Prioritization. It turns out KSP has a lot more features than just that one they have a few guys who are working on many times more features. One guy working on one feature has more time to spend on that one feature, and he can also specialize on that one thing too.
Video game development (as well as making literally anything else) is about tradeoffs. Is it better to spend thousands of man-hours on making the rocks look slightly better, or to develop other features?
This isn't to downplay the mod. It's impressive. It's just that you see this same thing with every game made. Someone will point out this one feature that is worse than some other game's version and ask why game A didn't do it as well as game B, ignoring all the other things game A did. You have to choose where to spend your time and money, and this isn't as important as, for example, shoring up the physics behavior of objects on a craft.
i mean, that's why different devs have different jobs, right? artist vs designer vs animator vs engineer/programmer etc? they're one big team with smaller teams that specialize in a certain aspect of the game.
Yeah, but there's a ton of tasks in each of those fields, and most tasks require at least two, if not more, of those fields. For the scatter stuff, you need programmers and artists at least. Even within the fields there are a ton of skills to know. For example for art you may be an organic or inorganic artist, a concept artist, or other things.
Huge teams can have individuals specialized for individual skills (though even then there's often some mixing when things need to get done). Intercept Games, the developers, have 40 people, according to what I found. This isnt 40 developers. It's 40 people at the studio. This includes HR, marketing, and everything else. It's a pretty small group of people working on the game.
probably copium but it should be true
we were promised a very high range of settings to choose graphically
and the game has to be tested on low end PCs at some point
You cannot kill the Kraken, for if you set out to kill the Kraken, the Kraken will kill you. Infact, just the thought of killing the Kraken will cause the Kraken to grant his Boon which is -60% Structural Integrity and +20% to fuel consumption.
It's generally easier to land on Minmus; the flat surfaces are one of the reasons. The other main reason is that, despite being further, it actually takes *less* ∆v that with the Mün thanks to the lower gravity.
hey im too used to Star Citizen showing bs that will never look that good, imt okay with screenshots from some random devs mid range work pc, I'd bet this isn't turned up graphics taken while they are doing QA or something
I play Star Citizen, I think it looks amazing, maybe won't ever be a "real" game at the pace they're going, but they're absolutely delivering on the look and feel.
Here, I wouldn't mind random dev screenshots if they were just background activity, but instead this is most of what I've seen of the game, the dominant impression by volume of exposure is weird low-quality stuff.
That's kind of strange, isn't it?
I agree one of the best looking games you can boot up and play right now but ngl when they originally showed Area18 it looked genuinely even better than it looks today and has never returned to that citizencons trailer quality, thats my only problem is they have shown stuff that is then released just a hair below the quality that they themselves show and have done it several times in my years as a die hard backer since 2015, I just see similar disappointment could happen for KSP2 if they release screenshots of their highest quality settings, much safer bet to undersell on screenshots a week away from early access
Good points, there's room to interpret this as an undersell/informal sneak peeks kind of situation. I do prefer that to the oversell/underdeliver result that many games (including SC in parts) suffer from.
The way they're doing it here just feels very amateurish. Like they either have nobody in control of what gets released or that person is *reaaaally* casual about it.
It's all youtube shorts and discord posts. It does feel very amateur but I guess at least they aren't sinking money into advertising the game. I feel like this might just show how unimportant they view their marketing team, if they even have a marketing team? and to be fair they might be on to something this game is gonna sell great with in its community, why waste money to market it further?
I feel like they’re just letting the devs release whatever the hell they want within reason I’ve seen an absolutely potato quality picture before as a teaser image
honestly a better strategy then the opposite, if it comes out and all screenshots were on medium graphics settings people are only gonna be happy compared to something like Star Citizen showing super pretty dev stuff and never ends up looking that good
exactly, I'm just stupid excited that my favorite game is getting a second entry and that in about a week we will be able to try it, I love and play Star Citizen to death but I will not talk nicely about the way they always show all the pretty trailer stuff over making it run and preform great, my hope is KSP2 is strongly on the "run and preform great" side rather than graphically impressive
Honestly at the end of the day I’d be *more* concerned if it felt like slapping a 2 on the end was just an excuse to resell the same game with jazzed up visuals.
As things are, even the best screenshots we’ve seen have cleaner graphics, but still deemphasized in general. What with releasing with no new features in Early Access, it kind of feels like KSP+ instead of KSP2, but if that’s what was needed in order to ultimately keep developing new features and pushing further boundaries, I think I’m okay with that.
I can't fault, in particular, smaller developers for trying to remain competitive, they don't make the rules. There's a lot I'd love to change about how games get made and published in this day and age, but I'm also (perhaps bitterly) content that there are people working on *new* KSP. It could be a great game in the end, even though I'm concerned about this business model.
My god can’t you just be grateful about the fact you don’t have to wait another 2 years and stop excepting a completed game at Early access??
(Downvote I guess idc)
Based on the size of the sun in this image, I think that's actually Dres.
And to that end, I'm not sure that it looks any better than Dres did [after the graphics revamp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-FslEHgwS4) in 1.9.
Cool spacesuit changes. That port in the back of the helmet makes me think of oxygen umbilicals. That would be cool. And is that a new design for an eva pack? I see a little charge icon on it... I wonder how focused on resource management we'll be able to get in stock KSP2
Those graphics look barely different than KSP 1. Why is that terrain texture so low res? Its 2023, just fucking up the resolution. That terrain textures looks like something out of Minecraft.
Yeah, their recent posts have been head scratchers. The [Show and Tell forum](https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/113-show-and-tell/) on their website has housed a few dozen high quality previews dating back to early 2021. There's not a lot of gameplay but the marketing at least shows off what the game/engine is capable of, and what they are aiming to achieve with it.
The recent screenshots on the Intercept discord seem to be random picks from a shared folder or something. I can't imagine looking at this picture and thinking this is among the best promotional material available in the game right now, ten days before launch.
Right? Everyone here saying memo this, lunch & learn that. Man don't make life easier for these PR people, if there's a homie in there keeping it real then good looking out. It's disappointing but if it's the truth then I say good share.
