Jump to content

Devnote Tuesday: Holidays != Vacation


SQUAD
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Speaking of workload, Joe (Dr Turkey) has been diving into the administrative side of a console release. The certification process is a long and labour intensive one. Did you know how many certification forms are too many forms? One. Now multiply that by a million. Times three, because every console manufacturer likes their own brand of forms to be filled out. We’re also trying to explain to PEGI that exploding Kerbals are not violent. As Kasper (KasperVld) put it earlier: violence comprises of an act and an intent to commit harm. Since exploding rockets (generally) aren’t the result of an intent to commit harm to the poor Kerbals we disagree with the violent label.

The part that was cut out:

Quote

Meanwhile, the Felipe(HarvesteR) has been working on a system which will just tell you that you almost hurt your Kerbal and that you should be more careful, just in case the thing with PEGI doesn't work out.  There is also an idea to completely remove damage altogether.  We don't want to be violent.

Seriously though, don't change the game to humor PEGI.  Fight them with full force!  Space exploration is dangerous, and hard.  Many will be hurt/killed in the process.  That's one of the things that this game shows best.

 

BTW, really excited for 1.1.  Also, are there any plans to release Part Tools 1.0.5?  .23 has peen crashing a lot when making mods for 1.0.5, and I can't add a lot of the props for IVA.

 

More edits:  I love that you used the != in the title.  Oh, the things only a programmer would understand...

Moar Edits:

Wow... It's like I have my own function on void Update()

NEVER make BDArmory stock.  That would make PEGI flip...  I'm sorry I can't keep talking.  I think it's because it's 11:30, and I'm running on pure adrenaline working on this IVA.  I'll shut up now...

Edited by Guest
I need to stop talking now...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SQUAD said:

As it turned out the cause of the problem was in the joints between parts, and how those interacted with a component called CollisionEnhancer which ensures parts can’t punch through terrain if they collide really fast with it. Neither side was directly responsible for the bug: the joints worked as usual, and CollisionEnhancer was also producing correct and stable results. The bug happened when, after a collision CollisionEnhancer would correct the position of parts that had punched through the terrain, causing the joints to exert the maximum amount of force they could, which as we were to find, was set to infinity. That then caused the vessel to get moved to infinity (because it was moved at infinity m/s by this infinite force), causing the entire simulation to break down in a cascade of invalid values.

Sounds like that could be a working principle behind the Kraken drive. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 lol... PEGI  ..... There's always some dork, somewhere, trying to make his position look important by making it look like he's doing something productive.. When in reality, they're just sitting there thinking "How can I attack this and get a pat on the back." ... Idiots... They're everywhere..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SQUAD said:

 

We’re also trying to explain to PEGI that exploding Kerbals are not violent. As Kasper (KasperVld) put it earlier: violence comprises of an act and an intent to commit harm. Since exploding rockets (generally) aren’t the result of an intent to commit harm to the poor Kerbals we disagree with the violent label.

 

I guess i am not in the general user base. MUHAHAHAHAHA :sticktongue:

As for the rating, I think KSP should have it's own unique rating of 'K' because i don't think another rating would quite fit with it.

Edited by worir4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Freshmeat said:

Honestly, allow yourselves a break. A couple of days more will not do anything about the popularity of KSP, and a few holidays with your family is something that everyone should enjoy this time of the year.

Convincing any game company of this seems an impossible task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hobbes Novakoff said:
The definition of "violence" is: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Only if you're the WHO (this is what happens when you consider Wikipedia/Wictionary authoritative :P). By most definitions intent is not necessary for violence, storms can be violent. KSP definitely falls into the "cartoon violence" category as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of ratings, since that seems to be a hot topic right now:

PEGI seems to have built a weird system. On the face of it, the game has broad descriptors, "contains violence", "contains swearing" etc. However, below that is more detailed descriptors, but that's practically the fine-print. I imagine the problem is some mis-informed person might look at the game box, see "Violence", and think "oh dear, it didn't LOOK like call of duty!", when in reality the closest thing KSP has to that is when you accidentally (or intentionally, but isn't that YOUR fault?) drop a kerbal from a height, and it goes *poof*, But that's in the fine print: there's still that big "contains violence" descriptor on the box.

