'End' of career mode

[Perry Apsis]

Honestly, I think career mode puts a limit on what should be an unlimited game. It's already happened more than once that I was building something for some mission that I wanted to do (not a contract, a mission), and ran out of money. Sure, I can go do something I'd rather not so someone will give me the money to do what I want, but that's depressingly similar to real life. Yes, you can play without career mode, but you're reminded that you're not playing the real game, and despite my best efforts, I find it demotivating. Intrinsic motivation is a subtle and tricky thing, but it's a powerful thing, and it's what makes this game great. (See for example, research that shows that rewarding people for completing tasks decreases motivation if those tasks require high-level thinking.) As game designers, Squad must be aware of those factors, but the more they try to make KSP a "real" game by putting in the stuff we expect from games, the less motivated I find myself.

That's why I find this conversation depressing. KSP doesn't end. To even talk about it ending would have seemed silly before career mode. Now I find that it ends when I'm just not interested enough to go put another satellite into a specific orbit (although I admit that the first few were quite interesting and fun). It actually works well as a tutorial, but it should be clear that this is all preliminary, and the *real* game starts when career mode ends.

[tater]

I consider that the start of the game.

For a new player, starting with career, maybe. Any replay would then do just as well to start in Sandbox, no?

The reality is that in career, unlocking the tech tree is the only goal. Individual players obviously vary, but that is the sole reward system. Without mods like life support, etc, the only difficulty about the distant worlds is time (warped anyway, and time doesn't matter without LS, annual budgets, etc). Sure, some are physically difficult to land and return from, very difficult in some cases. Again, without mods, you can launch arbitrarily large/bizarre crafts, and get it done.

Still, from a game-psychology standpoint, players unconsciously tend to want to play the reward system, and failing to recognize this is bad game design.

[Superfluous J]

Yes, you can play without career mode, but you're reminded that you're not playing the real game, and despite my best efforts, I find it demotivating.

Why do you feel that sandbox isn't the "real" game? Most people I know who play in sandbox do so because they consider it "real" KSP where they don't have to muck about with all the stuff they don't like, and do what they DO like.

Have you tried Science mode? It may be a nice middle ground for you where you have limited progression but never have to "do yet another contract" to make the money to build what you want.

[Perry Apsis]

Why do you feel that sandbox isn't the "real" game? Most people I know who play in sandbox do so because they consider it "real" KSP where they don't have to muck about with all the stuff they don't like, and do what they DO like.

Yes, those are the players who keep playing for years, as you and I have. Those are the ones who make the community, who care about the product, who build for it. And yet development effort goes into bringing in people who will buy a $40 game, play it for a week or two, "win" it, rate it poorly (let's face it, it's a fantastic sandbox game, but as a mainstream game it's only so-so) and leave. Obviously, I'm concerned that on the whole, it will be bad for the game.

Have you tried Science mode? It may be a nice middle ground for you where you have limited progression but never have to "do yet another contract" to make the money to build what you want.

Yes, and after a new release comes out and I've stopped taking contracts, that's usually where I go (partly, again, so I don't keep getting messages about how there's no point to gathering science). Science is pretty cool for at least two reasons. First, because it helps new players through a bewildering variety of parts (okay, I've got B9 and other mods, so some of that is self-inflicted). But really, a decent set of parts search/filter/sort tools would go a long way in that regard as well. Second, because it gives you something to do out there, which has always been a mild shortcoming of the game in my opinion. I think mining/refueling operations (along with rebalancing the game to make them necessary) could be a good way to go.

Aside from the challenge of hitting specific orbits, where I actually learned more about orbital mechanics after I thought I knew precisely enough for KSP, Career mode gave me one positive game experience. That was because my completely-reusable Munar transport system now mattered. I could get Kerbals to the Kerban satellites for just the cost of fuel.

[kmMango]

Goals:

Get to Space

Orbit Kerbin

EVA in Orbit

Orbit Mun

Land on Mun

Land on Minmus

Build a Space Station

Orbit/Flyby of Eve/Gilly and Duna/Ike

Land a Probe on Duna

Land a Probe on Eve

Manned Duna Landing

Extended Mun Science Mission

Orbit and Land Probes on Moho, Jool moons, Eeloo, and Dres

Manned mission to Jool System

Build an SSTO

Finish Tech Tree

Once these are completed, I stop.

[tater]

I played Minecraft when my kids got it, and I like it. I only ever played survival/hard, ever. Even then, Minecraft is exceedingly boring. I made a few worlds for my kids to explore in in survival, building more interesting temples, etc. (over spawners I found if possible to make them nastier). Sorta like sandbox.

The real requirement for any sort of replay in career is to have the kerbol system randomize so that you need to actually explore, and new landings are novel.

Sandbox KSP is fine, but that's an entirely different can of worms than creating a good career game. All the complaints about career, or pitching open-ended are excuses for bad game design, IMO. The game design of career needs to start out defining what the point is, then the game design (career systems like funds, mission planning, etc) needs to drive that goal. What is the end-game? Inhabitation of various worlds? Maybe the goal should be set by the payer---not sandbox, but the overarching goal of HIS program, which then drives the path out of choices careers would present. Say when you start out you assign plans. 1 year goals, achieve spaceflight, and land on the Mun and Minmus (in current KSP where time is pointless, that might as well be the 1 DAY goal), 10 year goal, land on Duna and return safely to Kerbin (manned). 20 year goal, start permanent basing.