My honest feelings about KSP2

[Alpha_star]

I like KSP2 and I fear it fail to match our expectations. Yes the long wait between updates was not the best, recent news made it worse, but I still like the game and want it to succeed. Less faith but not all is lost. Worst case scenario: KSP2 gets abandoned after proposed IG clousure in July and never recieves any more major milestone updates, same as KSP1 after 1.12. The game would still have more than a month to live at worst and the modding community will continue to support it just like what they did a few years ago to KSP1. If so then it's just another repeat of the first game. This is unlikely for me since T2 would be losing potential money, as many people would buy KSP2 after some more updates (eg. Colonies, Interstellar, Multiplayer).

Still can't understand those people hating KSP2. After all it's just a simulation game. Not worth your time to hate, especially if you haven't bought the game.

Edited May 6 by Alpha_star

[TickleMyMary]

To me, I had no reason to play it... It didn't hit any of the notes that kept me interested in KSP1 for 10 years.

Still can't understand those people loving KSP2. After all it's just a simulation game that doesn't match the previous iteration of the game in any way... My play time says everything on how I feel about the game.

 

[Flush Foot]

I like it and am happy to pay a full price of 50$ to purchase help alpha-test the game with/for the devs

FTFY

[Tony Tony Chopper]

10 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

I like it and am happy to pay a full price of 50$ to purchase help alpha-test the game with/for the devs

FTFY

Thought about replacing "like" with "love"? Part of love is also suffering, love includes parts of likes and dislikes, ups and downs, it's rather idealistic than rational as opposed to "like". Don't you think?

[Scarecrow71]

When the game was announced, I was excited and couldn't wait.  That excitement didn't wane in the slightest even in the face of multiple delays and studio shake-ups.  And then when they announced that the game was going to finally drop, I was over the moon.  I simply could not wait to get my hands on the game.

And then it dropped with a $50 price tag, and I thought "Are they sure this is the right price in EA".  But I ponied up the cash and started to play.

The excitement wanted.  Hard and fast.  Bug after bug presented itself, making the game nigh unplayable.  Sure, I could fight with the controls and get a rocket into orbit...but why should I have to?  I couldn't figure out why things that worked in KSP1 no longer functioned in KSP2.  SAS was broken, the KSC followed you into space, rockets wobbled all over the place, orbits decayed.  A verifiable cornucopia of problems.  Things that we took for granted in KSP1 because they were polished there looked at us and laughed.  And the more I played, the worse it got.  I eventually put the game down between updates, checking only to see if the newest update finally fixed [insert whatever problem you hated most].

Throughout this time, I actually tried my hand at becoming a modder for the game.  There were so many issues that needed tackling, and I thought "what harm can it do".  I created a mod to fix a fundamental issue with targeting planets, and it has several thousand downloads.  One person even identified it as a critical mod needed to play the game.  I'm pretty damned happy about that (and yes, I'm blowing my own horn here).  But that didn't correct all the other problems, and even the modding community struggles to fix the things that are fundamentally wrong.

For Science! came out, and I fired up the game.  Played through all the story missions...and put the game down due to a lack of replayability.  That, and the story missions were over way too quick.  Launch a craft, go to the Mun, go to Minmus, go to Duna...now go to the densest rock on the edge of our system.  Did that?  Ok, you're done now.  There is zero reason to keep playing unless all you want is to complete the tech tree.  We still don't have colonies, interstellar, or resources (don't get me started on multi-player; it's not a feature I want, so I don't care if it ends up in the game or not).  FS was supposed to keep us engaged and wanting to explore - they called it Exploration Mode, for pete's sake - but there wasn't any reason to.  "Well, you still need to unlock Tier IV".  Um, no, I don't; I landed on Pol and Bop and returned without it; I dropped a rover on Tylo and got to the monument without Tier IV.  Once you do all that, do you really need to finish the tech tree here?

All told, I started as "Shut up and take my money", but am now in the camp of "this is the reason why I never buy EA games in the first place".

[magnemoe]

Honestly I got far more than 50 hours out of it then I got issues, half was my own  
Now I waited to after the science update to get it, feel this is then they was on the right track, still buggy, more so than KSP 1 as in bugs who kill you. 

[KerikBalm]

I haven't voted, didn't buy it, was almost ready to buy it after some YouTube videos and seeing that things had improved with "For Science", and that colonies would be coming soon. I hadn't checked the forums or progress in months, and the same day I watched some KSP videos where I thought maybe I might buy it soon (next sale/ colony update?), the news of the closure came.

I guess I would vote dislike it to the point I wouldn't like it - but I haven't tried it. I just didn't see enough to make me switch from ksp1.

My honest feelings: sad and disappointed for the game, annoyed at the devs for screwing this up, focusing on flashy looks and promotional material, while neglecting the core game engine, and doing who knows what for ~6 years

[HebaruSan]

I said at EA release that I thought of this as a pre-order because the features I was waiting for weren't in it, and whether they ever would be was an article of faith. I don't do pre-orders, but I do have this game in my Steam library and have played it thanks to the generosity of another player who wanted CKAN to support it.

My feelings haven't changed; I was still waiting for features that weren't added. Until they were, I had no reason to like or dislike it, so I chose "Neutral". (Though I did update my Steam review from negative to positive after For Science! because I felt there was finally enough there for a new player to amuse him- or herself for a while.)

[herbal space program]

I had kind of forgotten about KSP because it had been so long with no news, and then was very excited when I belatedly learned that it had dropped, and bought it right away without hesitation.  When I first started to play it, I was happy about the significantly improved visuals, but after a couple dozen hours of playing that turned into unadulterated frustration as I found out that almost nothing worked as it should have, performance was awful,  and that mission-killing bugs lurked around every corner. Chalking it up to the woes of early access,  I set it aside until the first few bug patches came out, then played it for about 100 hours until I had checked out all the new terrain and got tired of battling the remaining bugs and the slow framerate. Then another hiatus until FS came out, after which I spent about 350 hours playing through all the set piece missions, until I again ran out of stuff to do.  I was still bummed out by some features that still didn't work right and the still poor framerate for large vessels, but overall at that point I have to say I was feeling pretty positive about the game in general and really looking forward to the promised new content that would presumably give me a reason to  keep playing. And then this, and now I am just really sad that this game I loved so much in its earlier incarnation is probably never going to have the awesome successor I was hoping for.  I can't say I'm particularly angry about the money I paid -- I got about 500 hours of (mostly) fun out of it! But the fact that this beloved franchise now looks like it is about to be killed for good due to bad management and heartless corporate calculus makes my blood boil.  I will do my best not to ever give TT any of my money again, although to my dismay I saw that they own 2k/Firaxis, which means I'll have a tough decision to make if and when Civ VII comes out.

[PDCWolf]

I voted what I think people here expected me to vote because I think that's the funniest thing.

I loved the idea of a sequel, felt really lucky we were gonna get it, loved the trailers and the media, was there watching then they revealed the thing and was over the moon with my friends cheering like we had landed Curiosity ourselves. Then I saw where this sequel was aimed, the problems with the media that was coming out, the constant delays and the work they did on it before and after release and just no, yikes. This should've never been KSP2, this is the same thing as the Halo TV show: someone trying to hook onto the franchise to push their own thing disguised as something people wanted. I'm disgusted by the idea anyone would think this is what KSP1 deserved as a proper sequel when you'd never be able to build big ships without hacky all in 1 parts and having to butcher half the systems like heat and science, plus the UI being made by people who clearly know very little about usability based designs.

It's a prettier, more modern game, but it sacrifices so much to just even work it's not even funny.

 

Edited May 6 by PDCWolf

[Lisias]

9 hours ago, TickleMyMary said:

Still can't understand those people loving KSP2. After all it's just a simulation game that doesn't match the previous iteration of the game in any way...

We need to face the harsh true: we are the oldies nowadays. Our kids will not like the same things we liked just because "it's old guys stuff".

People nowadays have different sense of aesthetics, different objectives in life, different preferences on gaming.

KSP2 tried to lure these kids into a game style that, essentially, marked the last 15 years in a way Casablanca marked the 40s and Planet of the Apes marked the 70s, and at the same time wanted to keep the old guys around.

Frankly, it failed in both fronts.

Going back to movies, KSP2 is more like Ghostbusters 2016, a far cry from Ghostbusters Afterlife.

