Media feedback, reviews on KSP 1.0

[klgraham1013]

It's like I'm playing a different game than all these reviewers. What really scares me is that Squad will take this as confirmation that the forum's complaints were unjustified; that they knew what they were doing all along. I've listed my grievances with the game before and don't care to again. At least Squad have created a wonderful backbone upon which mods can make a great game.

[Travisfv]

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.)

Playing the game before should not preempt someone from objectively reviewing the game, but any review should be taken with a grain of salt. I have close to 800 hours in the game and I have noticed numerous issues, especially now after the 1.0 release where I've noticed even bigger bugs and flaws.

Do I still enjoy the game? Absolutely.

Do I recommend it to a friend who plays games almost exclusively for the story? Absolutely not.

Reviews should not be taken at face value. Everyone needs to do their own research beyond a "professional" review.

[Fel]

Are people seriously so upset that KSP is a success that they're bashing the reviewers for not giving a horrible score?

KSP: 4/10

I couldn't stop playing, my wife left me, I got fired from my job, I'm now unemployed and rent is overdue... and I still can't stop playing.

[Travisfv]

Are people seriously so upset that KSP is a success that they're bashing the reviewers for not giving a horrible score?

KSP: 4/10

I couldn't stop playing, my wife left me, I got fired from my job, I'm now unemployed and rent is overdue... and I still can't stop playing.

In my opinion, some may be bitter than the score they feared it would get by being a 1.0 full release, was not what happened, flying in the face of their accusations that SQUAD was making a terrible mistake. I feel like this release was buggier than others, but I've only been around since .18. Have not been vocal about it because it has reignited my love of KSP.

Also finally graduating from college is freeing up some time, although soon it's back to the books for the LSAT in October.

[MartGonzo]

Are people seriously so upset that KSP is a success that they're bashing the reviewers for not giving a horrible score?

KSP: 4/10

I couldn't stop playing, my wife left me, I got fired from my job, I'm now unemployed and rent is overdue... and I still can't stop playing.

couldn't be happier, I was worried that it wasn't ready but the sweeping 9+/90+ reviews made me breathe a sigh of relief

I do understand that the game still has issues but thankfully every reviewer has seen past those issues, hopefully it will lead to big sales which in turn will encourage squad to keep adding and improving.

[CaptainKipard]

It's like I'm playing a different game than all these reviewers. What really scares me is that Squad will take this as confirmation that the forum's complaints were unjustified; that they knew what they were doing all along.

Then let's disabuse them of that fantasy.

First of all score reviews are completely meaningless. These numbers don't translate to anything practical, and therein lies the problem. Were someone to break down KSP into meaningful categories for review, I think the scores would be much lower.

From the PCGamer review thread:

Here's my issue. Some reviewers at least break up the box into several boxes like:

• Graphics
  
• SFX
  
• Music
  
• Stability
  
• Pacing/Progression
  
• Originality
  
• Modability
  
• Replay value
  
• etc.
  

So let's put on our objective hats and rank each of these in the context of the current state of the gaming market. Some of those will score very high, but the rest?... No chance in hell! And the average will not be anywhere near 96%.

Are people seriously so upset that KSP is a success that they're bashing the reviewers for not giving a horrible score?

KSP is a commercial success, but some people can't seem to distinguish that from quality. I'm looking at you Apple users. Let's not forget Squad grew out of a marketing company.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard
typos

[MartGonzo]

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/

I wonder about Gamespot, in the hour long "Now Playing" video the journo described KSP as "the best game he had ever played"

and that same week they also made a video about how Mortal Combat X was basically almost an empty engine that then sold the player all the content as DLC

Then in this last week they gave Mortal Combat X the game of the month award

rumours of cash payments seem more and more likely with some of these sites.

[basic.syntax]

So true. The 'score' isn't as important as the words backing it up. In the late 90's, Computer Gaming World (print version) famously resisted review scores. They had writers. And they wanted readers to... read, and make their own judgments. PC Gamer and its ilk pushed large, glossy screenshots and scores. (Sigh.) One of these is still in print.

[ArmchairGravy]

"Oh noes! The game isn't just what I wanted it to be so the game is crap and everyone who likes it is obviously stupid." This is what I hear some of you people saying. Get a grip and realize that not everyone wants the game to be the way you want it. While I applaud your passion, quit beating that horse. It's dead, Jim.

[Mr. Scruffy]

I wonder about Gamespot, in the hour long "Now Playing" video the journo described KSP as "the best game he had ever played"

and that same week they also made a video about how Mortal Combat X was basically almost an empty engine that then sold the player all the content as DLC

Then in this last week they gave Mortal Combat X the game of the month award

rumours of cash payments seem more and more likely with some of these sites.

Commercial reviewers? Heck yeah. I know this second hand. If graphics adapter manufacturer X has enough commercials running in the magazine/on the website, it will get decent scores for its card being tested, despite the testers not having been able to even get it to run.

This comment is totally unrelated to KSP in particular, though.

In my experience, you can also browse various review sites and get the exact same entries to a review of a particular game, almost down to the word, for each one of them.

As for KSP: So what reviewers are critizising is the graphics? Really?

[jfx]

Not surprising how legitimate criticism of the reviews is - once again - bludgeoned into the ground by the usual burning of strawmen and hyperbole.

Rating a game at > 95% with the pointed out flaws in graphics, sound and career progression is a joke (and as such exactly what one would expect from gaming "journalism").

[r4pt0r]

You think it's a 10/10 when mods show how easy it is to make the game look and sound much better, much livelier?

Edit: I may have misread, I'll look when I'm not using my phone

Edited May 10, 2015 by r4pt0r

[MartGonzo]

You think it's a 10/10 when mods show how easy it is to make the game look and sound much better, much livelier?

Edit: I may have misread, I'll look when I'm not using my phone

I'm not sure if that was directed to me, with no quote it could be directed at anyone, I'll answer in case it was

numbers don't make a whole lot of sense in reviews, the complaints in the gamespot review are legitimate.

But what I find a bit odd is them giving a game of the month award to a game they struggled to find anything good to say about and gave a lower score to over a game the journalist described as the best game he had ever played.

[CaptainKipard]

Not surprising how legitimate criticism of the reviews is - once again - bludgeoned into the ground by the usual burning of strawmen and hyperbole.

I can see it. I think maybe some people, who have lower standards then others, take criticism of Squad personally. They might feel it as an attack on their own values with which they judge the game. It's sad, but what can you do?

The artificial environment, which the forum rules create, make it nearly impossible to address this logical deficit without the trolls regressing to a child-like state. What logical argument can you present to someone who doesn't value logic?

[Pthigrivi]

I mean I've made my opinion known that the atmosphere on this board is needlessly, laughably negative, when so much about what is happening is so novel and positive. I even agree on some of the minor points about heat balance for parts and faring separation could use a touch-up, its just the tone here that is totally effing ridiculous. 1.0 is amazing, the aero is basically there, it just needs some tweaks to how parts handle it to fudge into that real-and-fun zone. Roverdude and Porkjet's work is brilliant. I just feel like we got into this ugly weird loop after the Barn debacle that a minority of people felt like if they whine and moan loud enough they could get what they wanted, whatever the general prevailing opinion was. Im a pretty patient guy myself. There are things that totally still need work and obviously Squad knows that. They've been the ones bringing this thing from a simple little idea to a really incredibly vibrant world and they love it and are obviously committed to making it even better with 1.1 and beyond. It's cool guys. We all want the same thing.

[klgraham1013]

Are people seriously so upset that KSP is a success that they're bashing the reviewers for not giving a horrible score

In my opinion, some may be bitter than the score they feared it would get by being a 1.0 full release, was not what happened, flying in the face of their accusations that SQUAD was making a terrible mistake.

I, personally, am not bitter that I was wrong about 1.0 reviews. My irritation comes in that reviewers seem to be ignoring many of the flaws in career mode.

[CaptainKipard]

laughably

effing ridiculous

whine and moan

And here we go again.

[klgraham1013]

Then let's disabuse them of that fantasy.

First of all score reviews are completely meaningless. These numbers don't translate to anything practical, and therein lies the problem. Were someone to break down KSP into meaningful categories for review, I think the scores would be much lower.

From the PCGamer review thread:

So let's put on our objective hats and rank each of these in the context of the current state of the gaming market. Some of those will score very high, but the rest?... No chance in hell! And the average will not be anywhere near 96%.

KSP is a commercial success, but some people can't seem to distinguish that from quality. I'm looking at you Apple users. Let's not forget Squad grew out of a marketing company.

