Bring Back the Barn!

[Superfluous J]

Sometimes I wonder if the whole "Screw it. The next version is 1.0 and we're all quitting" thing was a reaction to the vitriol that was ever-present on the forums around this time.

[regex]

43 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

but are we happy that we've scared squad off from doing anything creative with the buildings ever since?

If "creative" implies the aforementioned "craptastic" #LOLKERBALSSOTRASHY aesthetic then, yes, I'm quite happy that we've scared Squad off from doing anything "creative" with the buildings.

E: If the barn were ... a barn, and not a collection of terribly trashy tropes, then I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Edited April 25, 2017 by regex

[The_Rocketeer]

Ah, the barn. The best and worst thing about KSP is it's played by so many people who want a straight up simulator instead of a game.

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

Sometimes I wonder if the whole "Screw it. The next version is 1.0 and we're all quitting" thing was a reaction to the vitriol that was ever-present on the forums around this time.

Ahh, does it ever really go away? There must be some selection bias going on here for detail-oriented misanthropes. 

[regex]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Ah, the barn. The best and worst thing about KSP is it's played by so many people who want a straight up simulator instead of a game.

Perhaps the struggle is less for "simulation" and "realism" (those dirty, nasty words that sound so much like the opposite of "fun"), and more for a game that takes itself and its players a bit more seriously, perhaps by focusing less on the "disaster" and "trash" tropes it has built up, and more on the learning and wonder involved in spaceflight.

Edited April 25, 2017 by regex

[Pthigrivi]

I don't think we disagree all that much. It seems like we've come to this point where we're so invested in our opinions on some preview images that we're conflating all kinds of things that have nothing to do with one another. Just because people liked the idea of a farm/airfield doesn't mean they want players to crash more often. I don't think anyone is advocating bring back the model they showed us 2 years ago with zero revision, either. Its a question of whether taking on a more down-to-earth setting for tier 1 might actually be a better fit for the game than a bland box or a gussied up reproduction of the facility they built Gemini in. 

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Perhaps the struggle is less for "simulation" and "realism" (those dirty, nasty words that sound so much like the opposite of "fun"), and more for a game that takes itself and its players a bit more seriously, perhaps by focusing less on the "disaster" and "trash" tropes it has built up, and more on the learning and wonder involved in spaceflight.

I agree that learning and wonder are a key part of the attraction of KSP, but I think many videogamers would share the general mantra that in creative games like KSP amateurish whimsy is more fun than professional specification, trial-and-error more fun than calculated perfection, and garden-shed-contraption more fun than precision-engineering. The former make a game for gamers and the latter make what I will call a virtual-model for virtual-modellers. I enjoy modelling and gaming, but in my life I have more opportunity to game than to model simply because it takes less commitment and rewards me faster, even if that reward is 99% gratuitous explosions. Barn-KSP is more convenient to do than NASA-lite-KSP, which makes it more accessible and more cheap thrills-y, but NASA-lite KSP is what the real fans really want to graduate to, myself included. Net-KSP is a confused mess with both ends criticising the middle for having too much of the wrong stuff, yet somehow still succeeds and keeps everybody interested enough to keep playing and define and refine their own experience. Perhaps in future we'll see expansions that spur off in both directions, and then everyone will be happy (except the people who don't want paid DLC... ).

Edit: Wow, I was wondering what my 2000th post would be. I'm a little bit proud of this one.

Edited April 25, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[passinglurker]

3 hours ago, regex said:

If "creative" implies the aforementioned "craptastic" #LOLKERBALSSOTRASHY aesthetic then, yes, I'm quite happy that we've scared Squad off from doing anything "creative" with the buildings.

E: If the barn were ... a barn, and not a collection of terribly trashy tropes, then I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Indeed the astronaut farmer had a goofy launch barn and it wasn't trash. So there is nothing wrong with kerbals haveing a barn as long as it's well made

Edited April 25, 2017 by passinglurker

[regex]

22 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I agree that learning and wonder are a key part of the attraction of KSP, but I think many videogamers would share the general mantra that in creative games like KSP amateurish whimsy is more fun than professional specification, trial-and-error more fun than calculated perfection, and garden-shed-contraption more fun than precision-engineering.

