Last few years I’ve been excitedly waiting for sequels from several small-to-medium sized studios that made highly acclaimed original games—I’m talking about Cities: Skylines, Kerbal Space Program, Planet Coaster, Frostpunk, etc.—yet each sequel was very poorly received to the point I wasn’t willing to risk my money buying it. Why do you think this happens when these developers already had a winning formula?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tal 2 points 20 hours ago

KSP does what it does well. Any sequel comes with huge questions of why people would want another space program simulator

I think that there were pretty clear ways to expand KSP that I would have liked.

There was limited capacity to build bases and springboard off resources from those.
I'd have liked to be able to set up programmed flight sequences.
More mechanics, like radiation, micrometeorite impacts, etc.
The physics could definitely have been improved upon in a number of ways. I mean, I've watched a lot of rockets springily bouncing around at their joints.
Some of the science-gathering stuff was kind of...grindy. I would have liked that part of the game to be revamped.
I don't think that graphics were a massive issue, but given how much time you spend looking at flames coming from rocket engines, it'd be nice to have improved on that somewhat. I'd have also liked some sort of procedural-terrain-generation system to permit for higher-resolution stuff when you're on the ground; yeah, you're mostly in the air or space, but when you're on the ground, the fidelity isn't all that great.