KSP 2 will ruin the original

[Thelizard]

KSP 2

Making a second is a bad idea: 

Ksp Is like Minecraft, there should never be a sequel, it is an open ended creative game, 

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

Im sorry but more Minecraft, when Microsoft acquired Mojang, they didn't make Minecraft 2, they instead took the amazing community and built upon it, they did things we never would've thought they could do. Most of the features in KSP 2 that we know of,  can be incorporated in an update. Also, some of the parts in KSP 2 seem a little too far from the present. 

 

In my opinion "poor choice", but I'll still play it (KSP 2 ) anyway

Edited August 24, 2019 by Gargamel
Fixed Horrible Migraine Inducing Color Scheme

[Ultimate Steve]

23 hours ago, Thelizard said:

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

Which is completely true. The first one was a passion project by a guy who hadn't made a big game before and a studio that hadn't made a game before, with a few subsequent developer teams taking over and tacking things onto a game that was never designed with those things in mind over the course of eight years. A ground up rewrite with a roadmap would lead to better integration of features and less lag (both because of the ground up optimization and because of taking advantage of a newer version of the game engine) along with a few other benefits.

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Ultimate Steve

[rmaine]

7 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Which is completely true.

 

Absolutely. And since when is it a bad thing to admit to flaws, when they do in fact exist? Acknowledging your mistakes is the first step to doing better. This adage is just as true in software as it is in most aspects of real life. (Barely resists temptation to name an example of someone in current news who refuses to do that; well, I suppose I didn't completely resist, but I'll avoid the name). I fully expect KSP 2 to be better for having learned from some of the mistakes of KSP 1. Not that KSP 1 isn't pretty darn good, but it also sure isn't perfect.

[Jimmidii]

Building a new version of Minecraft is exactly what they did do. In part at least to get around limitations of the original Java version.

They put a huge amount of resources into developing Bedrock edition and bringing it up to feature parity with Java edition. They're now developed in parallel, but there are definite advantages the with the Bedrock edition for stability and cross platform play, as well as the upcoming upgrade to allow RTX graphics.

With KSP 2 being developed by a different studio, and Squad remaining on KSP 1, we're getting the best of both worlds. KSP isn't going to suddenly stop existing because KSP 2 exists, if it turns out that you still prefer it to KSP 2.

[Redneck]

28 minutes ago, Thelizard said:

KSP 2

Making a second is a bad idea: 

Ksp Is like Minecraft, there should never be a sequel, it is an open ended creative game, 

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

Im sorry but more Minecraft, when Microsoft acquired Mojang, they didn't make Minecraft 2, they instead took the amazing community and built upon it, they did things we never would've thought they could do. Most of the features in KSP 2 that we know of,  can be incorporated in an update. Also, some of the parts in KSP 2 seem a little too far from the present. 

 

In my opinion "poor choice", but I'll still play it (KSP 2 ) anyway

uhh huh! right! 

[Geschosskopf]

29 minutes ago, Thelizard said:

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

OF COURSE it has and will always have core flaws.  That's been a staple of KSP since the get-go.  That's most of what makes things "Kerbal".

And I sincerely hope that KSP2 is the same way, just in different areas.  Let it fix the limitations of the original KSP framework but don't let it cover all the bases.  It wouldn't be KSP if it made sense all the time, or worked all the time, or couldn't be pushed, kicking and screaming, into directions the devs never envisioned, with hilarious results.

[RocketBlam]

I don't agree. The original will still be there. I still play Civilization 5 from time to time. A lot of people do.

I'm cautiously optimistic that KSP 2 will be better anyway.

And KSP does have structural flaws. A lot of the game just doesn't work well together. You really need mods to make it an interesting game any more, although the latest DLC did a lot to fix the game's problems.

Anyway, if you don't like KSP 2, play KSP. It's not going anywhere.

[RocketSimplicity]

14 minutes ago, RocketBlam said:

Anyway, if you don't like KSP 2, play KSP. It's not going anywhere.

Just to back up his point.

Edited August 24, 2019 by RocketSimplicity

[The Cuttlefish Empire]

1 hour ago, Thelizard said:

it is an open ended creative game

What about it being an 'open-ended creative game' makes sequels unfeasible? That basically describes half the open world/simulation games out there, and maaany of which have had updates that improved significantly on the original.

1 hour ago, Thelizard said:

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

It... does have core flaws that can't be fixed with an update. Countless of them. You can't address these flaws unless you recognise them to begin with, and that seems to be exactly what Star Theory have done (at least from my interpretation of things).

1 hour ago, Thelizard said:

they didn't make Minecraft 2, they instead took the amazing community and built upon it, they did things we never would've thought they could do

That doesn't mean KSP 2 is a bad idea. They're not identical games, obviously, and just because Minecraft didn't doesn't mean that KSP shouldn't. 

1 hour ago, Thelizard said:

Most of the features in KSP 2 that we know of,  can be incorporated in an update.

