The BTSM/BTW divide

[FlowerChild]

I mentioned this briefly in IRC the other night, but I've been pondering lately the gap between people that play BTW and those that play BTSM, and have been wondering about what makes people interested in one but not the other.

So, I wanted to create this thread to ask people what their thoughts were on the subject. It's a bit of a mystery to me given my work there feels very much like a natural extension of my work here.

Is there something about KSP that doesn't interest everyone here? Is there something particular about BTSM that is responsible? Do tell :)

For those not familiar with BTSM:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/thr ... ct-17th%29

[chaoticneutral]

Honestly, I still need to try KSP, but my personal life has been busy lately... so when I have time to play, I end playing always the same games: Minecraft [both with and without BTW], Binding of Isaac, Nethack and sometimes Spacechem. But you can be quite sure that if I buy KSP, I'll dive straight to BTSM.

[Taleric]

The players I have met not interested in BTSM are the highly "aesthetic". I figure all but the most resilient left BTW after the HC changes but BTW is still all about beauty in creation to them.

I love the builds they share, just impressive candy for our eyes :)

I try terribly hard to make things look nice but like most BTW/BTSM players we are tinkerers. Design will be bent to utility and optimization over aesthetics.

[FlowerChild]

The players I have met not interested in BTSM are the highly "aesthetic". I figure all but the most resilient left BTW after the HC changes but BTW is still all about beauty in creation to them.

It's an interesting point, but one which I have a hard time understanding, as I find complex KSP builds to be some of the most beautiful around.

I've got many gigs of KSP screenshots on my hard drive, as I am a compulsive picture-taker when I play that game. This is particularly odd considering I don't do that with any other game really, and I actually despise taking pictures in the consensus reality as I find it interferes with actually experiencing an event rather than recording it.

As an example, completing a project like this:

Spoiler

Show

and then sending it on its way is a thing of beauty to me, both in an aesthetic and functional sense.

I wonder if the lack of permanence in what you build may be a factor in this though, as with something like MC, your constructions are pretty much forever and you can revisit them at any time, whereas with KSP, the vast majority of them are "disposable" in that they slowly break apart as a mission progresses. I wonder if that process of almost jumping on your own sandcastle is part of it.

[Taleric]

I have to agree that is a sexy craft :)

Especially as I can appreciate the staging, form and function. Aesthetic types have to feel confined by KSP/BTSM were there are limited concessions for frivolous cosmetic parts. I feel guilty when I add a nose cone if I know it is unneeded.

[FlowerChild]

Especially as I can appreciate the staging, form and function. Aesthetic types have to feel confined by KSP/BTSM were there are limited concessions for frivolous cosmetic parts. I feel guilty when I add a nose cone if I know it is unneeded.

Yeah, I hear that. KSP is a game where you rarely feel you should build anything *strictly* for aesthetics. I do feel a little more comfortable doing so as a player though, and will add stuff like nosecones or adapters just to make stuff look good, but you'll also notice that I often tweak the gameplay side so that players aren't excessively penalized for these strictly aesthetic aspects.

[Taleric]

I do feel a little more comfortable doing so as a player though, and will add stuff like nosecones or adapters just to make stuff look good, but you'll also notice that I often tweak the gameplay side so that players aren't excessively penalized for these strictly aesthetic aspects.

I really appreciate the gameplay tweaks allowing for things like the nose cones that are painfully obvious and much better looking :)

Maybe as KSP continues additional design options will be added in that draw the artists. Toss in some paint jobs, rover focused play and purposed resource bases might have some pull.

[Ethinolicbob]

I play and enjoy BTSM, however my time playing is limited and when I want to play something BTW always wins. Only when I burn myself out on it, I then load up KSP, try to go through the changelogs finding lots of changes (last time was when the early rockets were turned into bottle rockets)
I think why BTW wins for me is that it is a game where "Single player plus a buddy" works so well, especially when you don't need to be playing at the same time to enjoy each others contributions and company.
Does that make any sense?

[Mason11987]

I really like BTSM but I come back to BTW instead because I find KSP in general too opaque I guess, it's hard to know exactly how things will work without digging into numbers. The mechanics of BTW are all quite simple, and executing them is simple as well, and when they fail it's pretty easy to understand. When I play KSP with BTSM I build a rocket which I think will work and it ends up completely failing sometimes and I get stuck because I'm not sure how to proceed. Then again I've had more practice with BTW but it seems a lot simpler, and easier to do it piecemeal I guess.

[Marasambala]

I'm betting it has to do with first person vs sim. I think a lot of people grew up playing first person shooters so that's the in-game environment they're most comfortable in.

For me it's all about well balanced progression, and I'm equally content with both.

[CryoPhönix]

I simply haven't played KSP/BTSM and I don't really feel like trying it.
My focus is more on multiplayer/fps since that's what most of the people I know play.
If I have to decide between playing a singleplayer game or talking to others while playing the same it's usually the latter.
In general I don't play many singleplayer games anymore. BTW is one of the few remaining I still play and I have lots and lots to do there :P

[Sandrew]

I haven't played BTSM or KSP yet because I can't afford to lose more of my spare time. I'm also not entirely set on KSP being a game that I can keep investing time in, something that I feel is important for my enjoyment of a game.

[Rob]

I'd like to think of myself in the aesthetic builder category?

I've never played KSP/BTSM and only watched a few of Icy's very first videos of it. I don't know if I can explain why I'm not drawn to the game. It does look fun, and it could appeal to my completionist side, but when I watch others play, I don't get the urge to jump in it myself.

I'm also a PvP'er, so that may also be why I'm not drawn to the game, it has no combat.

[VegasGoat]

I had no interest in KSP at first, it just seemed like a rocket sandbox with no real gameplay. When I saw the BTSM mod then I thought it might be something I could get into as I could trust there to be a good gameplay experience. I watched a few IcyNewYear videos and it seemed like fun. I still haven't actually bought it yet, since I can't stop playing BTW and Payday 2. I'll have to burn out on those games first.

The other thing is that Steam has made me cheap. I probably won't buy KSP until it goes on sale for 50% or more.

[agentwiggles]

Disclaimer: I haven't played KSP much, and I know very little about it, and BTSM.

But for me, there's just something different about Minecraft. I feel more personally involved in my world. One of the things that has always kept me coming back to MC is the satisfaction of looking at your buildings and knowing that you personally clawed each and every block out of the earth itself, and laid each one where it needed to be. BTW capitalizes on that feeling with the addition of automation, so that your builds do more than look cool - they produce the materials for the next project, the next big thing.

I could write a book about all the things i like about BTW, but I think it all comes back to the same basic idea. Where vMC fails, in my opinion, is that they give you this big sandbox, and the power to build and modify the environment, and then do almost nothing to encourage you to do that. There's no strategy, there's no danger, and resources are acquired too easily, so there's nothing that rewards building as opposed to just wandering around. BTW, on the other hand, incentivizes building, big projects, and automation, and cultivation and modification of the world.

I think there are multiple reasons that I haven't decided to dive into KSP. Maybe the main one for me is that I would have to learn a ton of game specific information in order to be able to play it. I'm lucky with BTW in that I got in early, so the complexity ramped up progressively with time as I played, but I imagine I would feel similarly overwhelmed if I was to start BTW with no knowledge today. Thing is, Minecraft/BTW have always been games I play to unwind, and to disengage from reality. And since I'm still a student, and trying to balance that with working as a programmer full time and the baby I'm having in about 2 weeks, I just don't have the willpower or time to dedicate to picking up a bunch of game specific knowledge. This is the same problem that has kept me away from Civ and certain other games known for being complicated.

KSP looks very interesting, and the fact that you (FC) have a mod out for it definitely cranks up the appeal. But it just doesn't appeal to me the way that BTW does. I don't really have anything more concrete than that, and I'm sure that I'd like it, and I'm also sure that one day I'll play it. But not... right now.

