Do you prefer realism or gameplay in KSP?

[PatPL]

For me, playing stock KSP is harder, than on Realism Overhaul. Really! It's more enjoyable for me. It's new, hard challenge, after you master stock KSP. over 9000 deltaV to orbit, big rockets, hard choice of proper fuel (UDMH + NTO forever). I just like realism in games too.

How about you?

@EDIT

I mean gameplay: Not too hard, but enjoyable

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes.

(5char)

[rodion_herrera]

We can actually have both. It is possible.

[regex]

Realism and gameplay are one in the same for me.

[RainDreamer]

Realism when it is fun. Actual physics challenges? Yes all the way. Micromanagement chores? Uh..not so much. That said, sometimes a little micromanagement does spice things up a bit, like setting up a comsat constellation for remote tech. It provide a certain layer of challenge in itself.

[sal_vager]

The two do not exclude each other, realistic games can be just as much fun as non-realistic.

[Alshain]

Both please. I want realism to the point that it is still fun to play... like 1.0 for example.

(this poll is flawed, so I can't vote)

[PatPL]

Actually 1.0 realism is not enough for me

[Thomas988]

I actually love realism. I wish the KSP planets were bigger and had better terrain, but I can't complain.

[sal_vager]

Some of the most fun flight games I've played have been far from realistic, (Crimson Skies anyone?) while sims like X-plane are also fun but in a different way.

[LN400]

Realism as far as is possible considering the astronauts are small, green men traveling in absurd contraptions. Still, no fun no play. It has to be fun but as others said here, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Wayfare]

It´s always a sliding scale though, isn´t it? When is 'realistic' realistic enough? When does 'arcade' become too arcadey?

[FlowerChild]

As others have pointed out here, realism and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive, but I tend to favor gameplay when the two come into conflict.

However, that leads to a whole other conversation about whether a person prefers challenge in their gameplay, which also aren't mutually exclusive concepts, and challenge doesn't necessarily equate to realism either

I think your question may have been more accurately phrased as "do you like games to be challenging?", in which case, I'd have simply responded "yes"

It´s always a sliding scale though, isn´t it? When is 'realistic' realistic enough? When does 'arcade' become too arcadey?

What's actually realistic is often highly ambiguous as well.

Take this recent thing about some engines cutting off in Eve's atmosphere for example. Is that more realistic because Eve is a Venus analogue? Is it less realistic because Eve itself doesn't have the atmospheric pressure to warrant that?

When you're already dealing with abstractions (such as KSP's small-scale solar system), what qualifies as "realistic" often times becomes rather ambiguous as a result.

Personally, I just know that having engines cutoff in high pressure like that makes for more interesting (and challenging) gameplay, so the realism debate becomes secondary to me.

Edited May 2, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Alshain]

It´s always a sliding scale though, isn´t it? When is 'realistic' realistic enough? When does 'arcade' become too arcadey?

No, it's not. Challenging = good, tedium = bad. It really is that simple. Just ask yourself, is this a fun challenge to overcome or is it just something waste time on. In the case of 1.0 aerodynamics, it's a fun challenge. On the other hand, career mode I'm beginning to believe will always just be tedious and boring.

[Wayfare]

No, it's not. Challenging = good, tedium = bad. It really is that simple. Just ask yourself, is this a fun challenge to overcome or is it just something waste time on. In the case of 1.0 aerodynamics, it's a fun challenge. On the other hand, career mode I'm beginning to believe will always just be tedious and boring.

That would be gameplay then

[Bill Phil]

It's not an either or question here. It's not a linear scale, but more like an entire plane, with realism being one axis and gameplay the other. Low realism, low gameplay; low realism, high gameplay; high realism, low gameplay; and even high realism; high gameplay. It all depends on the people.

[MrZayas1]

I voted realism because I love being able to build spacecraft that adhere (loosely) to physics! 1.0 has been a great update, and mods help me satisfy myself

[regex]

Actually 1.0 realism is not enough for me

The next Realism Overhaul is going to take some time but, I assure you, it's going to be awesome with all the new code in stock 1.0.

[Linear]

The two do not exclude each other, realistic games can be just as much fun as non-realistic.

That's not under question..

[Alias72]

My position has been somewhat hard to explain. Their is no creativity without rules. Engineering, therefore, is one of the most creative endeavors in existence. With unlimited resources nothing is possible.

Rules such as physics do not BIND us, they DEFINE us. We cannot exist without them because we are, in part, the rules of the universe. Therefore finding innovative ways to use those rules is creativity. Staring at a canvas and deciding what to paint leaves one with many choices. Staring at a CAD program trying to design a wing that has to survive mach 5 air speeds leaves one with many challenges. I, therefore, contend that engineering is just as creative as art. Art is not the sole domain of imagination as I have seen propagandized.

As for how that relates to this thread. I favor realism. But it is NOT realism vs Creativity. It is realism FOR THE SAKE OF creativity.

I said this in the realism vs unbridled creativity thread. Because KSP is a game about creativity it applies here to gameplay.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello

I play KSP as a SIM not a game but I play it 3/4 SIM and 1/4 Game...Realism takes precedence. The reason is that MODDERS have made realism possible; if it werent for them I wouldnt be playing KSP.

I play a few MMOs and realism in the sense of getting MATS to progress...YA...it is a bit grindy but that is what makes it worth it; then when you create something you have more of a purpose to create - now you create to survive in a realistic sense.

Unfortunately many MODS are very simplistic in making B from A...It took me 3 months to overhaul even the MODS to make resource generation more realistic; still if it wasnt for the MODDERS in the first place...YA I wouldnt be here.

TACLIFE = Why I Play KSP ! I play TACLIFE modded to my own specifications with original TACLIFE settings (!) - YA !

I can set the rules for my Kerbal Life Support systems...things like real food expiring in 30days; and MRE's - we call them Meals Ready To Eat in the military - last forever but aint so tasty ! Making food and MREs takes upwards of 10+ resources and a few recycling systems; I started going overboard but I knew when to not call it a grind and play the game too !

Cmdr Zeta

[Frozen_Heart]

If you'd asked me 2 years ago I'd have said gameplay without hesitation. Now I'd pick realism any day.

[Frank_G]

I like realism, but a good gameplay is always the fun factor. In KSP the mix of nice gameplay and a not so serious physics simulation makes a very nice mixture. I found playing orbiter simulators pretty boring.

[r4pt0r]

You can use realism to hurt game play, or you can use it to help. If we had to press keys to breathe for our kerbals, that would be pretty realistic, I mean respiration is important right? Would not be fun for gameplay though.

As it is however, I think making the aerodynamics and reentry more realistic is good for gameplay.

[Claw]

I have plenty of realism in my life, so I don't really get upset if a video game doesn't perfectly represent reality. On the flip side, I don't like aspects of a simulator style game to be completely misleading in how things react. So it's a bit of a balance.

One such example would be the ion engine. Personally, I really don't want a "realistic" ion engine. Why, because ion engines on small probes burn for months. That doesn't sound particular fun for me from a gameplay standpoint. So yeah, I'm willing to except unrealistically over powered ion engines for the sake of not having to 4x warp my way through a month long burn...