![]() ![]() ![]() Then add to that the adorable Kerbals themselves, whom you have the task of not stranding forever on a desolate moon or allowing to die horrible fiery deaths and there's a lot of motivation built into KSP for me and my priorities. KSP has that thrill of discovery and progression down pretty well. I play sandbox games to get that little thrill of acquiring something new, gaining access to a new technology or new area to explore, and so forth. The thing for me is that I'm mostly a progression-focused player and I enjoy in-game motivation. but so far then inevitably go and play more KSP. I own it and occasionally pop in to see if any of the things I'm looking for have been added (which is why I saw this post at all). SR2 probably doesn't have them yet, and may not have any near-future plans to implement them. However if you've got any other things you're looking for in gameplay. Both visualization and physics seem superior to even heavily modded KSP and it comes with satisfying to use procedural parts right out of the box. If you're mostly a tinkerer, SR2 has a lovely engine already, even in it's current state. I think it entirely depends on what your priorities are in this sort of game. That's the problem of the most of sandbox games I've seen - too much new tools with no new ways to apply them. They are need, but they need also a tasks to be solved by new means. I don't want to say, that differentiated parts, EVA's or career mode are not needed. If there were some kind of construction works in space, EVA's would have much more sense. I miss EVA's too, but the problem is pretty similar to the career mode - there were no interesting tasks to be solved by EVA's only, except some routine like packing parachutes back or pressurising back the broken wheel. I can say that KSP and SR2 are both lacking some kind of really interesting career, but that's much less prior rather than developing the sandbox aspect of the game - you cannot build and interesting career mode without sandbox tools to generate some interesting situations. The KSP's career mode and contracts are very formal and represent the same primitive tasks you can set by yourself in sandbox mode, and doesn't give you something really deep. The KSP's editor has got a kind of competitive possibilities very recently - different actuators, like pistons or hinges got inadequate amount of time to be implemented by Squad. But this problem may be solved pretty easy by adding some pre-generated details into SR2's parts pool. Well, KSP's building process is really simpler, and looks much more fun. Newest dlc with all those rock formations and scanning arms is also nice. After buying ksp i've totally fell in love with all those tiny external parts like batteries, ladders, reflectors, science parts, etc, and Kerbals themselves. It really depends, before trying KSP i didn't care about lack of astronauts, lack of progress (KSP's science), i've only missed any sort of missions. Depends if you are a perfectionist, I think. Of course you can build exact moon lander in SR2 using customisable parts, but I personally find it tedious. Also all those functional parts, other than solar panels, engines and fuel tanks - SR2 just doesn't have that. But that requires some healthy amount of parts and KSP has it. It actually added a bit more depth, when designing a ship is a little puzzle itself. Well, I bought KSP few months after SR2 and I don't see modular building mode to be a problem. SR2 indeed seems to be in better state, but for me KSP is still "good enough" from technical point of view. I'm >300 hours in and AFAIK i've only built one buggy craft that used to explode one minute after launch, no matter what. Yes, it has technical issues, but in my experience you have to build something unnecessarily massive or complex to encounter glitches.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |