Suggestion for SE2 focus

Jesse Stockwell shared this feedback 24 days ago
Not Enough Votes

I'm very concerned about what I see so far for SE2.


It does not appear to be a sequel to SE1.

In a variety of ways that make it gamey, non-immersive, and uninteresting.

This perception I have comes from some specific things, but also what I see as the overall direction the game development seems to be moving in.


SE's strengths are as an "unfettered" sandbox game. What makes it hard is some aspects of the building, the interface, the lack of tutorials... and that to build something interesting... you have to engineer it. Granted half of that engineering is getting around weird issues in the game... but still, you can engineer around it. The ability to engineering you way around problems even with the game itself. That flexibility is what makes SE1 so great.


Saying that.


I think SE1 could benefit greatly from a variety of improvements.


Unified Grid.

Actual in-game NPCs.

Better graphics.

Better block placement tools.

Better modding tools

Better tools for building scenarios.

Better integration of economy into gameplay.

More PCU in-game.

Better utilization of multiprocessor systems.

Better tutorials for how to play, and how to mod.

Water.


I think you guys should stick to this, and not make the dramatic gameplay changes you are currently moving forward with. What I have seen in SE2 so far is not a 10x improvement of anything in SE1... except the noises for the hand drill and grinder.


It's nice to have better graphics, and planets with caves and all that, but you're not building this for your current user base. You're building this for the market you hope to capture. IMO those decisions to try and capture a bigger audience are the problem. You are going to lose existing players... and the players you are going to pick up won't put in nearly as much game time.


I hope you'll take these comments to heart, and I wish Keen success.

Best Answer
photo

I think the definition "SE1 was a game about engineering, and SE2 will be a game with engineering" is a bit misleading. Engineering is only a part of SE1. Saying that it is a game about engineering is the same as saying that Minecraft is a game about redstone.


@Jesse

"SE's strengths are an "unfettered" sandbox game."


Indeed, this was a key to its success and longevity. Now, if you make a game titled "Space Engineers 2", it is natural that everyone expects it to have solid sandbox fundamentals. Otherwise, you should call it a different game. Like "Colonizing Almagest" or "Mystery of Byblos" or whatever, but not a sequel. Personally, I wouldn't mind spending years playing a game that is inferior to SE1 in that aspect. And I think many of us would be greatly disappointed and move back to SE1 or some other games if SE2 fails to deliver the "ultimate sci-fi sandbox" or "the last space sandbox game we will ever need (SE3 will be real life)", where we can play the game however we want and tell our own stories.


It feels like the focus for VS2 "Survival fundamentals" was skewed towards satisfying the basic needs of Colonization Progress and Contracts rather than showcasing some real sandbox fundamentals. If this trend continues, we might soon reach a point of no return, where you can't undo certain design choices, leading to many constraints which would be difficult to overcome even with heavy modding.

Replies (2)

photo
1

Thanks man.

photo
photo
3

I think the definition "SE1 was a game about engineering, and SE2 will be a game with engineering" is a bit misleading. Engineering is only a part of SE1. Saying that it is a game about engineering is the same as saying that Minecraft is a game about redstone.


@Jesse

"SE's strengths are an "unfettered" sandbox game."


Indeed, this was a key to its success and longevity. Now, if you make a game titled "Space Engineers 2", it is natural that everyone expects it to have solid sandbox fundamentals. Otherwise, you should call it a different game. Like "Colonizing Almagest" or "Mystery of Byblos" or whatever, but not a sequel. Personally, I wouldn't mind spending years playing a game that is inferior to SE1 in that aspect. And I think many of us would be greatly disappointed and move back to SE1 or some other games if SE2 fails to deliver the "ultimate sci-fi sandbox" or "the last space sandbox game we will ever need (SE3 will be real life)", where we can play the game however we want and tell our own stories.


It feels like the focus for VS2 "Survival fundamentals" was skewed towards satisfying the basic needs of Colonization Progress and Contracts rather than showcasing some real sandbox fundamentals. If this trend continues, we might soon reach a point of no return, where you can't undo certain design choices, leading to many constraints which would be difficult to overcome even with heavy modding.

photo
4

I fully agree about sequel name - this was the reason why I actually paid for SE2 because I expected better version of product I already know and love.

If it would be named differently I would for sure try it but not purchase early access.


Compared to RL - if company produces Smartphone 1 and then announces new Smartphone 2 customers can expect that they will receive better, improved, more performant product and some of them might even decide to preorder it or participate in early releases.


And then they receive product where: calculator was removed because "no one used it" and camera works only in automatic mode because "being photo settings were too complex for new users" and basic things either work differently or do not work at all they start questioning if the trust their put in the manufacturer was worth it.

photo
3

Wow. What a great way to sum things up. Great analogy!

photo
2

@natec


Yeah that last bit you wrote there... about the point of no return. That's what concerns me.

photo
Leave a Comment
 
Attach a file
Access denied