I'm actually not a fan of breaking game reviews into categories. I believe the whole can be better than it's parts. Review scores should be a simple way of distilling a reviewers thoughts. There's no reason this couldn't be the case, but after decades of the 7 to 10 scale, reviewers have marginalized any real meaning behind numbered scores. 5/10 should be an average score. Not good. Not bad. Just middle of the road. Instead, many consider 7/10 to be bad, which only harms the idea of the scale.

[Travisfv]

I, personally, am not bitter that I was wrong about 1.0 reviews. My irritation comes in that reviewers seem to be ignoring many of the flaws in career mode.

Can you list the flaws you found? (Not a snarky comment, actually interested in what you will say.)

[Lord Aurelius]

I, personally, am not bitter that I was wrong about 1.0 reviews. My irritation comes in that reviewers seem to be ignoring many of the flaws in career mode.

This. While KSP is a great game, it most definitely is not very well polished and you don't have to look far at all to find issues, especially in career mode. I've seen reviewers give games terrible scores for much smaller issues than what KSP still has, I'm not saying that I'm disappointed that KSP got great reviews, but the glowing reviews don't match up to my impression of the game at this point and I'm a little worried that it will send the wrong message to Squad (i.e. it's okay to rush a release and give us a half finished product). There's too much of that in the industry already.

@Travisfv

I know you were asking klgraham1013, but I can list some of the flaws I've seen as well.

Career mode is basically grind mode. There's a few moments of brilliance when you're able to pull off your first Mun/Minmus mission with limited parts, but then you suddenly have enough science to basically do whatever you want. Before that point, it's just a grind to get the science for the parts you need to really go anywhere (not to mention the funds required to get past the silly tier 1 building limitations). When running around the space center with a makeshift rover grabbing science from all the buildings gets you more science than getting into orbit, there's something wrong. Same goes for free funds for simply having a satellite with a solar panel and a thermometer.

The tech tree layout doesn't really help either, simple convenience items like ladders are way too far up, and the parts you need to build a 2.5m rocket are spread across 3 different nodes so you have to unlock all of them. Not to mention you don't start with simple experiments like a thermometer or a barometer. For the most part, parts seem to be placed more or less randomly around the tree.

Funds are not particularly balanced. 3 stabilization fins cost more than the 1.25m engines, for example. A large mothership style mission to Jool with multiple launches costs less than upgrading the VAB to the max level.

Contracts are just ridiculous for the most part. There's a whole thread devoted to insane contracts people have had come up. Part tests under just plain ridiculous conditions, crazy orbits for satellite contracts, etc.

Overall, career needs a major overhaul that it didn't get in 1.0 It's not particularly well balanced or fun outside of a narrow point around the early-mid game.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[m4v]

And here we go again.

well, you aren't helping either.

[Travisfv]

I can see it. I think maybe some people, who have lower standards then others, take criticism of Squad personally. They might feel it as an attack on their own values with which they judge the game. It's sad, but what can you do?

The artificial environment, which the forum rules create, make it nearly impossible to address this logical deficit without the trolls regressing to a child-like state. What logical argument can you present to someone who doesn't value logic?

How objective can one remain when one has already reduced his opponents to "trolls" that have a "logical deficit"? This is bordering on name calling. That is not a very open minded attitude.

[klgraham1013]

Can you list the flaws you found? (Not a snarky comment, actually interested in what you will say.)

Sure. Give me some time to put it together, though.

[CaptainKipard]

How objective can one remain when one has already reduced his opponents to "trolls" that have a "logical deficit"? This is bordering on name calling. That is not a very open minded attitude.

You mean how objective can someone be before their lack of objectivity is pointed out? Let's just get back to the topic. This is going nowhere.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[Lindwurm]

Then let's disabuse them of that fantasy.

First of all score reviews are completely meaningless. These numbers don't translate to anything practical, and therein lies the problem. Were someone to break down KSP into meaningful categories for review, I think the scores would be much lower.

No offense, but breaking down reviews into 'objective' slices is pointless at best. At worst, you get the mess computerbild.de tried a few years ago. It's a mess of arbitrary percentages with no meaning. By all means, a reviewer should keep their personal opinions from defining the review and lambasting or praising a game that doesn't deserve it, but otherwise they're inherently subjective.