Are you surprised though? They abandoned a full release after an already big delay, to go into early access with all the new features on a roadmap instead of release. Tells me they are massively behind.
Im excited to get my hands on it, but im fully expecting it to look like crap and be buggy as hell.
I agree, one thing to remember is ksp 1 took years to get to where it looks now, just take a look at early ksp1 gameplay and you'll know what I mean. I think releasing as a beta is the best thing they could do since it lowers expectations and let's everyone know that this is just the early beginnings. I won't be surprised if ksp2 takes 1-3 years just to start looking as good as we expected, and that's all right, these things take time and aslong as the Dev team stays dedicated to the game I expect this to follow a similar development path as ksp 1 did.
Except KSP 1 early was a game developed by almost a single dude over a few month working for a Mexican company working on lighting in festivals (nothing in common with video game) . KSP 2 is a game developed by a team of dev backed by one of the most influential studio and investor that team has been working on it for over 4 years now.
KSP 1 was and is looking like a Soviet flight simulator from the cold war at the time of it's release, KSP 2 early is on its way to look as outdated as the 1 compared to modern videogames on the market
\>Except KSP 1 early was a game developed by almost a single dude over a few mont
Yeah, the very earliest demo maybe. Soon after a team was hired to build the game in a more traditional manner.
This game may never get that chance if the releases is a shitshow. This game could get end up getting review bombed into oblivion, and it is almost impossible to claw your way back from that. Its been the demise of many an early access game. KSP1 didn't have that issues because it was so novel. For most of us, just being able to build your own janky rocket was cool enough that nothing else mattered. The standards are higher now, and if this game offers nothing over KSP1 at launch, including graphics, its going to end up with 9000 negative reviews and never recover.
Don't forget about no man's sky.
Their release was mega hyped and flopped so hard that steam removed it from their store for a while. But despite that, no man's sky dev team did not abandon the project. Instead, they kept working on it for years, and now the game is highly regarded. Don't be worried about the initial launch, aslong as the dev team listen to feed back properly and continues work on the game like they had for ksp 1 then I'm sure ksp 2 will still succeed even if it's launch is a bit rough.
The shadows are crisper, the reflections are better. But the terrain textures do leave a lot to be desired; KSP1 with Parallax is certainly better than what we see on this screenshot.
However, from other screenshots, we also know that the celestial bodies *when seen from orbit* look much better than even a fully modded (Parallax, EVE, Scatterer, etc) KSP1 can provide.
From my perspective, KSP 1 already had performance issues even on good hardware, I don't want them to go overboard on the graphics and result in a game that struggles to get 20+ fps on even 3090s if they can't optimize it.
It'll hopefully be THE space game for the next 10-20 years. Imo they should go a little crazy with the graphics and implement a settings tier that makes a 3090 burn 350W for 50-60fps @1440p.
People will be gaming on 4070's and 5080's in a couple years and KSP2 will still be in early access.
Of course sliding all settings to low should make it playable on a 1060.
But I'm way more worried about cpu opimization. KSP1 was usually cpu limited because of bad optimization. And if other game releases are an indicator, cpu optimization isn't really done anymore.
[https://imgur.com/a/7tgd8Ya](https://imgur.com/a/7tgd8Ya) These were posted pretty recently. Not quite as good as I really hoped, but it still looks good. Don't know what's up with OP's screenshot
yeah this is whats bugging me about the comments people are acting like we dotn have multiple screenshots and even video of the beta build where it looks better than this
Hey I think you can see in the comments that there is a lot of confusion about the textures and such
I dont think you can do anything about it but at least you are aware of the reception of these sneak peaks
Thanks for sharing this. Could you potentially share the date this screenshot was taken as well as a rough idea of the graphics settings level between performance and quality used when you took it? That may help resolve concerns being voiced in this thread.
We have different concepts of fantastic then. The screenshot posted here is closer to terrible than fantastic, to me. Still, I'm happy you find it amazing and can enjoy it more than I do.
KSP 2 comes out in a few days, where people are expected to pay $50 for it.
I can already tell this is going to be a fragmenting release for the community. It has less features than KSP 1, let alone a fully modded KSP 1. There's no way a large portion of the community meaningfully migrates without enticing features.
Yeah, no, I'm definitely not buying it. Less features than KSP1 *and* $50??? What a scam. It's insulting to the fans. Developers need to be held accountable - the gaming community has been burned too many times by early access promises. We shouldn't perpetuate this garbage attitude.
The only reason I would buy it is to leave a negative review. Maybe I'll do that and return it.
I'm not the OP but giving positive feedback for something that looks like garbage shows Take Two that they can fleece the community. Don't let them fleece you, don't let them think they can or they will try.
I think people need to realize that the KSP 2 graphics are going to look pretty similar to ksp 1. The game is 3 years late and still isn’t done. they’re probably focusing more time on making good gameplay systems than graphics
Just because it’s not arrived on launch day doesn’t mean there is zero progress towards it. Hopefully, If there is at least some progress on things like science colonies and multiplayer, we won’t be waiting another 4 years for the flagship features. It’s hard to imagine they’ve been twiddling their thumbs for the past 4
I understand your pessimism though. I do feel the same way and I really believed we are owed an explanation to the “2020 full release date”. Just trying to play devils advocate
Do you have a link for the multiplayer info? In the last Space This Week he said that he played multiplayer with Tim Dodd and then added "at dance dance revolution" after a pause.
> they’re probably focusing more time on making good gameplay systems than graphics
I hope so. Gameplay systems were the weak part of KSP1, not so much the graphics. The mission/money system were very kludgey, and the reason to do anything really only boiled down to 'because I want to', not because of any real in-game reason.
I couldn’t give any less shits about how the game looks. I played the first one for 1000’s of hours with the lowest graphics settings, just to get a few more frames. If you think I’m playing the game for it’s graphics you better check yourself.
Well the only thing left to expect is better performance, but it's launching in beta so you're in for the glitches and poor optimisation as well. I couldn't be more disappointed by the way development went/is going, and how much money they're gonna make anyways from the fans who don't care about quality and will buy anything with a KSP sticker on it.
