A Philosophy on KSP

[Matuchkin]

Kerbal Space Program is essentially viewed as a "space program simulator", with semi-realistic physics, and sets of parts to build your own contraptions that perform the most complex tasks. However, I don't believe that the game shines in that aspect- after all, the parts are quite limited, and when you assemble a rocket it doesn't feel like a rocket per-se, more like a non-complex object: a fuel tank seems to be a simple cylinder that you put on an engine, an engine seems like a plain old nozzle that you snap onto a fuel tank, you don't have to straighten each part perfectly and inspect hundreds of components, the complexity of avionics is not conveyed properly in the game, a fuel tank seems like a single part that cannot snap, shear, wear away, etc, the list goes on... Of course, a lot of this is plainly unachievable in the game, but hey, that doesn't mean that the feeling of simplicity disappears. Nevertheless, this paragraph is not a request for change, just a thought on why KSP can be quite unappealing at times. The devs made an astounding job of compensating for the game's otherwise unfixable atmospheric flaws, and they really do deserve a standing ovation.

Where do I think this game truly shines? It is a painting canvas: with a small base of stock parts in the beginning, anyone who knows how to mod and model can create a tidal wave of anything he frickin' wants. This is what this game is about now, and it is one of the next steps in gaming: this is a true sandbox, a game where you can use whatever you want to create anything you want- from boats to rockets to cars to tanks, ad infinitum. I believe that after all these years of improvements, changes, et al, this is the ultimate goal that the game achieved. It is this goal that we should strive towards, because in the end a game is about fun, not about whether it focuses on space or boats, not about mechjeb or manual control, and not about losing its original meaning. This game has made it so far because it was addicting, it was enjoyable and satisfying, and it is becoming even more so with every released version, simply because of the amount of opportunities that appear with every update.

[Matuchkin]

Note that if this seems like a ramble, that is because I was extremely rushed when writing this. If any errors or misunderstandings appear, please notify me.

[DualDesertEagle]

Absolutely true right there, the game's become so much more than a space flight simulator by now.

[Matuchkin]

2 minutes ago, DualDesertEagle said:

Absolutely true right there, the game's become so much more than a space flight simulator by now.

And I believe this is what the game should be after all, right?

[Rocketthrust]

It still needs Lagrange points.  I still go, what can I do in KSP that doesn't take 3 hours to build a rocket.  The new expansion could help with your case of not being complicated.

[Ty Tan Tu]

As long as we are waxing philosophical, perhaps KSP should not be described as a game, at least not for the sandbox mode. I forget where I first ran across the distinction between 'game' and 'toy', but it is not a trivial discussion. Games have very strict rules and defined outcomes. You win a game. A toy has none of those restrictions. You do not  have to move around a board determined by a roll of the dice. With a toy, you can fold the board into a tent where your Scottish Terrier, cat and wheelbarrow defined the castle against the evil invading battleship and top hat. Notice how the tent turns in to a castle? You can do that with a toy. The rules are what ever you want them to be. There is not cheating with toys.

There are no doubt elements of a game in KSP, especially in science and career modes, but even then, the amount of latitude you are allowed turns those into a bit of a toy too.

This is not Castle Wolfenstein where the goal is to escape. In KSP, the goal is what ever you want it to be. You can turn a space exploration game into a submarine game if you want - and people have.

So, my assessment is that KSP is not popular because it is a great 'game'; it is successful because it is a cool 'toy'.

[Matuchkin]

13 minutes ago, Ty Tan Tu said:

As long as we are waxing philosophical, perhaps KSP should not be described as a game, at least not for the sandbox mode. I forget where I first ran across the distinction between 'game' and 'toy', but it is not a trivial discussion. Games have very strict rules and defined outcomes. You win a game. A toy has none of those restrictions. You do not  have to move around a board determined by a roll of the dice. With a toy, you can fold the board into a tent where your Scottish Terrier, cat and wheelbarrow defined the castle against the evil invading battleship and top hat. Notice how the tent turns in to a castle? You can do that with a toy. The rules are what ever you want them to be. There is not cheating with toys.

There are no doubt elements of a game in KSP, especially in science and career modes, but even then, the amount of latitude you are allowed turns those into a bit of a toy too.

This is not Castle Wolfenstein where the goal is to escape. In KSP, the goal is what ever you want it to be. You can turn a space exploration game into a submarine game if you want - and people have.

So, my assessment is that KSP is not popular because it is a great 'game'; it is successful because it is a cool 'toy'.

I don't know about that. I kind of believe otherwise- when you think of KSP, you think of Sandbox mode. 99% of the creations in the Spacecraft Exchange are created for Sandbox. At the same time, we have absolute geniuses creating cars by working magic with tweakscale, mods that add realism, mods that add hyperdrives, youtube "movies", fictious mission logs, etc. I believe that this game is known and loved for the fact that you can do whatever you want with it. Add to that the fact that anyone who knows how to mod can add literally anything to the game, and KSP becomes mostly a sandbox. I agree with the fact that KSP is also a great "game", but it seems to me like the game aspect of KSP is just a side-dish to make it more interesting, if you know what I'm saying.