Ryder

I think that if the landing is off course such that it misses the landing zone... then the mission says the craft is lost and the mission is a failure... so yes, dealing with a bad approach seems very possible. A little creative thinking goes a long way. The method KSP uses is to support all flight modes, and then add realism. I think it is a mistake to add realism to limited flight modes... it only means that development is unbalanced... a refined roving mode... but a very limited landing mode. It makes for an uneven experience. What I learned from KSP surprised me. I discovered that the Kerbal characters were vital to the enjoyment of the game, and I have no doubt that this is what is causing KSP to be popular. As NASA learned, the hardware needs to become a character. The rovers need to become that character, and have names. I also learned that the simulation does not have to be accurate, but it does need to seem realistic in what it does. Perception is slightly more important than accuracy in this case. Mass appeal for TOM will probably require that the simulation become a bit more of a toy. Not a lot... but a little. It needs a friendly face. It needs to be forgiving where it is now frustrating. For example, the wheels do need to stay on... unless very seriously bumped in a fall. We don't need the instruments breaking on the rocks in order to create false challenge where it is not enjoyable to have it. Designing a mission then seeing if your design works, is a huge part of what makes KSP worth coming back to. I grew tired of TOM after one evening. I have been returning to KSP again and again. Creativity is the key. Letting users be creative in how they design their landing in all of the various ways would be the best and most exciting challenge I can think of. This is important. The landing could be separated into two phases... one is the entry phase that is rather generic with respect to actual navigation to the landing site... once through this phase... the actual landing site can then be placed beneath the lander for the final few thousand meters... previously obscured by dust or somesuch. I really do hope that the developers realize the potential and promise of designing the landing configuration and sequencing.

I think that everyone is missing something here... Cut Scenes? One of the big reasons that Kerbal Space Program is so popular... massively so, is that users get to solve the problems of getting their hardware to it's destination in one piece. To my mind... the science is the smallest possible piece of interest in such a game as TOM. The REAL challenge, and where I'm certain that most people will get the most enjoyment, is solving the problem of landing. This is the one true challenge that a game like TOM might offer... it's dynamic, it's exciting, and it allows for creativity. The science missions simply don't have any of that... What heat shield do you select? What parachute? When do you deploy it? Did you bring enough fuel? Did you navigate properly to hit your intended landing site? Did you enter too steeply... too shallow? These questions and these challenges deserve far, far more than a cutscene, and should probably represent the core challenges of TOM... landing and then doing science would be icing on the cake. A cutscene for take off and the journey to Mars... sure... that sounds great, but the player should be taking charge while in orbit. Our personal experience with the real Mars rover landings was that the landings them selves were far and away the most exciting part of the entire mission... and the first photo back was the real prize. By not having this part of the mission available, TOM is less than it could be, and is missing the important bits that KSP has that make it such a success. R