I made no such argument in the post you quoted. My argument is against the "trashy" and "moar explosions" tropes that Squad has picked up over the years. Squad taking the players and the game more seriously does not at all imply adding the additional crunchy detail to take KSP to the next simulator level, it means Squad should refine their attitude towards the game, less towards a disaster simulator and more towards a fun spaceflight game.

The barn, in its given form, to me, reinforces negative tropes that ultimately insult the intelligence of the players. My argument has precisely zero to do with additional complexity or detail in the game.

You're basically arguing against a point I never made or implied.

[tater]

I posted way up thread (the bumped necro part) an image of a more suitable "tier 0" facility, which is a metal structure, but more like the sort of metal building used by mechanics shops, etc.

That gives a "just starting" feel, without looking like the junkyard aesthetic that is typical of some rocket parts (and none of the aircraft parts).

Regarding the whole "realism vs fun" trope, the two are entirely unrelated. Nothing about fun is inherently unrealistic, and nothing about realism is inherently unfun. 

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Ahh, does it ever really go away? There must be some selection bias going on here for detail-oriented misanthropes. 

No it doesn't, which is why they're not coming back.

[passinglurker]

57 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

No it doesn't, which is why they're not coming back.

Oh spare me  you guys know full well that the goat simulator genre fans among us and just as guilty of "vitriol" or have you forgotten how people whined when porkjet replaced hugo's janky anime mk1 cockpit with something up to his standards that was actually designed to make sense inside and out.

The difference between these two sides (the goat simulator fans and the space simulator fans) is space sim fans want quality and you can't argue with quality. Quality can be broken down into objective metrics. Quality dictated that the leer cockpit stays and the barf barn goes. Whenever people have been hard on squad it's not directly cause squad was trying to lighten things up and make kerbals look funny or goofy it's because this goofiness has consistently just been used as a mask for grossly obvious corner cutting and pushing buggy product for a quick buck both in terms of art and code. (though by this point it may be a "where there is smoke there is fire" type reflex but squad did that to themselves trying to push krap past space fans)

So show me a squad that won't put off finishing refining career mode, or revamping the rocket parts in favor of the latest get sales quick scheme (consoles, localization, minecraft adventure map maker dlc etc...) and I'll crack open blender and show you some quirky kerbal goofiness that doesn't look like kraken krap.

(I'll model a barn don't think I won't! *shakes polygons menacingly*)

Edited April 26, 2017 by passinglurker

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah, thats the stuff. <3

4 hours ago, tater said:

I posted way up thread (the bumped necro part) an image of a more suitable "tier 0" facility, which is a metal structure, but more like the sort of metal building used by mechanics shops, etc.

Its a little bland though, right? I mean are we to imagine these guys start out fully funded with a spankin new facility from day 1? Isn't it more fun if they're real pioneers starting from nothing? I don't know, I always thought the charm of a game where googly-eyed aliens go to space is that it teaches hard science without needing to take itself too seriously.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Pthigrivi

[razark]

20 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Isn't it more fun if they're real pioneers starting from nothing?

If they're starting from nothing, they should have much smaller rockets, and not a Mercury capsule.

[passinglurker]

23 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Its a little bland though, right? I mean are we to imagine these guys start out fully funded with a spankin new facility from day 1? Isn't it more fun if they're real pioneers starting from nothing? I don't know, I always thought the charm of a game where googly-eyed aliens go to space is that it teaches hard science without needing to take itself too seriously.

