this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
134 points (97.9% liked)

Games

38349 readers
1542 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Last few years I’ve been excitedly waiting for sequels from several small-to-medium sized studios that made highly acclaimed original games—I’m talking about Cities: Skylines, Kerbal Space Program, Planet Coaster, Frostpunk, etc.—yet each sequel was very poorly received to the point I wasn’t willing to risk my money buying it. Why do you think this happens when these developers already had a winning formula?

(page 2) 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago

KSP2 is a unique situation, there are no improvements coming because the studio was shut down. I'm not sure the others belong alongside it. I have the most experience with CS2 and I can say confidently, even at launch, it was better than the original in a lot of ways. It was buggy and unoptimized, and lacked content, and it deserved the criticism it got for those reasons. Since then, most of the bugs have been ironed out, performance is way better, and they've released a bunch of content packs, several of the most substantial ones for free. Even at launch, I never wanted to go back to CS1 just because of how much better the road tools are. Now? No contest. CS2 is a great city builder.

On the one hand, I'm glad for the pressure that people with less patience than I have are applying to these companies to release their games in a better state. On the other, I think there's a lot of unwarranted criticism and vitriol that goes along with it that's disappointing to see.

[–] [email protected] 104 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

I was there with KSP from the early days. Squad was not in the video game business, they were a billboard advertisement company. The lead dev HarvesteR started it as a passion project. It found success with the alpha and full release in 2015.

Then in 2017 Take-Two bought the rights to the game. Squad kept working on the original, but development of the sequel was handed off to Star Theory with Private Division publishing. The game was delayed, then development was moved to a new studio, Intercept Games, which was owned by Take-Two. They also poached a third of Star Theory's personnel, which resulted in the studio's death. They fucked around for a few years, released the early access version, then sold Private Division, closed Intercept Games, and abandoned the game.

In short: corporate interests. KSP2's failure had nothing to do with KSP or its developers.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In order:

  • Overscoped
  • Wrong people in charge on all levels
  • Unfocused
  • This turned out ok?
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Frostpunk 2 is great. I think it's way harder than 1 but maybe that's just because I haven't sunk nearly the same hours in

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

I would sub in like maybe Darkest Dungeon 2 over Frostpunk? Less well received but still better than any of the other three. Both were distinct changes of pace, darkest dungeon just sold its soul to the epic games store and lost the bond you formed with characters over a long campaign in exchange for the roguelite shorter runs.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 week ago (7 children)

C:S2 is likely too ambitious. Doing too many new things at once instead of incremental change.

KSP2 was a management fuck up. Let's take this IP and give it to a completely seperate studio with no experience in this kind of work while not allowing the original Devs to help despite being part of the organisation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What new things did C:S2 add? It felt like a slight graphical and qol improvement at best.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

C:S2 is likely too ambitious. Doing too many new things at once instead of incremental change.

And C:S1's bar to clear was SimCity 2013. C:S2's bar to clear was C:S1 with several years worth of content updates

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I never played cs1 on release, only played after it was nearly 10 years old, but my understanding is it vastly improved over updates and dlc (which unfortunately did cost more but did at least add meaningful changes for the most part).

Im curious to see where CS2 stands in 3-5 years when mods have really taken off and the devs had made most of their major tweaks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Let's take this IP and give it to a completely seperate studio with no experience in this kind of work while not allowing the original Devs to help despite being part of the organisation.

The decision making behind this is incredibly hard for me to understand. Just a very, very nonsensical way to run the project, on paper. I wonder about the circumstances.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The decision making behind this is incredibly hard for me to understand. Just a very, very nonsensical way to run the project, on paper. I wonder about the circumstances.

The rights were aquired by Take-Two Interactive in 2017, and they wanted a sequel to be released in 2020.

The dev studio shut down in 2023 and current status is unkown.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I believe the reason it happened, in short, is that Take2 (the publisher) were really obsessed with the release being a surprise, at the cost of far too much.

For one, this meant that basically every job listing for the game never described what the game you'd even work on was. Most of the devs they got were juniors who:

  1. were willing to sign more restrictive contracts without the confidence to push back
  2. did not necessarily know much about the game, or even the genre (supposedly, besides Nate, only 1 dev was an active KSP1 player and another was aware of the game but never really played)
  3. this game was their first sizeable project

For two, it meant that a lot of management roles were taken up by people from Take2 to enforce the secrecy (who also saw KSP as having franchise potential, but that's a rant for another day). Few of them intimately understood what makes us dorky nerds enthusiastic about KSP.

This is also part of the reason they avoided talking to the KSP1 devs; they were afraid of some of them even hinting that a sequel was in the works. As to why they continued to not talk to them after announcing the game I'm not sure. Perhaps they were afraid they'd tell the uncomfortable truth that the game was making the same development mistakes as KSP1 and more.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You see this a lot in project management. People go to school to learn to manage projects, and they think that all projects are pretty much the same. You define the deliverables, set the schedule, track the progress, and everything should work out fine. When the project is a success, they pat themselves on the back for getting everyone to the finish line, and when the project fails they examine where in the process unexpected things happened.

Video games are an art form. Creativity can't be iterated into existence, and the spark of fun is more than the component parts of a good time. Capitalists believe that they can invest in the creative process and buy the value of the talent of extraordinary people. They have commoditized creation, dissecting each step and then squeezing it into a format that fits into a procedure.

Here's a Kanban board of game features, pick one and move it to the next phase. Develop, test, evaluate, repeat. What are your blockers? Is this in scope? Do we need to push the deadline?

That can help you make something, but it won't be art.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

As an art appreciator, and someone whose professional duties include project management, I love this comment, especially "[project management] can help you make something, but it won't be art."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›