Also, I definitely agree with some of the other opinions in the thread.

I think why BTW wins for me is that it is a game where "Single player plus a buddy" works so well, especially when you don't need to be playing at the same time to enjoy each others contributions and company.

My brother and I play on the same server. We don't necessarily play together (though we sometimes do). Minecraft lends itself to that style of play.

... I find KSP in general too opaque I guess, it's hard to know exactly how things will work without digging into numbers. The mechanics of BTW are all quite simple, and executing them is simple as well, and when they fail it's pretty easy to understand.

My KSP experience is limited, but this lines up with my experience. I found it really difficult to get started in the game.

Think I'm rambling at this point, so I'll wrap this up. For whatever reason, KSP doesn't really appeal to me the same way that BTW does. Can't really say exactly why, but there you have it.

[Sarudak]

I have played both and while I definitely enjoyed BTSM it does not compare in my mind to BTW. I think it's more enlightening to focus on what makes BTW so amazing and engrossing vs what makes BTSM not as much. BTSM is fun. It takes a sandbox game with great potential and turns it into a great puzzle game.

BTW is so much more than that. Who among us has not wanted to be steve? When left alone in an empty world faced with undead horrors and no resources he doesn't break down and cry. Instead he/you immediately rends the resources you needs from the land around him you break, you build, you craft. Step by step you claw your way towards a better life with only your two hands and your mind to guide you.

Each step forward is exquisite and is marked by something permanent: a more spacious cave, a road, a farm and chicken house, a windmill. The reminders of how far you have come are always there. And the setbacks are real and painful, a constant reminder that you were not handed this progress, you earned it. When a creeper blows up your new machine or a zombie eats all your cows or you die and are again lost in an uncaring wilderness you must pick up the pieces and move on. More importantly you know who's fault it was. It was yours and you can, must build it better next time or be more prepared more alert.

BTW is so powerful because it's so personal. It is a metaphor for life. The one we all want to live where we control our own destiny and we can always fulfill our dreams with enough hard work and careful thought. A world where the disasters that befall us are ones we can overcome not an uncaring world slapping us down.

BTW is possibly the greatest power fantasy ever created. How can you compare a space agency simulator to that?

[Gilberreke]

KSP is a pretty cool game, Minecraft is one of my all-time favorites. That's the difference to me. So while I tried out BTSM for a while, I haven't felt compelled to do more than a cursory play-through, until it gets hard, then I end up losing interest.

I tried out KSP with BTSM installed for my first time playing KSP. A while back, I tried vanilla KSP and didn't even find it fun for a short gaming session. Maybe the core game just isn't my thing.

[DaveYanakov]

I love the hell out of BTSM but I seem to be one of those rare birds that was always fascinated by the space program despite being born into a generation that had lost the dream in general. I'm wondering if that is a lot of what carries over to the divide. Looking to explore and push the boundaries ever outward compared to those who look at making the most out of what the world we live on has to offer

[Sarudak]

If I were to be a little more concrete about it KSP lacks permanence. The 'revert to launchpad' and quick save and quick load really drive home how little consequence there are to my actions. Each mission feels very discrete. Not much like I'm progressing as part of a larger construct which is important to me as a player. To be fair I haven't played BTSM in some time and haven't seen any potentially good changes brought about by the addition of a funding model and missions.

[DaveYanakov]

You can quicksave?! I've just been doing entire missions by trial and error til I got it right

[FlowerChild]

If I were to be a little more concrete about it KSP lacks permanence. The 'revert to launchpad' and quick save and quick load really drive home how little consequence there are to my actions. Each mission feels very discrete. Not much like I'm progressing as part of a larger construct which is important to me as a player.

Yeah, I mentioned wondering whether lack of permanence was an aspect of this above. I think there may be something to that.

I do object to calling KSP a "puzzle game" though. I can see what you're getting at there in that obviously it has much tighter design constraints than something like Minecraft/BTW, but I think that's way too narrow a definition for what that game is, and it bears very little resemblance to a classic puzzle game, or anything that tends to typify that genre.

