GameInformer Finally reviewed KSP

[r4pt0r]

I've read GameInformer for over a decade now, so I trust them most and I've been awaiting their review.

Well the score is in.

See for yourself, I think that's a fair score, with good points made. 1.0 added quite alot of features, and now graphics and sound are the games weakest points.

[EtherDragon]

Yep, I definitely think that's a fair assessment, as I scored it about the same.

[Dodgey]

Considering the amount of time that one can spend on KSP I think that a new rating for replayability is needed, personally I don't putt much weight on graphics and sound design so I don't really care about those but apart from that I think that it is alright, not as indepth as PcGamer though which is disappointing.

[Motokid600]

Yea Squad needs to really step up their graphics and sound game. Because KSP is not very presentable for me. For instance if im introducing KSP to a friend for the first time im reluctant to show him/her the stock game. Because it looks so lack luster.

And rockets need to sounds like rockets I cant believe that's not been fixed for 1.0. Its ridiculous they sound like my mothers hair dryer.

When I have friends over ill crank the volume on those nice KW boosters with that awesome sound and shake the pictures off my walls. Its an awesome thing. And FASA's F1 sound with the turbo pump kicking in. My god ill legit scare people with that.

Stock sounds are straight up embarrassing.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Motokid600

[Dizzle]

Pretty fair review, but I hate the idea of scoring things by a number. You can't really express an opinion numerically.

[theend3r]

Graphics are fine as they are (except the lack of clouds or even weather) and won't be getting better anytime soon, sounds could be a bit better but there are far more pressing issues. Afaik it's been three years since any new celestial bodies were added, then the already mentioned weather system and axial tilts. Those should be the main priorities now along with bug squashing, optimizing and balancing.

[sal_vager]

Agreed, numbers don't really tell you much, and graphics aren't anything like as important anymore, so many indie games are far from graphical powerhouses and they don't need to be

[Stealth2668]

Yea Squad needs to really step up their graphics and sound game. Because KSP is not very presentable for me. For instance if im introducing KSP to a friend for the first time im reluctant to show him/her the stock game. Because it looks so lack luster.

And rockets need to sounds like rockets I cant believe that's not been fixed for 1.0. Its ridiculous they sound like my mothers hair dryer.

When I have friends over ill crank the volume on those nice KW boosters with that awesome sound and shake the pictures off my walls. Its an awesome thing. And FASA's F1 sound with the turbo pump kicking in. My god ill legit scare people with that.

Stock sounds are straight up embarrassing.

Pretty much this.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, numbers don't really tell you much, and graphics aren't anything like as important anymore, so many indie games are far from graphical powerhouses and they don't need to be

Meh, this comment gets a 5/10

[Robotengineer]

Better than the PCGamer review IMO, I agree with most of the review.

Side note: Every review I've read hasn't even mentioned mods or the modding community, do reviewers tend not to mention mods?

[sal_vager]

Not in my experience no, mods aren't the game under review.

[r4pt0r]

generally reviews are just the stock game on its merits alone.

E: ninja'ed again. There is only one case of a reviewer mentioning mods that i know of, and that was for minecraft: "The eight-bit style visuals are primitive but charming. I recommend finding a texture pack mod that’s to your liking, though"

[klgraham1013]

Pretty fair review, but I hate the idea of scoring things by a number. You can't really express an opinion numerically.

Typically reviews also come with an essay in which the reviewer elaborates on their thoughts about the product.

[Motokid600]

A games community should come into consideration imo. This is a 10/10 community here easily and is KSP's strong point imo. 20+ years of playing video games and being involved in several communities. This is the best one in my experience.

And it'd be nice if the game was praised for such.

[FlowerChild]

See for yourself, I think that's a fair score, with good points made. 1.0 added quite alot of features, and now graphics and sound are the games weakest points.

It's an interesting review, BUT this bit:

Career mode is on the opposite end of the spectrum, where the truly hardcore have their work cut out for them. The content here is highly challenging, fare fit for an astrophysicist with some resource management skills.

Seriously? Did this guy even try it?

Edited May 4, 2015 by FlowerChild

[basic.syntax]

Last paragraph of PC Gamer review:

Kerbal Space Program is a brilliant game for a lot of reasons. It's brilliant because of the robust simulation, because of the satisfying design tools, because of the variety and options, and because of the spectacular community that has generated hundreds of mods, guides and videos designed to help you achieve whatever you want to do.

[Gerandar]

Graphics are second to gameplay theres no reason to focus on making the game pretty when theres tons of bugs to squash. seriously the game looks great for the art style they picked

[AbacusWizard]

I think the graphics are fantastic. I've never seen a more realistic depiction of a Kerbal.

[Stealth2668]

A games community should come into consideration imo. This is a 10/10 community here easily and is KSP's strong point imo. 20+ years of playing video games and being involved in several communities. This is the best one in my experience.

And it'd be nice if the game was praised for such.

What does the community have to do with the game? It should definitely not be considered.

[r4pt0r]

What does the community have to do with the game? It should definitely not be considered.

Yeah I tend to agree with that. There are great games that have crappy communities, that is not a mark against the game at all.

As for graphics, finished games have polish. The smoke effect from the launch pad and the dust effects from landing with rockets is a step in the right direction, but mods like Proot's Renaissance Compilation show there is a way to go yet.

Audio is also lacking, both from the view of noises and sounds like in the chatterer mod, and the games soundtrack itself. The music is rather stale everywhere you go. I await the day UpsilonAerospace is done with his music work, individual songs for each body would be superb.

Edited May 5, 2015 by r4pt0r

[Dizzle]

Typically reviews also come with an essay in which the reviewer elaborates on their thoughts about the product.

Thus making the number even more meaningless than it already was.

[Alshain]

Not in my experience no, mods aren't the game under review.

But being easily moddable IS the game under review.

[r_rolo1]

Hum, someone should say to the reviewers that the game has three modes , Sandbox, Career and Science Haven't seen one mentioning Science mode so far

That said, I think this is a fair review, and atleast it doesn't show that reviewer doesn't pick the game in it's hands for two years, like the PCGamer one

[Deflinek]

It's an interesting review, BUT this bit:

Career mode is on the opposite end of the spectrum, where the truly hardcore have their work cut out for them. The content here is highly challenging, fare fit for an astrophysicist with some resource management skills.

Seriously? Did this guy even try it?

Actually I think he did I bought this game few days ago, complete 2 first tutorials (launch and going to orbit) and jumped to career. Well... it IS hard to build a rocket capable to reach 70k with when you can buy only one new tech and you don't have much idea of what is "better" or "easier".

So... challenging? Absolutely! Is it bad? Absolutely not!

[spinomonkey]

Sound is one area that Squad really needs to bring up to speed- from a technical standpoint it's probably one of the easier ones to tackle too, as most of the work is outside the game code.

[ddenis]

Graphics are second to gameplay theres no reason to focus on making the game pretty when theres tons of bugs to squash. seriously the game looks great for the art style they picked

Graphics and sounds are essential to the atmosphere of the game. Atmosphere of the game, it's overall filling as important as gameplay is.

Diving into clouds is much more pleasant than into an empty sky.