Many of the features shown in the trailer - such as colonisation - seem like they would be unable to be incorporated into the game without a complete reworking of the game's code. Mods have struggled with this limitation and tried to find workarounds for almost everything, but they're obviously still not perfect - and, not to mention, actually updating the game in such a fashion would likely be more time-consuming, expensive, etc than just starting from scratch would be. Now, I'm largely unfamiliar with KSP's code, so if I'm wrong here please do correct me - this is just how it seems from the little modding and observation of the modding process I've done.

1 hour ago, Thelizard said:

some of the parts in KSP 2 seem a little too far from the present.

Do you mean like, the technology present in the sequel seems too advanced?

 

And one last statement regarding the title - how could it possibly ruin the original? Even if the game stopped receiving updates and new content, it would never lose its title of 'a very good game,' and that's obviously in a worst-case scenario. The original is what it is, regardless of KSP 2's existence. I, for one, haven't updated my game since 1.3.1, and have no intent to do so anytime soon.

[Lisias]

Just some thoughts about this issue, but using an equally famous and iconic game.

Elite 1 was fantastic. People even spent some money on extra hardware (BBC Micro's Tube Processor) for extra juice.

Then Elite 2: Frontier came, and smashed Elite 1. Elite 3: First Encounters were a very significant evolution, graphically smashing Frontier.

And now, from the same author (David Braben), Elite Dangerous simply obliterated everything else on the family.

Spoiler

 

I own all of the games. Legally. Yeah, I'm that old. Spent most of my time playing First Encounters. I should have about 2 or 3 hours on Dangerous, but I spent a whole year playing First Encounters when they reengineered it to run on high resolution graphics on Windows in 2010 more or less - in 1995, when I bought the game, I was attending college and had little to no time to play with it.

Now? I'm playing KSP.

My point is that it's highly premature to say anything about how KSP 2 will affect KSP 1 and vice versa. It's unlikely that every KSP 1 player will migrate to 2, and I can say with reasonably confidence that some KSP 2 will end up coming back to 1.  To tell you the true, there're die hard Kerbonauts still playing 1.3.1 (and I know of at least one that were using 1.2.2).

There're people playing First Encounters until this date, by the way.

Spoiler

 

https://www.frontierastro.co.uk

Edited October 23, 2021 by Lisias
Updating broken link

[Xavven]

There's always a chance KSP 2 could get cancelled, but it won't be because of this forum thread.

IMHO the worst case is the community gets split between the two games and mod development is spread thin as a result. However, that still means that players have the option of playing whichever game they like better. That's a good silver lining.

And besides, Squad is still going to work on KSP 1.

I see very few downsides to the KSP 2 announcement. Just the reality that sometimes you get a sequel when you didn't ask for one, and sometimes you beg for a sequel and never get one. I've never been part of the former group, but I have been part of the latter and let me tell you it suuuuuucks.

[Bill Phil]

Sequel may not be the best term. There’s no real story. Installment might work better. I don’t know though...

Reboot? Yeah that might be better...

But the original still has value. And it has flaws. You can like flawed things. In fact, even ignoring flaws, if the game were rebuilt from the ground up and with a better budget (I think that’s the case) it would be done differently. KSP has had nearly a decade of code and has some features and systems that would require a complete rebuild to change. And it may be worth rebuilding - KSP 2 is in development after all.

And in that rebuild you need something to entice players - how about colonization and interstellar travel?

[RocketBlam]

21 minutes ago, Xavven said:

IMHO the worst case is the community gets split between the two games and mod development is spread thin as a result.

I think the biggest problem with mod development is that they keep updating the game, honestly. Mod developers get sick of having to constantly work on making their mods work with the latest version.

I appreciate that they are fixing bugs and all, but there have been so many versions of this game that mod developers just give up. I think Kerbal Engineering is on its third dev team.

RSS is several versions behind because the mod developers keep stopping and waiting for the next release. There is a limit to the patience of people who code mods for free.

[Bartybum]

6 hours ago, Thelizard said:

but I'll still play it (KSP 2 ) anyway

Aaaaaand there goes your entire argument.

[GluttonyReaper]

11 hours ago, Thelizard said:

Ksp Is like Minecraft, there should never be a sequel

I haven't followed Minecraft development in a long while, but... I believe this effectively did happen? I seem to recall there being a 'Windows 10' version of the game, that was basically the same as the original but built from the ground-up, away from the hellscape of Java. Not to mention, all the various different versions of Minecraft that've popped up over the years on different consoles, all with their own features and quirks. None of them are actually called "Minecraft 2", but the principle is still the same - redoing everything, but this time the right way so you can odd things which would've been awkward and messy otherwise. And of course, the original Minecraft is still going strong.

As far as I can tell, KSP 2 is just that - KSP done right and professionally from the beginning (They're still using Unity for some reason, but I'll reserve judgement on that until the game actually releases...). Original KSP and its mods ain't goin' nowhere  

...at least not for me, my laptop while definitely catch fire if I try and run anything more intensive just yet  

[SpartanJack17]

11 hours ago, Thelizard said:

Ksp Is like Minecraft, there should never be a sequel, it is an open ended creative game, 

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

Yeah, because KSP does have core flaws that can't be fixed with an update.  I don't understand how it's a bad thing to admit that, since not admitting it would just mean we'd never get a version of KSP with major new gameplay.

