KSP vs Minecraft

[Columbia]

3 hours ago, ValleyTwo said:

Well, as a person who has played both games I would say you have to define what you mean by best but I would have to go with Minecraft.  While you can say you are comparing bananas vs. apples (which is something people say when you don't want to get yelled out) I prefer bananas.  I like KSP but I have to add mods to play it.  I love Minecraft and have to add mods to make it harder.  Just like one adds mods to Fallout or Skyrim.  But I could play it without them.  I find Minecraft relaxing, enjoyable, and can do anything I wish in it, like Dwarf Fortress or UnReal World or, to a certain degree, even Hearts of Iron 3 or Mount & Blade: Warband.  Minecraft is well know, played by more people (don't even pretend it isn't), and all ages can play it.  Yes, I know young players also play KSP but I am betting the Minecraft crowd has some who are even younger.  

You may say people play it to waste time (which is insulting) but I would say they play it to enjoy it.  Sometimes I just don't enjoy KSP.  And sometimes I just don't play.  When I come home and think, I want to play a enjoyable game I pick one of the others.  When I come home and think to myself, I REALLY want to see if I can get that SSTO to work because it is bothering me, I sometimes play KSP.

This is the worst timing to be out of likes.

I don't get why there are so many anti-12 year old elitists here. As countless others have said, they are difficult to compare. The different learning curves are a single example which is why younger audiences like to jump in to the game. Yes, the community of it is somewhat toxic, but it doesn't mean that everyone who plays it is immediately an idiot either. It's not as if it's just for kids. Hell, I still play the Create Mode of LittleBigPlanet because despite it being for the younger audience, I still find it has a lot of potential for creativity.

And KSP isn't just for adults either -- There are quite a few people of the younger audience in this forum, doesn't mean they're all pubescent squeakers.

[Frank_G]

They are actually hard to compare, because KSP is about simulating physics and building craft, Minecraft is about interacting with the environment and building mostly static things. If you want to compare a spacegame to Minecraft than Space Engineers would be the proper opponent. Both Minecraft and KSP are of course are games that endorse creativity. For me KSP just is more my type of thing. I love spacestuff, rockets and physics games, but why should i compare it, if i just love it.

[RenegadeRad]

I like both, and I only play both.

Minecraft is all about aesthetics

KSP is all about science!

And I will keep playing them till the end of time, and bore my kids to play it too.

and if these games die, i die with it. *inside, not really*

Edited June 4, 2016 by RenegadeRad

[JohnF]

12 minutes ago, Frank_G said:

They are actually hard to compare, because KSP is about simulating physics and building craft, Minecraft is about interacting with the environment and building mostly static things. If you want to compare a spacegame to Minecraft than Space Engineers would be the proper opponent. Both Minecraft and KSP are of course are games that endorse creativity. For me KSP just is more my type of thing. I love spacestuff, rockets and physics games, but why should i compare it, if i just love it.

It's already been covered earlier in the thread: the physics in Minecraft are superior; there's no orbital drift, for one thing. If you could orbit something in Minecraft the orbit would be perfectly stable, and would not deviate, just like real life orbits. Also, the bugs are so bad it's almost unplayable. Why wouldn't Squad look at Minecraft, the example of a bug-free game (with great optimization) and try that? Maybe Java would be better than Unity for this physics stuff that Kerbal does uniquely poorly.

It's weird that literally every other physics game out there where you can go to orbit at approaching realistic scales and velocities, that keeps track of the generation, flow, and shedding of heat through internal processes, convection, conduction, and radiation, where you can arrange a bunch of parts with function in almost any imaginable combination and then the game attempts to apply aerodynamic forces, thrust, etc, to the craft manages to do this without all the bugs and compromises. I mean really, can anyone think of another example of game that has these features that wasn't executed far better than KSP? I can't think of one. QED.

[Columbia]

3 hours ago, JohnF said:

It's already been covered earlier in the thread: the physics in Minecraft are superior; there's no orbital drift, for one thing. If you could orbit something in Minecraft the orbit would be perfectly stable, and would not deviate, just like real life orbits. Also, the bugs are so bad it's almost unplayable. Why wouldn't Squad look at Minecraft, the example of a bug-free game (with great optimization) and try that? Maybe Java would be better than Unity for this physics stuff that Kerbal does uniquely poorly.

