KSP2 Hype Train Thread

[tstein]

Just now, Kerbart said:

Clearly it's not COD or GTA, at the same time I doubt T2 intends to keep it as limited as a niche game as KSP1 was. They've invested way more into the game to limit themselves on just that. The emphasis on improved tutorials, but also the push on social media to promote the game is outside the regular KSP1 crowd.

To what extend the EA sale will be limited to KSP1 players? Surely a lot, but I'm sure then IG hopes to interest new players as well. Tutorials would be a part of th roadmap if that weren't the case. I suspect that there's a public that just needs that little nudge to try the game, and good looks plus a reduced EA price might be just that nudge. Of course they need to know about the game, but the current level of activity suggests that once EA is available on Steam, the publicity machine will pivot in that direction to create more interest in the game.

Oh on that I agree, it will PIVOT  into that direction,   but  it is not unreasonable for them to  make the first state focused in their true and tested crowd.

[Snafu225]

"Everyone" talks about amazing graphics are needed to pull in new players, but seem to forget how KSP 1 started back then and now think back for yourself. Did you continue playing because the graphics were awesome? I for sure didn't.

Does it mean graphics in KSP 1 were bad? No.
Does it mean they were pretty? eeh, not really.
Were they functional and able to convey the vastness of space, the beauty of sunrises and the immersion when discovering new planets. Fu..iddletiddlydidu yes.

And it's going to be the same for KSP 2. 
Some will join because the graphics look really good.
Some will join because they are huge fans of space etc.
Some will join because they saw some goofy contraptions.
But if they stay, they'll most likely stay for the gameplay.

So fiddletiddlydidu everything else, first and most important is a solid launch with fundamentally good and exciting gameplay. Everything else is a matter of time. If you're uncertain of EA and whether "promises" etc are kept, wait until you buy it, wait for reviews, wait for mods. Just wait, nobody forces you to buy it at EA launch.

 

Spoiler

Take Project Zomboid. A game stuck with isometric, pixelated graphics. It has a small but hard earned fanbase. Because of the graphics? No, because it is one of the most in depth zombie survival simulations you can get. And the atmosphere is insanely good. Just like in KSP when my craft made it to orbit the first time and I saw the sun/kerbol set behind me.

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Snafu225
Spelling

[Vanamonde]

8 hours ago, Vl3d said:

It's interesting to see that instead of promotional things for KSP2 there are actually more tribute videos for KSP1 popping up before EA launch. It's like people are more emotional about saying goodbye to the first game than having reasons to be be hyped for the sequel. Just my opinion.

It's likely there are more KSP1 vids coming out than KSP2 vids because at this time only a dozen or so devs can make KSP2 vids while several tens of thousands of KSP1 players are able to make vids at will. 

[Domonian]

 

Haven't watched it yet, hopefully there's something juicy in there 

[SolarAdmiral]

35 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

It's likely there are more KSP1 vids coming out than KSP2 vids because at this time only a dozen or so devs can make KSP2 vids while several tens of thousands of KSP1 players are able to make vids at will. 

This is definitely what's behind this. These farewell ksp1 videos aren't being made because people are sad to see it go and are worried about ksp2. It's because people are excited for ksp2 and are searching for more ksp content. But there's only so much new news about ksp2 to talk about and all the content creators don't have access to ksp2 yet. So, they can make a goodbye ksp1 grand farewell video to get all those views.

[Minmus Taster]

25 minutes ago, Domonian said:

 

Haven't watched it yet, hopefully there's something juicy in there 

Hasn't this been out for weeks now?

[Domonian]

4 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

Hasn't this been out for weeks now?

Uploaded 7 days ago, but with 300 views even now. I didn't know it existed until it was posted by CM Dakota over on the Discord

[poopslayer78]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Anyhoo new instagram image.

Since when are you on this new fangled istafram and ticktokety nonsesnse?!?

[Kerbart]

43 minutes ago, Domonian said:

Haven't watched it yet, hopefully there's something juicy in there 

This was posted by Vl3d last Thursday.