Really, the topic of whether "violence" even implies intent is up for debate, with varying definitions, in other languages that may be different on the PEGI site; "violent" in this case seems to imply "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment", not "intent to cause harm". Whether the kerbals die a violent death, of course, is debatable. In fact, the game could still get away with a PEGI 3 rating, but only if you stretch the definitions a little:

"The content of games given this rating is considered suitable for all age groups. Some violence in a comical context (typically Bugs Bunny or Tom & Jerry cartoon-like forms of violence) is acceptable. The child should not be able to associate the character on the screen with real life characters, they should be totally fantasy. The game should not contain any sounds or pictures that are likely to scare or frighten young children. No bad language should be heard."
 

A bit of that is debatable, is the violence in a "comical" context? Kerbals dying has a serious in-game effect, so I'd say no, in "normal" gameplay, at least; Is KSP "frightening"? I dunno about you, but docking, re-entry, and attempting a landing on Tylo could be considered "frightening". Onto the "Tom and Jerry/Bugs Bunny-esque" examples; while humorous, the violence in the specifically cited examples is definitely more graphic than going *poof* So on one hand, the "violence" in KSP isn't exactly comical (although it can be), while on the other hand, it's definitely not graphic at all.

I think it'd be far more likely for the game to get a PEGI 7 rating:

"Any game that would normally be rated at 3 but contains some possibly frightening scenes or sounds may be considered suitable in this category."
 

Really, the only thing left is whether the violence even qualifies as being "violent", and if it does, whether it's "comical" or not. Nothing else really would push the game to a PEGI 12, so it's probably very likely the game will get a PEGI 7, as opposed to a PEGI 12:

"Videogames that show violence of a slightly more graphic nature towards fantasy character and/or non graphic violence towards human-looking characters or recognisable animals, as well as videogames that show nudity of a slightly more graphic nature would fall in this age category. Any bad language in this category must be mild and fall short of sexual expletives."

 

This would cover even the most concerned person, the violence would definitely, at it's most extreme interpretation, fit within "slightly more graphic nature towards fantasy characters", Kerbals are practically always in spacesuits, so no "nudity" issues there, and as far as I can remember all of the language in the game is squeaky clean, if you want to ignore that bit about the Mk3 to Mk2 adapter easter egg and possible interpretations in different languages.

TL;DR: Does "Violence" imply intent? Probably not. if different translations and definitions are to be believed. The game will probably get a PEGI 7; which I think is fair, and maybe a "Violence" descriptor, which is more so up for debate. KSP has more "frightening" scenes than "Happy-Funtime-Dream-Land", space is really big, after all, but it's certainly suitable for all ages. (Well, if they can play the game, at least, 3 year olds may need a bit of help with calculating Delta-V :) )

Addendum: Kerbals _do_ die, as opposed to just going "missing in action" as the astronaut complex screen would suggest. In fact, in the flight screen, when a kerbal dies, it says "[blank] Kerman was killed." in the log, so yes, Kerbals do get killed. They just get better after a little bit.

2nd Addendum: The icon that PEGI chose for "Violence" seems to abstractly imply intent, so that's a case in favour for "KSP is not violent, by the definition PEGI chose to represent"

violence.gif

Edited by Norpo
fist in the air with lightning surrounding it is kinda ominous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

any word on the new PartTools Kasper?

in regards to the PEGI thing....well....to avoid getting multiple bans/warnings ill just say very politely "Im calling bull on that one!" :angry: Tom and Jerry and bugs bunny and roadrunner cartoons are considered violent. Where does the insanity end?

Edited by Redneck
its the rebel in me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Speaking of workload, Joe (Dr Turkey) has been diving into the administrative side of a console release. The certification process is a long and labour intensive one. Did you know how many certification forms are too many forms? One. Now multiply that by a million. Times three, because every console manufacturer likes their own brand of forms to be filled out. We’re also trying to explain to PEGI that exploding Kerbals are not violent. As Kasper (KasperVld) put it earlier: violence comprises of an act and an intent to commit harm. Since exploding rockets (generally) aren’t the result of an intent to commit harm to the poor Kerbals we disagree with the violent label.

 

I can't even begin to describe my feelings on how stupid are these PEGIs, ESRBs and other such SJW gangs. Fortunately, the Internet allows you to skip all this and just enjoy the games. Is there any harm if a 12-year-old child plays GTA V? Absolutely none. Hell, Tom&Jerry would probably be rated M today - and I enjoyed it back in 90s, when I was 6! And I totally understood back then that it was just a damn cartoon, not a "How To Kill Your Pets" manual.

Little green aliens die when rocket explodes... Well, the rockets explode, be it human rocket or alien rocket. Sometimes quite violently, and sometimes there are victims. Deal with it.

Edited by biohazard15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Otis said:

This whole violence thing is an obvious tin-foil hat conspiracy.

Says the one whose avatar is the Illuminati.

Honestly, space exploration is very dangerous, and Kerbals are going to get killed. The category "violence" doesn't seem to fit well to me, because the Kerbals don't kill each other, which is what "violence" implies. They may die when their pod breaks open in the hard vacuum of space, or crashes into the Mun at hundreds of meters per second, or when they burn in reentry, or somehow "crash into Jeb-Ankh-Amen" while over 20,000 km over Kerbin (true story) or a plethora of other things go catastrophically wrong. But (for the game's original intent) it's an accident. Was Apollo 1 "violent?" Or Challenger? Columbia? I don't see how little green people occasionally going *poof* on accident is "violent." Unfortunate, maybe. But definitely not "violent" the way "violent" games are these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

KSP definitely falls into the "cartoon violence" category as far as I can see.

Even then, KSP is mild by any standard. Have you seen what SuperMario does to those poor turtles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dr_Turkey said:

 

Exactly my point.

 

If these SJW gangs force you to make any changes to the console versions of the game: please, pretty please, ugly please, DO NOT IMPLEMENT these into PC version! You should fight against censorship, not promote it. Just leave a message for the players, like creators of "South Park: Stick of Truth" did: "Censors made us to change the game in order to fit their vision of reality. If you want to enjoy our game in all its glory, go and buy PC version from our site or Steam, which is not subject to any censorship by some groupies who consider themselves gods of the Universe."

Edited by biohazard15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to a search for the various Mario Kart entries, as Mario Kart is a ton more violent than KSP ever will be, especially if you get a bunch of players roughing each other up on the track with the various items.

I can see PEGI 7 due to the difficulty involved with learning to fly KSP (as KSP is not an easy game by any stretch of the mind), but... Violence?

Maybe it's time to drop a ton of science on them and explain away the fire and reentry effects because it's modeled after real life.

Y'know, out nerd them and make them agree to the point.

Edited by almagnus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there isn't an official answer to this, but if QA is starting, maybe the update will ready within a few weeks?

I'm in the middle of designing an Eve lander which doesn't spin out of control and burn during landing, but maybe I should just postpone my career game until 1.1 hits and I design one around the inflatable heatshield instead

 

And in the meantime I can go into sandbox to finally try seaplanes and submarines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, juanml82 said:

I know there isn't an official answer to this, but if QA is starting, maybe the update will ready within a few weeks?

I'm in the middle of designing an Eve lander which doesn't spin out of control and burn during landing, but maybe I should just postpone my career game until 1.1 hits and I design one around the inflatable heatshield instead

 

And in the meantime I can go into sandbox to finally try seaplanes and submarines

 

I think that it will be ready sometime in February. Late January, if we're lucky and all the bugs that were found during QA are easy to fix.

Also remember that all the mods would probably need big updates, so add a week or two.

Edited by biohazard15
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...