Sign in to follow this  
Robotengineer

What is KSP trying to be?

Recommended Posts

Some players can do with a little push here and there, some players will go off on their own. But KSP isn't trying to be "any game"... KSP is simply KSP.

That's Sandbox. Got it. Sandbox is fine, it needs little or nothing.

But KSP is not just sandbox, they have 2 other modes, neither of which are well thought out. They should fix those modes, make them easy to mod entirely, or dump them.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is a great sandbox and half a game. The reasons for doing the game part are to just get the parts and once that has been done there is no game difference to sandbox. With pretty much every other game, you play the game, get all the parts and then they all have the equivalent of killing the final boss, solving the final puzzle or something.

For my experience of playing KSP, when you can get all the parts and never leave kerbin SOI the endgame really falls flat. There should be 'stuff to do' in the broadest sense after getting all the parts.

Myself I am a long time fan of the anomalies having a larger story to investigate. Specific missions designed for the outer planets or adoption of some of the more advanced challenges as some form of endgame.

For example, the final three could be Jool 5, take me to the moons and grand tour. Maybe visit every anomaly in a specific order.

To be honest, anything at this point would be an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where RANDOMNESS would help. Yeah, Squad hates it...

What we need is a Kerbol system seed. Default can be what we have, that should keep purists happy, right? The goal should be the possibility of a vast number of unique Kerbol systems to explore. Then, the answer to OP's question is "A game of space exploration!"

I don't play Minecraft that much, but my kids still do. Minecraft as a "game" in the survival mode sense is incredibly boring, particularly once you've done it once clear through. Not even slightly challenging. My kids will still have me come to see some awesome seed they just got, though, and I love to look at a particularly cool landscape, or buried desert temple even now. Looks really cool, and I'll think, "I'd build a cool fortress up there…" when I see a place like that.

KSP needs this, IMO. That won't fix Career mode, IMO, but combined with a way to disable knowing stuff you shouldn't know, the career would be much improved, IMO. Science would then have a purpose, not just for "exploration" completeness, but to allow the player to actually do things in game.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where RANDOMNESS would help. Yeah, Squad hates it...

What we need is a Kerbol system seed. Default can be what we have, that should keep purists happy, right? The goal should be the possibility of a vast number of unique Kerbol systems to explore. Then, the answer to OP's question is "A game of space exploration!"

I don't play Minecraft that much, but my kids still do. Minecraft as a "game" in the survival mode sense is incredibly boring, particularly once you've done it once clear through. Not even slightly challenging. My kids will still have me come to see some awesome see they just got, though, and I love to look at a particularly cool landscape, or buried desert temple even now. Looks really cool, and I'll think, "I'd build a cool fortress up there…" when I see a place like that.

KSP needs this, IMO. That won't fix Career mode, IMO, but combined with a way to disable knowing stuff you shouldn't know, the career would be much improved, IMO. Science would then have a purpose, not just for "exploration" completeness, but to allow the player to actually do things in game.

Can't help but agree. It would be nice to have tools to actually explore an unknown system, not having everything just there shown in the map screen with all information displayed from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between what was KSP (once a game where you flew planes on top of SRBs and crashed them gloriously), what is KSP now (career mode plus a thick layer of modder-supported content), and what Squad wants KSP to be (who knows, it's business).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing KSP since before the sun was a body, and flying to the sun was a straight line flight to an imaginary point (sun was a background image). The original list of goals was little more than a list of ideas scribbled on a napkin then. KSP has evolved a lot since those days.

As we witness the impending release of version 1.0, I must agree that KSP does need better direction. I love the sandbox mode, and have since the beginning. I tried the career mode when it was first evolving, but quickly lost interest in it as it was simply not "compelling". I also agree that it is more sim than game, but even as a sim, it is a "loose" sim at that.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game and the community that supports it. Even in its "unfinished" state (I think we all agree that the 1.0 release is certainly good but not a finished game), it is a lot of fun, and with the modding community it is even better still. It will continue keep my interest for quite awhile into the future.

With that said, The OP has a valid question. What is KSP trying to be? I simply don't know, and i'm afraid the devs don't really know either. Great games require great stories and a compelling direction, with some tension and a reason for doing things. With all due respect to Harvester and his amazing team, software developers are usually not known for those skills. I think that the game would benefit from a few storytellers... :D

IMO, to make it a great game, we need 4 things:

1. A universe seed.

2. Other star systems.

3. A "real" mission control system.

4. A "macro" game management module.

I didn't mention Multi-player. I know that multi-player is something they have discussed, but I've not heard much about it recently, and they were reluctant to build it back when they discussed it months ago. While that would be an interesting endeavor, I don't think that it would be necessary for KSP to be a great game. Not all games need to be multi-player to be great.

