I've been saying this for years... now someone other than Squad is realizing it.

[milosh]

Astroneer might be a game some people wish KSP to be, I for one sure hope it won't go in that direction. Guess people are just different and have different reasons why they play KSP. To me, exploration per se was never the main goal, it was always about building stuff and the exploration part was just a means to get more creative as in: okay I've managed to build an SSTO who can reach Mun, now build one to land on Eve. Personally I don't even need career mode, the only reason I play in career is to have some consequences when losing a Kerbal and that science modules actually work. But they could've implemented this in sandbox and I would've been fine - in fact I played the first 200 hours solely in sandbox because back then career was a mere joke anyway.

Nowadays the only thing I appreciate about career are the contracts because it's more convenient to have someone offering you a new idea on what to do than thinking about it yourself. Besides, some contracts present a challenge which I've never would've put myself up to in the first place, like building a Mun Outpost with a housing for 12 Kerbals, Mining Operation and 4000l of fuel storage. Figuring out how to build this and how to bring it to Mun is what keeps me going in KSP and I think my Mun outpost will be awesome

More often than not I find myself thinking about new designs in the minutes before I go to sleep, under the shower or on the train to work but also when I read about concepts in sci-fi books or the latest stuff NASA is up to. That's what KSP is to me, like a childs dream, a means to be a rocket engineer without having to do the math or the constant battle with congress for budged. I've an idea, I build it, I succeed or I fail and try to improve on it. A smooth design and building process is much more important to me than a story or "stuff todo".

[vger]

And more often then not the bits of something are the unplanned, highly dangerous bits. It's hard to keep a populace interested in something that is boring when it succeeds, but interesting when it fails. They don't see the point in funding boring missions for 'those academics', while at the same time they don't want to fund anything that has any significant failure rate.

I don't know about that. Pluto certainly hasn't been wanting for love recently.

- - - Updated - - -

I completely agree that it's rather boring when you arrive on some desolate planet, but hey, anyone saw any natives on Mars? None, huh? Boring, I guess...

You think planets in KSP need lifeforms in order to be interesting?

No, I don't think so. No more interesting than building rockets would be for a non-space nut anyhow. Those of us who play this game hang on every new news byte that comes from NASA or ESA, things that seem trivial to the majority of people. So, why couldn't discovery be that intricate in KSP?

[Albert VDS]

Although Astroneer looks awesome (and I'll probably buy it), but it has nothing to do with real space exploration or with reality for that matter.

It's a guy capable of mining/digging in seconds and fly into space by defying the rocket equation.

This is not what KSP needs.

And more often then not the bits of something are the unplanned, highly dangerous bits. It's hard to keep a populace interested in something that is boring when it succeeds, but interesting when it fails. They don't see the point in funding boring missions for 'those academics', while at the same time they don't want to fund anything that has any significant failure rate.

It's not that the succeeding missions are boring, it's the majority that doesn't understand what's so awesome about the mission which is actually succeeding.

[DestinyPlayer]

Am I the only one who thinks that when a sandbox comes out which allows you to do literally anything, be it possible in RL or not, people will still say "Meh, there's nothing to do"? Just a passing by thought.

[Frozen_Heart]

I've yet to see a game that can compete with KSP in the craft building aspect. Easy to use yet still phyicsey and fun.

I've seen plenty of games that you can build vehicles, but they are either block based or so clunky and complex that its difficult to pick up.

I only think KSP will be overtaken if someone can improve on the vehicle creator even further.

[Azimech]

Exactly, Frozen_Heart. It's easy to duplicate or improve gameplay elements like spaceflight or driving around on other planets, and a lot of games will copy it or are much more advanced already.

The editor is the main selling point, it really stands out. Fast, easy to use, not cumbersome or irritating like Blender and the likes. And there's still a lot of room for improvement.

I even use it for architecture these days, built a futuristic house to show at my girlfriend. She was very happy with the result.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

[...]

You think planets in KSP need lifeforms in order to be interesting?

