Jump to content

KSP2 shouldn’t need Sandbox (or maybe it should?)


Pthigrivi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some content has been removed.  Please refrain from personal comments, folks.  We understand that people care about the game, a lot, so it's very easy for tempers to flare when one sees someone suggesting a course of action for the game that one disagrees with.  But let's please remember that we're all friends here (right?) and keep things civil.

There has been a certain flaring of tempers in the thread, in general-- let's please take it down a notch, okay?  And remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Which means that, 1. just because their opinion is different from yours, it's still just as valid as yours; and, 2. it's never worth getting angry or confrontational with someone about their opinion.  If you can't keep your cool when posting, best to just stroll on by.  (Or, at least, go do something else until you can post without temper flaring.)

Thank you for your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

The definition I like best is from Jane McGonigal:

"When you strip away the genre differences and the technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation."

I would say by this definition most of the discussed versions of Sandbox do not constitute "games" as they do not have a structure of goals

Who the heck is "Jane Mcgonigal"?

Your own post has a better definition:

23 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Wikipedia offers some help. In the loosest sense it begins with "A game is a structured form of play, usually undertaken for entertainment or fun, and sometimes used as an educational tool." which sounds a bit sloppy to me

Ummmm, what's sloppy about that?

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/, one of the many definitions is:

Quote

 activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

I could go on, I found quite a number of other places which includes something like this as part of the definition.

 

You seem to want to pick your own definition and ignore everything else, even though you include several in your own post.

The term "game" has many definitions.  Why do you consider that an activity one does for him/her self for enjoyment is not a game?

Edited by linuxgurugamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

The term "game" has many definitions.  Why do you consider that an activity one does for him/her self for enjoyment is not a game?

Watching a movie or reading a book for example. But it really does not matter if things are considered games or not; the point is, people want sandbox. Whether sandbox is needed, whether it is considered a game, what the implementation of Adventure mode is, don’t matter. It even doesn’t matter whether KSP is considered a game; the actual product doesn’t change based on labels and people can enjoy it (or not) however they want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think if you were to break it into 3 modes--Adventure, Sandbox, and Creative this^ is probably the best set of guidelines I've heard for default settings on the second.

Wouldn't this be falling again in the KSP1 situation?

Career, the full progression.

Science, part of the progression.

Sandbox, no progression.

We're changing around the names and the reasons why we have a partial and a complete progression mode but it would be just the same. No?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Who the heck is "Jane Mcgonigal"?

She's a writer and game developer. Out of the definitions I saw hers just seemed the most useful. 

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Ummmm, what's sloppy about that?
...

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/, one of the many definitions is:
...

The term "game" has many definitions.  Why do you consider that an activity one does for him/her self for enjoyment is not a game?

Well exactly, words have lots of definitions, so which one is most applicable to this conversation? In this case we are talking about what a game is and also what it is not. We're trying to find the border between "a game" and "not a game". That means we're looking for an exclusive definition rather than a colloquial one, one that captures all of a game's essential features and no others. If we say "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement", but that definition includes things like cooking or reading or horseback riding that are obviously not games then it's not a useful definition for the purpose of tight classification. 

3 hours ago, t_v said:

Whether sandbox is needed, whether it is considered a game, what the implementation of Adventure mode is, don’t matter. It even doesn’t matter whether KSP is considered a game; the actual product doesn’t change based on labels and people can enjoy it (or not) however they want. 

Well yeah, its esoteric, but I think the ideas inherent to the concept of "game" could help us deduce what features would or wouldn't be included by default in a mode of the game thats deliberately attempting to avoid "gaminess"--things like defined goals and reward systems. 

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

Career, the full progression.

Science, part of the progression.

Sandbox, no progression.

We're changing around the names and the reasons why we have a partial and a complete progression mode but it would be just the same. No?

Maybe? I would sort these a little differently based on the some of the responses we've seen in these two threads. Its more like:

Adventure mode: the full set of features including progression
Sandbox: All static, physical rules in place but all progression elements that unlock over time maxed out.
Creative mode: Allowing for even physical rules to be ignored: no resource costs, the ability to teleport objects anywhere, etc.
 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2022 at 2:27 AM, Master39 said:

I don't think there's anything unfeasible of having like, 5 or 7 option in the sandbox creating window.