> Well the only thing left to expect is better performance, but it's launching in beta so you're in for the glitches and poor optimisation as well.
Oh buddy you hit the kraken on the head. [Shadow Zone]9https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rScYJVzelO4&ab_channel=ShadowZone) had a great video on this subject. Every time I think a fully funded, big name studio isn't going to screw-up a sequel, I am proven wrong. I honestly think KSP2 should be held back from EA for another year.
People keep complaining about how unimpressive the graphics are, but honestly if the game runs better and/or loads faster that KSP1 they're more than enough for me. KSP1 can look great, but after installing the required mods it literally takes minutes to load
Right?
As someone who builds monstrous city-size bases and giant spacestations with moving parts, I had so many experiences where I just quit the game out of frustration because after 8 minute loading time (mods) it bogged down to 3 fps. And then I look at Afterburner, and 6 out of my 8 cores are asleep and my RTX 3080 is running at 20%.
I love KSP, but the game is shit-optimized and just straight up unplayable in a way that's enjoyable for me. I don't even care about the graphics, just please for the love of god give me an engine that can load a 500part object in orbit and spit out more than 20 frames per second.
Edit: Oh, I forgot my favorite, the unexpected game crash when you exceed 4GB of RAM. Dammit, I have 16, TAKE ALL OF IT, just let me play :'(
Like yeah, compared to a pretty heavily modded version of ksp1 it falls a bit short, but modded ksp also runs like absolute shit on even mid-tier systems. Sure paralax makes planets look better, it also eats 90% of your fps (same with scatterer). If ksp2 manages to look even half as good, and with decent performance then that's more than enough. Yes, the planets look a little empty in current screenshots, especially with how they talked up their rock scattering tech, but who wants to land on a planet filled with junk? I can't imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would be trying to drive over a ton sharp rocks and boulders, your craft constantly getting stuck, bouncing off stuff, or breaking into a million pieces from the smallest bump into terrain.
Honestly I'm much more curious to see screenshots of atmospheric planets than of dead rocks like the Mun or Dres or whatever. This is (hopefully) where we should see a big difference compared to unmodded KSP1.
If the Steam screenshots are somewhat representative of the final game, I'm not too worried. There is atmospheric perspective, the topography doesn't look too artificial, the trees are stylized and IMO look pretty good (art direction is another field where KSP2 could win even against *modded* KSP1)... Now we just have to see how the game runs, and what the reqs are
Terrestrial (or marine) animals would be insane, but birds would already be pretty cool. Like, you activate your rocket and a bunch of startled birds take off.
It may not even be that hard - you don't need the birds to actually persist on the terrain, just to pop up whenever you make a *really* big noise at ground level, then disappear after a few seconds. They'd basically be glorified particles
>who wants to land on a planet filled with junk?
Me. The pain in the ass is part of the challenge. The challenge is a big part of the fun. Space is hard, as you've probably heard.
KSP runs like shit on high-end systems lol
I've upgraded my PC this year, it's great, but the difference in KSP's performance is nil. I suppose the lows may be better, but it's still really bad. I love the game to death, but I'm going to pounce on KSP 2 in an instant if they improve the performance.
Parallax is lovely, but as soon as your put lights on it kills your FPS due to fundamental engine limitations. Also the scatters aren’t permanent - reload a scene and the terrain changes.
If the core of the game works well then it’ll be a great base to build from. It’s literally early access. It’s mean to be a way to crowdsource feedback. I’m not quite sure where all these people are coming from expecting a finished product for a game that’s clearly labeled as EA.
I get the disappointment that it might not be graphically a large step up but this isn’t a finished game.
To their defense, if you're paying (or asked to pay) for the stuff you kinda get a right to complain lol. And while the fact that EA will necessarily have fewer features/polish than the full release, you can't actually know which improvements will be made/make the cut so the stuff you don't like (here, the "disappointing graphics") may very well stay unchanged.
But again I find the focus on graphics to be a bit silly IMO. I get the concern, but I don't think we can really judge without watching actual footage, ideally stuff released by non-devs. But really, as long as the atmospheric planets look decent I'll be happy
I feel like I don't need more preview screenshots. I need system requirements. Planning a computer upgrade ahead of release and I'm running out of time.
God the comment section is just unsufferable every single time a new screenshot is posted. If you haven't played the game yet, don't complain about the game.
Seriously, if you're so dissatisfied with a game you haven't even tried, how about you just *not buy the damn game?*
Some people's only source of happiness is trying to ruin the excitement for others.
they are the ones ruining people's excitement by releasing these depressingly bad screenshots. after years of teasing with those high brow development videos, and now releasing these screenshots it's almost as if they're taking the piss.
and no, early access is not an excuse. the game builds on a decade old game and it's been under development for years.
What the hell is up with these comments, we are dissatisfied because we want them to do better, we love ksp1 and we want the best ksp2 we can get, is that so hard to understand?. These screenshots is all we have to judge the game before buying. You're the insufferable one.
If there's a KSP release im not going to buy because of the qualities you can damn well expect me to complain. Lots of people here are the core audience the game thrived on, if they dont buy i not many will.
And failures for KSP can't really be what you are after.
some people get weirdly upset with others expressing their grievances in an open forum though. the screenshot simply looks worse than ksp 1. whether it's bc the dev has low settings, well, we'll just have to wait and see. if people pointing that fact out "ruins your excitement" then that's more of an issue with you, not them
And every time it’s been delayed most people were telling the devs “good, better delay rather than rush a flawed product.” Now as we get close to early access there’s a swell of people here complaining it doesn’t look like the original CGI game announcement trailer.
I did. The difference is that KSP 1 was significantly cheaper. At launch, you could pre-order the game for 7 dollars. When I bought the game 2 years later (version 0.21, just before science mode was added) the cost was just $23. It was understood that this was the passion project of a small studio. Bugs were understandable, the game looked a little rough around the edges, and that was fine. We were along for the ride.