No, I don't think so. No more interesting than building rockets would be for a non-space nut anyhow. Those of us who play this game hang on every new news byte that comes from NASA or ESA, things that seem trivial to the majority of people. So, why couldn't discovery be that intricate in KSP?

Because that no one knows what's on Mars, but in KSP, that info would quickly become common knowledge.

[regex]

I only think KSP will be overtaken if someone can improve on the vehicle creator even further.

For some of us, KSP will be overtaken by a game that puts realism first AND offers the VAB/SPH so we can explore spaceflight concepts, much like RO has allowed. But, you are correct, the VAB/SPH is what makes KSP so great. Any realistic competitor would at least have to equal KSP is that regard.

[longbyte1]

For some of us, KSP will be overtaken by a game that puts realism first AND offers the VAB/SPH so we can explore spaceflight concepts, much like RO has allowed. But, you are correct, the VAB/SPH is what makes KSP so great. Any realistic competitor would at least have to equal KSP is that regard.

Even then, it can be very difficult to add small details in the interiors without a plugin that allows WASD/fine movement, and there's no way to customize the shape of the fuselage without downloading a 50-part pack or doing some sick part clipping tricks.

While KSP may have a pretty powerful VAB/SPH, it still ain't a CAD, guys.

[Superfluous J]

While KSP may have a pretty powerful VAB/SPH, it still ain't a CAD, guys.

If KSP's VAB paralleled a CAD program, it would not have been remotely as successful as it is today. The beauty of KSP's build interface is that it's intuitive to use (at least most of the time).

[lajoswinkler]

One of my biggest complaints about KSP has been the lack of things to do. Once you get where you're going, there's really no point in being there and nothing to do when you do get there. The planets are lifeless, the science is a gooey joke and the only reason to be on the surface of a planet is to say you've been there or drill for ore so you can reach further destinations and do... what? I can't even begin to calculate the number of rockets, aircraft, rovers and bases that I've created in the past few years only to scrap them entirely when the 'mission' was complete? Why? No point in them existing.

But Squad has been too busy adding useless things, like heat and silly pointy aerodynamic overlays that serve no purpose other than eye candy, rather than providing a continuing source of entertainment.

Well, someone was listening.

Astroneer

And guess what they're comparing it to?

MSN Article on Astroneer

If fear if Squad continues their ostrich approach to immersion that it's going to be just like many of the games we remember, like Age of Empires. It may define a genra of games but if they don't wake up, it's going to quickly become another dust collector on the shelf.

While I understand your sentiments, I don't completely agree. KSP is, like Minecraft, a mod-opened game. Mods are what makes this game so popular. Rarely anyone with more than couple of hundreds of hours spent on it plays stock. Mods are what keeps the community alive and throbbing, and there are lots of mods that extend and enrich the experience.

I don't agree with your rant on the heat and aerodynamics. You don't seem to realize these are vital parts of the game that profoundly affect vessel design and gameplay. The last updates really pushed the experience towards realism and that's a great thing. KSP is all about pushing towards realism, but not that much so that it becomes a pain.

KSP is evolving. Slower than we'd like it to, but way faster than Minecraft that seems to rely on modding community only (I don't count rabbits and banners in).

Edited October 14, 2015 by lajoswinkler
couple of hundreds of hours instead of couple of hours

[Frozen_Heart]

While KSP may have a pretty powerful VAB/SPH, it still ain't a CAD, guys.

And that is a good thing. Several games have more powerful editors than KSP, but they are so difficult to pick up that it drives most users away. KSP has hit the sweet spot between ease of use and the ability to make what you want.

[longbyte1]

While I understand your sentiments, I don't completely agree. KSP is, like Minecraft, a mod-opened game. Mods are what makes this game so popular. Rarely anyone with more than couple of hours spent on it plays stock. Mods are what keeps the community alive and throbbing, and there are lots of mods that extend and enrich the experience.

