spaceplane parts are pure science fiction, except for the Shuttle parts, which look like the actual Shuttle. The aircraft parts otherwise? Learjet? Not scrap.

I admit to no skill in making 3d parts, but I imagine that as parts go, a set of smooth cylinders cannot be that difficult. Tanks? Smooth cylinders, no rib around the top and bottom, dump the ugly textures. Decouplers? Ditto, using the same not-ugly new texture(s). Probe cores for same? Unsurprisingly, also cylinders, though they could get some greeble, perhaps (a few bumps here and there, look at real rockets near interstates for a sense of what they look like). The interstage texture that appears with the heat shield? That could also be smooth, or the same, frankly, just flush.

 

here's a real rocket (Atlas):

You can see horizontal lines., external piping, etc.It seems like you could borrow "clunky" elements from that, where the longer tank might have the external pipe (like the orange tank has in KSP), and the shorter tanks are 1-2 of the obvious metal segments shown above, then another that is 4, etc. Still looks fuse stacked, so that maybe the grebe (if any) is what shows that there are more parts. The little pips on the left side of the tank, for example.

Now that rocket already looks pretty Kerbal to me

But youre right, there are inconsistencies if you look close enough, they just don't offend me as much as it strongly does for some.

Edited April 11, 2017 by LoSBoL

[Wjolcz]

@LoSBoL you just completely missed my point. The parts don't look the way they look because they meant them to look that way but because there was never time and/or will to overhaul them. The current "style" is not intended at all.

NovaSilisko created them and he said himself that he hated the style and would do it in a completely different way if he had another chance.

Oooooh, okay. My thread where he said that is actually gone from the forums and can't even find it with Google. How convenient.

Edit: OK, I got it. It was just mobile forum being strange again.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Veeltch

[Frozen_Heart]

I think Novas parts looked fine when the whole game was simple and cartoony like that. It worked as its own style.

 

However having half the parts looking high definition, sleek, and realistic, while the other half look like they are from a cartoon, that just doesn't work.

 

[LoSBoL]

2 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

@LoSBoL you just completely missed my point. The parts don't look the way they look because they meant them to look that way but because there was never time and/or will to overhaul them. The current "style" is not intended at all.

NovaSilisko created them and he said himself that he hated the style and would do it in a completely different way.

Oooooh, okay. My thread where he said that is actually gone from the forums and can't even find it with Google. How convenient.

No, I didn't miss the point, it is pretty clear that that is a undisputable fact.

but intentions of the developer don't always match the publisher's interest, which I tried to emphasise on.

So 4 years later than the early developers stated intentions we have a 'Jeb's Junkyard', funny exagereted looking rocketparts and parts that have been lying on the side of the road with no signs from Squad that they still intend to change that. To me that is a pretty clear sign the Publisher had other feelings about the developers stated intentions.
It's the game we have now, and I guess many people who bought it long after the statement was made, don't even know about the first intentions, nor mind how it is right now. You can't blame people for having diffent feelings about how the game feels to them, against how it was envisionend long time ago by the lead developers. They can only Judge it 'as is' and bought it 'as is'.

[passinglurker]

@LoSBoL I'm afraid you're wrong there is nothing intentional about kerbals junky rocket parts. The better KSC and better spaceplane parts were added later than most rocket parts the game was moving in the direction of overhaul and this potential sold a lot of copies back when people were innocent to the dangers of early access.

If you are looking for a reason for why I'm afraid reality is not as rosy as "darn they just loved thier wacky sloppy kerbals so much". That doesn't make sense having the game half wellmade and half sloppy doesn't work, and the reason they don't go back and sloppy up the space planes or the ksc is the same reason they don't spruce up the rockets or finish the barn properly.

Art costs money. The rushed 1.0 release, the console ports, the localization these are all moves to expand the pool of non-discerning users for a quick buck. They aren't doing this because they like what they made they are doing this because they don't give a damn and with the influx of users since 1.0 they think thier users don't give a damn either.