Enough you keep trying to come back to this argument but goofy vs. serious isn't what this is about. The barn we saw was of poor production quality assuming squad can meet a sufficient level of production quality they can design it however they want, and it will ultimately be accepted. The dramatic overhaul of the mk1 cockpit from janky sci-fi anime cockpit to high quality leer cockpit  is a good example of this and it could work in reverse if squad would just stop trying to use goofy as a mask for quick and dirty.

[Pthigrivi]

I just don't think that's what's going on. That cockpit was a really old asset and it was updated, thats all. Its definitely a bummer for us that porkjet moved on but Roverdude is great too. I wouldnt worry too much. 

[passinglurker]

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I just don't think that's what's going on. That cockpit was a really old asset and it was updated, thats all. Its definitely a bummer for us that porkjet moved on but Roverdude is great too. I wouldnt worry too much. 

As long as one can follow production quality standards, and some texture design references about AO and wear and tear the tier zero vab could be a beached nuclear submarine and the launch pad one if its launch tubes for all I care. 

But quality is indeed what is going on here people moaned at first but the new mk1 grew on everyone as the old craft files were replaced there is no arguing with quality. It is simply an unfortunate coincidence that the artists that gave us quality (b9, and porkjet) leaned towards "serious" and so that's what the user who want quality latch onto, but b9 and porkjet saw kerbals as talented craftsmen and engineers with a tendency to the occasional construction steam roller race and spontaneous launch pad dance contest. They thought you could have fun and see how spaceflight was really supposed to work at the same time, and what's so wrong with that?

but I digress hey if you want things zanier then all you need to do is get squad to take making art seriously and give the same attention to detail to the barn that b9 gave to the tier 3 vab. You'll see when the initial reactions die down it'll be hard to argue against the fact that the artist did a good job.

[regex]

44 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

but I digress hey if you want things zanier then all you need to do is get squad to take making art seriously and give the same attention to detail to the barn that b9 gave to the tier 3 vab. You'll see when the initial reactions die down it'll be hard to argue against the fact that the artist did a good job.

That depends on how many stupid, rote tropes they try to shovel into it. All the production quality in the world doesn't make up for "found lying by the side of the road" and its associated baggage. But I digress.

[passinglurker]

35 minutes ago, regex said:

That depends on how many stupid, rote tropes they try to shovel into it. All the production quality in the world doesn't make up for "found lying by the side of the road" and its associated baggage. But I digress.

Well naturally there will always be diverging opinions like the debate about whether the mk1 cockpit should look like a learjet or a fighter plane, but it seems based on my observations that the best way to settle such design debates is to make sure whatever you make is very very well made after the initial knee jerk reactions that everyone has settles it will be harder for anyone stomache asking for a do-over after they've had time to appreciate the effort that went into it.

I'll agree if squad actually took this and ran with it that trashy tropes are still a bad practice in the face of spaceplane parts and teir3 ksc, but if they do a good enough job and the two sides of the coin don't look like they come from alternate cartoon and toy universes then I don't feel like a debate over the schism would be worth having.

Though it would be nice if they'd open facilities to art modding that'd render a lot of this debate moot.

Edited April 26, 2017 by passinglurker

[Superfluous J]

Also as an aside, I personally get as annoyed by the "there is no difference between realism and fun" as those who purport that are annoyed by the "do you want realistic or do you want fun?" people. Here's why.

They are different, but there are situations where one is true and the other is false.

A mechanic can be realistic and fun. Great. It should probably be in the game. Example: most of the orbital mechanics stuff.
A mechanic can be neither realistic nor fun. Okay, this should probably not be in the game. KSP doesn't have anything that I'd put solidly in this list but many think contracts fall into this category.
A mechanic can be realistic, but not fun. These should not be in the game, in my opinion. An example of this for me personally is life support. I'd have put remote control of probes (and the possibility of loss of connection) on this list but the stock implementation of this is pretty good and it changed my mind.
A mechanic can be fun, but not realistic. These are a grey area, in my opinion. I actually like the "Found by the side of the road" mentions and find the 1/10th solar system more fun than the more realistic ones that you can mod into the game.

