"Gamestar" reviews KSP

[Monger]

Gamestar is a german computer game magazine, and as it seems the biggest one in Europe (see here).

So, Gamestar finally reviewed KSP here, and gave it 87%.

Because I guess only a very small fraction of all forum members here can read this ^^, I'll translate the conclusion as best as I can:

Jonas Gössling: Learning and fun is a combination where every school child immediately bursts into laughing. But why actually? Kerbal Space Program demonstrates that this is not just wishful thinking like no other game. I am not just playing an astronaut, I am being an astronaut. I learn details about space travel and physics in space. And on the side I am having a blast. At least if you master the start, because this simulation is not easy. I would have preferred if I had some guidance at the beginning.

But once I am in it, there is very little to criticise. I am tinkering in sandbox mode on my dream rocket, in career mode I am falling into a spiral of addiction. If you like, you can invest hundreds of hours into this game without getting bored. This makes it easy for me to get over the weak technology, the redundant science mode and the difficult start. Whoever has just a spark of interest into space travel should buy this. Kerbal Space Program is complex, but unique.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, because I got still time, I'll add the details to the 87%:

Presentation: (3/5)

+ sweet comic look

+ Funny looking astronauts

+ Fitting soundtrack

- outdated technology

- no voice output

Game Design: (4/5)

+ motivating career mode

+ quite realistic physics engine makes construction and flight demanding

+ educational

+ versatile tasks

- lame science mode

Balance: (3/5)

+ different colors for orientation in space

+ flight guidance

+ nine tutorials

- not everything is getting explained

- difficult start

Story/Ambience: (3/5)

+ coherent depiction of space

+ slapstick humor

+ time acceleration

- lifeless planets and buildings

- no one else in the universe but us

Scope: (5/5)

+ enormous solar system

+ dozens of hours of game time

+ tool box with over 200 parts

+ three modes with six scenarios

+ supplies through mod support

[katateochi]

Some of those negatives are things I regard as positives!

- no voice output. Good, I just like to put some music on and build or space without anything talking to/at me. (even just Gene annoys me sometimes!)

- not everything is explained. For me KSP is all about figuring stuff out, and were I can't figure it out, there's all of you guys to talk to and ask. (I think the community is a very important part of the game, that most reviews will probably miss and sadly some players won't ever know)

- difficult start. Well I can't really say what it's like starting now, but I remember when I first started it took me several days (maybe even a week) before landing on Mun....and that's what hooked me. Then I discovered the forum, realized my approach was all wrong and I still had way way more to learn.

- no one else in the universe but us. I like that, it really gives you a sense of being the pioneers. You're the first ones out there....well, apart from some of the anomalies, but that just leaves it up to you to invent a backstory as to why those things are there. If there were aliens then that would just explain the anomalies and doesn't leave anything to the imagination.

+ dozens of hours of game time. !!?! Biggest. Understatement. Ever. (I really don't know how much game time I've put in, but I do know that it would be measured in months, not hours!)

[Monger]

Some of those negatives are things I regard as positives!

...

- not everything is explained. For me KSP is all about figuring stuff out, and were I can't figure it out, there's all of you guys to talk to and ask.

In this case they meant basic stuff, like: you can right click various parts to collect science, you can drag & drop stages in the stage configurator, even while flying...

The tutorials only explain a fraction of that, and you actually need this kind of knowledge quite at the start of career mode.

I think a game should not spoiler any solutions, but all UI actions should be public somehow. At least hitting F1 should give you a help overlay, or something like that.

For many beginners, who did not follow every single step of game development, this is a serious issue.

- difficult start. Well I can't really say what it's like starting now, but I remember when I first started it took me several days (maybe even a week) before landing on Mun....and that's what hooked me.

I have played KSP for almost four years now, and started countless games from scratch. I think, starting the game, especially in career mode, probably never was that hard as it is today.

You need to collect a lot of science until you can get into orbit. This is a much bigger step today than it was before 1.0. This is actually not so much an issue of engine power, but rather of flight stability, which is actually a few steps up the research tree.

Before that, you could also easily collect science and money via flight contracts. However, many contracts contain targets above 19000m, which is actually a real challenge to accomplish with just a simple jet engine.

So, as it is now, you will spend a lot time at Kerbin before even thinking about space. Which is perfectly fine, but KSP is indeed quite a difficult game. A few clues what do next wouldn't have hurt.

So I think the criticism is valid. KSP could be even a better game with a little polishing. So let's see what SQUAD will accomplish next.

[Wanderfound]

You need to collect a lot of science until you can get into orbit. This is a much bigger step today than it was before 1.0. This is actually not so much an issue of engine power, but rather of flight stability, which is actually a few steps up the research tree.

Before that, you could also easily collect science and money via flight contracts. However, many contracts contain targets above 19000m, which is actually a real challenge to accomplish with just a simple jet engine.

While I don't disagree with your overall point, my nitpicky side is compelled to point out that it's entirely doable to hit orbit with your second or third launch in career mode; once you have any sort of LFO engine and tank, you're good to go. And as for the altitude ceiling of basic jet aircraft...