Items 1-3 have already been discussed. What is desperately needed I think is item 4.

To truly run a long term space program, we need a way to manage multiple flights over multiple years, decades or even centuries, and a "reason" for doing so. The "macro" module would fill that role and would make the space program a space program. After you master the skills for space flight, and as a consequence of advancing along the tech tree, flight automation is not only a must but would be inevitable. At that point, you will definitely need some means to "manage" hundreds or thousands of flights as you explore and exploit space... I kind of think it would end up evolving into something like Sim City, where once you have built it, you manage the higher level stuff, even as you have control over every pipe, building, and intersection.

I realize that this is likely well beyond the scope of where the devs will go. So, I'd at least like to see items 1, 2 and 3. I believe these are reasonably within reach of the existing game, and would add the necessary depth to make career mode more compelling, even if it still lacks an "end game" component.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by Papa_Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KSP is what happens when a bunch of mutant dwarves from Dwarf Fortress discover rocketry and try to play Lunar Lander in real life.

That game would be much more "fun" than KSP is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me what KSP is trying to be, is a very padded out version of the simple rocket launcher it started out as.

Career mode is built around building and flying.

The planets basically act as targets your rockets must reach- to collect from a biome, do a survey, deliver something a contract requires etc,

I believe this is why KSP's career mode falls flat.

Rather than answering "How can we make the player feel like they are running a space program, and exploring space?" Career answered "How can flights earn points and money?"

"What do you think KSP should be?"

I think KSP ought to be a game where the player gets to run their own space program. And everything that entails.

The game should be shaped around things real space programs do, what benefits them, what challenges they must overcome, etc.

KSP is the only space game I'm aware of where you're very much involved in every stage of a mission.

If you ignore career, and run a space program in sandbox, you take on many different roles:

You're the director, choosing the goals of the organisation.

You're the mission planner, looking for available launch windows, planning trajectories, and approaches to a mission.

You're the engineer who designs the stuff,

the pilot who gets it there,

the astronaut who makes those first steps., and if you're imaginative enough, the explorer/scientist who travels over alien lands, trying to work out their mysteries.

In KSP, only two of these parts are really developed, the flying part, and the building part.

We're missing out on the actual exploring and discovering, which surely is the reason they are going to space in the first place.

Having funding only come from contracts somewhat undermines our ability to set our own direction, There's still no mission planning tools in game, or budgeting tools. Space stations and bases don't have benifits of their own...

It would be a lot more fun if the game was set up with the intention of making it feel like we are running a space program.

Edited by Tw1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on what mod you use.

Stock- a fun game

RSS- A simulator

I would like to make a minor correction here. With RSS installed and something like RSS-Stock-Parts or Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler, RSS can be a fun game as well rather than a simulator. There's just a few immersion problems in-universe.

Kerbal Space Program is a Rocket-building-and-flying game in a solar system, where you are trying to accomplish Kerbal's grand endeavor to learn more about space with a severe lack of funding and judgement from the rest of the planet.

I'll be honest, i haven't played Career Mode in a while, but I will say that in some cases Science Mode can be really fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

Good stuff snipped.

I mentioned what you call automation, actually. I called it AI kerbals. To be a management game, we must have people to manage, and those people are our astronauts. Unless I can plan a mission, assign Jeb, Manfred, and Joebert to said mission and watch them complete it (or have an accident that requires a rescue, perhaps), there is no management game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That game would be much more "fun" than KSP is.

SRBs powered by Magma - what could possibly go right?

On a more serious note and in reply to Tw1's excellent post, I think my ideal version of KSP at the moment is Science mode with KER, Kerbal Construction Time, Final Frontier, Kerbal Alarm Clock and an enhanced environment mod installed. Throw in a life support mod for extra logistics considerations if desired.

Science mode gives me budgetary freedom whilst retaining some sense of progression and development of my program (what do you mean I have this whole shiny space centre to launch my first RT-10 bottle rocket from. Lalalala - not listening), Construction time gives me multitasking (rather than unlocking the science tree in 10 days and then fastforwarding to whenever the next launch window opens) and a sense of history, especially with Final Frontier added to the mix. KER, KAC for quality of life improvements and prettier graphics for better immersion. Simply having clouds instantly gives much more of a sense of scale to Kerbin.

