KSP2 is Art

[Izny]

and in it's art, it lets us create art. solving all kinds of puzzles along the way. build -> fail -> analyse-> adjust -> fail again -> analyse more -> adjust more -> add a booster or two -> fail horribly -> analyse -> adjust -> succeed and proceed on the return trip -> fail due to forgotten parachute -> analyse -> adjust -> get distracted by new idea -> rinse -> repeat. 

 

it just tickles the brain in a pleasant way when it's presented with an unexpected outcome that needs solving.

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Unfortunately no, because KSP1 does not give 2 cents about making the planets interesting to explore. KSP2 does.

KSP-1 gives tools for that, and the modders use these tools efficiently.

***

What I've seen in the youtube video (can't put the link due to many harsh words in it), the grass is floating, and the bushes are brown rectangles hanged in air.

The Kerbal easily walks under the levitating grass, even when he is in turn levitating at 20 cm above ground.

But cacti are great.

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The beauty of this game is in the experiences it offers you while exploring. It's beyond just the visuals.. it's intellectual and sensorial. It's art.
Yeah, it needs a lot of polish and improvements.. but it has a soul.

Exactly my feelings from the early KSP-1 ten years ago.

Edited March 1, 2023 by kerbiloid

[jebycheek]

Good for you. I really love the music, but nothing beyond that. 

[J.Random]

15 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Oh god, so true.

[Dakitess]

Wah... must say that, same as some others, I really sincerely (I mean it) don't get how this game can be awesome in any way, visually wise. It's very very poor, technically speaking, and there is nothing like "artistic choices" to my eyes, only cylinder looking like 20 faces polygons, moutains looking like polygons, clouds looking like pixels at far distance and barely nothing when close, texture being over-saturated and gross at best, as well as very inegal, lightning being completely, compleeeeetely off, shadows as well, etc etc etc.

Actually, i've just wrote a small review about it, and it was my initial and final words : at no moment, I felt in "awe", not even close, which is kinda incredible for a game like KSP2, in 2023. It's totally improbable to not get any chills, any awe moment, because it is graphically wise "gross" to my eyes. It's out dated, it's a thing, but I don't see how to defend any "artistic choices" in addition.

And that's a shame, graphics was all I was waiting for. Scenery. KSP is all about scenery. Otherwise there is no incentive to do anything, to take any pic, to share any place.

I don't see how they will fix that, i'm pretty they are happy with how it looks, they might improve the overall look by 50% while it sincerely needs about 300 to 400% enhancement to me. Really, consider how it's looking...

[Vl3d]

[Bej Kerman]

On 3/1/2023 at 10:40 AM, Dakitess said:

Wah... must say that, same as some others, I really sincerely (I mean it) don't get how this game can be awesome in any way, visually wise. It's very very poor, technically speaking, and there is nothing like "artistic choices" to my eyes, only cylinder looking like 20 faces polygons, moutains looking like polygons, clouds looking like pixels at far distance and barely nothing when close, texture being over-saturated and gross at best, as well as very inegal, lightning being completely, compleeeeetely off, shadows as well, etc etc etc.

Actually, i've just wrote a small review about it, and it was my initial and final words : at no moment, I felt in "awe", not even close, which is kinda incredible for a game like KSP2, in 2023. It's totally improbable to not get any chills, any awe moment, because it is graphically wise "gross" to my eyes. It's out dated, it's a thing, but I don't see how to defend any "artistic choices" in addition.

And that's a shame, graphics was all I was waiting for. Scenery. KSP is all about scenery. Otherwise there is no incentive to do anything, to take any pic, to share any place.

I don't see how they will fix that, i'm pretty they are happy with how it looks, they might improve the overall look by 50% while it sincerely needs about 300 to 400% enhancement to me. Really, consider how it's looking...

I like the fact my ships look like, well, ships, as opposed to scrap found laying on the side of the road, the fact the clouds look as cartoonish as the Kerbals, the engine plumes, and so on. I can hardly find a time in my playthroughs where I'm not religiously screenshotting whatever I'm flying and its surroundings. And whatever funny orbital shapes I can make with the maneuver node and an ion at 1% thrust limiter.

But to each their own ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Moons]

A serious question - the more i look at the old and the new game - the more i wonder if the game wouldnt be of way better with more comic-like reduced graphics - less details but more things in general and adding less details and work with textures more than polygons. Looking at the videos - some dont look too bad but i wonder - does the artstyle even fit the kerbals?

 

And in general the biggest problem i have with KSP1 and 2 is that the art style doesnt look uniformly. For example:

Trees: have way too much details and still dont really look good

Grass: on the other hand looks really weird with almost no details

Runway: lots of details on the asphalt - combined with way too clean white stripes

Buildings: Lots of details seem completely out of place in this world

Mountains and Hills - sorry but they dont look good at all

 

To me  it just seems like a weird mix of realisms and comical combined with very detailed realistic objects in a world with almost no details driven by comic-figures.

 

From my point of view the main theme of the graphics of this game should be the Kerbals - i think the rockets are okay because people enjoy that and i like the style but the rest - i dont know.

 

For example trees:

 

 

 

Something like this would be a bit too comical and reduced but i think it would still look better:

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Moons

[Vl3d]

2 minutes ago, Moons said:

A serious question - the more i look at the old and the new game - the more i wonder if the game wouldnt be of way better with more comic-like reduced graphics - less details but more things in general and adding less details and work with textures more than polygons. Looking at the videos - some dont look too bad but i wonder - does the artstyle even fit the kerbals?

And in general the biggest problem i have with KSP1 and 2 is that the art style doesnt look uniformly. For example:

Trees: have way too much details and still dont really look good

Grass: on the other hand looks really weird with almost no details

Runway: lots of details on the asphalt - combined with way too clean white stripes

Buildings: Lots of details seem completely out of place in this world

Mountains and Hills - sorry but they dont look good at all

To me  it just seems like a weird mix of realisms and comical combined with very detailed realistic objects in a world with almost no details driven by comic-figures.

From my point of view the main theme of the graphics of this game should be the Kerbals - i think the rockets are okay because people enjoy that and i like the style but the rest - i dont know.

The kerbals should be the only thing that looks cartoony. Everything else you see in the world should be close to realistic. That's the whole theme: placing plushies in real world rockets.

[Moons]

8 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

The kerbals should be the only thing that looks cartoony. Everything else you see in the world should be close to realistic. That's the whole theme: placing plushies in real world rockets.

Even if thats the vision the game still needs some arstyle to cover the lack of polygons/textures. And especially the kerbal space center looks completely out of place.

Also for some reason the distant terrain seems to be shining and everything looks to flat - but i dont know how much can be done without changing artstyle completely.

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Moons

[whatsEJstandfor]

7 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

The kerbals should be the only thing that looks cartoony. Everything else you see in the world should be close to realistic. That's the whole theme: placing plushies in real world rockets.

Hundo p agree here. I think it's way funnier (and more thematically on point) this way.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 2/28/2023 at 11:08 AM, Majorjim! said:

Do you not find the game lighting horrible..? Everything is far too shiny and the sun washes out all colours and looks so artificial. The fact that this is a CPU heavy game and looks pretty meh and doesn’t run properly on anything other than other than monster hardware isn’t funny. 

W all need to relax.  It’s less than two weeks into EA.  I fully expect version 1.0 be as improved over this as KSP1 1.12 does relative to 2013 KSP.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman