Kerbal Civilization?

[Qumefox]

This game is so much more than just a space simulator. I would hate for it to just fall to that.

Your right, it's not just a space simulator. It's an aerospace simulator (since we have planes too..) Beyond that.. That's all it is, and really all it should be. IMHO if the devs stray too far off core basis of the game, it will do a lot more harm than good to the game and the community.

If you want to shoot/blow up OTHER things (than your own ship).. there are no shortage of other games that do this much better than KSP.

If you want to build/manage cities, factories, etc; There are other games that do this better than KSP could ever manage if it was implemented at all.

If modders want to create alternate 'game modes' so to speak, that's all fine and good. But I think the devs deviating themselves much away from the core principles of the game (aerospace construction, travel, and exploration) and it getting forced on everyone, is a really bad idea.

I'm not against more eye candy like cities being in the game (still rather have clouds first though) but I don't think much time should be wasted on the devs's part by making them anything other than just eyecandy. At least not in the vanilla game.

[Colderjake1524]

Just because spore and sim city have cities doesnt mean they have a trademark on them! any game is free to add them!

[CommanderLOL]

maybe they can add a tiny bit of city related things if any.

[TheHengeProphet]

If they add some sort of city simulator, I would prefer it to be after they refined all the aero/space simulation.

Also, I speculate that Kermans are a sentient plant species. This explains their incredible survivability without food, or large supplies of air, and tolerance to impact.

[CommanderLOL]

If they add some sort of city simulator, I would prefer it to be after they refined all the aero/space simulation.

Also, I speculate that Kermans are a sentient plant species. This explains their incredible survivability without food, or large supplies of air, and tolerance to impact.

I would be fine with the refining of the game and then a mini city simulator at the end.

The second part makes sense and explains some things about Kerbals.

[AlternNocturn]

I would think destructible cities would be for a "think about where your crap comes down" aspect of the game and not a "here are some things you can blow up" (even though you can do that, just like you can build mock space colonies even though they're not officially supported). Imagine just haphazardly dropping your capsule and detached orbital stage into the middle of a city, what would happen? I would like to see some effect of that instead of just bouncing off of the buildings or even going right through them. Of course, destructible environments are extremely resource heavy so there could be an option for static buildings.

EDIT: Also, I think from a developmental standpoint, cities should wait until close to the full release. They're polish at best.

[CommanderLOL]

They will add cities later on as a texture but its up to them to decide weather or not there will be physics in the cities. That could be funny when you crash into the middle of the city and see the reactions of Karbals as they see the crash

It should at least be a mod.

[Khrissetti]

An incredibly simple incorporation of cities would be quite cool, even if the buildings are just textured boxes. In career mode you could get fined for dropping booster rocketrs into the middle of a Kerb-tropolis.

That being said, there are a dozen things I'm looking forward to first, (visual clues for transfers, the d-word, a stock autopilot, proper drag/lift, more solid components (So not every large rocket needs to be a cobweb of struts) astronaut training, customisable kerbals perhaps, etc)

[CommanderLOL]

Also ther could be multiple launch areas all around Kerbin to get the best launch.

[LukeTim]

Another cool thing that I guess would come with cities would be artificial lights on the dark side of Kerbin.

[Meathook]

You should spend more attention to the game you're playing, look at those facts:

-No cities visible anywhere on Kerbin

-Kerbals trying desperatly to get into space at all costs

-Kerbals wearing their space suits even on Kerbin

Therefore I say, the Kerban cities had to move underground centuries before now, as something caused their athmosphere to get hazardous to them. Having used up most of their resources the Kerbals desperatly try to find and reach another hospitable planet. So few brave Kerbals ascended from their underworld cities and gazed at the grassy fields, where once their biggest cities stood, a land that no Kerbal has seen for ages, and they started to put up the KSC.

[Nikolai]

so what if its a game. you need fundamental things.

Why?

No, seriously. Games deliberately restrict reality to add to the fun.

I'm a software developer who's taught several introductory programming classes. I can tell you that there's always someone who wants to learn how to program because they want to make a game that simulates every aspect of some part of reality perfectly. Their shooter will allow for realistic reload times, and machining gun barrels, and accidental jamming, and bullets that change trajectory based on temperature and wind conditions, and and and and and.

What they end up learning is that game designers restrict the representation of reality in games for a reason, and that reason often has very little to do with ease of coding. Reality represented in every detail just isn't fun. (Gamers generally don't care what the orc who's guarding the trasure room on Level 10 has been doing with his time until they get there... even if, "realistically", tasks like eating and eliminating are necessary and "fundamental" to such a living creature.)

Game designers have a concept called "dirt". Every feature added to games requires the addition of some amount of overhead to make sure it behaves properly. In other words, every new feature has some disadvantages to its implementation. A good game designer can weigh the amount of extra gameplay afforded by a new feature as well as the amount of extra "dirt" it introduces, and determine whether or not adding the feature would be a good idea.

Now, there's certainly room to allow for the fact that this game just isn't done yet. But at the current level of implementation, I think it's pretty plain to see that adding cities is almost pure "dirt". It would be eye candy and nothing else if it were just parts of the map that lit up on the night side of Kerbin, time that the graphic designers could better spend on more essential elements in the game; going so far as to include actual city models represents a lot of extra work with virtually no gameplay payoff unless some function is added to them. Until we're at the point where eye candy is substantially cheaper to add (in terms of artist prioritization), it really doesn't make much sense to add them.

(If it's still not clear why, consider other "eye candy" elements that could be added to the game on the level of cities. Which should the artists do? Why? How much time should it take? What would it add to the game?)

There's also the argument that it breaks mimesis for some people playing the game, but frankly, that's a very subjective thing and hardly "fundamental". (As I mentioned in a different post, I'm sure someone out there has found the weird densities and chemistry of the bodies in the star system too much to stand.) The game designers have been making very good choices thus far. I'd like to see cities, too, but I'm willing to be patient because I also recognize that their addition is not urgent.

[CommanderLOL]

Yes I agree with all your points, but they should if at all be implemented just before it comes out or if its like minecraft an update after its initial released.