The video critiques the Early Access launch of “Space Engineers 2,” describing it as a “minimum viable product” with limited gameplay features and a lack of content, such as the absence of a tutorial, which may alienate new players. The host expresses disappointment in the developers for not leveraging their experience from the original game to deliver a more polished product and questions the necessity of the Early Access model in this case.
The video discusses the release of “Space Engineers 2,” a sequel to the popular voxel game “Space Engineers,” which originally launched in Early Access in 2013 and fully released in 2019. The host expresses disappointment that the sequel has also launched in Early Access, describing it as a “minimum viable product” with minimal gameplay features. The video criticizes the decision to release the game in this state, questioning the necessity of Early Access given the developers’ previous experience and resources.
The reviewer highlights that upon starting the game, they encountered a lack of content, with only a creative mode and a basic empty world available for players. They note that the game feels like a sandbox version of the original, offering fewer block types and options while introducing a new engine and graphics. The host draws comparisons to other games that have faced similar issues, particularly “Kerbal Space Program 2,” suggesting that the Early Access model has been misused by developers in the industry.
Despite acknowledging the developers’ track record and their commitment to community involvement, the host remains skeptical about the justification for releasing an incomplete game. They argue that the developers seem to be relying on the community to create content while they focus on building tools, which could result in a lack of structured gameplay. The video points out that previous successful games offered foundational gameplay before allowing community contributions, contrasting this with the current state of “Space Engineers 2.”
The reviewer expresses frustration over the absence of a tutorial in the game, which they believe would help new players navigate the complex mechanics. They emphasize that the game seems to cater primarily to veteran players of the first installment, potentially alienating new audiences. The host critiques the developers for not utilizing the feedback and experience gained from the original game to deliver a more polished product at launch.
In conclusion, the video conveys a sense of disappointment regarding “Space Engineers 2,” highlighting that it is not worth the $30 price tag for most players unless they are willing to support the developers. The host is hopeful that the developers will eventually deliver a great game, as they did with the first installment, but urges caution, fearing that the sequel could follow the same troubled path as “Kerbal Space Program 2.” Overall, the video serves as a critical reflection on the game’s Early Access launch and the implications for its future.