What is KSP trying to be?

[Robotengineer]

KSP is a game where the players create and manage their own space program. Build spacecraft, fly them, and try to help the Kerbals to fulfill their ultimate mission of conquering space.

In a recent thread about discovery and science, there were a couple of posts discussing what KSP is, in the interest of not derailing that thread, and with the impending release of 1.0 I have created this thread for the discussion of what KSP is.

The above quote is a description of KSP from the official website, do you think it accurately describes, uses to broad of a brush, or is completely wrong?

IMO, KSP doesn't really know what it is, it seems like it's trying to be a little bit of everything, instead of having a defined goal.

--updated--

Changed title to better reflect the question. (Thanks tater!)

Edited April 8, 2015 by Robotengineer

[Guest]

IMO, KSP doesn't really know what it is, it seems like it's trying to be a little bit of everything, instead of having a defined goal.

We've known that since science started being worked on, the game has always lacked direction. KSP is a wonderful sandbox game and should have stuck with that formula instead of trying on different features like so many coats that don't fit in the hopes of assembling a coherent and pleasing ensemble. Edited April 7, 2015 by regex

[nholzric]

KSP is a space-flight engine with an extensible (via 3rd party mods) game being built around it.

[prophet_01]

Ksp is a a game about space flight from a space agency's point of view. It's build around an imo solid physics simulation (I consider the souposphere to be already gone).

It's also a good base for moding, which offers the opportunity to turn it into a hardcore sim, a casual sightseeing trip or something else entirely.

Ksp is such an awesome game because it's multigenre. You might think that it has too many coats while I think, that this is an interesting base that just needs more content for with each feature and aspect.

I neither want a sim nor another game that gets the physics wrong on a star wars scale...

[cicatrix]

It's a game where you can build stuff and make it fly. Explosions included.

[Yukon0009]

It depends on what mod you use.

Stock- a fun game

RSS- A simulator

[klgraham1013]

KSP is a space agency management sim that finds itself punching above it's weight because of it's uniqueness.

[r4pt0r]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108936-KSP-game-or-simulator

semi-relevant

[klgraham1013]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108936-KSP-game-or-simulator

semi-relevant

I think I'm not the only one who thinks those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.

[r4pt0r]

well I see it like this.

Ace combat is more game than flight sim.

IL-2 is more flight sim than game.

With 1.0 I think KSP will tip into being more simulator (the addition of reentry heat, and the revision of aerodynamics)

[tater]

Regex is on the mark, though I like the idea of science and career modes, myself, and wish at least one of them was complete, and made sense.

It is not a management game, period. If it calls itself that, it fails, utterly. Adding a mislabeled building (mission control is a "contract office" or something, as real "Mission Control" manages flights in progress), and mislabeling things "strategies" doesn't make it a management game. Another way it is not a management game: in a railroad management game, does the player have to stop each train at any given set of points, get out (EVA) and switch the points himself, then continue driving the train? No. In a empire management game does the player have to micromanage each army he moves, literally walking them down the road, and deciding which turn to make? No. Do you have to serially reload each individual musket in Empire: Total War, the level and fire yourself? No. In KSP the player must do EVERY action of spacecraft personally. Without some autonomy of the astronauts flying their craft, doing EVAs, etc, it's not a management game, either.

Science mode fails, too, IMO, partially because the tech tree being unlocked by science makes no sense, and the tech is largely concurrent as well, making "later" stuff seem silly to anyone who knows that is should be concurrent. The main reason is that science is not useful for gameplay, other than this flawed tech-unlock mechanic (the only reward system in either science or career mode). There is another current thread regarding better science.

So the question OP poses stands, what is KSP trying to be?

If we stop with Sandbox, then all the additional buildings, career, contracts, etc are wasted effort. Personally, I don't think Science and/or Career mode should be continued out of a "sunk cost" fallacy, but I think they should be continued/fixed because they are in fact a good idea---but they require really looking at what the goal is, and steering the gameplay in those modes to make them work well, which they just don't right now.

Sandbox: Fine as-is.

Science: Currently the goal is science points and unlocking the tree (the sole game "reward" system). Science mode should shift entirely with the design goal of Exploration (for science!). Have the Kerbol system randomize each science game start (stock system as an option). Not just locations, but have different planets possible. Have nothing known about the worlds that would not be known from Kerbin surface. Explore, and have science usefully giving the player more information about the worlds therein. Fog of war is not just good gameplay, it makes it exciting.