[miklkit]

I have an average rig so updated it to what I hoped was good enough for KSP2, then saw people with rigs that cost as much as cars were struggling.  Decided to wait until colonies came out to buy, but it didn't make it that far.  Since I never played it I have no real opinion, so am neutral. 

My opinion is that they messed up by trying to reinvent the wheel.  They could have just built it using the lessons learned in KSP, then used KSP assets to get it going, then upgrade them as they went along.

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

We need to face the harsh true: we are the oldies nowadays. Our kids will not like the same things we liked just because "it's old guys stuff".

People nowadays have different sense of aesthetics, different objectives in life, different preferences on gaming.

KSP2 tried to lure these kids into a game style that, essentially, marked the last 15 years in a way Casablanca marked the 40s and Planet of the Apes marked the 70s, and at the same time wanted to keep the old guys around.

Frankly, it failed in both fronts.

Going back to movies, KSP2 is more like Ghostbusters 2016, a far cry from Ghostbusters Afterlife.

KSP2 should've been to 1 what Helldivers 2 is to HD1, or what Risk of Rain 2 is to RoR1.

Instead KSP2 is to 1 what FlatOut 3 was to 2 (Warning: has some language.)

Embed for those not wanting to be linked to youtube:

Spoiler

 

 

Edited May 6 by PDCWolf

[Alpha_star]

16 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

This should've never been KSP2, this is the same thing as the Halo TV show: someone trying to hook onto the franchise to push their own thing disguised as something people wanted. I'm disgusted by the idea anyone would think this is what KSP1 deserved as a proper sequel when you'd never be able to build big ships without hacky all in 1 parts and having to butcher half the systems like heat and science, plus the UI being made by people who clearly know very little about usability based designs.

Yeah so that's your opinions. Mine? Well the UI thing first, I like it simply by not having to constantly shift eyes up and down during a landing, might be a cause of me usually playing on a large screen.

For the sequal part, yes if we just look at the current status of KSP2 then I agree with you, the current game is just a repeat of the first game. They reinvented the wheel but only got so far. I know this game, in its current state, isn't the KSP2 we all imagined 5 years ago, what you've said is just another way of saying "this game doesn't match up my expectations". But for me, a different game is enough, , it's dissapointing but still playable, I don't know whether it would become the game we all dreamed of and only future can tell us what will happen so I'd just settle with what I got.

15 hours ago, miklkit said:

I have an average rig so updated it to what I hoped was good enough for KSP2, then saw people with rigs that cost as much as cars were struggling.  Decided to wait until colonies came out to buy, but it didn't make it that far.  Since I never played it I have no real opinion, so am neutral. 

About the rig thing, my NUC8i7 can run the game at 20 FPS with medium graphics when launching a small rocket plane, perhaps 15 with moderately larger ships. The framerate was never an issue for me, perhaps I'm just not used to fast gaming.

[Infinite Aerospace]

58 minutes ago, Alpha_star said:

Yeah so that's your opinions. Mine? Well the UI thing first, I like it simply by not having to constantly shift eyes up and down during a landing, might be a cause of me usually playing on a large screen.

For the sequal part, yes if we just look at the current status of KSP2 then I agree with you, the current game is just a repeat of the first game. They reinvented the wheel but only got so far. I know this game, in its current state, isn't the KSP2 we all imagined 5 years ago, what you've said is just another way of saying "this game doesn't match up my expectations". But for me, a different game is enough, , it's dissapointing but still playable, I don't know whether it would become the game we all dreamed of and only future can tell us what will happen so I'd just settle with what I got.

About the rig thing, my NUC8i7 can run the game at 20 FPS with medium graphics when launching a small rocket plane, perhaps 15 with moderately larger ships. The framerate was never an issue for me, perhaps I'm just not used to fast gaming.

I have a mid-range laptop with an RTX 3060M and the game runs fine to be honest, 1080P all settings to maximum (except for textures) and I get in the region of ~50 FPS.

[TLTay]

No option applies.

I wanted what was initially promised, in a functional state, without major bugs, and full of innovative new features with a solid foundation to grow on.