But yes, some smoothing of the initial learning gradient in regards to the interface wouldn't hurt.

[Monger]

While I don't disagree with your overall point, my nitpicky side is compelled to point out that it's entirely doable to hit orbit with your second or third launch in career mode

Really? With these tiny tanks and a part limit of 30? Can you give an example?

[Wanderfound]

Really? With these tiny tanks and a part limit of 30? Can you give an example?

My current career went "launch 1: altitude records; launch 2: suborbital; launch 3: orbit". I'll go back and see if I can throw together a low-tech demonstrator. You do have to stack quite a lot of those dinky little starter tanks.

[federicoaa]

should be dozens of hundreds of hours

I'm not a heavy player but still logged almost 400 hours in steam

[Wanderfound]

Here y'go:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Craft file at https://www.dropbox.com/s/lk4ft3msi0xcwfc/Loteknika.craft?dl=0

[One Wheeled Panda]

Presentation:

- outdated technology

Game Design:

- lame science mode

Scope:

+ three modes with six scenarios

Ridiculous.

Simple looks could be a valid point (to some) - but outdated technology? What does that even mean?

Also listing science mode as a positive and a negative strikes me as a litte odd. Putting lame things in is something good for the scope of the game?

[Aerindel]

outdated technology? What does that even mean?

Well, must of the parts are based on 1960-1980's technology. Thats how I took it at least.

[Col_Jessep]

outdated technology? What does that even mean?

They are referring to the graphics. How the water looks, how some ground textures have a visible repeat pattern, lighting, no clouds... Basically, it doesn't look on par with the latest Battlefield/CoD tech.

Although, some clouds and stuff would be really nice to have, Squad! <3

[Cebi]

Outdated technology is refering to game engine and lack of polish. That is at least how i understand it. If you look at german games you will see that they have huge amount of detail.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Cebi

[One Wheeled Panda]

I was hinting at the fact, that missing graphical polish and effects are (mostly) not a matter of technology used. I do understand what the author wanted to say though.

Well, must of the parts are based on 1960-1980's technology. Thats how I took it at least.

Thanks, that made me laugh!

[RainDreamer]

I thought they mean the game could have upgraded to the newer unity engine. Of course, we know that they didn't have time for that.

[KerikBalm]

- lifeless planets and buildings

- no one else in the universe but us

#1) Isn't that the way it seems in our solar system?

The most dynamic looking things on worlds in the solar system, seem to be:

ancient riverbeds/channels/water features on Mars

Geysers/volcanoes

Liquid on Titan

In KSP, we have duna with what seem to be ancient river channels

We have laythe with actual water

We have laythe with an oxygen atmosphere (highly suggestive of some form of life!)

He have liquid on Eve and laythe (FWIW, I would love to see a tiny amount of liquid on Duna... with atmospheric pressures above 15%... liquid water could easily exist)

#2) Easter eggs:

[spoilers coming]

UFO near the north Pole

UFO on the Mun

Neil Armstrong Memorial on the Mun (Who are these whoo-maans?? )

Monoliths in various places (RIP magic boulder)

The face on Duna

A partially buried rover on Duna

The Duna SSTV signal (is it still there?)

A stonehength on Val

A dead alien on Bop, apparently a Kraken

The worlds are sparse... but there is stuff out there!

Also: Mun arches are nice and strange geological features.

[Wanderfound]

(snip eggs)

Forgot about the pyramids, or haven't found 'em yet?

Go west, young man...

[Monger]

Ridiculous.

Simple looks could be a valid point (to some) - but outdated technology? What does that even mean?

Also listing science mode as a positive and a negative strikes me as a litte odd. Putting lame things in is something good for the scope of the game?

To be fair: even though they list these points as minus, they have little impact to the final score. 87% is an excellent score. Usually, only a few games reach or surpass 90% each year in Gamestar. GTA 5 for example scores 92%. I don't think Gamestar has ever given a score in their history which was above 95% (unlike many other magazines).

[One Wheeled Panda]

RainDreamer: Well, the 64-bit problems of Unity 4 would actually be a technical point - but that doesn't come up in the whole review.

Reading through the article again I also noticed that all they had to say about modding and the community is: They exist, they're commendable, there's buttons in the menu that'll take you there. Barely using more words than I just did.

Monger: I know. I just don't see the point in forcing yourself to find something to list as a negative (that's how it feels to me) and then even mislabeling it.

Edited May 7, 2015 by One Wheeled Panda

[Octa]

Ridiculous.

Simple looks could be a valid point (to some) - but outdated technology? What does that even mean?

Also listing science mode as a positive and a negative strikes me as a litte odd. Putting lame things in is something good for the scope of the game?

Step back, 87% is a very, very good rating, gamestar sets the mark for a new genre reference or must-have title for everyone at 90%. KSP certainly lacks a few things here and there to be a reference game. >90 are games like Half life, portal, splinter cell, warcraft, skyrim, deponia or kotor.

In the video-review of gamestar, the tester says that science mode sits between the chairs of sandbox and career. Sounds about right. After the tech tree is unlocked, it's sandbox with experiments. There could be more to it to justify it as a third game mode.