this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
66 points (98.5% liked)
games
20655 readers
144 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
-
3rd International Volunteer Brigade (Hexbear gaming discord)
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did you watch the Harvester interview? Here he talks about how he would have done KSP 2.
He kind of convinced me because I believed this common sense logic too. Just make a better KSP 1.
But now I don't think KSP 2 being just updated KSP 1 would have worked, as he says. If you lead people to expect complete feature parity with KSP 1 and add new stuff it becomes a huge project(approaching AA-AAA level). And he doesn't say it but the feature parity would definitely include some mods people take for granted too.
I hadn't seen that, pretty good perspective. I think it comes down to the fact that they were set on making an improved version of KSP 1, and were just building on top of the old code. Engine changes and all the things they'd have to discard to make the game work would mean the game wouldn't trivially have feature parity (which is what ended up happening with KSP 2 of course) but the idea of starting entirely from scratch just to try to make the same thing but with cleaner code and new assets was just not realistic at any point. Having full cooperation with the original Squad team was always the success condition for making it work, but the execs wouldn't allow that.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: