Would you buy a DLC (or a whole new game) for KSP that was for realism?

[klgraham1013]

No never I will delete KSP if realism overhaul got implemented

This has come up way to much in a thread about optional DLC.

- - - Updated - - -

I should give a clearer stance on this. As my sig says, I only mess around with RO. It's to human focused. I still like Kerbals. I like purple Eve and green Joel. I like the sand dunes of Laythe. I like imaginary engines.

I also think the premise of KSP should be: A simplified version of the trials and tribulations of space flight.

This would include larger planets, actually dangerous re-entry, and life support. Among the many other challenges such a premise presents.

On a related note. I don't think Kerbals need to be stupid to be wacky. I think this gets lost sometimes in the realism versus Kerbal debate.

Edited September 23, 2015 by klgraham1013

[strigon]

Again. Two things that are not mutually exclusive.

edit: Regex said it in a more explanative manner.

Just because two things aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean there's always overlap.

KSP is what it was designed to be, and what it was marketed as. A game. No room for ambiguity there.

[klgraham1013]

Just because two things aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean there's always overlap.

KSP is what it was designed to be, and what it was marketed as. A game. No room for ambiguity there.

The definition of game is so broad, I think it still encapsulates simulations. That is: Something said person gets enjoyment interacting with.

I didn't look up the definition. That's just what I think.

Thinks Heavy Rain and Life is Strange are games.

[strigon]

The definition of game is so broad, I think it still encapsulates simulations. That is: Something said person gets enjoyment interacting with.

I didn't look up the definition. That's just what I think.

Thinks Heavy Rain and Life is Strange are games.

A game is meant to entertain; a simulation is meant to simulate.

While a game can simulate, and a simulation can entertain, the first priority for each should be their respective functions; that is, a game shouldn't try to simulate if it comes at the cost of entertainment, and a simulation shouldn't try to entertain if it comes at the cost of realism.

[Highguard]

Realism would just annoy me, because it would never be "real" enough. Next thing you know I'd want the tech-tree to make sense, and that's never going to happen!

A different solar system changes the context, which I like.

[PTNLemay]

I would be totally fine with an expansion pack. That's what we used to call them back when they didn't suck. You would buy a pack and it would introduce genuine new content that felt worth the expense. One of the reasons was because this was before the internet was prevalent or quick enough to download the pack. So it had to come in a boxed copy, it had to be polished and presentable. With the advent of downloadable content, it's almost like devs (in general) thought "Eh, this is easy! We don't even need to make it that good." So it became the standard to make it good enough, charge 5 bucks on it, and still make a profit.

The problem is that DLC's negative reputation has built up such momentum that I don't think it can ever be salvaged. Even if the KSP guys create an amazing expansion pack, the negative feelings for that sort of payed content would steam-roll through the community and everyone would be pissed off. So... even though I would like for it to happen, personally, I don't think they should do it. Unless they can find a way to pull it off without getting everyon's panties in a bunch.

Edited September 23, 2015 by PTNLemay

[Beowolf]

If I liked the content, then sure. I've already spent several times more money on KSP mods, through voluntary donations, than I spent on KSP itself.

Mods make this game work. I played RO for a while, but bugs and limitations drove me away.

I'd also happily pay for a robotics mod that didn't eventually break every ship I ever used it on. But I understand Squad would have to do that one, because it'd require underlying changes to the part-tree structure KSP ships use.

[The_Rocketeer]

I'm astonished how close the poll is. Just now its 78:79 For:Against. Talk about splitting the community!

[Wallygator]

Yes. Make it so.

(my vote just tied it up)

[Robotengineer]

Maybe. I feel that it would be better off to have a completely new game that is based solely on realism, rather than DLC that would do what a mod already does.

[cantab]

I'm astonished how close the poll is. Just now its 78:79 For:Against. Talk about splitting the community!

And now Squad are going to think that Realism Overhaul is a good thing to copy

[Godot]

If the DLC would be more realistic than the realism mods that are already there, then yes

[regex]

And now Squad are going to think that Realism Overhaul is a good thing to copy

Unlikely. They've clearly shown they don't like detail, accuracy, or presenting the user with useful information, which are hallmarks of an RO install.

[Guest]

Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't. I think squad has done an outstanding job of making an extremely complicated subject, rocket science, into a fun game. I've certainly learned a lot, maybe not directly from the game, but the game has piqued my interest and brought me to these forums, where I have learned so much about what is real and what's not. I like being able to install mods to get the detailed info. Then sometimes, I don't want all the clutter on the screen and just want to gaze at the scenery and explore and play around. So, I think the stock game is very good and with some more polishing, could be outstanding. But, I'm also ok with DLC that could provide the extreme realism that many crave, including myself sometimes, but I would leave it at that, extra content installed by choice.

[Ristse]

Again, Amazed on how close the poll is! But what i meant on 'Realisem' i meant like, having Real Planet Scale, Rocket Enguine Thrust, Areo dynamics, and realistic progression. Not just like... Heres a Saturn 5 rocket, now take it apart and put it back together, All i meant was have real scale and realistic mods... But not CRAZY realistic like RO is right now.

[KSACheese]

Honestly, I don't think that I would buy a DLC in any kind for KSP until there were a multitude or a bundle of them. As for the proposed realism DLC, probably not.

[Ristse]

Honestly, I don't think that I would buy a DLC in any kind for KSP until there were a multitude or a bundle of them. As for the proposed realism DLC, probably not.

Imagine it as a 'Final Challenge' Like i said in the original post, it would be a nod to people like Scott Manly who love science and want to test their skills with the real deal. But with RSS and RO its just so laggy it makes it really hard.

[Ristse]

Nooo! 'No' is winning! ;-;

[EladDv]

"do you want A or B?" YEEEES! am i the only one finding this funny?

on topic no. Mods are there for a reason really i cant see squad doing better then the current mods we have, those mods are comprehensive and took a long time to build and really i think their place in the community should be preserved and not just stockify everything you like to play with

[Ristse]

"do you want A or B?" YEEEES! am i the only one finding this funny?

on topic no. Mods are there for a reason really i cant see squad doing better then the current mods we have, those mods are comprehensive and took a long time to build and really i think their place in the community should be preserved and not just stockify everything you like to play with

But the mods ARE SO LAGGY. Even super computers have a issue running them. But with Unity 5 and an official take on RSS and RO...

[EladDv]

But the mods ARE SO LAGGY. Even super computers have a issue running them. But with Unity 5 and an official take on RSS and RO...

really with kopernicus i dont think it's the mods that are making the game laggy- more likely it's textures and resolution more then physics as the mods dont really add a lot of overhead on the system

[Nathair]

I like KSP so much that it's hard to imagine a DLC that I wouldn't buy (as long as it's not totally silly/ridiculously priced). A realism one would be a no-brainer.

This. Very much this.

[StrandedonEarth]

I haven't dabbled in RSS/RO yet, but I think it would seem like two different universes. Having the game contain both pure KSP and RSS/RO would make it bulky and complex, too many options to get lost in.

I think it would have to be a new game. HumanSP? EarthlingSP? Maybe get the Simpsons on board (and licensed, of course) and have SimpsonsSP!

KSP 2: The Simpsons in Space! I'd buy. Just imagine the helmet on Marge!

[Superfluous J]

"do you want A or B?" YEEEES! am i the only one finding this funny?

It could be worded better, but the choices aren't "Do you want (A) or (?" but instead "Do you want (A or versus not having them?"

A Yes answer means you would pay for DLC or a new game that is a more realistic KSP. A No answer means you would not pay for either of those.

[Ristse]

It could be worded better, but the choices aren't "Do you want (A) or (?" but instead "Do you want (A or versus not having them?"

A Yes answer means you would pay for DLC or a new game that is a more realistic KSP. A No answer means you would not pay for either of those.

I agree, but im not aware of a way to change the Poll name.