  • Tech tree unlocked yes/no
  • Money yes/no
  • Colony progression yes/no
  • Resources yes/no

With these 4 you cover 90% of all the possible sandbox combinations and the Minecraft screen to create a new world has more options than that.

If a 10 years old playing Minecraft can navigate a menu with 10 options to create a new save I think a KSP player planning to play a game about literal rocket science can do it too.

 

Given that I have already stated that's completely feasible, this solution of only having 1 thing and ignoring everything else would be the anti-sandbox move, It would mean removing sandbox for the majority of people, or at least the gamemode they define as "sandbox".

 

Three times you repeated it and three times I will negate it, the closest anyone has gone to propose the removal of sandbox in this thread has been when @Pthigrivi proposed to replace the gamemode with a series of options in the cheat menu, a proposal that was marked as "i know it's controversial" from the start and that was retracted before this 7 page long thread hit the page 2 mark.

 

To definitely kill any idea that I'm trying to say that a Sandbox mode is unfeasible, here's a save creation screen from Minecraft:

zxXHQko.png

The "more world options..." brings you to another 3-4 settings page and the "Game Rules" one gives you a page with 35 more fine customizable settings like inventory retention on death, fire spread or fall damage.

I've seen a 7 years old navigating that menu to disable some difficulty option I didn't even know that were there.

c0NyAhP.png

 

If Minecraft can get away with that on a new save creation I don't get why a rocket sim about rocket science can't.

 

Progression in KSP1 is broken, so broken that if it weren't for sandbox I would personally define the game as unplayable.

KSP is only considerable a playable game because of sandbox.

I want a progression mode that's so good that I don't need sandbox as a backup for it.

Minecraft would be a great survival and exploring game even without creative, creative is not needed for it to be a playable game, then obviously creative is still a great addition and a multiplier for the value of the game itself. But that doesn't change that Minecraft would be a great game even without creative, the same can't be said about KSP1.

 

Thanks for clearing your opinions up!

What you have shared regarding Minecraft difficulty options has led me to retract my stance on the necessity of a “stock sandbox”.

Just thinking very simply of what possible options there might be and the opinions shared in the thread, I don’t see why complex, custom sandbox saves would not be possible.

20 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Indeed, although it should do a better job than Minecraft of actually explaining what each of the options means. To a brand new player to Minecraft that screen is almost entirely meaningless jargon, and that is exactly the kind of trap you don't want to fall in when developing a game.

What about explanations in a PDF manual? Must they be in the game itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in general don't like reaching for external resources. Part of the reason why I never got into Space Engineers. Want to know how something's done? Here's a 15 minute long youtube video about it. Yeah no thanks. People who have trouble getting into orbit are sent to youtube instead of ingame tutorials because they're simply not good enough. KSPedia exists for a reason but it's still very very basic. It's a great idea but it barely touches the surface of the game depth. It should totally be in game, anything outside of it can drive people away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

What about explanations in a PDF manual? Must they be in the game itself?

Yes, I think they should be in game, and easily accessible at the point of 'clicking', in sufficient detail to explain the basics of what they do.

A more detailed explanation elsewhere, ideally from within the game (like KSPedia) is also worthwhile, and often essential, for many things.

KSPedia itself though is often next to useless if you want to know details of how things work.

Edit...

Having a download-able PDF manual is a great additional option, so you can browse at your leisure.  But IMO it should NEVER be a substitute for adequate in-game tutorials or or explanations.

Edited by pandaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Must they be in the game itself?

Nowadays, yes. Games don't have to be installed on 10 floppy disks anymore, so there is no longer a need to keep relevant information in a separate medium.

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Adventure mode: the full set of features including progression
Sandbox: All static, physical rules in place but all progression elements that unlock over time maxed out.
Creative mode: Allowing for even physical rules to be ignored: no resource costs, the ability to teleport objects anywhere, etc.

This is probably the best idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2022 at 8:49 PM, darthvader15001 said:

Definitely and we also need MOAR cheats

We also need more customizable "cheats" like minecraft's commands (like /position "Jeb's Rocket" Mun 223.7546 11.2 3 or something)

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...