Media feedback, reviews on KSP 1.0

[Mr Shifty]

Actually, the game end of KSP is kinda weak (goals, progression, story, etc). The ... experience though, is extremely strong. Amazingly so. And that's what's carrying the day for KSP, every time.

This is a meaningless distinction. The experience is the game is the experience. The Tatsu roller-coaster at Magic Mountain is a spectacular thrill even if I'd prefer that the rails were painted green.

That and inflated review scores.

Irrelevant: the single scored review of KSP has almost nothing to do with its popularity.

[klgraham1013]

Guys can we keep this about the reviews themselves and less about the state of video game journalism?

I think they go hand in hand, honestly.

How would you disagree with that assessment? There some bugs and room for improvement, but that is the case with anything and everything. What makes a game good? At it's core, I think KSP delivers a far better gaming experience than 99% of games released in the last 20 years.

Actually, the game end of KSP is kinda weak (goals, progression, story, etc). The ... experience though, is extremely strong. Amazingly so. And that's what's carrying the day for KSP, every time.

Basically that. Bugs have nothing to do with it. Career mode is simply no where near masterful game design.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a meaningless distinction. The experience is the game is the experience. The Tatsu roller-coaster at Magic Mountain is a spectacular thrill even if I'd prefer that the rails were painted green.

I disagree. The game experience encompass the whole. This includes tutorials, presentation, modes, UI, mechanics, so on and so forth.

[Renegrade]

This is a meaningless distinction. The experience is the game is the experience. The Tatsu roller-coaster at Magic Mountain is a spectacular thrill even if I'd prefer that the rails were painted green.

No, a game is about goals and progression and such. Accomplishing defined goals, etc. As with all English words (and I imagine this probably happens in other languages), the meaning of 'game' is eroding over time, and it's starting to encompassing things like sandboxes (nothing wrong with sandboxes, just they aren't games), or pretty much any sort of pass-time on the computer. Again, having a variety of different things to do that arent' traditional games isn't bad, just the erosion of the word's meaning is ('game' will eventually mean the same as 'smurf' at this rate).

Star Control II is a game. Final Fantasy X is a movie. Minecraft is a sandbox (even in 'survival'.. lulz survival). GTA5 is a bit of all three.

KSP falls short in the goals and progression stuff - probably because it evolved AS a sandbox (like Minecraft or Space Engineers, which also fall flat on their faces as 'games' while being good sandboxy things).

Career mode is simply no where near masterful game design.

Exactly. It's trying to be, but still needs a lot of work.

[basic.syntax]

Actually, the game end of KSP is kinda weak (goals, progression, story, etc). The ... experience though, is extremely strong. Amazingly so. And that's what's carrying the day for KSP, every time.

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.

You can find problems with every component, but the sum of the parts adds up to an amazing experience.

[Alshain]

I should point out that I just released an amateur review myself! I gave the game an 86 out of 100:

Game Play - SOLID, a solid and consistent experience (18/20)

Controls - EXCELLENT, but can't edit in game (18/20)

Challenge - HIGH, lacks guidance at times (14/20)

Presentation - SIMPLE, but good (16/20)

Unique Elements - ONE OF A KIND (20/20)

TOTAL 86/100!

Video:

Other review sources:

Gamespot User Score 8.5

Good point on not being able to edit the controls from inside the game. You said you didn't use a flight stick. Let me tell you from someone who does, it is incredibly annoying to try and adjust your sensitivity and dead zone when you have to leave the game for every little tweak. Overall I thought the review was fair.

[Temeter]

Career is just a guideline for the gameplay anyway. Could have been an excting parts of it's own, but that would result in a completely different game. 90+% of gameplay is building and flying rockets, as it should be.

[klgraham1013]

You can find problems with every component, but the sum of the parts adds up to an amazing experience.

I know I wasn't quoted in your post. I'd just like to make it clear. I do really like KSP 1.0, but in no way consider it a masterful game experience. Sometimes the internet forgets there are states between 1/10 and 10/10. I just want to make it clear I think it's neither of those numbers.

[Radam]

I still have a feeling were in beta.

[Violent Jeb]

+1 - this is still beta. It's upsetting bc they refuse to listen.

[basic.syntax]

Below the PC Gamer review, scroll down to the comments by Silver Fox - that's great stuff, right there.

[Rath]

This is my review: Best thing after pong.

[sp1989]

I bet they didn't test 1.02. They might not have been so kind.

[NFUN]

Well, I'm glad about the review. Got me my first approved link

[Frybert]

I'll just put this here:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/kerbal-space-program

87

[Yakky]

The Washington Post published a glowing review that calls KSP "a masterpiece". (I didn't even know newspapers published video game reviews... my how times have changed.)