I don't actually know where I'm going with this, but I'm just sick of the "everything can be perfectly realistic yet still be fun" comments because that's simply not true. It's as untrue as the "you can't have any realism at all or you'll ruin the fun" comments. There is a grey area. Squad chooses where in that grey area to put the game, and stating your opinion about where they should put it is fine. However, vitriol (and I'm using that term because the forum will edit out what I want to use) about #lolsokerbal and the "toy solar system" are not. If you don't want a toy, stop playing a video game and go work for NASA.

[KSK]

3 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Also as an aside, I personally get as annoyed by the "there is no difference between realism and fun" as those who purport that are annoyed by the "do you want realistic or do you want fun?" people. Here's why.

They are different, but there are situations where one is true and the other is false.

A mechanic can be realistic and fun. Great. It should probably be in the game. Example: most of the orbital mechanics stuff.
A mechanic can be neither realistic nor fun. Okay, this should probably not be in the game. KSP doesn't have anything that I'd put solidly in this list but many think contracts fall into this category.
A mechanic can be realistic, but not fun. These should not be in the game, in my opinion. An example of this for me personally is life support. I'd have put remote control of probes (and the possibility of loss of connection) on this list but the stock implementation of this is pretty good and it changed my mind.
A mechanic can be fun, but not realistic. These are a grey area, in my opinion. I actually like the "Found by the side of the road" mentions and find the 1/10th solar system more fun than the more realistic ones that you can mod into the game.

*snip*

I'm definitely not the first person to point this out but if you stop thinking of 'fun' and 'realism' as points along the same axis then the problem goes away.. Draw a pair of orthogonal axes, have one going from 'not fun' (-x) to 'fun' (+x) and the second going from 'realistic' (+y) to 'unrealistic' (-y) and you've got a quadrant for each of those categories. 

Personally, I agree with @Pthigrivi - I like the idea that your kerbals are pioneers, talented, driven amateurs starting a space program from scratch on a shoestring budget and making the best use of what they have. I see the 'lying by the side of the road' meme as an excusable exaggeration of that. However, the key word there is starting. I find the extension of that meme all the way through the tech tree (which is what we've got at the moment) tiresome. What starts out as being humorous and light hearted just gets tedious at the end of the tech tree. We've progressed from basic, somewhat cobbled-together rockets to gigantic SLS sized parts, nuclear engines, near future aerospace parts and fully functional ISRU gear - those jokes about parts out of warranty and engineers cutting themselves on cutting edge parts start to get more than a bit lame.

With that said, there's no reason why the endgame can't be humorous and light hearted too - it's just that the humour can (and, in my opinion, should) be found somewhere other than the part descriptions. Check out @purpleivan's work here as an excellent example. His kerbals are plenty goofy, going to the Moon for fun and giggles, much to the bemusement of certain observers. For the most part though, the humour doesn't rely at all on junkyard spacecraft. 

 

[passinglurker]

7 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Also as an aside, I personally get as annoyed by the "there is no difference between realism and fun" as those who purport that are annoyed by the "do you want realistic or do you want fun?" people. Here's why.

They are different, but there are situations where one is true and the other is false.

A mechanic can be realistic and fun. Great. It should probably be in the game. Example: most of the orbital mechanics stuff.
A mechanic can be neither realistic nor fun. Okay, this should probably not be in the game. KSP doesn't have anything that I'd put solidly in this list but many think contracts fall into this category.
A mechanic can be realistic, but not fun. These should not be in the game, in my opinion. An example of this for me personally is life support. I'd have put remote control of probes (and the possibility of loss of connection) on this list but the stock implementation of this is pretty good and it changed my mind.
A mechanic can be fun, but not realistic. These are a grey area, in my opinion. I actually like the "Found by the side of the road" mentions and find the 1/10th solar system more fun than the more realistic ones that you can mod into the game.