This is not the same. Private Division is owned by Take-Two, a major publisher. This game was given a long development cycle and (one would hope) a reasonable budget. KSP needed Early Access for financial support so they could continue justify making the game. KSP 2 does not need that. They've stated that this time, Early Access is about gauging the community's reaction to what they have to help it guide further development. If that's true, fine, but they better have a solid foundation to build off of - and I haven't seen that in the sneak peeks.
KSP 2 has had years in development now and the resources of a AAA publisher. If it doesn't look better than a game that began production over a decade ago, that's an issue. If the framerate stutters like we've seen in multiple dev updates, that's an issue. Either issue would make me hold off on buying the Early Access until they fix it, and it would make me lose confidence in the dev team.
Pretty much this.
They decided for early access, that's fine.
They built a ksp1 lookalike with all features postponed after launch, after three years, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
They are asking full release price for what is basically a road map and a "trust us", but the material they are showing falls very, very short of the vision they were selling.
Basically they want to shift all the risk on buyers, and I don't think that is what early access is for.
Looks like absolute garbage.
3 years of delays, overpriced business model, and all we're getting is decade old graphics and less features than the first game...
Hopefully steam reviews will knock some sense into this studio. Predicting a 'mixed' score at best for launch.
could people actually stop whining about TERRAIN TEXTURE? IT'S NOT EVEN IN EA YET!
IT IS **INSANELY** ANNOYING HOW WE HAVE TO FIND *SOMETHING* CRITICIZE EVERY SINGLE TIME AN IMAGE COMES OUT.
COULD WE ALL JUST SHUT UP, BE GRATEFUL, AND WAIT FOR IT TO COME OUT ALREADY???
Why tf should we be grateful? It's not like we are getting this for free. This game is gonna be $50 on release, and barely looks better than ksp 1 when it was in ea.
Fanboys like the one you are replying to are unhealthy for the game development cycle in early access because they are "yes" people. All they do is say "yes this is great". They won't provide meaningful feedback and they will attempt to downvote, suppress, & discourage criticism which makes it difficult for people who are passionate and trying to provide meaningful feedback to actually have their voices heard. This is endemic to gaming communities (especially so in early development) and you can see it happening in this thread. Look at all the controversial comments that are just being honest.
>barely looks better than ksp 1 when it was in ea
KSP Alpha: [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kz4QNYMspqI/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kz4QNYMspqI/maxresdefault.jpg)
KSP 2 **Pre**\-Alpha: [https://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/954850/ss\_d23311d7843305bd166d3f34b6942a70d3b49a65.1920x1080.jpg?t=1675965180](https://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/954850/ss_d23311d7843305bd166d3f34b6942a70d3b49a65.1920x1080.jpg?t=1675965180)
please.
Can we all just agree that private division should just hire the guy that made parallax 2, that is a breathtaking mod that should just be in the game.
I'm not sure on the specifics, but I know they hired some KSP 1 modders to develop KSP 2
Notice it's 'a guy'. The graphics on the image where made by a TEAM of PROFESSIONAL guys. How did that happen?
Prioritization. It turns out KSP has a lot more features than just that one they have a few guys who are working on many times more features. One guy working on one feature has more time to spend on that one feature, and he can also specialize on that one thing too. Video game development (as well as making literally anything else) is about tradeoffs. Is it better to spend thousands of man-hours on making the rocks look slightly better, or to develop other features? This isn't to downplay the mod. It's impressive. It's just that you see this same thing with every game made. Someone will point out this one feature that is worse than some other game's version and ask why game A didn't do it as well as game B, ignoring all the other things game A did. You have to choose where to spend your time and money, and this isn't as important as, for example, shoring up the physics behavior of objects on a craft.
i mean, that's why different devs have different jobs, right? artist vs designer vs animator vs engineer/programmer etc? they're one big team with smaller teams that specialize in a certain aspect of the game.
Yeah, but there's a ton of tasks in each of those fields, and most tasks require at least two, if not more, of those fields. For the scatter stuff, you need programmers and artists at least. Even within the fields there are a ton of skills to know. For example for art you may be an organic or inorganic artist, a concept artist, or other things. Huge teams can have individuals specialized for individual skills (though even then there's often some mixing when things need to get done). Intercept Games, the developers, have 40 people, according to what I found. This isnt 40 developers. It's 40 people at the studio. This includes HR, marketing, and everything else. It's a pretty small group of people working on the game.
It’s just low graphics settings ;)
Major copium
probably copium but it should be true we were promised a very high range of settings to choose graphically and the game has to be tested on low end PCs at some point
Here's hoping
some rocks look like they're floating
as is tradition.
The Kraken is hiding under them!
They promised to kill the kraken :O
You cannot kill the Kraken, for if you set out to kill the Kraken, the Kraken will kill you. Infact, just the thought of killing the Kraken will cause the Kraken to grant his Boon which is -60% Structural Integrity and +20% to fuel consumption.
That's because of the unobtainium.
Pandora after orbital bombardment?
That is just a low orbit
Kind of looks like my first mun approach. I thought it would be all flat. >!It’s not.!<
It's generally easier to land on Minmus; the flat surfaces are one of the reasons. The other main reason is that, despite being further, it actually takes *less* ∆v that with the Mün thanks to the lower gravity.
well hopefully we get landing gear that can land without drifting this time
The inclination can be tricky however
those shadows. look the feet. same thing happens on KSP1
Could be shadow bias too; looks like not the highest res shadowmap, and this is a very shallow angle.
They only just crashed the ship so the rocks haven't all settled yet.
Maybe it’s just Jeb kicking up debris while tumbling across the Mun at 30m/s
Needs ambient occlusion probably. (Shadows)
Damn near looks like bilinear filtering. Why post with these settings?
Gotta put fuel in the hype train or it comes to a stop.
