Sign in to follow this  
r4pt0r

GameInformer Finally reviewed KSP

Recommended Posts

The importance of graphics and sound is a matter of opinion and varies from player to player. Some of us still play NetHack and Dwarf Fortress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwarf Fortress has a more consistent art style than KSP. Imagine being a new player, booting the game into career mode and taking a first look at the space center. It is bleak - to put it diplomatically. Especially if you compare the models to bac9s work.

Currently KSP is a melange of models and styles accrued over several years - and some of them are badly showing their age (ask NovaSilisco about his 2.5m Tank textures...).

But if I were in squad's position I'd not lift a single finger. For example: The tiling of the grass texture (in pretty much the sole modelled out scene of the game) was brought up three years ago. Even back then there were people on these forums who defended it, deeming it the "artists choice".

Objectively seen KSP is as much a technical disaster as a gameplay pearl. The 85/100 reflects that.

Edited by jfx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objectively seen KSP is as much a technical disaster as a gameplay pearl. The 85/100 reflects that.

I'd say a 85 is a pretty darn good score for a technical disaster / gameplay pearl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I would put my money on the first or second update to include quite a bit of polish ... such as a new skybox, planet textures and clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I would put my money on the first or second update to include quite a bit of polish ... such as a new skybox, planet textures and clouds.

They haven't hinted at adding any of those things, despite them being badly needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

yeah but when you compare Stock ksp and ksp with eve, Stock ksp looks like my grandma at 5am. And it was there just nobody implemented it for 1.0.

better make changes to atmo so we cant get to eve anymore without 100t of heatshields. and call it necessary for playability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I would put my money on the first or second update to include quite a bit of polish ... such as a new skybox, planet textures and clouds.

As robot pointed out there is zero indication of this happening.

Besides, I suspect that there is a second reason for KSPs underwhelming visuals (and up to a point - audio). As we know every asset in the game is loaded during the start of the game, resulting in roughly 2gb memory usage once you get to the space center scene. The game is advertised with 3gb RAM as minimal requirement. Now image better models, assets, maybe even cities or a skybox that actually features stars instead of blotches.

Or in short: Imagine stock KSP with visuals you know from mods like b9 or the eve skyboxes - whatever your favorites are. The asset loading approach originally intended to handle a wonky game of "launch the rocket" just won't handle requirements of this scope. There's the reason the game even now defaults to /2 texture resolution after you install it.

Its "ok" to tell modders/players to go to linux because the (modded) game is too fat to fit inside 32bit adress space, but you can't tell this to a customer who just paid 40€ for the base game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Textures are .dds now to reduce their footprint and loading times, and skyboxes can be procedural, improving the look and saving space.

We'll see what 1.1 and 1.2 bring :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They haven't hinted at adding any of those things, despite them being badly needed.

There hasn't been any official statement on the matter, but it is a logical progression ... they have slowly been improving all parts of the game and it would be next logical step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I think that a new rating for replayability is needed...

This is a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the replayability rating for "I bought the game a year ago and since then it's been the only game I play"? :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The importance of graphics and sound is a matter of opinion and varies from player to player. Some of us still play NetHack and Dwarf Fortress.

What do you mean still play? Dwarf Fortress is a modern game requiring a modern machine.

I don't get the Graphics arguments, it's almost like people are trying to say the games they bought a year ago aren't the slightest bit of fun because the graphics are out of date. When your entire budget is spent on graphics, with your story being ripped off someone else's rip off; and your gameplay is little more than "push button and people die", graphics are used as a means of distinguishing yourself... but it doesn't change the horrible underlying gameplay / story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or in short: Imagine stock KSP with visuals you know from games like GTA V.

Now ask yourself why doesn't GTA V require 32 GB or RAM as a minimum. I'm not a software developer, I don't know why KSP requires so much ram for textures nor why it crashes from textures if heavily modded. But nearly every game released since KSP entered development has more complex, heavier, graphics, and CTDs because of ram usage aren't a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To everyone here saying graphics are not important in games: STOP. That's going down the road of the Minecraft community, and we don't want that. Graphics are important in gaming, as explained by the existence of things like the Scatterer mod, EVE, Astronomer's Visual pack, and many other graphics packs. Sure, gameplay is also a serious aspect of a game, but most people would rather play a beautiful game than a text-based game that are identical gameplay-wise.

Edited by mythbusters844
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love graphics too, but my engine is poor. I can run stock KSP smoothly at default settings and I'm happy of that, but adding even low resolution EVE start to lag...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the replayability rating for "I bought the game a year ago and since then it's been the only game I play"? :D

People keep talking about things like: "Quarter-life 7" or "Towns: rooftops" or "GCV 10" I don't know what this is!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What have you done to the GameInformer? Was the review that bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what did the review say? I was never able to open it..something about internal error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had trouble reaching the page the day I posted this, and again now. all the gameinformer site is down again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerbal Space Program

It’s Not Easy Being Green

Review

by Daniel Tack on May 04, 2015 at 03:15 PM

GI Rating: 8.5 / 10

Concept: Construct incredible creations and explore the depths of outer space

Graphics: Not exceptional, but nice considering how much customization is available to the player

Sound: Not noteworthy, but at least you’ll hear some big explosions

Playability: Despite having a lengthy tutorial, you’ll probably have to seek out additional learning tools if you want to do more than have sandbox fun strapping fuel tanks and pieces to random rockets. That said, for those that just want to do that – that segment alone is pretty fun.

Entertainment: KSP provides fun on different levels of engagement, from tinkering with unlimited funds in the sandbox to create cool or outlandish ships to tackling the dizzyingly difficult career mode.

Replay: High

A look of playful wonder is in your little Kerbal’s eyes as you count down to the launch of your new spaceship. Does this look of awe change as the struts on your scaffolding break under the weight of 20 perilously placed fuel tanks and your half-cocked creation falls on the launch pad? Does it change when you blow everything in a last-ditch attempt to save the mission from failure, sending the ship rocketing off at a dangerous angle? No, Kerbals are soldiers to the end, staying positive even as you send them crashing at high speed into nearby lakes. Don’t worry – in another few minutes you have a new crew and a better rocket with even more absurd part placement! That’s some of the fun of Kerbal Space Program – unparalleled experimentation with what amounts to a consequence-free box of spaceship Lego pieces.

When you sit down to play a game of Kerbal Space Program, you have two main choices: kicking around in a sandbox-style, anything-goes, rocket-creation program, or heading into the far more advanced career mode. Sandbox mode is thoroughly enjoyable for players of all skill levels; you have a wide selection of spaceship parts you can put together any way you like. Then you shoot your craft into orbit, or watch something go horribly wrong as your cute Kerbals explode or are sent spinning uncontrollably into the distant scenery.

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. Players must juggle many facets of the program, including R&D, recruitment, orbital mechanics, exploring planets, and mining resources. Without the consequence-free experimentation of the sandbox, this complexity can be daunting, and makes advanced maneuvers inaccessible despite a long tutorial. The tutorial has the best intentions, but explaining some of the concepts involved in procedures such as achieving orbit are simply difficult to teach. The tough-to-navigate UI and unintuitive controls don’t make the process any easier.

Kerbal Space Program provides something for everyone: players who will never see a return voyage from “the Mun,†and those who delve into special resource gathering, landing, docking, and crew-out-of-ship activities. If you are a creative type who loves to fool around with physics, you’ll probably love Kerbal Space Program. If you’re just looking to create unbelievable, ridiculous rockets with an impractical number of fuel pods, you can still have plenty of fun. Whatever your level of engagement, you can enjoy shooting these little green Smurfs into space – or into the nearby scenery.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this