From the article:

“Kerbal Space Program†is a miracle, a game that engenders wonder at its scale and awe for its complexity. It has all of the true grandeur of a masterwork.

Couldn't have said it better myself. We can all nitpick about implementation details, but in the scheme of things, this is an incredible game.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Yakky

[Renegrade]

You can find problems with every component, but the sum of the parts adds up to an amazing experience.

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? It's a spectacular experience and concept, although the game end of it is kinda meh and the quality is rather low.

I know I wasn't quoted in your post. I'd just like to make it clear. I do really like KSP 1.0, but in no way consider it a masterful game experience. Sometimes the internet forgets there are states between 1/10 and 10/10. I just want to make it clear I think it's neither of those numbers.

Truths.

The Washington Post published a glowing review that calls KSP "a masterpiece". (I didn't even know newspapers published video game reviews... my how times have changed.)

From the article:

“Kerbal Space Program†is a miracle, a game that engenders wonder at its scale and awe for its complexity. It has all of the true grandeur of a masterwork.

Looks like the Post got bought by IGN. 12/10 would buy an obsolete media company again - IGN.

Also phrases like "the game’s susceptibility to bugs and its ungainly interfaces" doesn't say "masterpiece" to me. "Excellent new genre" perhaps (although one could strongly argue that it's doing nothing that Elite: Frontier 2 didn't already do like twenty years ago), "great vision", etc.

"Masterpiece" or "masterwork" implies something of outstanding QUALITY. No faults, no flaws. Like a BMW, or a (pre-Chrysler) Jag, or Lexus or something. KSP is more like a Pontiac Fiero with an engine swap. It's got warts and problems, it's a bit of a mess under the hood, doesn't always start on the first attempt, lacks refined suspension..but it's really fun to drive (and the insurance guys won't bill your intestines out).

[basic.syntax]

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? It's a spectacular experience and concept, although the game end of it is kinda meh and the quality is rather low.

My statement was based on Renegrade's words. I put experience in italics, your word effectively captured what I thought.

For the people giving these glowing reviews, it seems any flaws they come across are minor, when compared to the overall picture of what KSP does for them.

"Launchpad exploded on launch, booster crashed into center stack on decouple, I sent Jeb on EVA to get last bit of science and lost grip on ladder, lol, lost Jeb for a bit, but we got back. 10/10 would buy again."

Roger Ebert talked about his review score for "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" ... I remember this, but can't find proof... he said that he gave it four stars (highest score he gives for written reviews) not because it was outstanding in all respects, but because he wanted to encourage studios to support this type of movie again - movies with this kind of vision.

It's like a film that escaped from the imagination directly onto the screen

... then later, he writes

To summarize the plot would spoil the fun, and be pointless, anyway, since the plot exists essentially to inspire silly grins. What needs to be described is the look and technique of the film.

He's admitting that the movie is not excellent in all respects. "Let's talk about this other stuff over here, instead." Four stars.

Back to KSP: Right from the start, the Post reviewer tells readers on what basis he's making the "masterpiece" claim: the headline "A Playful Masterpiece" - he puts the word "masterpiece" in the context of the word "playful."

It's not an outstanding game because of everything, but because it succeeds at creating "anguished expectations of failure and then train its players to figure out which combinations can be used to erase those feelings." That's a very literate review... I'm saving that one for posterity

It's got warts and problems, it's a bit of a mess under the hood, doesn't always start on the first attempt, lacks refined suspension..but it's really fun to drive (and the insurance guys won't bill your intestines out).

I love this car

[r4pt0r]

9/10 from gamespot, only marked down for "Occasional glitches", and "Rudimentary visuals and sound"

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/kerbal-space-program-review/1900-6416128/

[Frostiken]

I'm seriously shocked at how many 'professional reviewers' are completely glossing over this game's flaws. I honestly wonder if this game wasn't early access but instead released as a 1.0 'whole' if it would've gotten anywhere near as glowing a reception. I vaguely suspect that the cult following the game has itself is pressuring reviewers to give good scores.

Probably the three weakest parts of the game are career mode (completely lacking any depth and has absolutely no 'management' of a space program about it), the graphics are terrible (look at the beautiful things modders have done... Squad couldn't even add clouds to Kerbin after all these years?), and the sound / music makes the game maddeningly dull.

Yeah, we can fix that with mods, but the base game shouldn't get a pass on these pitfalls.

- - - Updated - - -

+1 - this is still beta. It's upsetting bc they refuse to listen.

I think it's funny how many people credit Squad as being great developers and say 'they listen to fans!'.