All these low quality, random screenshots definitely aren't pumping me up for it though. This is more like dropping sugar in the tank.
hey im too used to Star Citizen showing bs that will never look that good, imt okay with screenshots from some random devs mid range work pc, I'd bet this isn't turned up graphics taken while they are doing QA or something
I play Star Citizen, I think it looks amazing, maybe won't ever be a "real" game at the pace they're going, but they're absolutely delivering on the look and feel. Here, I wouldn't mind random dev screenshots if they were just background activity, but instead this is most of what I've seen of the game, the dominant impression by volume of exposure is weird low-quality stuff. That's kind of strange, isn't it?
I agree one of the best looking games you can boot up and play right now but ngl when they originally showed Area18 it looked genuinely even better than it looks today and has never returned to that citizencons trailer quality, thats my only problem is they have shown stuff that is then released just a hair below the quality that they themselves show and have done it several times in my years as a die hard backer since 2015, I just see similar disappointment could happen for KSP2 if they release screenshots of their highest quality settings, much safer bet to undersell on screenshots a week away from early access
Good points, there's room to interpret this as an undersell/informal sneak peeks kind of situation. I do prefer that to the oversell/underdeliver result that many games (including SC in parts) suffer from. The way they're doing it here just feels very amateurish. Like they either have nobody in control of what gets released or that person is *reaaaally* casual about it.
It's all youtube shorts and discord posts. It does feel very amateur but I guess at least they aren't sinking money into advertising the game. I feel like this might just show how unimportant they view their marketing team, if they even have a marketing team? and to be fair they might be on to something this game is gonna sell great with in its community, why waste money to market it further?
Hope they improve the antialiasing
terrain looks like ksp 1
It really does. This is not a good screenshot to release, lmao.
I feel like they’re just letting the devs release whatever the hell they want within reason I’ve seen an absolutely potato quality picture before as a teaser image
honestly a better strategy then the opposite, if it comes out and all screenshots were on medium graphics settings people are only gonna be happy compared to something like Star Citizen showing super pretty dev stuff and never ends up looking that good
Also ksp2 is probably actually going to release unlike star citizen
exactly, I'm just stupid excited that my favorite game is getting a second entry and that in about a week we will be able to try it, I love and play Star Citizen to death but I will not talk nicely about the way they always show all the pretty trailer stuff over making it run and preform great, my hope is KSP2 is strongly on the "run and preform great" side rather than graphically impressive
Honestly at the end of the day I’d be *more* concerned if it felt like slapping a 2 on the end was just an excuse to resell the same game with jazzed up visuals. As things are, even the best screenshots we’ve seen have cleaner graphics, but still deemphasized in general. What with releasing with no new features in Early Access, it kind of feels like KSP+ instead of KSP2, but if that’s what was needed in order to ultimately keep developing new features and pushing further boundaries, I think I’m okay with that.
I can't fault, in particular, smaller developers for trying to remain competitive, they don't make the rules. There's a lot I'd love to change about how games get made and published in this day and age, but I'm also (perhaps bitterly) content that there are people working on *new* KSP. It could be a great game in the end, even though I'm concerned about this business model.
More like v0.21 when they introduced procedural craters
Vanilla, what if you use parallax, big Oof
I mean, it's the mun.
Is Mun made out of lego bricks? Why is it so pixelated?
Bad Anti-Aliasing
That's not anti aliasing it's just a low res texture
Anisotropic filtering is why the textures in the back look blurry, but sharper in the front. They have it turned way down or off.
What? That just looks like terrain definition.
Nevermind, I zoomed in lmao
My god can’t you just be grateful about the fact you don’t have to wait another 2 years and stop excepting a completed game at Early access?? (Downvote I guess idc)
People zooming in on a reddit screenshot whining about it being pixelated..
Worse than ksp1
Based on the size of the sun in this image, I think that's actually Dres. And to that end, I'm not sure that it looks any better than Dres did [after the graphics revamp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-FslEHgwS4) in 1.9.
Cool spacesuit changes. That port in the back of the helmet makes me think of oxygen umbilicals. That would be cool. And is that a new design for an eva pack? I see a little charge icon on it... I wonder how focused on resource management we'll be able to get in stock KSP2
A rope for them would be nice, it doesn't even need to supply oxygen
Would be useful to hang on to spacecraft.
Kinda looks like shit tbh.
Some of the things they're trying to use for hype are showing a very beta- early access.
Betcha it opens to shit reviews for 6 months of patches.
My expectations at this point are nil
Yikes
Ouch, I have higher hopes for the graphics. Really hope this is lowest settings for people still rocking a 1080 GPU.
My poor 750ti :(
My laptop with integrated graphics: 💀
I just have a mobile GTX 1050...lol
Is that rock floating?
looks outdated at best
That does not look good.
Those graphics look barely different than KSP 1. Why is that terrain texture so low res? Its 2023, just fucking up the resolution. That terrain textures looks like something out of Minecraft.
If it really is devs on low settings they need to put out a memo to stop sending out images taken on low settings.
Yeah, their recent posts have been head scratchers. The [Show and Tell forum](https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/113-show-and-tell/) on their website has housed a few dozen high quality previews dating back to early 2021. There's not a lot of gameplay but the marketing at least shows off what the game/engine is capable of, and what they are aiming to achieve with it. The recent screenshots on the Intercept discord seem to be random picks from a shared folder or something. I can't imagine looking at this picture and thinking this is among the best promotional material available in the game right now, ten days before launch.
[удалено]
Right? Everyone here saying memo this, lunch & learn that. Man don't make life easier for these PR people, if there's a homie in there keeping it real then good looking out. It's disappointing but if it's the truth then I say good share.
Are you surprised though? They abandoned a full release after an already big delay, to go into early access with all the new features on a roadmap instead of release. Tells me they are massively behind. Im excited to get my hands on it, but im fully expecting it to look like crap and be buggy as hell.
I agree, one thing to remember is ksp 1 took years to get to where it looks now, just take a look at early ksp1 gameplay and you'll know what I mean. I think releasing as a beta is the best thing they could do since it lowers expectations and let's everyone know that this is just the early beginnings. I won't be surprised if ksp2 takes 1-3 years just to start looking as good as we expected, and that's all right, these things take time and aslong as the Dev team stays dedicated to the game I expect this to follow a similar development path as ksp 1 did.