Career: Currently rudderless, IMO. Set a goal. If it is "management," then the player is a manager who can also electively fly missions. If I cannot groom astronauts to actually do their work, it's not management, period. No AI kerbals, no "management as the focus." With the player as the sole pilot, management is not the goal of career, but career exists (IMHO) to present the player with novel problems to solve since things have a context they lack in Sandbox. As such, career needs meaningful time progression so that time-critical tasks are a thing. Life support at a bare bones level would help, as would redoing the whole "contract" paradigm. More random busywork (Fine Print) is not the solution. FP has some great ideas within the system, but it is predicated on the status quo, and has issues because of that. Have budgets. Have a purpose (space race? colonization?).

Novel career idea: Space race… not against another country, but against TIME. Code in a new planet, comet, or huge asteroid/planetoid. It is on a collision course with Kerbin in 50-100 years (number could be a difficulty setting). A world-killer. The race is to colonize other worlds before this happens, or possibly to deflect it if it is in a size range where this is plausible. Time MUST matter for this, have the player get budgets. Change "Funds" to "Resources," as this is a save the world event, and the limit is what you can make while still feeding the planet, etc. Add some larger parts, as well as some threshold at a world where you can start to build in-situ facilities. Set up X amount of ISRU, and within X km of that base land X many kerbals, and so many tons of "cargo" (add cargo parts that have some large mass of "cargo" for this), then you get a nascent in-situ facility you place on the surface. You then upgrade it via ISRU extraction and cargo delivery and colonists.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I'm not the only one who thinks those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Agreed. I think for this thread we might be able to agree that in the sense we use "simulation" it means that any level of modeling reality, even a zeroith order one, is simulation, not some extreme requirement that it model every heartbeat of the pilot, or that it be capable of replacing JPL's code to plan missions.

KSP is a very low-level simulation of spaceflight, no one using the word implies more than that.

[Robotengineer]

I think I'm not the only one who thinks those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.

I definitely think they aren't mutually exclusive, KSP is both, and depending on ones play style and what mods one uses it can be very much a game or much closer to a simulator.

[ilo]

IMO, ksp as it is now is not an space agency game. it is, however, an astronauts agency providing services for some space agencies that offer random contracts without a real/serious space program.

[klgraham1013]

well I see it like this.

Ace combat is more game than flight sim.

IL-2 is more flight sim than game.

With 1.0 I think KSP will tip into being more simulator (the addition of reentry heat, and the revision of aerodynamics)

Fair enough.

edit: I'd probably use arcade vs simulator, but that's semantics.

- - - Updated - - -

snip

Great post.

Edited April 8, 2015 by klgraham1013

[ColKlonk]

Very Very ...low level sim, with a few extras thrown in.

To improve the sim level (Delta-V), Squad have to dump the extra baggage/platform they based the game on.

[JPLRepo]

KSP is a solid sandbox game. I agree the science is poorly implemented and if it was done right it would provide a stupendous foundation. With the ease and support for modding and with the right business model to support the modders it could be amazing. Having said all that what it is right now is a solid base that with the mods available can be almost anything you want it to be which I think is what makes it stand apart. That's MHO.

[RainDreamer]

A fun game?

[uglyduckling81]

I only play career with lots of mods of course. I find sandbox mode incredibly boring. Sandbox was good for learning how to play because there were no limitations imposed.

I agree career could be improved a lot but removing it would ruin the game for me. I wouldn't even notice if they removed sandbox since I have no interest in it. The beauty of KSP is its catering to all our tastes, and with the help of modders is doing a fine job of it.

[dryer_lint]

It's a game built around a simulator.

Although the core idea is building and flying spacecraft, career features have kind of been added onto that.

So, a simulator, but one where you actually need to pay for parts and built your crafts, etc.

[tater]

To drag the thread on-topic, there are 3 different answers each person should come up with:

1. What is Sandbox trying to be?

2. What is Science Mode trying to be?

3. What is Career trying to be?

The implicit question to all three is does it succeed, and/or what would it need to do to succeed with different visions of what those modes should be.

[TMS]

KSP is... a great idea in dire need of some game mechanics; a great platform in dire need of some content.