Edited April 11, 2017 by passinglurker

[LoSBoL]

I didn't say I was right, I've just tried to give another perspective. One that a developers interest can most defnitely conflict with the interest of the publisher. And in the end a developer can envision all he or she wants, it's the publishers call.

So keep saying 'it was not intentional' is a true statement...  From the developers point of view...   In the mean time, Squad is keeping its mouth shut, another smart 101 marketing trick, Just say nothing, let the community sort itself out and the critique will stop eventually... instead of getting load of new discussions...

"Art costs money."

There you go, it's cost benefit analysis, but that goes a lot further then just 'how much do the developers cost' but also raises the questions 'how much more sales will it generate' AND 'could it hurt sales?'.  And that last one, that's most definetly a big question that absolutely will be evaluated within any company.

If I would have seen trailers of KSP, with sophisticated looking 'real' rockets, it would have absolutely startled me that the game would be to a realisticly hard space simulator. I would have passed....
it's normal human behaviour to take the easy route,  and that would be a genuine concern for the company that wants to sell me a game. So for me, in hindsight, makes perfect sense to keep the marketing light, simple and funny as they did.

It's a shame that people in early acces didn't get everything that was promissed, it really is all economics, nevertheless, In my opinion they brought us a great game and they made sure that the whole game could be considered a placeholder for modders te further develop in the way they see fit.

Edited April 11, 2017 by LoSBoL

[Wjolcz]

Why am I even replying to this? I guess I like punishing myself or something. Alright, here we go again...

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

I didn't say I was right, I've just tried to give another perspective. One that a developers interest can most defnitely conflict with the interest of the publisher. And in the end a developer can envision all he or she wants, it's the publishers call.

There's no other perspective. It's either the lack of money, lack of time or both. The way the game looks isn't intentional.

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

There you go, it's cost benefit analysis, but that goes a lot further then just 'how much do the developers cost' but also raises the questions 'how much more sales will it generate' AND 'could it hurt sales?'.

It won't hurt the sales in any way. The worst case scenarios in a situation where they actually overhaul parts are either: people won't care much or people will see it and say "Oh, hey they actually tried to do their best to make this game look good and finished instead of trying to milk it with DLCs. I'm now seriously considering buying another game from them".

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

If I would have seen trailers of KSP, with sophisticated looking 'real' rockets, it would have absolutely startled me that the game would be to a realisticly hard space simulator. I would have passed....

Subjective point of view. Also, I don't believe you. It's natural that if something looks good and shiny it will sell better than something that looks like trash. You also completely missed my post about Portal. The game can be light-hearted/funny and good-looking.

You might as well go watch Mad Max and try laughing as if it was some sort of comedy, because by your logic scrap and rust = hilarity. That is a very strange sense of humour imo. Oh, and everyone is reckless there so the hilarity is doubled!

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

it's normal human behaviour to take the easy route

This argument is invalid as KSP is known for its steep learning curve.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Veeltch

[tater]

The Atlas image I posted was meant to show that the rocket body while smooth, had horizontal panel lines (because metal comes in sheets with sizes limited by the factory that makes the sheets)---you could make the kerbal tanks not have the awful rim (spaceplane parts don;t have a rim, if rims are "kerbal," then spaceplanes need rims between every part, too), and have the texture none the less show horizontal lines so that when stacked, the rocket looks simultaneously smooth, even though it is made of X tank parts, stacked.

[Stone Blue]

The thing with the rims, and some greebles, and some of the curvatures of many parts (while some cant be helped), are also inconsistent with the colliders... Meaning, when surface attaching some parts, those parts "sink" into said rims/greebles/curvatures, ruining the aesthetics...

Granted, this is a little issue, and probably getting off topic... But I mention it, just to illustrate, that yeah, the rims (and larger diameter of those awful decouplers), can ruin the overall look & effect...

[LoSBoL]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

"There's no other perspective."

...So developers and publishers always speak with one tongue and strive for the same goals?  There are always conflicts in interest and different points of view, in any company, it's how the real world works... The surprising walkout of virtually all developers was probably all dandy aswell, probably no conflict in interest whatsoever.

"It won't hurt the sales in any way."

How do you know so certain? You did the numbers? made the market analyses?

"Subjective point of view. Also, I don't believe you. It's natural that if something looks good and shiny it will sell better than something that looks like trash. You also completely missed my post about Portal. The game can be light-hearted/funny and good looking."

If KSP was marketed as an hardcore spacesimulater, it would have sold a whole lot less than the 2+ million it did so far, you can absolutely count on that.  Looking good, beautifull and trash, those are all subjective, in the eye of the beholder.

"This argument is invalid as KSP is known for its steep learning curve."

I think that Squad would be eager to sell as much  copies as they can, you do that by making something that is steep look easy, fun and engaging. If things look hard, people are going to fold, that is natural human behaviour, the number of people taking challenges head are a vast minority... I do absolutely think that making fun trailers, with parts that can be easily distinguished in what they are for, help a great deal in the eagerness to find out more of the game.

But that's just my 2 cents...

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

If I would have seen trailers of KSP, with sophisticated looking 'real' rockets, it would have absolutely startled me that the game would be to a realisticly hard space simulator. I would have passed....
it's normal human behaviour to take the easy route,  and that would be a genuine concern for the company that wants to sell me a game.

This line of thinking falls flat to me.  KSP has been known as a hardcore space flight sim for a long time and continues to sell.

[regex]

It's not about "realism" so much as it is about consistent styling. The cartooney look was well established by the time Bac9 got ahold of the spaceport. The top-tier spaceport by Bac9 is a masterpiece IMO; really captures the cartooney aspect of the game while looking clean, professional, and still hand-drawn. Even the lower-tier spaceport buildings try for this (except for that travesty of a "barn") despite falling a bit short on implementation. The spaceplane and rocket revamp parts by Porkjet follow that same aesthetic, clean, well-built, subtle. I think Roverdude nails the shape of this aesthetic "Kerbalness" pretty well even if I think he overdoes the shading and texturing on his parts (I've never liked his choice in colors either but that's not something I really consider criticism, just a matter of taste). Even the NASA parts, with all their flaws (they look like probably the best I could attain if I fired up Lightwave again tomorrow), try to manage this consistency. So in the end, after seeing all the new parts come to the game, I think it's safe to say that the older rocket parts, while lovable in their own way, don't fit the intended aesthetic of all these newer artists.

[LoSBoL]

51 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

This line of thinking falls flat to me.  KSP has been known as a hardcore space flight sim for a long time and continues to sell.

 

You are absolutely right, it is known as a hardcore space sim, but not solely, Funny Kabooms! Insane spacecraft, Legoíng youre own contraption,1000 ton payload lifters etc.
Everyone laughs when you kill Jeb with another rediculous contraption, it's not funny when you kill Neil Armstrong if it was just an hardcore space flight sim on its own.
Squad did an excellent job in 'taking the load off' and not to make the whole game to serious, it has broadend the target audience inmensly in that way, and not just selling to hardcore spacesim ethusiasts.

6 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by LoSBoL

[regex]

15 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Everyone laughs when you kill Jeb with another rediculous contraption

No, they don't.

[LoSBoL]

1 minute ago, regex said:

No, they don't.

Ok, not everybody   we do get attached to our Kerbal

[Stone Blue]

2 hours ago, regex said:

It's not about "realism" so much as it is about consistent styling.

<snip>

Regex's WHOLE statement, is probably one of the most concise and accurate summations of the whole point of this thread... Wish I could be as eloquent and less long-winded when trying to convey points/opinions...

Edited April 11, 2017 by Stone Blue