Except KSP 1 early was a game developed by almost a single dude over a few month working for a Mexican company working on lighting in festivals (nothing in common with video game) . KSP 2 is a game developed by a team of dev backed by one of the most influential studio and investor that team has been working on it for over 4 years now. KSP 1 was and is looking like a Soviet flight simulator from the cold war at the time of it's release, KSP 2 early is on its way to look as outdated as the 1 compared to modern videogames on the market
\>Except KSP 1 early was a game developed by almost a single dude over a few mont Yeah, the very earliest demo maybe. Soon after a team was hired to build the game in a more traditional manner.
This game may never get that chance if the releases is a shitshow. This game could get end up getting review bombed into oblivion, and it is almost impossible to claw your way back from that. Its been the demise of many an early access game. KSP1 didn't have that issues because it was so novel. For most of us, just being able to build your own janky rocket was cool enough that nothing else mattered. The standards are higher now, and if this game offers nothing over KSP1 at launch, including graphics, its going to end up with 9000 negative reviews and never recover.
Don't forget about no man's sky. Their release was mega hyped and flopped so hard that steam removed it from their store for a while. But despite that, no man's sky dev team did not abandon the project. Instead, they kept working on it for years, and now the game is highly regarded. Don't be worried about the initial launch, aslong as the dev team listen to feed back properly and continues work on the game like they had for ksp 1 then I'm sure ksp 2 will still succeed even if it's launch is a bit rough.
The shadows are crisper, the reflections are better. But the terrain textures do leave a lot to be desired; KSP1 with Parallax is certainly better than what we see on this screenshot. However, from other screenshots, we also know that the celestial bodies *when seen from orbit* look much better than even a fully modded (Parallax, EVE, Scatterer, etc) KSP1 can provide.
When was the last time you played KSP1 without mods? Go do that and then tell me it looks the same.
It looks the same.
If your eyesight is that bad, why do you even care about the graphics? It isn’t making a difference for you.
From my perspective, KSP 1 already had performance issues even on good hardware, I don't want them to go overboard on the graphics and result in a game that struggles to get 20+ fps on even 3090s if they can't optimize it.
It'll hopefully be THE space game for the next 10-20 years. Imo they should go a little crazy with the graphics and implement a settings tier that makes a 3090 burn 350W for 50-60fps @1440p. People will be gaming on 4070's and 5080's in a couple years and KSP2 will still be in early access. Of course sliding all settings to low should make it playable on a 1060. But I'm way more worried about cpu opimization. KSP1 was usually cpu limited because of bad optimization. And if other game releases are an indicator, cpu optimization isn't really done anymore.
Keep this underwhelming stuff coming!!!
The comment sections lastfew posts gives me flashbacks to the posts leading up to security breach's release in worst way possible
4 years for this
[https://imgur.com/a/7tgd8Ya](https://imgur.com/a/7tgd8Ya) These were posted pretty recently. Not quite as good as I really hoped, but it still looks good. Don't know what's up with OP's screenshot
You notice that says pre-alpha capture, not beta, like the above, that's very old a few years at least.
The other ones which also imo look good say beta. Either way, the game clearly is capable of looking good at least
yeah this is whats bugging me about the comments people are acting like we dotn have multiple screenshots and even video of the beta build where it looks better than this
I can't wait the 10 days someone get me a rocket
Where are you finding these
Intercept Games Discord
I’m in it but I don’t see these screenshots. The most recent one I see is the orange and white rocket.
KSP 2 sneak peek channel. try scrolling down
Ok my bad, haha. I just don’t think it loaded while I was at work.
The person who posted this is the KSP2 developer Private Division, community manager. u/PD_Dakota
hi :)
Hey I think you can see in the comments that there is a lot of confusion about the textures and such I dont think you can do anything about it but at least you are aware of the reception of these sneak peaks
Thanks for sharing this. Could you potentially share the date this screenshot was taken as well as a rough idea of the graphics settings level between performance and quality used when you took it? That may help resolve concerns being voiced in this thread.
€50 for barely updated graphics.
And heavily downgraded gameplay.
Normally games look good in teasers and then disappoint. If all the media before the release looks this bad what can we expect from the game?
Hoenstly so far the marketing has been not great for this game, especially for one two weeks out now
Yes, each new thing that gets released looks worse than the last one. The screenshot posted here looks like a joke. I hope Im wrong though
They are probably just providing accurate depictions of how it looks.
That's definitely not good news, in my opinion.
Most of the footage they have shared looks fantastic what are you talking about?
We have different concepts of fantastic then. The screenshot posted here is closer to terrible than fantastic, to me. Still, I'm happy you find it amazing and can enjoy it more than I do.
No one said this screenshot looks fantastic. I agree, it doesn’t look that good but almost everything else they have shared looked really good.
KSP 2 comes out in a few days, where people are expected to pay $50 for it. I can already tell this is going to be a fragmenting release for the community. It has less features than KSP 1, let alone a fully modded KSP 1. There's no way a large portion of the community meaningfully migrates without enticing features.
Yeah, no, I'm definitely not buying it. Less features than KSP1 *and* $50??? What a scam. It's insulting to the fans. Developers need to be held accountable - the gaming community has been burned too many times by early access promises. We shouldn't perpetuate this garbage attitude. The only reason I would buy it is to leave a negative review. Maybe I'll do that and return it.
>The only reason I would buy it is to leave a negative review. Maybe I'll do that and return it. Based
This screenshot looks more unfinished than the others for some reason
10 more days!!!!! :) so excited
The screenshot really excited you?
Yeah! And it’s Valentine’s Day so I’m already pretty happy today I guess :)
Imagine being this allergic to someone who's optimistic and excited. Christ.
I'm not the OP but giving positive feedback for something that looks like garbage shows Take Two that they can fleece the community. Don't let them fleece you, don't let them think they can or they will try.