Sadly, I'm finding that the current game build invariably chokes on that particular combination of mods. Maybe 1.0 or 1.1 will improve matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to make a minor correction here. With RSS installed and something like RSS-Stock-Parts or Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler, RSS can be a fun game as well rather than a simulator. There's just a few immersion problems in-universe.

Kerbal Space Program is a Rocket-building-and-flying game in a solar system, where you are trying to accomplish Kerbal's grand endeavor to learn more about space with a severe lack of funding and judgement from the rest of the planet.

I'll be honest, i haven't played Career Mode in a while, but I will say that in some cases Science Mode can be really fun!

I agree, I found the science portion had potential, but is as yet not realized.

I mentioned what you call automation, actually. I called it AI kerbals. To be a management game, we must have people to manage, and those people are our astronauts. Unless I can plan a mission, assign Jeb, Manfred, and Joebert to said mission and watch them complete it (or have an accident that requires a rescue, perhaps), there is no management game.

Indeed you did, but I kind of took that to fit within my item 3 for mission control, hence it already being discussed. I really liked your post.

For item 4, I'm thinking in a grander scale. Even flight planning would be automated, and run on autopilot. For example, once you have established a mining operation, it would grow and shrink as your skill in managing the people, resources, and infrastructure ebb and flow. Same with colonies on other planets / star systems. Interstellar trade and deals would be possible. Flights would automatically fly, Resources would automatically be accrued, and shipbuilding would progress in an automated fashion... Astronauts (Kerbalnauts) would be hired, fired, live and die in an automated way. When you wanted, you could drill down into the guts of the game and fly a mission yourself, or work on some portion of the grand systems that make a space faring civilization go...

That is why I think that it would be well beyond the current scope of the game. It would make the current game as we know it only a small part of the whole... It would however be an interesting direction to take it...

Edited by Papa_Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES YES YES YES.

For example, once you have established a mining operation, it would grow and shrink as your skill in managing the people, resources, and infrastructure ebb and flow. Same with colonies on other planets / star systems. Interstellar trade and deals would be possible. Flights would automatically fly, Resources would automatically be accrued, and shipbuilding would progress in an automated fashion... Astronauts (Kerbalnauts) would be hired, fired, live and die in an automated way. When you wanted, you could drill down into the guts of the game and fly a mission yourself, or work on some portion of the grand systems that make a space faring civilization go...

That would be amazing. I'd love to set up a mining operation, train kerbals to do it, and next let it run and generate money for me to fund my other missions. Currently I think in career everything is too dragged out, takes too long. For stuff like this to really work though, we need stock mechanisms that make for better base building, etc. I personally love tycoon like games, and while I do not expect KSP to be a management game the size of rollercoaster tycoon, or a strategy the scale of Total War, it could use some more.

Dude if this gets added somehow either stock or mod I'll be so hooked.

Now I'm pumped. You totally described the game I imagined when I read the catchphrase on the KSP page, three years ago. Squad, make this happen. If you don't know how to, ask on the forums for input from modders and players. You can do it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, you're better off making a mod or even creating a new game if you want a big feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's Sandbox. Got it. Sandbox is fine, it needs little or nothing.

But KSP is not just sandbox, they have 2 other modes, neither of which are well thought out. They should fix those modes, make them easy to mod entirely, or dump them.

But all you're doing here is being EA. "Yep, something we've seen before... to maximize profit you need to do x, y, z... and add always online drm... done? package, sell."

Morrowind is sandbox (technically). Morrowind is a gigantic sandbox... but no one calls it "sandbox", they call it a CRPG. But Diablo is hardly a sandbox, it has a "story" it has "Character Progression" but we call it an ARPG. But then Oblivion comes and copies more "diablo-like" elements and creates a mess that isn't CRPG or ARPG.

Oblivion is still sandbox, like morrowind, but the sandbox elements are weaker.

You're missing that what made Morrowind great and Oblivion "sell out candy" are the same aspects that you're complaining about. For the people who like Morrowind, they commend the fact that you could ignore the main quest, even that you weren't thrown head first into "the game" but could go out and discover the world on your own.

What the MASSES praised about Oblivion in comparison to Morrowind, the hardcore Morrowind fans HATED because it takes away from the "creators sandbox" and railguns the game.