[LHACK4142]

One thing I think should be mentioned is that graphics of games tend to get only better and better, so by 1.0 there's a decent chance they're going to be pretty darn good despite the fact that they are kinda underwhelming right now.

[Pthigrivi]

7 minutes ago, poopslayer78 said:

Since when are you on this new fangled istafram and ticktokety nonsesnse?!?

I know it's ridiculous. 



For real though I love tiktok. It took a few days to train its little ai or whatever but now it's just a great stream of vids on physics, history, art, linguistics. Nerd tiktok is great. 

[TLTay]

1 hour ago, Snafu225 said:

Does it mean graphics in KSP 1 were bad? No.
 

They were bad on day one. Basic to the supreme. They checked the 3D graphics box, but that's about it.

People just want to be as wowed as they should expect to be from a 2023 release from a major developer of what will end up being a full-price game.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Xelo said:

Yeh I definitely agree there's a balance. I just feel the veterans here keep downplaying the notion that the graphics are a part of the 'gameplay' experience. Like you can detach graphics from game play so easily. Why travel to other planets if its just recolored spheres kind of deal? Raw physical gameplay cannot cannot sustainably support sales alone.  People explore for the cool vistas :D, make excessive ships bc it looks cool, and for that you obviously need graphics to sustain the immersion. The graphics alone provide a significant chunk of this gameplay incentive! 
I also think you underestimate the importance of graphics in organic marketing like 'word of mouth'. If you think about it, visually unimpressive games dont make for good thumbnails for creator videos (meaning sharing it with friends would accrue less interest), get skimmed over in steam, etc. Your friend may simply forget if it looks bland over other games they may wish to buy. People tend to think space is pretty, and if the game contradicts that expectation, people may think twice. :3 

Why bother with marketing at all then, why not just a closed beta with prominent members of the community? To say EA is not for general purchase is quite an assumption to make I think, and a radical departure from how its typically  used to sustain funding for remaining development.

Know people who did not wanted to play KSP 1 because of graphic, friend has tried to get me into minecraft but here its an graphic / art direction thing.  Also its an long term game if I joined with him. 
 
And hated the retro game style, 320x200 worked pretty well on small an CRT monitor or an blurry CRT tv than on an an huge 4K monitor. Accept lower quality graphic if game is good but it should not be made uglier on purpose.  
Also part in why the 2D games was pretty timeless while the early 3d games did not age well.

And you want to market the game some in early access. I say the missing features are more important to us here than the casuals there landing on the Mun is an milestone not Tuesday. 
Then sending the rescue missions

[Vl3d]

4 hours ago, Xelo said:

I think @Vl3d's point is more graphics are the fancy packaging on products. It gets the product noticed, and gets people to try it for the first time. With a focus towards onboarding this is more essential then in KSP1 and thus needs more attention/effort given. Obviously the product itself (i.e the game play) is what gets what people to come back and that's not disputed. But better graphics would help sell the game better initially, pay dividends to the publisher in proving KSP2 is a viable product, and ultimately allow more resources to develop the game in the long term. Its not an either or thing, a candy bar with a blank packing doesn't exactly sell, and neither does a bad tasting candy in fancy packaging. It is generally of my opinion that people here are deemphasizing the graphical aspects too much in a game about engineering to explore, whereas they should be considered holistically and an essential part of the experience of the game. c:

That's exactly what I wanted to communicate.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Domonian said:

 

Haven't watched it yet, hopefully there's something juicy in there 

It is a horrible interview.  Skip every time the guy on the left is bobbin his head and yammering. 

I did a 'in case you missed it' summary up thread - because there IS some good info - but save your brain and do a LOT of FFing if you want to watch for yourself. 