The only thing I can think of that Squad actually did as a response to feedback, at least post-0.18 when the dev team basically stopped talking to the community entirely, was renege on their reneging of scrapping resources for multiplayer.

- - - Updated - - -

If that guy plays KSP for years and gives it that rating, then it means somthing.

It means he's tremendously biased and shouldn't have been the one to write the review.

If I wanted a fair review of Transformers, do I go ask someone who has no prior experience with the franchise and has diverse tastes in films what he thought, or do I go ask a 16 year old kid who has been eating up every trailer and review ever released for it and thinks explosions are plot? Who's going to give me the better, honest opinion of the movie's strengths and weaknesses?

If the guy's been playing the game for years, it means he basically has the credibility of a fanboy. Someone who's been playing for years obviously is comfortable with ignoring how lifeless the game is once you leave the KSC. Someone who hasn't been playing for years might not be able to just gloss over that aspect like it's no big deal.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

The only thing I can think of that Squad actually did as a response to feedback, at least post-0.18 when the dev team basically stopped talking to the community entirely, was renege on their reneging of scrapping resources for multiplayer.

They initially decided to turn the ROUND-8 into a xenon tank, then reversed this decision after overwhelmingly negative feedback from the entire community.

[Frostiken]

They initially decided to turn the ROUND-8 into a xenon tank, then reversed this decision after overwhelmingly negative feedback from the entire community.

I would love to hear their excuse for not just retexturing the Round-8 and give us a Xenon tank alongside the regular tank. Seriously just go desaturate the current gold foil texture and make it silver. Done.

So basically Squad only listens to us after they do something based on first ignoring us. lol

[basic.syntax]

I'm seriously shocked at how many 'professional reviewers' are completely glossing over this game's flaws.

I addressed this idea, in my post referencing Roger Ebert. Reviewers will downplay flawed areas of a product, if they see appealing qualities in the whole, and they wish to encourage more of that type of product to get made.

Edit:

Ha! I hadn't finished reading the GameSpot review, before posting.

Kerbal Space Program was a beta release for years before this, its "final" version. Funny enough, even after all that time, bugs are still scattered throughout, such as ships that are no longer visible, orbital paths turning twitchy and changing randomly even as your ship follows the one you set, and button presses not registering as you float out of your ship.

But these are small compared to what feels like the mass achievements of thousands of minds bringing their expertise to the table through the hundreds of tweaks done over the years to the clearly passionate, lovingly crafted mods, which are easily accessible and promoted in-game.

Edited May 10, 2015 by basic.syntax

[Curveball Anders]

The Washington Post published a glowing review that calls KSP "a masterpiece". (I didn't even know newspapers published video game reviews... my how times have changed.)

Most of the newspaper 'heavies' (like Ye Olde WP) has included computer games as a part of other 'popular media' (like tv-series, comics and such).

And despite being an old cynic myself I think it's a good thing that computer games gets reviewed as a form of art next to a review of an avant garde dance performance, a classic concert, a new promo video from some boyband or a new soap opera.

[Travisfv]

No, a game is about goals and progression and such. Accomplishing defined goals, etc. As with all English words (and I imagine this probably happens in other languages), the meaning of 'game' is eroding over time, and it's starting to encompassing things like sandboxes (nothing wrong with sandboxes, just they aren't games), or pretty much any sort of pass-time on the computer. Again, having a variety of different things to do that arent' traditional games isn't bad, just the erosion of the word's meaning is ('game' will eventually mean the same as 'smurf' at this rate).

Star Control II is a game. Final Fantasy X is a movie. Minecraft is a sandbox (even in 'survival'.. lulz survival). GTA5 is a bit of all three.

KSP falls short in the goals and progression stuff - probably because it evolved AS a sandbox (like Minecraft or Space Engineers, which also fall flat on their faces as 'games' while being good sandboxy things).

Exactly. It's trying to be, but still needs a lot of work.

Congratulations, you have defined game. I will now define "video game".

Video Game- noun-

a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen.

The definition of game is not limited to competitive sport or challenges. The definition may say "especially", but it does not say "only". The word "especially" acknowledges the chance that something else can occur and be called a game. Only is definitive and what you have presumed "especially" to mean.

The definition of words change and are not static. Do not expect game to always mean competitive sport or challenges. It evolved to encompass new entertainment, a la video games.

[Joonatan1998]

I think KSP is probably hard sandbox to review.

If you have played it before, you are biased and shouldn't make the review.

If you just start playing, you won't get far in the time that a reviewers usually play games. (especially in career mode, it seems that most reviewers mostly played sandbox.)