It's basically defining its own genre much like Minecraft did, and while it does have tighter design constraints, there's also a lot of room for creativity in it. However, I think that whereas BTW tends to back-load the problem solving elements in terms of automation, BTSM tends to front-load it in that your design constraints are extremely tight at start, and then open up as you progress.

You can quicksave?! I've just been doing entire missions by trial and error til I got it right

Ug, man, I can't believe you've been playing without that. Given the buginess of KSP in its current state, playing without regular quicksaves is a recipe for insanity :)

[logorouge]

I actually had KSP in my wishlist for a while, but eventually took it off. I like the progression aspect of it (looking at BTSM), but I don't have much interest in the theme and the lack of permanence is certainly another important factor for me. I think a KSP player should be more excited about the idea of launching a rocket in space than I currently am, if that makes sense.

[FlowerChild]

I actually had KSP in my wishlist for a while, but eventually took it off. I like the progression aspect of it (looking at BTSM), but I don't have much interest in the theme and the lack of permanence is certainly another important factor for me. I think a KSP player should be more excited about the idea of launching a rocket in space than I currently am, if that makes sense.

Yup, absolutely. Much like Dave mentioned above, I think my fetish for space exploration gives me a heavy bias towards games involving it, so much so that I don't immediately clue into the fact that it doesn't share the same appeal for everyone else :)

Heck, awhile back I spent a couple of days playing an open source version of Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space despite that game being around 20 years old, and for pretty much as far back as I can remember I snatched up pretty much any title involving hard sci-fi or quasi-realistic space flight. I even played Lunar Flight through for a 2nd time recently just because I can get so into flying a fairly hardcore lunar lander around that the hours just fly by while I'm doing so.

And thematic elements aside, I am coming to realize it's a very different beast than BTW. No real survival elements. No real permanence. Much more technical gameplay and much steeper learning curve that are likely acting as a barrier to entry.

I can very naturally hop back and forth from one to the other and in many ways they feel like an extension of the same design concepts that I am expressing, but I think that is particular to myself as a player, and shared with a few others here, but is not really a common thing amongst all BTW players.

[Equitis1024]

I bought KSP when you released BTSM, and have since played it quite a bit (I got as far as finishing tech 8 and doing a manned Gilly landing in pre-contract BTSM). The learning curve was steep, but BTSM was actually very good for a new player like me. I tried learning through stock initially, but was overwhelmed by all the options and all the things I had to pay attention to. By throttling the player's capabilities at the beginning you made it a lot easier for a newcomer to digest. So yeah, BTSM is fantastic, but it hasn't captured me as much as BTW has, and the permanence of creations is the biggest difference for me. I had a ton of fun designing and assembling cool ships for large missions, but now there's nothing left of them but screenshots. Or even in the few cases where there is still a landed probe or an orbiting satellite, there's no reason for me to revisit them.

That being said, the endgame of BTSM is therefore very enticing to me. I love the idea of having a fleet of reusable ships stationed around the solar system, using them to ferry cargo around to build bases on and above celestial objects. I really want it to make sense for me to do things like build a refueling base on Minmus or the Mun, shuttling propellant up to an orbital station, and having interplanetary vessels restock there in order to save 700dv on a trip out of Kerbin's SOI. And similar setups at Duna and elsewhere, etc. Though that sort of stuff is all possible in BTSM, the incentives weren't quite there yet for me. I think part of it was just that Tech9 was the end of the game, so why put in the effort if the fun was going to end immediately afterwards? A tech10 'you've beaten the game' node might be enough to overcome that reluctance for me though. Or some totally different challenge like the doomsday clock idea you've mentioned before.

Anyway, that's all just me saying that BTSM is great, but I love the way BTW encourages me make an enormous impact on the game world, and that's way cooler than planting a bunch of flags.

I am definitely excited to give BTSM another run once you've 'completed' it though.

[DaveYanakov]

For the non-permanence argument, have any of you seen seen the persistent space station networks being built?