 

Edit - Here:

In case you missed it

 

 

 

 Notes from 'Marketing Interview' with Ara Joseffson, Senior Marketing Manager for Private Division (observation- interviewer isn't really a KSP player; played it 'a bit' in 7th/8th grade, sounds like it):

 

 

 

 Take Two's first EA title.  (Noted that Squad's KSP was EA at first, too)

 

 

 

 "All of... pretty much all of the" foundation of the game is complete / will be complete for EA.  Some of the other parts (Colony, on) still in development - so unfair to hold later game stuff till that's polished; thus EA.  The other stuff are 'huge expansions'.

 

 

 

 EA unlikely to be perpetual because they have a clear roadmap.  Clear focus of the early part of EA will be balance (engines, etc) and focus on onboarding.   But for Intercept, 1.0 is a clear picture - they know where they are going.

 

 

 

 The interviewer wants to know 'what's the balance between simplifying the game (Casual-ifying) KSP2 and its current audience who likes the technical difficulty and realism.  Ara does a good job of threading this - 'They don't want to take away the difficulty of the game' - but the things that might have been difficult for new / inexperienced players should be made easier by tooltips, UI and video tutorials (vs text-heavy).  "None of the challenge has been taken away - if anything, it's harder.  Colonies and Interstellar are harder."

 

 

 

 Some things that were added in KSP as mods (alarm clock, planners, etc), are now integrated into the game, which will make it work really well on more PCs.  Base code works better with 'mod ideas' being part of the original plan, rather than tacked on.

 

 

 

 Happy with and supporting Mod scene.

 

 

 

 Colonies must be built - and uses the same physics system of the base game.  It will be Kerbal; reactive to terrain and physics.  So players will have to have a Kerbal strategy to how and why and where you build it.  All of these factors will have 'a gameplay impact'.  Colonies will not be "an aesthetic building game."  Partnering with real-world colony and hab planners (reference: ESA tie-in from KSP).  Orbital colonies will be easier; but landed colonies will be more difficult because of the physics and terrain of different places.  (You can build one wherever you can figure out how to build one)

 

 

 

 Goals, narrative aspects, lore - will come out later with 'Progression System' to 'unlock mysteries of the universe' - but not a required part of the game; players can go for, follow the proscriptive aspects if they choose to... but they'll be there, emergent, for players who want that kind of thing in the game.

 

 

 

 Don't want to alienate current players who like the realism / difficulty; will do collaborations with real-world agencies... but not likely to collaborate with fictional franchises or games (Star Wars/Star Trek/Fortnight - yes, this was a question).  If someone wants to mod those elements in... fine, but nothing official is likely.  So collaborations will be NASA, ESA, ULA - etc.

 

 

 

 Interstellar - 2 additional solar systems confirmed, will not be the only additional solar systems.  Going interstellar is HARD.  And the other planets create harder puzzles, like endgame content for more advanced players.  Might be 'a true endgame' at some point - related to the Progression System 'lore' stuff.

 

 

 

 Multiplayer - WAAAAAAY down the line "So Far Off".  At the very least it will be Co-Op.  Players can work together - one can be the orbital planner / pilot & 'handle all the flight' while someone else can build a colony (role-play different aspects if desired).  Players don't have to be in the same SOI at the same time... BUT - "It's Still a LONG ways off"  ("very challenging technological feat that I'm sure the engineers are battling with")

 

 

 

 but - "I know they've figured out quite a bit of it".

 

 

 

 Delay - Covid slowed things down massively.  Security, work from home, etc.  Covid did not impact the vision of the game.  A lot of the 'slowdown' was the 'tech side'.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Trying again 

In case you missed it
 

    Notes from 'Marketing Interview' with Ara Joseffson, Senior Marketing Manager for Private Division (observation- interviewer isn't really a KSP player; played it 'a bit' in 7th/8th grade, sounds like it):
 

    Take Two's first EA title.  (Noted that Squad's KSP was EA at first, too)
 

    "All of... pretty much all of the" foundation of the game is complete / will be complete for EA.  Some of the other parts (Colony, on) still in development - so unfair to hold later game stuff till that's polished; thus EA.  The other stuff are 'huge expansions'.
 