I don't agree with your rant on the heat and aerodynamics. You don't seem to realize these are vital parts of the game that profoundly affect vessel design and gameplay. The last updates really pushed the experience towards realism and that's a great thing. KSP is all about pushing towards realism, but not that much so that it becomes a pain.

KSP is evolving. Slower than we'd like it to, but way faster than Minecraft that seems to rely on modding community only (I don't count rabbits and banners in).

And the only thing stopping the mod community is the dozens of hacks modders have to do to get around the KSP API's and Unity's vast limitations.

What if modders want to make the game as realistic as possible? Lagrange points? No can do. Multiple solar systems with different planets? Nope. Orbital decay? Nope.

While I'm at it, why does it take 5 minutes to get KSP to load and 15 seconds every time I'm switching between scenes? No game I've ever played has had such ridiculous loading times, even with the texture compressor. Probably because KSP is officially tested with the highest-end rigs, the TITAN X, 512 GB SSD, 32 GB RAM, OC'd Skylake/Haswell, just to clear up any claim that KSP is laggy. Memory management is also garbage. Not to mention that many mods are unoptimized because of said hacks. In the future I would like to see a space sandbox game that is NOT made in Unity.

No, you can't make/mod everything in KSP. That is what I mean when I say a CAD.

[CommanderSpock]

And the only thing stopping the mod community is the dozens of hacks modders have to do to get around the KSP API's and Unity's vast limitations.

Multiple solar systems with different planets? Nope. Orbital decay? Nope.

....From what I can see there are mods for both of those, multiple for the whole "multiple solar systems" one.

[Red Iron Crown]

What if modders want to make the game as realistic as possible? Lagrange points? No can do. Multiple solar systems with different planets? Nope. Orbital decay? Nope.

You should try Principia, it's true n-body gravitation for KSP, including Lagrange points and orbital perturbations.

[vger]

How did this discussion go from being about planetary landings with interesting subgames to being about realism?

[Van Disaster]

This is false. An orbit closer to the sun (vast temperature gradients and piles of cosmic rays) is something else entirely than a trajectory past Pluto (no solar energy to work with) . Something passing close by Jupiter (powerful magnetic and gravitational fields) is something else completely than landing on a comet (very weak gravity and chaotic orbits).

Space is anything but homogeneous.

A little late, but: KSP space is homogenous. Well other than possibly the solar power issue. It really shouldn't be, and that would add a lot to just flying places by itself. Sadly the planets are a little homogenous too, but they at least have variations in gravity & atmosphere.

[Special Agent Sigvan]

And that is a good thing. Several games have more powerful editors than KSP, but they are so difficult to pick up that it drives most users away. KSP has hit the sweet spot between ease of use and the ability to make what you want.

Except the DAMN PART SNAPPING

[Azimech]

Except the DAMN PART SNAPPING

There's a solution for that, too. It's called No Offset Limits.

What I do wish is exact precision when using offset/rotation, with numerical feedback/setting. Part Angle Display only works when you don't use the gizmo's.

[KasperVld]

I think we need to get this thread back on its original topic

I've seen a video of Astroneer, it really looks interesting, though I was confused about the getting to orbit part, which seemed to take a few seconds at most. The planets also look tiny. I think the comparison between this game and KSP stops pretty much at the flying rockets part.

Edited October 13, 2015 by KasperVld

[Whirligig Girl]

Looks like a discount "No Man's Sky".

First of all, No Man's Sky looks kinda crappy compared to this. Second of all, one of the things I read about it was that the developers are trying to make a game inspired more by Interstellar and The Martian and the Apollo Program and SpaceX than Star Wars and Star Trek. And so far, I think they've got it. I don't think it will be better than KSP, and I certainly think it will be better than No Man's Sky.

[Fengist]

I think we need to get this thread back on its original topic

I've seen a video of Astroneer, it really looks interesting, though I was confused about the getting to orbit part, which seemed to take a few seconds at most. The planets also look tiny. I think the comparison between this game and KSP stops pretty much at the flying rockets part.