I kept my money because:

1. The above product was not provided.

2. The dev team was not a small team charging a reasonable amount to keep the lights on while working on a passion project, but was instead a large and well funded team of pros who charged what amounts to nearly full price for a pre alpha build dumped into EA in a sorry state.

[Infinite Aerospace]

6 minutes ago, TLTay said:

No option applies.

I wanted what was initially promised, in a functional state, without major bugs, and full of innovative new features with a solid foundation to grow on.

I kept my money because:

1. The above product was not provided.

2. The dev team was not a small team charging a reasonable amount to keep the lights on while working on a passion project, but was instead a large and well funded team of pros who charged what amounts to nearly full price for a pre alpha build dumped into EA in a sorry state.

Can't disagree with any of the above to be honest.

[miklkit]

@Alpha_star  I play KSP at 3440x1440 and fps varies from 40-120 fps.  I really notice it when the fps gets low and will not play anything that gets even worse fps.  My worst fps comes when many large vehicles are close together, like when refueling at a spaceport.   When alone even my largest rocket of almost 4,300 tons gets ok fps.   When people with top of the line rigs get single digit fps with a single small rocket in KSP2......................

[Skorj]

3 hours ago, Alpha_star said:

Yeah so that's your opinions. Mine? Well the UI thing first, I like it simply by not having to constantly shift eyes up and down during a landing, might be a cause of me usually playing on a large screen.

Ah, I had wondered how anyone could like the new UI.  That actually makes sense.  Are you talking planes or rockets?  I so rarely look at the navball when landing a rocket, and have all my KER displays at the top of the screen around the altitude.

[Alpha_star]

13 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

I have a mid-range laptop with an RTX 3060M and the game runs fine to be honest, 1080P all settings to maximum (except for textures) and I get in the region of ~50 FPS.

Then some people (maybe not you) would complain about how unplayable anything below 144fps is and use that ans an excuse to hate. Really some people today use everything they come up with to hate the game.

10 hours ago, Skorj said:

Ah, I had wondered how anyone could like the new UI.  That actually makes sense.  Are you talking planes or rockets?  I so rarely look at the navball when landing a rocket, and have all my KER displays at the top of the screen around the altitude.

I often do VTOL planes and thus have to keep close eyes on both altitude and vertical velocity. KSP2 solves that problem so I perfer its UI.

[moeggz]

14 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

I have a mid-range laptop with an RTX 3060M and the game runs fine to be honest, 1080P all settings to maximum (except for textures) and I get in the region of ~50 FPS.

The only good thing I got out of trying For Science! Was that the frame rate was acceptable for medium sized crafts. (The science missions were fun, but without gameplay restrictions beyond science points I only played a few as I wanted to experience them for the first time with resource restrictions.)

Framerate was terrible on launch but they did make a lot of progress there. It was just the death by a thousand cuts of bugs that kept the game unfun. 

29 minutes ago, Alpha_star said:

KSP2 solves that problem so I perfer its UI.

I don’t have strong opinions on centered or left justified nav ball (outside of it should be an option) but does anyone prefer KSP1’s nav ball over KSP2’s? Outside of the font I mean. 
 

Anyways I agree with you here KSP2’s nav ball was better. There’s enough better about KSP2 that makes it hard for me to get back into KSP1, and so I remain in no mans land.

Edited May 8 by moeggz

[VlonaldKerman]

The fraction of people liking the game is surprising given the fact that the game has a 24-hour peak of less than 400 concurrent players.

My favorite new thing about the game is the music.

I also appreciated when they added hit boxes to the parking garage after community demand  that was cool of them.

[Alpha_star]

3 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:

The fraction of people liking the game is surprising given the fact that the game has a 24-hour peak of less than 400 concurrent players.

My favorite new thing about the game is the music.

Yes the music was just amazing.

Btw, player count means less than you might think, steamdb only counts those people who launch it via steam and a lot do not such as me.

[Darmok]

I loved KSP1 and spent 2250 hrs playing it so I was very excited about KSP2. Saw the negative comments at release so I took a wait-and-see approach. I did end up buying it a few months ago when there was a Steam sale because I really like the idea of interstellar and colonies and I figured they'd get it working eventually. I still haven't played it. Don't know if I ever will.

[Flush Foot]

@Darmok do you know Jalad? I think he's over at Tanagra