    EA unlikely to be perpetual because they have a clear roadmap.  Clear focus of the early part of EA will be balance (engines, etc) and focus on onboarding.   But for Intercept, 1.0 is a clear picture - they know where they are going.
 

    The interviewer wants to know 'what's the balance between simplifying the game (Casual-ifying) KSP2 and its current audience who likes the technical difficulty and realism.  Ara does a good job of threading this - 'They don't want to take away the difficulty of the game' - but the things that might have been difficult for new / inexperienced players should be made easier by tooltips, UI and video tutorials (vs text-heavy).  "None of the challenge has been taken away - if anything, it's harder.  Colonies and Interstellar are harder."
 

    Some things that were added in KSP as mods (alarm clock, planners, etc), are now integrated into the game, which will make it work really well on more PCs.  Base code works better with 'mod ideas' being part of the original plan, rather than tacked on.
 

    Happy with and supporting Mod scene.
 

    Colonies must be built - and uses the same physics system of the base game.  It will be Kerbal; reactive to terrain and physics.  So players will have to have a Kerbal strategy to how and why and where you build it.  All of these factors will have 'a gameplay impact'.  Colonies will not be "an aesthetic building game."  Partnering with real-world colony and hab planners (reference: ESA tie-in from KSP).  Orbital colonies will be easier; but landed colonies will be more difficult because of the physics and terrain of different places.  (You can build one wherever you can figure out how to build one)
 

    Goals, narrative aspects, lore - will come out later with 'Progression System' to 'unlock mysteries of the universe' - but not a required part of the game; players can go for, follow the proscriptive aspects if they choose to... but they'll be there, emergent, for players who want that kind of thing in the game.
 

    Don't want to alienate current players who like the realism / difficulty; will do collaborations with real-world agencies... but not likely to collaborate with fictional franchises or games (Star Wars/Star Trek/Fortnight - yes, this was a question).  If someone wants to mod those elements in... fine, but nothing official is likely.  So collaborations will be NASA, ESA, ULA - etc.
 

    Interstellar - 2 additional solar systems confirmed, will not be the only additional solar systems.  Going interstellar is HARD.  And the other planets create harder puzzles, like endgame content for more advanced players.  Might be 'a true endgame' at some point - related to the Progression System 'lore' stuff.
 

    Multiplayer - WAAAAAAY down the line "So Far Off".  At the very least it will be Co-Op.  Players can work together - one can be the orbital planner / pilot & 'handle all the flight' while someone else can build a colony (role-play different aspects if desired).  Players don't have to be in the same SOI at the same time... BUT - "It's Still a LONG ways off"  ("very challenging technological feat that I'm sure the engineers are battling with")
 

    but - "I know they've figured out quite a bit of it".
 

    Delay - Covid slowed things down massively.  Security, work from home, etc.  Covid did not impact the vision of the game.  A lot of the 'slowdown' was the 'tech side'.
 

     
 
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/187338-ksp2-hype-train-thread/&do=findComment&comment=4224402

Okay - forum does not like my phone 

Edited January 30, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Vl3d]

2 hours ago, Snafu225 said:

Did you continue playing because the graphics were awesome? I for sure didn't.

100% KSP is a more attractive game for me and I play it more with the visual mods. Stock KSP looks really dated. I explore for the sunsets and vistas and anomalies.

[i dont know how to forum]

Reading the graphics discussion here sometimes makes me feel a bit like I'm going crazy. The whole conversation seems rooted in the notion that KSP2 somehow looks graphically bad, so can I just say that I think it genuinely looks great? The recent images we've been getting are beautiful, I'm loving the art direction and the graphical fidelity seems pretty dang good to me.  There's been a bit of roughness around the edges, most of which I expect to be fixed if it hasn't been already, but certainly nothing I would consider a dealbreaker. Given the sheer scale of the game I'm very impressed by what the team has  accomplished here.