I mean, let's talk Minecraft. Minecraft has weapons so minecraft needs to have better enemies... and it needs a boss.... and an end game... and the player should be nagged until she/he defeats the boss. Sure, a boss was added in, but did it really make it a better game?

Edited by Fel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm being EA? I'm being nothing at all. Squad has added 2 modes of play that are not well thought out. If they add a mode of play, why should it be slapped on as an afterthought? Wouldn;t it be better to make sandbox better, than to waste time on "career mode," if that mode is cruddy?

They've done a lot of fundamental game changes around "Career," and they claim it is really the ultimate aim of the game. Fine. Squad's goal is a "career" game where the player manages a space program (and flies every single second of every flight manually, apparently).

I think it's not well thought out. Even within the paradigm of a "management" game where you manage nothing except for yourself, it is broken. The funding is disconnected from time, the expense is disconnected from time, 3d parties are paying the player for basic science missions, you have almost no internal missions available (only the Explore type), science is only used to unlock tech, it is not useful (because collecting random mun rocks helps you invent solar panels?)

OP's point is that the game should pick a design goal for whatever mode first, then design a game that makes sense (and is fun) around that goal. I'd add that reply should be considered (hence my wanting Kerbol system random seeds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm being EA? I'm being nothing at all. Squad has added 2 modes of play that are not well thought out. If they add a mode of play, why should it be slapped on as an afterthought? Wouldn;t it be better to make sandbox better, than to waste time on "career mode," if that mode is cruddy?

They've done a lot of fundamental game changes around "Career," and they claim it is really the ultimate aim of the game. Fine. Squad's goal is a "career" game where the player manages a space program (and flies every single second of every flight manually, apparently).

I think it's not well thought out. Even within the paradigm of a "management" game where you manage nothing except for yourself, it is broken. The funding is disconnected from time, the expense is disconnected from time, 3d parties are paying the player for basic science missions, you have almost no internal missions available (only the Explore type), science is only used to unlock tech, it is not useful (because collecting random mun rocks helps you invent solar panels?)

OP's point is that the game should pick a design goal for whatever mode first, then design a game that makes sense (and is fun) around that goal. I'd add that reply should be considered (hence my wanting Kerbol system random seeds).

"Career mode needs X, Y, Z to succeed" How was my analogy lost, other than not reading it?

You're saying what you expect out of career mode, given what you played in other games, but you're FIXATED on what the genera needs to be like. Who wrote the rules here? You? Why don't you start by telling me what the hell Oblivion/(everything else bethesda has made since) is suppose to be? It isn't a CRPG, it isn't an ARPG. While fans of CRPGs abhor what has been done; they have been extremely successful. (Of course, this does create a new market for CRPGs)

So are you being EA, as per my original post explaining exactly what you were doing... YES! All you're doing is saying "This isn't what I'm use to playing." Pretty much everyone should realize Bethesda doesn't make CRPGs (anymore) or APRGs... the CRPG battle was long lost and fixing the game is basically impossible due to limitations and the ARPG battle isn't wanted because the CRPG elements is what makes it different.

And what people WANT out of KSP is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT between the different people; there are many people who will play a cRPG as an aRPG and complain about it not having enough aRPG elements. There are people who play aRPGs expecting more cRPG elements.

I mean, I personally believe KSP should have "Sims-like" aspects even growing up to "SimCity-Like" aspects... but saying the game doesn't understand its own genera isn't correct when these features aren't added in. Expecting the game to have something due to similarities in genera isn't really the samething as the game not being complete. These are features, aspects that YOU, even others, want... but not an indicative sample of what KSP actually IS.

Edited by Fel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying career mode sucks, because I know what a good "career" game feels like. I'd likely not even know the names of any of the EA games you could mention, BTW. I know how a good game works, period, even if it's an RPG (a real RPG), or a board game (hex board in case you were born not that long ago and don't know). So comparing me to "EA" has exactly zero meaning for me. None, I entirely miss the point.

I am comparing KSP to nothing at all. Career as a word has it's own implication, in a complete vacuum. It could possibly mean the career of a single astronaut, which it self-evidently doesn't in the case of KSP. That pretty much leaves the director of the program as the only possible career to be modeled. You can say it's something else, but then "career" is the wrong description of it. That they explicitly added features, and have in fact said that it is supposed to be "tycoon like" demonstrates EXACTLY what they are getting at. It fails utterly at all those.