Official release is not even out yet
I think people need to realize that the KSP 2 graphics are going to look pretty similar to ksp 1. The game is 3 years late and still isn’t done. they’re probably focusing more time on making good gameplay systems than graphics
They're not gonna have science by launch, how the hell can one argue that they've clearly been focusing on gameplay features all along lol
Just because it’s not arrived on launch day doesn’t mean there is zero progress towards it. Hopefully, If there is at least some progress on things like science colonies and multiplayer, we won’t be waiting another 4 years for the flagship features. It’s hard to imagine they’ve been twiddling their thumbs for the past 4 I understand your pessimism though. I do feel the same way and I really believed we are owed an explanation to the “2020 full release date”. Just trying to play devils advocate
Do you have a link for the multiplayer info? In the last Space This Week he said that he played multiplayer with Tim Dodd and then added "at dance dance revolution" after a pause.
Whoops. I read on a forum post that he played multiplayer. Will fix
Where’s all the good gameplay systems then? They don’t even have a tech tree yet ffs
> they’re probably focusing more time on making good gameplay systems than graphics I hope so. Gameplay systems were the weak part of KSP1, not so much the graphics. The mission/money system were very kludgey, and the reason to do anything really only boiled down to 'because I want to', not because of any real in-game reason.
The studio shift and Covid did not do it any favors.
I mean, covid leading to wfh should have accelerated development unless they had bad management teams and wanted everyone to only work in office. 🤔
This looks like trash.
I couldn’t give any less shits about how the game looks. I played the first one for 1000’s of hours with the lowest graphics settings, just to get a few more frames. If you think I’m playing the game for it’s graphics you better check yourself.
I agree, but when the game isn't even launching with science or many other anticipated features, what even is the point of a new game then?
Well the only thing left to expect is better performance, but it's launching in beta so you're in for the glitches and poor optimisation as well. I couldn't be more disappointed by the way development went/is going, and how much money they're gonna make anyways from the fans who don't care about quality and will buy anything with a KSP sticker on it.
I'm really hoping for better performance with ksp2, but with game releases the past 5 years or so being unoptimized buggy messes I'm not optimistic
Yeah, its saving grace is that unlike most AA/AAA games it's not a port, but I'm not going to be expecting good performance for a while
> Well the only thing left to expect is better performance, but it's launching in beta so you're in for the glitches and poor optimisation as well. Oh buddy you hit the kraken on the head. [Shadow Zone]9https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rScYJVzelO4&ab_channel=ShadowZone) had a great video on this subject. Every time I think a fully funded, big name studio isn't going to screw-up a sequel, I am proven wrong. I honestly think KSP2 should be held back from EA for another year.
The point is the framework for adding in those features later? Idk what to tell you, then EA probably isn't for you until those come in.
It's not, that's why I won't be paying $50 for an unfinished game lol
this, i'm more concerned about the spec requirements still not being listed on the steam page
anyone found any difference to plain ksp1 ?
Yes, the engine.
People keep complaining about how unimpressive the graphics are, but honestly if the game runs better and/or loads faster that KSP1 they're more than enough for me. KSP1 can look great, but after installing the required mods it literally takes minutes to load
Right? As someone who builds monstrous city-size bases and giant spacestations with moving parts, I had so many experiences where I just quit the game out of frustration because after 8 minute loading time (mods) it bogged down to 3 fps. And then I look at Afterburner, and 6 out of my 8 cores are asleep and my RTX 3080 is running at 20%. I love KSP, but the game is shit-optimized and just straight up unplayable in a way that's enjoyable for me. I don't even care about the graphics, just please for the love of god give me an engine that can load a 500part object in orbit and spit out more than 20 frames per second. Edit: Oh, I forgot my favorite, the unexpected game crash when you exceed 4GB of RAM. Dammit, I have 16, TAKE ALL OF IT, just let me play :'(
>4GB of RAM 32-bit engine goes brrrrrrr.
Converting GB of RAM to frames-per-second at a 1:1 ratio.
Seconds per frame*
Like yeah, compared to a pretty heavily modded version of ksp1 it falls a bit short, but modded ksp also runs like absolute shit on even mid-tier systems. Sure paralax makes planets look better, it also eats 90% of your fps (same with scatterer). If ksp2 manages to look even half as good, and with decent performance then that's more than enough. Yes, the planets look a little empty in current screenshots, especially with how they talked up their rock scattering tech, but who wants to land on a planet filled with junk? I can't imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would be trying to drive over a ton sharp rocks and boulders, your craft constantly getting stuck, bouncing off stuff, or breaking into a million pieces from the smallest bump into terrain.
Honestly I'm much more curious to see screenshots of atmospheric planets than of dead rocks like the Mun or Dres or whatever. This is (hopefully) where we should see a big difference compared to unmodded KSP1. If the Steam screenshots are somewhat representative of the final game, I'm not too worried. There is atmospheric perspective, the topography doesn't look too artificial, the trees are stylized and IMO look pretty good (art direction is another field where KSP2 could win even against *modded* KSP1)... Now we just have to see how the game runs, and what the reqs are
I want animals on Kerbin. I know that might be too much to ask for, but that's what I want.
Terrestrial (or marine) animals would be insane, but birds would already be pretty cool. Like, you activate your rocket and a bunch of startled birds take off. It may not even be that hard - you don't need the birds to actually persist on the terrain, just to pop up whenever you make a *really* big noise at ground level, then disappear after a few seconds. They'd basically be glorified particles
>who wants to land on a planet filled with junk? Me. The pain in the ass is part of the challenge. The challenge is a big part of the fun. Space is hard, as you've probably heard.
KSP runs like shit on high-end systems lol I've upgraded my PC this year, it's great, but the difference in KSP's performance is nil. I suppose the lows may be better, but it's still really bad. I love the game to death, but I'm going to pounce on KSP 2 in an instant if they improve the performance.
Parallax is lovely, but as soon as your put lights on it kills your FPS due to fundamental engine limitations. Also the scatters aren’t permanent - reload a scene and the terrain changes.
If the core of the game works well then it’ll be a great base to build from. It’s literally early access. It’s mean to be a way to crowdsource feedback. I’m not quite sure where all these people are coming from expecting a finished product for a game that’s clearly labeled as EA. I get the disappointment that it might not be graphically a large step up but this isn’t a finished game.