[Vl3d]

3 minutes ago, i dont know how to forum said:

Reading the graphics discussion here sometimes makes me feel a bit like I'm going crazy. The whole conversation seems rooted in the notion that KSP2 somehow looks graphically bad, so can I just say that I think it genuinely looks great? The recent images we've been getting are beautiful, I'm loving the art direction and the graphical fidelity seems pretty dang good to me.  There's been a bit of roughness around the edges, most of which I expect to be fixed if it hasn't been already, but certainly nothing I would consider a dealbreaker. Given the sheer scale of the game I'm very impressed by what the team has  accomplished here.

We're talking about what new players will think of the game and how appealing it will be for them in 2023, not what us veterans think.

[i dont know how to forum]

Just now, Vl3d said:

We're talking about what new players will think of the game and how appealing it will be for them in 2023, not what us veterans think.

I mean, I'd say most of the images we're getting right now are meant for "veterans" that are already following KSP2's development, but with that in mind I think the game looks great regardless of whether you've played KSP1 or not.

[Vl3d]

Really how hard is it to just turn up the graphics to ULTRA for a few screenshots? I don't even want to see a video.. just a few epic images of everything turned up to 11.

[Vl3d]

Amazing graphics bring new people to the community.

Welcome, @DrBelupo

[MechBFP]

52 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

That's exactly what I wanted to communicate.

If the screenshots aren’t being posted to Steam, Epic or other sales platforms then the quality doesn’t really matter. 
This is why I was harping on them about not even turning AA on for those screenshots that are uploaded to Steam. If they want to post screenshots in the discord or these forums with things not looking the best then while I may not like it, it really doesn’t matter since the vast majority of new people won’t see them in those places. 
However new people WILL see them on Steam/Epic and it makes sense to make them look as good as possible on there. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by MechBFP

[Stephensan]

5 minutes ago, i dont know how to forum said:

Reading the graphics discussion here sometimes makes me feel a bit like I'm going crazy. The whole conversation seems rooted in the notion that KSP2 somehow looks graphically bad, so can I just say that I think it genuinely looks great? The recent images we've been getting are beautiful, I'm loving the art direction and the graphical fidelity seems pretty dang good to me.  There's been a bit of roughness around the edges, most of which I expect to be fixed if it hasn't been already, but certainly nothing I would consider a dealbreaker. Given the sheer scale of the game I'm very impressed by what the team has  accomplished here.

oh cool something i can talk about, im going spoiler it due to large photos.

Spoiler

 

there is no way this is graphically good overall compared to what we had before with mods alone even the most litest mods can do this. you get some scattering in the atmosphere a decent star shinning, check..

 

everything else, oof. split between day and night its a rather harsh line.

don't get me wrong it's beta... but the issue is it is beta, how much content will be shown in beta.. alot, i can bet alot of new content from videos etc will be showing these clouds, grounds, skys, machines and everything between.

The clouds look way to much 2d gagged, low res, and stretched out flat.. one of the main issues is the clouds and how they react to where they are, the size, and the variation. we wouldn't have much of a problem in the graphics area if it didn't look like a mod for ksp 2 to have clouds. even ksp 1 2d/3d cloud "puffs" is near on par with this.

 

Don't get me wrong the graphics area is plenty good for ksp 2 and there is TONS of technical stuff under the hood that has been worked on and fixed, but the largest issue is how the clouds don't feel like they represent the game, out of EVERYTHING, even ground clutter/scatter, the clouds is what you will see the most on ANY planet that can produce clouds, things, i really cannot know that can produce clouds perhaps KERBIN? like most new players will stay on kerbin for a while, and what do we see..

vape clouds in a room on the ceiling, everywhere, little to no difference. around an entire planet cluster them together with a noise map, its all the same clouds.