I don't actually know where I'm going with this, but I'm just sick of the "everything can be perfectly realistic yet still be fun" comments because that's simply not true. It's as untrue as the "you can't have any realism at all or you'll ruin the fun" comments. There is a grey area. Squad chooses where in that grey area to put the game, and stating your opinion about where they should put it is fine. However, vitriol (and I'm using that term because the forum will edit out what I want to use) about #lolsokerbal and the "toy solar system" are not. If you don't want a toy, stop playing a video game and go work for NASA.

um ok that's cool and all complexity isn't for everyone, but we haven't been talking about mechanics we've been talking about art assets and that is a place where realism and fun can cleanly intersect if it was allowed to.

___

As for the idea that there be a progression from clunky shoe string rockets to sleek high end rockets I say this works better for the ksc facilities than for the rocket parts them selves. Like with ksc buildings you'd need a way to upgrade the early game parts appearance, manufacturer, and descriptions to pull this off (so like starting out the mk16 parachute is found by the side of the road but by teir 2 some one like white owl picks up as the manufacturer for flavor reasons) or you'd lose some of the lego like interchange ability as you progress down the tree.

This would be cool if squad did it but I honestly don't have any confidence that squad would put forth the effort to pull it off. It's hard enough just to try to convince squad to revamp in one direction alone never mind trying to get them to try and revamp in both directions simultaneously where's the quick sales jumping buck in that?

Edited April 26, 2017 by passinglurker

[Pthigrivi]

And just a light defense of whimsical 'found by the side of the road' kinds of things; that stuff isn't really for us--its for the kids. Its also pretty harmless. Its not like lighthearted flavor text is a gateway drug to bad rocket design. If there's a perception that kerbal is just about blowing things up on the pad I think you can blame lazy youtuber culture, not part descriptions. I don't think we need to take ourselves so brow-furrowingly seriously that all of that needs to be purged from the game. There's definitely a trial and error stage for new players when they're getting used to the idea of staging and thrust to weight and in some ways its good for them to take failure lightly. Its kind of the point of having this infinite stream of little green lemmings. I agree with KSK though that its about managing the transition from that stage to thinking much more carefully about precision and efficiency. That really has more to do with providing players with dV readouts and transfer orbit information than it does with art assets, but they matter too. Even rocket parts earned early in the tech tree get used late into the game so they shouldn't look like welded together trashcans *cough cough rockomax tanks* The thing about the building art is they *do* evolve as the player progresses, so there's every reason that they should give the sense that you're building and refining earning fancier things. Think sim city--they don't give you the fusion reactor day one, they give you the coal plant and you build from there. 

[passinglurker]

26 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

 Even rocket parts earned early in the tech tree get used late into the game so they shouldn't look like welded together trashcans *cough cough rockomax tanks* The thing about the building art is they *do* evolve as the player progresses, so there's every reason that they should give the sense that you're building and refining earning fancier things.

Assuming the shoe string nature of the early buildings doesn't prompt squad to model and texture on a shoe string as well I'd agree, and the idea that our goofy little green men are talented and enthusiastic enough about flying that they'd roll an early but still functional ,and sleek looking jet out of a wright brothers kitty hawk tent style hangar is pretty kerbal. The real obstacles are that squad hasn't shown interest in refinements and developments that don't generate an immediate influx in sales, and much of the player base now associates goofy, and shoestring with crappy quality, quick bucks, and lazy developers. It would take some doing on squads part to mend those old wounds. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by passinglurker

[regex]

47 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

If there's a perception that kerbal is just about blowing things up on the pad I think you can blame lazy youtuber culture, not part descriptions.

It's not lazy Youtubers, it's Squad's own promo videos and in-game loading art; it's baked into the game. And while the part descriptions are pretty bad (or used to be, I've seen no reason to read them in literally years because they're useless, and even some modders try to emulate that uselessness), they're only a part of the issue. Kind of like how the contract narratives are only part of the issue.

The barn as-presented just reinforced the trope. It's tiring and it insults the players' intelligence.