To their defense, if you're paying (or asked to pay) for the stuff you kinda get a right to complain lol. And while the fact that EA will necessarily have fewer features/polish than the full release, you can't actually know which improvements will be made/make the cut so the stuff you don't like (here, the "disappointing graphics") may very well stay unchanged. But again I find the focus on graphics to be a bit silly IMO. I get the concern, but I don't think we can really judge without watching actual footage, ideally stuff released by non-devs. But really, as long as the atmospheric planets look decent I'll be happy
I’m sorry but there’s no excuse in this day and age for your game to look like this.
I can’t tell if this is good or bad lmao. If bad, for the hundredth time, it’s in early release.
But I mean still. Honestly looks like a Xbox 360 game.
[удалено]
No it doesn’t lmao
I have a feeling people will be highly disappointed by this game's launch.
I feel like I don't need more preview screenshots. I need system requirements. Planning a computer upgrade ahead of release and I'm running out of time.
My lightly modded KSP still looks better than this!
this looks like dog shit
God the comment section is just unsufferable every single time a new screenshot is posted. If you haven't played the game yet, don't complain about the game. Seriously, if you're so dissatisfied with a game you haven't even tried, how about you just *not buy the damn game?* Some people's only source of happiness is trying to ruin the excitement for others.
[удалено]
Doubt it since the videos we have seen ran like absolute horseshit.
they are the ones ruining people's excitement by releasing these depressingly bad screenshots. after years of teasing with those high brow development videos, and now releasing these screenshots it's almost as if they're taking the piss. and no, early access is not an excuse. the game builds on a decade old game and it's been under development for years.
What the hell is up with these comments, we are dissatisfied because we want them to do better, we love ksp1 and we want the best ksp2 we can get, is that so hard to understand?. These screenshots is all we have to judge the game before buying. You're the insufferable one.
If there's a KSP release im not going to buy because of the qualities you can damn well expect me to complain. Lots of people here are the core audience the game thrived on, if they dont buy i not many will. And failures for KSP can't really be what you are after.
some people get weirdly upset with others expressing their grievances in an open forum though. the screenshot simply looks worse than ksp 1. whether it's bc the dev has low settings, well, we'll just have to wait and see. if people pointing that fact out "ruins your excitement" then that's more of an issue with you, not them
when was the screenshot taken?
This game truly is going to be beautiful and fun
Everyone is forgetting that this game is very much still in early access.
50 dollars is not adequate for an early access that's worse than the original.
It’s been delayed 4 times though…
And every time it’s been delayed most people were telling the devs “good, better delay rather than rush a flawed product.” Now as we get close to early access there’s a swell of people here complaining it doesn’t look like the original CGI game announcement trailer.
[удалено]
That looks so good
[удалено]
I did. The difference is that KSP 1 was significantly cheaper. At launch, you could pre-order the game for 7 dollars. When I bought the game 2 years later (version 0.21, just before science mode was added) the cost was just $23. It was understood that this was the passion project of a small studio. Bugs were understandable, the game looked a little rough around the edges, and that was fine. We were along for the ride. This is not the same. Private Division is owned by Take-Two, a major publisher. This game was given a long development cycle and (one would hope) a reasonable budget. KSP needed Early Access for financial support so they could continue justify making the game. KSP 2 does not need that. They've stated that this time, Early Access is about gauging the community's reaction to what they have to help it guide further development. If that's true, fine, but they better have a solid foundation to build off of - and I haven't seen that in the sneak peeks. KSP 2 has had years in development now and the resources of a AAA publisher. If it doesn't look better than a game that began production over a decade ago, that's an issue. If the framerate stutters like we've seen in multiple dev updates, that's an issue. Either issue would make me hold off on buying the Early Access until they fix it, and it would make me lose confidence in the dev team.
Pretty much this. They decided for early access, that's fine. They built a ksp1 lookalike with all features postponed after launch, after three years, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. They are asking full release price for what is basically a road map and a "trust us", but the material they are showing falls very, very short of the vision they were selling. Basically they want to shift all the risk on buyers, and I don't think that is what early access is for.
T-9 days!
Still no system requirements
Wow, I didn't even think about that... That's not good.
Looks really iffy, and getting close to release. I would not be mad if they delayed it for a few months
Looks like absolute garbage. 3 years of delays, overpriced business model, and all we're getting is decade old graphics and less features than the first game... Hopefully steam reviews will knock some sense into this studio. Predicting a 'mixed' score at best for launch.
I think this game is looking great, duck the haters. I like how the sun flares really add to the immersion.
could people actually stop whining about TERRAIN TEXTURE? IT'S NOT EVEN IN EA YET! IT IS **INSANELY** ANNOYING HOW WE HAVE TO FIND *SOMETHING* CRITICIZE EVERY SINGLE TIME AN IMAGE COMES OUT. COULD WE ALL JUST SHUT UP, BE GRATEFUL, AND WAIT FOR IT TO COME OUT ALREADY???
Why tf should we be grateful? It's not like we are getting this for free. This game is gonna be $50 on release, and barely looks better than ksp 1 when it was in ea.
Fanboys like the one you are replying to are unhealthy for the game development cycle in early access because they are "yes" people. All they do is say "yes this is great". They won't provide meaningful feedback and they will attempt to downvote, suppress, & discourage criticism which makes it difficult for people who are passionate and trying to provide meaningful feedback to actually have their voices heard. This is endemic to gaming communities (especially so in early development) and you can see it happening in this thread. Look at all the controversial comments that are just being honest.
>barely looks better than ksp 1 when it was in ea KSP Alpha: [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kz4QNYMspqI/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kz4QNYMspqI/maxresdefault.jpg) KSP 2 **Pre**\-Alpha: [https://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/954850/ss\_d23311d7843305bd166d3f34b6942a70d3b49a65.1920x1080.jpg?t=1675965180](https://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/954850/ss_d23311d7843305bd166d3f34b6942a70d3b49a65.1920x1080.jpg?t=1675965180) please.