 

looks far far away with a more recent image, it looks good, but still way to far out of touch of what players expect, new or old.

looks way more fair looking compared to the closer up in space.

it looks ok~, looking upwards at an angle towards the clouds

how can even a game not related to space like war thunder get it right? and it really doesn't hinder performance? and mind you most ground textures are from 2012/2015.

back in early 2020? 

current day

And here is Pre-2020

That looks VERY similar to what we are getting in the sense of "variation" not the look, the variation, up and down just a flat sheet of "cloud".

 

 alot of people newer people hated war thunders old clouds and complained about it until they changed it in 2020 to put it up to the standards of a modern game.

it completely changes how the game looks, behaves, and everything in between, best part about it, only cost 2-3 frames at most at maximum settings for war thunder to change to those clouds, and that game is from 2012.

 

Don't get me wrong that they repeat the "noise map" over and over due to another issue they are not addressing.

 

i highly doubt that is a resource-intensive thing the have multiple noise generation, that deals with cloud representation, to have more than a single type of cloud, and for it to move, and change every day, every minute, every hour, have weather etc. somewhat dependant on the CPU yes, but i really really doubt that it will completely bog down a newer system.

we can throw everything between "we need good ground clutter/scatter due to its what we see while we are on the ground" which is absolutely true, and then the clouds aswell.

what do you see when you look up in the sky, clouds, how about looking down at the scattering of the sky, clouds, seeing how they are and how they behave, seeing the ground below it, seeing storms of different types and cloud types aswell..

 

The largest issue is how long will these issues be not addressed if they are issues that is which in some people's mind it is.

 

If it is an issue that needs to be fixed later, There will be TONS of other stuff not related to cloud ecosystems that will need to be fixed first. 

if a new player complained about clouds in a war based game that they RARELY go above 3km in "top tier", what will new players think and see seeing the visuals alone of a 2023 beta released game.

 

and this my simple answer overall.

graphics are in a factor when purchasing a game, it differs to person to person.. However if the game is 1-∞ years in beta how long until a more jaw-dropping experience will come for the clouds, there is no way that is the final product overall, we were shown better, we know that it can look better. how long will it be for it to be jaw dropping, and makes you WANT to create a jet just to fly around.

 

[i dont know how to forum]

26 minutes ago, Stephensan said:

oh cool something i can talk about, im going spoiler it due to large photos.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

there is no way this is graphically good overall compared to what we had before with mods alone even the most litest mods can do this. you get some scattering in the atmosphere a decent star shinning, check..

 

everything else, oof. split between day and night its a rather harsh line.

don't get me wrong it's beta... but the issue is it is beta, how much content will be shown in beta.. alot, i can bet alot of new content from videos etc will be showing these clouds, grounds, skys, machines and everything between.

The clouds look way to much 2d gagged, low res, and stretched out flat.. one of the main issues is the clouds and how they react to where they are, the size, and the variation. we wouldn't have much of a problem in the graphics area if it didn't look like a mod for ksp 2 to have clouds. even ksp 1 2d/3d cloud "puffs" is near on par with this.

 

Don't get me wrong the graphics area is plenty good for ksp 2 and there is TONS of technical stuff under the hood that has been worked on and fixed, but the largest issue is how the clouds don't feel like they represent the game, out of EVERYTHING, even ground clutter/scatter, the clouds is what you will see the most on ANY planet that can produce clouds, things, i really cannot know that can produce clouds perhaps KERBIN? like most new players will stay on kerbin for a while, and what do we see..

vape clouds in a room on the ceiling, everywhere, little to no difference. around an entire planet cluster them together with a noise map, its all the same clouds.

 

looks far far away with a more recent image, it looks good, but still way to far out of touch of what players expect, new or old.

looks way more fair looking compared to the closer up in space.

it looks ok~, looking upwards at an angle towards the clouds

how can even a game not related to space like war thunder get it right? and it really doesn't hinder performance? and mind you most ground textures are from 2012/2015.

back in early 2020? 

current day

And here is Pre-2020

That looks VERY similar to what we are getting in the sense of "variation" not the look, the variation, up and down just a flat sheet of "cloud".