Not the career of an astronaut. Check.

Not the career of a program director/manager. Check.

What is left?

Read OP's post. What is KSP trying to be?

Sandbox? That's a given, sandbox is easy, and it's fine in KSP, they need add little for that, anything added is gravy.

Science? Point grinding added to sandbox. Science makes no sense, tech tree relationship to science makes no sense, science does nothing useful. What is Science mode trying to be? Apparently Sandbox with point grinding.

Career? Again, it's not a management game, not even a little, because the player doesn't manage anything at all. He has to do everything himself, and has to grind funds to pay for it. That doesn't make it career, and more importantly it doesn't make it FUN.

EDIT: EA games I have played… MULE and Bard's Tale (on a roommate's C-64, I think---or was it an Atari). That's it. I was aware of Wing Commander, but I always thought space fighters were idiotic, so I never played it. Reading their titles on wiki, I don't think any of the others would have interested me, and most game companies make pretty lousy games, frankly. The last game I really got into (Silent Hunter 4) was only good heavily modded because of how a-historical it was, and even those mods could not fix fundamental flaws in the game (which SH5 didn't even touch, electing to instead add eye-candy and useless content instead of fixing base mechanics---go figure).

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fel:

I see your point, and understand where you are going. Many games that have been developed to be "open" (the GTA series for example), had a "decent" campaign mode, but really shine in sandbox or open play. KSP certainly does shine in Sandbox mode. I play that almost exclusively.

However, I also see tater's point and agree with him. If you decide to add a campaign game, it should be well thought out and have a purpose. For example, in WOW, the leveling is PAINFUL, but serves the purpose of introducing the lore, and building your skills in preparation for the end game. Even after leveling several characters, each new class has its own unique characteristics, and all must play together to achieve success in the end game, where all your learned skills are really put to the test.

KSP lacks this kind of compelling reason to run the career mode. Yes it provides you a means to develop your skills, but to what end?

Finally, If KSP stays as it is, it will still be a very successful game. Minecraft, without any additions like a boss was still wildly successful. But, give it a chance to be a bit more, with some end game component, and it could really be something else again. A franchise to last a very long time.

Edited by Papa_Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minecraft is a great example. I can't stand creative (which my kids play), but survival mode ("career" in ksp) is lousy... None the less that's what I play if I play. A more compelling campaign game would be pretty cool, but the base mechanics don't suit it well, really (any game that needs "boss" characters is bad design, IMO).

I whine about career in ksp because I think it has so much unrealized potential... Unrealized because of poor choices.

To me, KSP should be a "space race" game in career mode. That would require meaningful time, and an AI (or lifted from other players' games) crafts. The AI would need to be playing an abstracted version using player accomplishments as possible drivers... They don't have ideal parts, but you are clearly near a munar mission, so they launch anyway. Rep would be who was winning the race. That's what a "vision" of career mode might look like, though others are possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fel - I get where you're coming from. It's annoyed me on many game forums, whenever a game tries to do something a bit different, there's inevitably a vocal minority insisting that it will surely fail if the devs don't add x,y and z RIGHT NOW and thus make it more like $favouredgameofchoice. That's nothing new under the sun either. From the Elite wikipedia page (which correlates with other sources that I've read):

"They first approached Thorn EMI; the company's rejection letter stated that the game was too complicated and needed to be finishable in 10 minutes with three lives."

This of course in an era when most home computer games were based very much on coin-op remakes. And on this occasion, the 'it must be like games we know if it's going to succeed' attitude was absolutely dead wrong. There was nearly 1 copy of Elite sold for every BBC microcomputer sold (the platform it was originally written for), it was ported to gods knows how many others and kicked off an entirely new way of thinking about computer games.

Unfortunately, KSP career mode is not a bold but misunderstood departure from convention but a mish-mash of concepts and game mechanics borrowed from other games. To be fair, that kind of lateral thinking can produce something that's way better than the sum of its parts but I don't believe it has in KSP. Worse, some of the mechanics, in their current incarnation, don't even make a lot of sense together. Crew experience is probably the main example - trying to shoehorn crew skills progression into a game where all the actual flying is done by the player doesn't make a lot of sense and hasn't added anything particularly significant to the gameplay. This might change of course but it's going to require a fairly brutal balancing pass of the whole game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Fel point and (from the last few post) I also think Tater is mostly subjective in his vision of what the game should be, plus a feeling of entitlement.