It's weird that literally every other physics game out there where you can go to orbit at approaching realistic scales and velocities, that keeps track of the generation, flow, and shedding of heat through internal processes, convection, conduction, and radiation, where you can arrange a bunch of parts with function in almost any imaginable combination and then the game attempts to apply aerodynamic forces, thrust, etc, to the craft manages to do this without all the bugs and compromises. I mean really, can anyone think of another example of game that has these features that wasn't executed far better than KSP? I can't think of one. QED.

..Not to be offensive, and I'm not sure if this post is sarcastic but Minecraft is ridiculously simple compared to KSP. There's far less area for error.

What makes you say that if you can orbit in Minecraft that it will be far more optimized than it is in KSP? 

You want to know why Minecraft is mostly bug-free? It's far more simple than KSP. As pointed out by countless others, it's impossible to compare properly. You can't look at a game that's world-renowned and damn famous yet ridiculously simple to something smaller (but still pretty big) and not to mention FAR more complex, and run by a small development team. They can only do so much to make it as bug-free as they can.

"It's weird that literally every other physics game out there where you can go to orbit at approaching realistic scales and velocities, that keeps track of the generation, flow, and shedding of heat through internal processes, convection, conduction, and radiation, where you can arrange a bunch of parts with function in almost any imaginable combination and then the game attempts to apply aerodynamic forces, thrust, etc, to the craft manages to do this without all the bugs and compromises."

WHAT? What games do you think can compare to KSP fairly, with having such a small development team, complex physics and thousands if not millions of possible combination for parts?

Minecraft is nowhere near the complexity of KSP to even CONSIDER comparing to, let alone use as a basis to judge KSP. Space Engineers is a closer match but the dev team's bigger than Squad and SimpleRockets is, well.. simpler. 

Please, criticism for the game is always appreciated and frustration is understandable when your game is unplayable but comparisons like these are pure BS.

[Kerbart]

3 hours ago, JohnF said:

It's weird that literally every other physics game out there where you can go to orbit at approaching realistic scales and velocities, that keeps track of the generation, flow, and shedding of heat through internal processes, convection, conduction, and radiation, where you can arrange a bunch of parts with function in almost any imaginable combination and then the game attempts to apply aerodynamic forces, thrust, etc, to the craft manages to do this without all the bugs and compromises. I mean really, can anyone think of another example of game that has these features that wasn't executed far better than KSP? I can't think of one. QED.

Unless I misunderstand you, what you're saying is that there are no games that match KSP when it comes to the mix of complexity in regards to physics, right?

• Universe Sandbox has pretty good orbital mechanics but it's limited to planets, not space ships
• Prepar3d has a great flight model but is limited to atmospheric flight and pre-built aircraft (mods are available) each with their own complex physical model
• Space Engineer offers good performance, much more freedom when building craft, but has a reality-defying physical model
• And so on.

So yes, I agree with you, it's hard to fault KSP given the mix of complexity it offers.

That's what you meant, right? Because it's a bit unclear; I think some ill-willing people might also bend it into an interpretation that says the reverse. That there are tons of games out there that do all that what KSP is doing, but are much much better implemented. But if you meant to say that, surely you would have included a list of all those games. And you didn't. QED.

 

[Turf]

On 20/5/2016 at 7:48 PM, msasterisk said:

Kerbal space program.

There's going to be some bias from posting this on the KSP forums...

Try posting it on MC forum! (Yup, that exists (Yup, the website 'Yup, that exists' exists))

[cantab]

57 minutes ago, Columbia said:

You want to know why Minecraft is mostly bug-free? It's far more simple than KSP

I'm not sure "simple" as such (consider what's possible with redstone), but Minecraft being primarily discrete voxels sidesteps a lot of the floating point accuracy issues that KSP suffers from.

And I do think MC and KSP warrant comparison. They're not *super* similar, but they do have some things in common in gameplay, visuals, and development history.

[Columbia]

Just now, cantab said:

I'm not sure "simple" as such (consider what's possible with redstone), but Minecraft being primarily discrete voxels sidesteps a lot of the floating point accuracy issues that KSP suffers from.

And I do think MC and KSP warrant comparison. They're not *super* similar, but they do have some things in common in gameplay, visuals, and development history.

Comparison in the "If Minecraft can be this bug-free, Why isn't KSP?" sense.

 

[Spaceception]

KSP all the way, no question.

I know people who like minecraft, but i don't like it.

[Scientia1423]

KSP, It's easier to make shuttle carriers than minecraft.

Aka too much detail.

