Am I the only one who kind of likes the bugs?

[Hotaru]

It seems to make what could be a brilliant, silly game of exploration just another disaster simulator.

So why can't it be both?

Me, I've got two saves right now. One is a career save, I play very seriously, have lost no Kerbals so far. Other is a sandbox save, I mess around, blow stuff up, have lost about fifty Kerbals so far. They're both fun, the exploration game and the disaster simulator. I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. The disaster simulator attitude doesn't stop you exploring any more than your exploring stops me blowing stuff up in my sandbox save. Personally, that dual nature is one of the things I love about this game. When I get burned out on the stress of career, I can indulge in some sandbox silliness; when I get bored with explosions, career is there to give me some structure. I'd lose interest and move on to other games much quicker if I couldn't do both those things.

(Not to imply that you can't have a silly career or a serious sandbox, by the way. That's just the way I happen to do it.)

I also don't see what's wrong with having a "lemons to lemonade" attitude towards glitches. I absolutely agree that they should be fixed (especially the crashes and memory leaks, those need to be fixed yesterday), but as long as we're stuck with them, what's the harm in having fun with them? (Just as long as it's made clear that we do want them fixed in the end, of course: we don't want to give the devs the idea they should leave bugs in a finished game just because they're funny.)

[Rath]

You know that SQUAD lied to us. They said there were no random failures! But there are! Oh the bugs! Oh the sadness!

[CommandantAce]

I don't like the bugs. The bugs like me.

[SciMan]

On one hand, nobody likes memory leaks, NAN bugs, or savegame corruption. (nobody likes crash-bugs or things unrelated to playing the game impacting how you play the game).

This is why i flat out refuse to disable quick-save/load. Game crashes (caused by bugs or otherwise) shouldn't have in-game penalties, which is what happens when you can't quick-save/load.

These are Bad Bugs. IMO, fixing them should ALWAYS be the first focus of development. Yes, that means fixing the bugs from the old version before beginning coding of new features. I suppose models and textures could be done for new features, and you could probably always add parts with similar functions to existing parts too.

On the other hand, ladder-drives, and kracken drives can be interesting. (do kracken drives even work anymore? Something tells me service bays might be useful for them).

Sure it's not physically possible in the real world, but this is a game and some breaks from reality are to be expected. Even if those breaks from reality break most known (and probably some unknown) laws of physics.

On the gripping hand, the small but not insignificant chance of occasionally getting flung out of the Kerbol system at several thousand times light-speed is so extremely illogical that it's actually shorter to list the things about it that DO make logical sense (that list has nothing in it). When it happens, my brain's too busy trying to make sense of it for me to even get angry. Truly dumbfounding.

[noparse]TL:DR[/noparse] Depends on the bug. Some bugs are universally bad (memory leak, etc), some may be technically wrong but still funny enough to be sometimes liked (ladder-drives), and some are just an all-expense paid one-way hyper-express ticket on the crazy train (velocity over 1000x lightspeed from tripping while walking).

Edited June 4, 2015 by SciMan

[SAI Peregrinus]

Bugs should be fixed when they're found. It's not as though we're going to run out of bugs, or the fixes won't introduce their own new and infuriating bugs.

[Zild]

New option in the settings screen: Enable bugs (tickbox)

[JellyCubes]

Yes, I absolutely love the game crashing when it uses more than 4 gigs of ram.

[John FX]

Putting a part so that the operation causes odd behaviour is fun but that is not a bug, that is physics.

Bugs are not fun.

[RainDreamer]

Yes, I absolutely love the game crashing when it uses more than 4 gigs of ram.

That is not a bug. Just technological limitation.

As for me, I just prefer my hard work doesn't spontaneously combust due to some physics glitch. Spending a week to set up a mining operation on Duna and see it suddenly sink into the ground and blow up is heart wrenching. Keep the game clean of bugs. For bugs that are fun, they are called "features".

Goat simulator cash in on those.

[JellyCubes]

That is not a bug. Just technological limitation.

By that reasoning, the Deep Space Kraken is a technological limitation because of floating point errors and not a bug.

[Tankman101]

By that reasoning, the Deep Space Kraken is a technological limitation because of floating point errors and not a bug.

No, not in the slightest.

[Tw1]

When they are not breaking the game,

are great

, if sometimes a little inconvenient.

Though some bugs should be squashed, if they cause problematic behavior, or are way too much of an exploit, (Ye old 0.18.1 rcs bug anyone?), creating glitch craft is a form of fine engineering of its own.

Infiniglide was tied to the bugged aerodynamics, and LadderLifters have been nerfed* by otherwise good changes to physicsless parts, but we still have kracken drive. And maybe FTL egg?

*I have not tried laddercraft in 1.0+ yet. Some may still work.

[Zild]

Yes, I absolutely love the game crashing when it uses more than 4 gigs of ram.

That is not a bug. Just technological limitation.

Stated minimum requirements: 3GB RAM

Stated recommended requirements: 4GB RAM

Handling memory in a way that means users with the minimum requirements cannot actually play the game does constitute a bug.

And as a bug I have been encountering a lot recently (always at the end of very successful missions, I might add!) I must say this is a bug too far.

[LittleBlueGaming]

Stated minimum requirements: 3GB RAM

Stated recommended requirements: 4GB RAM

Handling memory in a way that means users with the minimum requirements cannot actually play the game does constitute a bug.

And as a bug I have been encountering a lot recently (always at the end of very successful missions, I might add!) I must say this is a bug too far.

I never even come close to having a problem with memory in stock, even in long sessions, and I only have around 2.7 available.

What's taking over 4 gigs for you?

[Tankman101]

Stated minimum requirements: 3GB RAM

Stated recommended requirements: 4GB RAM

Handling memory in a way that means users with the minimum requirements cannot actually play the game does constitute a bug.

And as a bug I have been encountering a lot recently (always at the end of very successful missions, I might add!) I must say this is a bug too far.

Pretty sure the requirements are for the system, not the game

[Zild]

Well the only mod I've got installed is Kerbal Engineer Redux (how can you play without it?!).

But then there is also a bit of RAM taken by Windows, and apparently even when running games BitDefender can hog over 1GB...