> NMS was improved heavily but in many ways never approached the features and qualities that people were expecting.
Asking who? From what I've seen, the typical sentiment is that they've gone far past the expectations they set.
For KSP2 I think the main expectations were eventual new content (starting with a good chunk less than KSP1 and adding more later) and better performance. And they sure haven't delivered performance.
> Asking who? From what I've seen, the typical sentiment is that they've gone far past the expectations they set.
I enjoy the game a lot more now, but the original E3 "gameplay" trailer still feels like it overpromises. Comparing the current state to that trailer there are quite a few things that have fallen short:
I've never encountered a planet which was as lush as the one shown initially. You don't find animals packed that closely together. I don't think semi-aquatic animals like the sauropod-looking things in the trailer are supported in the game either. You don't see animals running around in packs like they showed either. The closest thing you see is about five identical animals spawned into the same small area.
The video also shows you being able to fly swiftly above the surface of a planet. I may be misremembering, but I don't think I've ever been able to fly quite that quickly, but the biggest difference is that the game suffers from very noticeable object pop-in (it can even be noticed when moving at low speed).
I think you can fly with wingmen now, but I've not tried it.
This might not sound like much, but the existing game just looks far less interesting than the original trailer even if many rough boxes have been checked since then. Also, I'm not even looking at any other pre-release announcements or videos for reference.
Well I really hope neither of us spends too much time worrying about this today but I will respond with some points in addition to the other reply you got.
> Asking who? From what I've seen, the typical sentiment is that they've gone far past the expectations they set.
I'll note that anybody still playing the game probably likes it, and anybody who doesn't like it probably stopped playing years ago (except to perhaps check out new updates and continue to feel disappointed).
Some specific things:
- planets feel lifeless and very samey: there's nothing to really explore because the depth of geology, biology, ecology is not there. I suspect that's why they added so much base building, which was never a significant part of the early hype/marketing.
- even features they implemented feel incomplete and shallow, such as player customization and base building, compared to many other games which do those things better.
- the game was described as allowing the player to navigate an actual star system, and instead it's just a skybox densely littered with pirates and asteroids. If I want that, X4 is a hundred times better. For exploring stellar systems, Elite Dangerous or just SpaceEngine show that it's possible to do well.
Asking who? From what I've seen, the typical sentiment is that they've gone far past the expectations they set.
For KSP2 I think the main expectations were eventual new content (starting with a good chunk less than KSP1 and adding more later) and better performance. And they sure haven't delivered performance.