[cubinator]

I like them both. I like Minecraft as a fun, calming pastime with a massive random world to explore, and I like KSP for its physics that allow me to design and execute semi-realistic space missions. If I had to pick between one or the other to play for the rest of my life, it'd be KSP, though.

[autumnalequinox]

I'm with alot of other posters.  Both are great games.  I tend to play KSP for longer, more obsessive streaks then Minecraft, which I mostly play in spurts.  Both games I mod into oblivion.  What's common to both is that they are both power fantasy games for myself.  In minecraft I can start as a lone survivor and build an entire fantasy/steampunk nation of my dreams (my mod choices allow this).  In KSP I can start as a haphazard collection of green people and build an entire space program of my dreams (also mod choices).  

Then there's 7 Days to Die, my other fav sandbox.  There I can be the zombie apocalypse survivor of my dreams.

And let's not forget Paradox games where I can mold history to my desires.  And Civ.  

I think there's a theme here.  But of all the games, KSP has truly taught me the most.  I don't like looking too hard at other people's creations (unlike minecraft).  Instead, I research RL space missions for inspiration, learning a ton on the way.  I never knew as much about launch systems until I played KSP.  Or orbital mechanics.  Or the internal workings or NASA, the lives of the Apollo astronauts, or the deep histories of the Russian and American space program.  Unlike Minecraft, KSP has expanded my knowledge base in ways no game ever has (with the exception of said Paradox games in regards to history).  

It's a game I wish existed when I was younger because it would have changed my life.  So that's something.

[Mjp1050]

10 hours ago, cantab said:

They're not *super* similar, but they do have some things in common in gameplay, visuals, and development history.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think the visuals of KSP and Minecraft are similar?

[sdj64]

These two games are far and away my two most played games ever.  As many others have said, they are very different.  However they have the same purpose for me as a non-competitive, non-violent game that rewards planning and creativity.

I got into Minecraft first around the end of alpha, and now most of my Minecraft time is dedicated to working on my mod, Highlands.  Though I rarely play it with mods besides Highlands.  Today, the mod scene in Minecraft has unfortunately mostly died off and fragmented between MC versions, making it mostly a service to a few dedicated followers, and for myself and a few friends I play local games with.  Back ~4 years ago there was a much more vibrant community sharing builds, tips, and mods and everyone was much on the same page with the latest version.

KSP has mostly replaced Minecraft for me.  I have been more involved in the community here and I agree that it is much more mature than MC, but both games have so many amazingly talented people in every aspect of the game.  Each community was a good fit when I was most involved with it, I started MC at the beginning of high school and now I'm close to graduating from college!  So I really cannot choose between them as absolute "better" but I would definitely say that KSP is better for me right now.

For those complaining about KSP's bugs compared to Minecraft, remember that MC is about 3 years further along in development, and also uses its own game engine that the developers have complete control of.  Many modern KSP bugs have Unity to blame, or are caused by a hacky workaround to something that Unity doesn't support.

[kBob]

Every Minecraft pic I've seen looks like a bunch of Legos.  I don't like Legos never did (Erector sets and Lincoln Logs were my thing).  Even if Minecraft had great orbital mechanics the look of it would turn me cold.  If I wanted perfect physics I'd play a non-graphical game, but I want good physics and good looks and while KSP has a way to go with looks (I'd like to see it get to Prepar3d level) it's way ahead of Minecraft. 

[cantab]

31 minutes ago, Mjp1050 said:

Out of curiosity, what makes you think the visuals of KSP and Minecraft are similar?

Inasmuch as they're both relatively basic and not remotely pushing what modern GPUs are capable of. I mean really it's just a common trait of almost any "indie" 3D game, the developers don't have the resources to produce "AAA" levels of flashiness.

[Hannu2]

Both are building games without restricted goals which I like. I like averagely more about KSP because I like physics, math and space exploration but sometimes I get bored to KSP and I feel better to play Minecraft and other games. Last weeks I have been addicted in Factorio.

[Bloodbunny]

KSP is currently buggy, and I can't play more than 10 minutes without a VAB CTD, so I've shelved it for now.

Minecraft can be fun, but utter lack of physics kill it...(floating trees...)

I've been playing From the Depths and Space Engineers, myself... they seem to be a good mashup of the two games. Plenty of room to be creative, but with a nice big learning curve. (More than even KSP, IMO)

Edited June 5, 2016 by Bloodbunny

[Rath]

I love FtD too.