So, I've kept my mouth shut since I posted this to see what everyone else thinks.

The point everyone seems to be missing is 'immersion.' While KSP will keep you entertained for a period of time, building things, learning orbital mechanics and the limitations of the environment. Once you reach the point that you're confident you can go wherever you want and land whatever you want, the entertainment factor stops. That's something Astroneer at least appears to have accomplished and KSP hasn't.

Everything you build in KSP initially has a purpose... to get somewhere other than where you are. The problem is, once you get there, the only purpose it serves is to attempt to impress yourself and others with the accomplishment. Once that passes, there's no point in it being there. Ok, so you built a base on Duna. You use gobs of mods... Tac Life Support, RemoteTech, ScanSat... etc., and you have fun building it. But once it's complete... then what? You EVA a Kerbal to plant a flag and... fly around with your jetpack? So you break out the rover and go for a drive to find... well, there's nothing to discover so that's pointless. So you mine for some ore to convert into fuel so you can go somewhere else and do... what? Mine more ore?

I have built hundreds and hundreds of rockets, rovers, satellites, stations... I even circumnavigated Eve at 13 m/s with a rover just to have something to do once I got there. Now, not a single vessel I've ever created still exists in my save game. As a matter of fact, my save game now has 0 craft anywhere. Why? There's no point in going anywhere because there's nothing to do once you get there. Yes.. I stress in one of my challenges it's about the journey, not the destination. But eventually, the journey ends. I've been playing this game for years and still haven't visited every planet or every moon. I don't need to. I know once I arrive, that planet will be just as desolate as all the others and the 'mission' will come to a screeching halt for lack of something to do.

I'm going to leave you with one final proof to my point. BDArmory. Many who play this 'game' have become so desperate to continue playing it and have something to do that they've had to manufacture enemies that don't even exist. Squad never intended, and I hope they continue to not intend, for this game to become another shooter. But if you go look at Kerbalstuff, you'll find that BDArmory is right behind FAR as being the most popular mod. Even my mod, which focuses on civilian maritime pursuits, has been given guns by another mod.

I've been working on a submarine I'll soon release. On my release thread, I got the question I was waiting for, 'can we launch ballistic nukes from it'. While I do understand human nature and the need for an antagonist, my point is, many have created the antagonist because nothing else exists to take it's place.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Fengist

[Robotengineer]

First of all, No Man's Sky looks kinda crappy compared to this. Second of all, one of the things I read about it was that the developers are trying to make a game inspired more by Interstellar and The Martian and the Apollo Program and SpaceX than Star Wars and Star Trek. And so far, I think they've got it. I don't think it will be better than KSP, and I certainly think it will be better than No Man's Sky.

So far, I'd say they have it half right. The ground based things are pretty cool so far, but they haven't said anything about real space travel in the game yet, or whether they would use approximations of real physics, whether there would be life support, etc. While the game thus far may be inspired by The Martian, the Apollo Program and SpaceX, its current manifestation is closer to Star Wars or Star Trek, IMO.

[mid0r]

Having spent over 400 hours on this game, I can pretty much agree with the OP. I tried almost all mods that are out there and still, there is always this point in the game where you have built your stuff, sent it to other planets, landed more or less carefully and done the experiments - and then? Besides building more and more advanced stuff, there isn't really long time motivation in this game - besides new mods.

But I am not being a negative nancy here, I am sure the developers are aware of this fact. I agree that there are more important things atm, and this is first and foremost the engine update to unity 5. Once this is done, all the somewhat anoying restrictions of a 32-bit program are gone and we can have all them mods without a screwed up framerate.

Once Unity 5 is up and running, I am sure the devs will start to work on that long time motivation - having already begun with contextual contracts.

[GeneCash]

Steam on Windows PCs only

Nope. And Nope. I don't do Steam or Windows. The graphics in VirtualBox is nowhere near good enough for gaming, and I've seen Steam screw a couple friends out of a lot of time and money.