 

 alot of people newer people hated war thunders old clouds and complained about it until they changed it in 2020 to put it up to the standards of a modern game.

it completely changes how the game looks, behaves, and everything in between, best part about it, only cost 2-3 frames at most at maximum settings for war thunder to change to those clouds, and that game is from 2012.

 

Don't get me wrong that they repeat the "noise map" over and over due to another issue they are not addressing.

 

i highly doubt that is a resource-intensive thing the have multiple noise generation, that deals with cloud representation, to have more than a single type of cloud, and for it to move, and change every day, every minute, every hour, have weather etc. somewhat dependant on the CPU yes, but i really really doubt that it will completely bog down a newer system.

we can throw everything between "we need good ground clutter/scatter due to its what we see while we are on the ground" which is absolutely true, and then the clouds aswell.

what do you see when you look up in the sky, clouds, how about looking down at the scattering of the sky, clouds, seeing how they are and how they behave, seeing the ground below it, seeing storms of different types and cloud types aswell..

 

The largest issue is how long will these issues be not addressed if they are issues that is which in some people's mind it is.

 

If it is an issue that needs to be fixed later, There will be TONS of other stuff not related to cloud ecosystems that will need to be fixed first. 

if a new player complained about clouds in a war based game that they RARELY go above 3km in "top tier", what will new players think and see seeing the visuals alone of a 2023 beta released game.

 

and this my simple answer overall.

graphics are in a factor when purchasing a game, it differs to person to person.. However if the game is 1-∞ years in beta how long until a more jaw-dropping experience will come for the clouds, there is no way that is the final product overall, we were shown better, we know that it can look better. how long will it be for it to be jaw dropping, and makes you WANT to create a jet just to fly around.

 

"Thing 2 is better than Thing 1" does not invalidate the statement "Thing 1 is great". KSP2 doesn't need to meet some arbitrary modern graphical "standard" in order for me to say it has great graphics. It has great graphics! It looks beautiful! Showing me other games is not going to convince me otherwise.

As for points like the terminator line, this already looks smoother in the most recent screenshot. I think the clouds we're seeing right now look great, and I expect them to still receive some improvements. Like I said, there may be some roughness around the edges in some of these screenshots, in part because they're from various beta builds, but nothing I'd consider a dealbreaker and I still can't wait to jump in and see the game for myself.

[SolarAdmiral]

Are there just some people who have never played a graphically modest game and had fun? Why insist every single game devote all the time and money to look better than any possible peer?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bad graphics aren't enough to make a game bad. Good graphics aren't enough to make a game good. Good gaphics didn't save Anthem. Bad graphics didn't kill KSP1.

Am I the only one who remembers the days of games that sunk everything into their graphics while providing nothing else worthwhile, like Beyond Two Souls and the Order 1886? Which subsequently became massive jokes for flopping in gameplay despite looking so fantastic for the time.

Frankly, I don't think most people who get hung up on absolutely needing everything they play to have cutting edge triple A graphics are really in KSPs target demographic anyway. KSP is a building and space sim without combat. Anyone lured in to play the game solely on graphics will leave disappointed. Anyone who likes building and sim games is already used to looking passed the graphics.

I've got Cyberpunk, and I've barely played it. Meanwhile I've sunk thousands of hours into Stellaris, Factorio, Cities Skylines, Kerbal Space Program, Prison Architect, FTL: Faster than Light, Railroad Empire, Children of a Dead Earth, Dyson Sphere Program, Gear City, Hearts of Iron, Oxygen not Included.

Compare KSP2 to some other games in the same field. Compare to other games with as large of an area as KSP.

KSP2 is already looking better than Elite Dangerous. I'd even say KSP2 is already almost looking almost as good as Starfield (specifically for terrain and clouds), despite Starfield using small maps and skyboxes.

I just don't understand all the complaining because when folks hold up all the photos I'm supposed to think look bad, I just think looks great, because it already looks way better than anything I listed above that I've already put hundreds of hours into.