As for what it's trying to be... I don't think Squad really know. I've felt that since Day 1, but it's become more and more apparent as the updates have slowly wandered into release. There's never really been a roadmap of what the game is trying to be, and only the broadest of references to "tycoon-like" features (which were never going to make a compelling game anyway).

My honest opinion, reading between the lines of things that the Devs themselves have said, is that that they got lucky with the basic concept, and have had to scramble additional ideas together as the project gained more interest.

The result is that we got this amazing sandbox environment that plays to people's desire for exploration and, dare I say, wonderous grandeur - something that was clearly driven by the Dev's own passion for the subject. This works well enough and would have benefited from greater development. But the lack of any clear plan has led to a ponderous and turgid set of career features that fail to capitalise on the qualities of sandbox and turn it into a compelling narrative. I don't care what anyone says about them needing further development... they're fundamentally dull and probably too abstracted to be of any real interest.

I think at this point, KSP would be best served by moving towards a couple of goals. Specifically, halting development soon after 1.0 (I expect this to happen anyway) and opening up the modding API as much as possible to allow as close to an Open KSP as possible. That will probably net Squad some longevity in the project and (if they think themselves capable of competing with modders) would increase the market for future DLC.

[Vallius]

What is KSP trying to be?

I suppose Harvestar would say, "Fun!"

I consider it a simulation game. It handles orbital mechanics (and soon other physics) fairly realistically, but was never meant to be hardcore. The game side, where we have the space center, science mode and career mode, make for a fun and quirky game. As I see people get upset about the weirdness of science and career mode, I guess I just don't see what they're after. The unspoken question that people seem to be answering is, "What do you think KSP should be?"

Is it logical to use planetary science to get better rocket parts?

Not particularly, but it gives players an incentive to explore beyond "just because", which you have anyway in sandbox.

* As a caveat, parts in research should really be organized by type and/or general purpose (i.e. landing gear should be available Day 1, and grouped with space-plane wings and engines).

Are a lot of the career mode contracts silly and unreasonably restrictive?

Certainly, but I think the purpose is to give players opportunities to try new ways of building rockets and space planes. I just enjoy this game, not because it's super realistic or even very logical. (Seriously, the kerbals are brilliant engineers, but they had the insane idea of putting me in charge of their space program? I enjoy the challenges, and I shake my head sadly every time I kill Bill on the moon (Poor Bill).

* I agree that strategies aren't very well thought out, and what the heck am I supposed to do with reputation? Why not make it so that your reputation affects the quality of kerbal astronauts you can hire, or be a required currency to upgrade your space center?

KSP is by no means a perfect simulator, and not every game mechanic is sensible--but in my mind it is still among the greatest games ever created. It inspired me to pursue (and achieve) my dream of becoming a real-life rocket scientist! How many video games can claim to inspire people in good ways like that?

[AbacusWizard]

KSP is what happens when a bunch of mutant dwarves from Dwarf Fortress discover rocketry and try to play Lunar Lander in real life.

[Fel]

Let me quote... well paraphrase... EA "Where is the Game, Will Wright?"

I am talking about The Sims. A cash cow so insane that EA couldn't understand what they were looking at when they saw it.

"Where is the game"

The thing is... there is no right way to play KSP, there is no wrong way. If you want to never leave Kerbin and play Kerbal "Rover Train" Simulator there is NOTHING WRONG with that.

I mean, I'll bring up spore, just to point out how much EA doesn't understand "this is the game", given how it turned out was strongly against what was obviously envisioned and much closer to EA's idea of what a "game" is. I do know that the product wouldn't be perfect, even without EA's messing around; but sandboxing, creating, these are really powerful play styles in a market saturated with "how many different ways can you shoot the same model." It is no coincidence that games like minecraft have done so well; because people just don't understand the untapped market... that the player creates her/his own story. They by removing "the game" you create a far more powerful game you can ever imagine.

Some players can do with a little push here and there, some players will go off on their own. But KSP isn't trying to be "any game"... KSP is simply KSP.

[KSK]

KSP is a fantastic sandbox. As a game it doesn't seem to quite know what it wants to be. Career mode isn't deep enough to be a satisfying management or strategy game and doesn't have anywhere near enough content to be any kind of story led game, building game or (sadly) an exploration game.