Which make Fel 90% right and Tater 50% wrong on different topic.

Myself I agree that KSP because of its development story (remember what it started from) lack planning for an organic gameplay and deeply interlinked features. How KSP decided to call its "evolution mode" is purely semantic. Career mode don't necessarily equal "Space Race" and capitalism isn't the only model to base the evolution of space program on. On this I'm personally sure that we will only get a real space faring civilization once we get over such silliness and manage to put resources in common for the better of all.

So does KSP feel a patchwork of half-made feature ? Yes.

But I put that on its ALPHA -> BETA state because even AAA game end up (in my eyes at least) with gameplay that are WAY WORSE. Like ridiculously simplistic gameplay with procedurally generated content that bring nothing but the illusion of a gigantic game (Look at me ! I have 100 planets and 50 hundred weapon, don't mind that it make no difference had it been 10 planet and 5 weapon).

And the worse ? Those AAA, MMO, F2P, ARPG games are considered GOOD by the majority of people (<Insert Godwin point here>).

For my part, even if KSP 1.0 (and next) isn't very very good, It will still have been more than worth its price.

Aside, to answer the topic question : KSP is trying to be a fun game for a wide range or age, not a complex simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP is far from being a simulator (which is not a bad thing). KSP is a game about space exploration with very good mechanics. It's purpose is to be fun above all (I think the devs said that already). If it was a simulator there would not be funny little green guys in command of things.

Saying that it is trying to become a simulator because they are adding stuff like refined aerodynamics and heat shields is like saying GTAV is a warfare simulator because it has guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it was a simulator there would not be funny little green guys in command of things.

Just being whimsical doesn't necessarily mean something isn't a simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand Fel point and (from the last few post) I also think Tater is mostly subjective in his vision of what the game should be, plus a feeling of entitlement.

Which make Fel 90% right and Tater 50% wrong on different topic.

Wow, you are not only capable of mind-reading, but also accessing the percentage right people are on a topic. Amazing. You are truly a unique person on earth.

You're also aware that people arguing for gameplay choices are subjective, imagine that. I'll admit that my opinions are subjective---unlike yours, which are apparently 100% objective… wait, I'm starting to get a psychic ability like you have… your opinions are only 96.3% objective and 3.7% subjective… amazing!

So does KSP feel a patchwork of half-made feature ? Yes.

But I put that on its ALPHA -> BETA state because even AAA game end up (in my eyes at least) with gameplay that are WAY WORSE. Like ridiculously simplistic gameplay with procedurally generated content that bring nothing but the illusion of a gigantic game (Look at me ! I have 100 planets and 50 hundred weapon, don't mind that it make no difference had it been 10 planet and 5 weapon).

Patchwork means that good game design features are effectively random. OP's point (which I agree with 100%), is that the devs have didn't make a decision what the gameplay modes are supposed to be like, they in fact gave them a name, then sort of added features they thought created that mode---when good gameplay design would have the GAME aspects more thought out around the arc of play they imagine. I could not like there game modes they picked, and still see that the design was sound, for example. Science/career in KSP seem cobbled together to me, not well planned. If you disaree with OP, you are saying that they were in fact well planned I think.

And the worse ? Those AAA, MMO, F2P, ARPG games are considered GOOD by the majority of people (<Insert Godwin point here>).

Not me, so I agree---but I'm only 50% rational/objective, apparently, so that's meaningless, right?

For my part, even if KSP 1.0 (and next) isn't very very good, It will still have been more than worth its price.

I've said the same many times before, and I in fact plan on buying it again, just because I feel almost guilty about how little I paid… perhaps it's my inherent irrationality.

Aside, to answer the topic question : KSP is trying to be a fun game for a wide range or age, not a complex simulator.

In this thread we have mostly been discussing gameplay aspects, not the false dichotomy of simulation vs game. Some (you?) apparently think the gameplay is just awesome, and Squad randomly fell across the best "career" gameplay ideas ever, while others think that they'd have done better to really think out gameplay modes ahead of time, and design to whatever goal they have instead of tacking stuff on after the fact. I think career mode is a great idea, I just think it is badly done. I could envision several modes (I suggested ONE above) that could work for career, even some within the broken framework we have now. Gameplay is always going to be subjective, and some of it is beyond the players really knowing consciously (psychological aspects of reward systems, etc).

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this