Edited August 24, 2019 by SpartanJack17
Formatting fix

[CranialRectosis]

KSP2 will ruin me.

 

I have something like 3800 hours in KSP.

 

If I start playing this too, I may never leave the cave. ;)

[wumpus]

Eh?  I've often heard this argument (although it isn't quite as bad as movies "ruining" the book).

The old game will still be there.  Of course, as a Steam game I'm only hopeful it will still be for sale (and considering the $60 price, it may well not want the competition).  The best we can hope for is a last stable version with a more or less full suite of mods (that last bit is critical, if the modders all jump on the hype train while Squad slowly updates KSP 1.x, we could have a highly fractured community all over the map (depending on which mods you won't upgrade without).

This isn't an online game.  You can still go to Duna even if everybody else is on KSP 2.0.  You can still go to Eve (but you still can't lift back off) even if Squad/Steam turns the servers off (thanks Squad and Harvester for that traditional lack of DRM).  The retro-gaming movement has shown that good games still have life in them no matter how far the industry has moved on.

There are three basic possibilities for KSP 1.0 after release of KSP 2.0:

1. KSP 2.0 completely fails, community keeps KSP 1.0 alive (highly unlikely but it has happened.  I think Asheron's Call 2 died a few months after starting.  There must be other examples...)

2. KSP 2.0 is merely adequate, forking the community to various degrees.  KSP is a great game: trying to capture lighting in a bottle twice (with completely different developers) is going to be tough.  While KSP has many places that need serious improvement, I'd be shocked if KSP does the sandbox quite as well, and that is what makes and breaks KSP.

3. KSP 2.0 is clearly superior, and the community moves en masse to KSP 2.0.  Actually I assume that all new players will start on KSP 2.0, so Steam statistics will probably show this to be the case regardless while any grognards clinging to KSP 1.0 will clearly claim that case #2 is "obviously" happening.  In any event, KSP 2.0 will likely both need new mods, and have more obvious places that need expansion, so will probably get the modding community in any event.

[MechBFP]

14 hours ago, Thelizard said:

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

That was admitted a LONG LONG time ago lol. Exactly why I am excited for a sequel, it can fix all those problems from the ground up, which is fantastic.

[Tw1]

I just hope they don't spoil places like the space center, or favourite features on planets.  

So much can be done just testing things, or mucking about at the space center between launches. It's like a home town if you've played long enough. And there are so many videos in which it features.

That is my concern, that while the game may technically be much better, it looses something of the heart and history that has been built up along the way.

Edited August 24, 2019 by Tw1

[ShawnPhillips]

14 hours ago, Thelizard said:

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update

And that is True. Before KSP Squad wasn't a game developer, they where a marketing company that just so happen to release a game that started life as an experiment by one of their employees in his free time. There are loads of limitations within the game's core code that would need a complete rewrite to remove, so it is better off having actual game developers rebuild it from scratch then try to band-aid the current game.

[VoidCosmos]

I want the space center to be in tje same geographic location and not on a marshy island. Then I want the planets to remain almost the same (With clouds obviously) New planets are.... Acceptable. These are my planets + space center thoughts 

[GoldForest]

13 minutes ago, Nigel J. Cardozo said:

I want the space center to be in tje same geographic location and not on a marshy island. Then I want the planets to remain almost the same (With clouds obviously) New planets are.... Acceptable. These are my planets + space center thoughts 

They have stated the KSC is in the same location, roughly, as that of the KSP 1 KSC. I for one am actually okay with the marshy/lake like area. Actually, thinking about it, it's more like a bay. Like San Francisco Bay. Anyway, I'm fine with the ponds, lakes, rivers, etc all around the base. Makes getting to the water faster for boats and submarines. 

[Klapaucius]

It is still not clear just how different they are.  If KSP2 is a rebooted KSP with all sorts of new stuff, then I think KSP1 will slowly fade from the spotlight.  If KSP2 is in fact a sequel, in which the focus is primarily  on near-future technology, base building etc. while KSP1 stays rooted in the present, then I think they will co-exist just fine. 

 

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

They have stated the KSC is in the same location, roughly, as that of the KSP 1 KSC. I for one am actually okay with the marshy/lake like area. Actually, thinking about it, it's more like a bay. Like San Francisco Bay. Anyway, I'm fine with the ponds, lakes, rivers, etc all around the base. Makes getting to the water faster for boats and submarines. 

More like Cape Canaveral, actually.   I hope all the base building goodies include ways of building docks and port facilities.

 

I'm curious to know how much the geography will have changed.  I've mixed feelings about that.

[Gargamel]

@Thelizard, Please use formatting that is easy to read, the horrible colors you chose were removed.  On some platforms, that post was almost unreadable. 

And there is a reason why people are still looking for the old versions of KSP, the pre-alpha and the like.   Nostalgia.    Of course KSP will eventually cease to be produced or worked on as a commercial product, and KSP2 will takes it's place in the commercial sector, but there will always be a group of players who, for whatever reason, will continue to play it.    8 years of modding will dictate this.