Media feedback, reviews on KSP 1.0

[NFUN]

I think that much of the bugs we, as long-time fans of the game, despise are mostly noticeable/irritable because we've been so involved and can recognize them. The reviewers who are new didn't notice them as much, or otherwise overlooked them assuming some of them to be legitimate physics quirks. More travelled reviewers probably felt nostalgic, and didn't believe that they took much away from the overall experience of the game, keeping their role in the score low. Non-specific scores probably compound this, as Cpt. Kipard notes.

Graphics don't matter so much in sim or simlike games such as KSP, and thus play less a role in the reviews. I would agree that the game isn't well polished, but parts of that were likely taken into consideration.

Edited May 11, 2015 by NFUN

[klgraham1013]

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

Firstly, a lack of time-based mechanics very much hurts this style of game. That's as much as I'll say about that.

Disclaimer: What comes is my opinion that career mode should start as a guided tutorial and open into a free-form, player-guided experience.

Career mode being the default, this is the first thing most new players will see. I seriously doubt most will even touch the tutorials. They're over-rot and separate from the main game experience. This brings me to my first point. Contracts are a perfect method of slowly introducing the mechanics to new players. Contracts could teach players fundamentals over time, rather than the current info dump that is the tutorials as they are now. This being the case, beginning contracts need to guide the player; teaching them good habits based around part testing and world records. Part testing, as it is now, only teaches bad habits and not what the part should actually be used for. Players should not have to deny contracts because their current situation makes them illogical or impossible. The excuse that you can just deny poor contracts is not good design.

The tech tree should also accommodate this. As new nodes are unlocked, new, appropriate contracts will be introduced. Technology needs to accommodate the players needs. Basic solar panels should be unlocked before Mun missions. Ladders need to be accessible once the player can build a functional jet / lander / rover / rudimentary architecture. No part should be available before certain counter parts. 2.5m decouplers, engines, or pods should never be available before 2.5m tanks.

In an attempt to slowly teach the player. Not every building needs to be accessible from the start. Strategies can wait tell players are comfortable with contracts.

Speaking of buildings. Let's talk upgrades. The game should not be harder at the start. By locking conics and maneuvers behind upgrades, you are insuring that early career is several times harder for new players and only truly passable by experienced players. The difficulty of career should come from trying to get to the next planet, not artificial barriers.

So, that's some of my thinking. There's more, but, honestly, I've seen so many good ideas on this forum with little improvement to the actual career mode. It's hard to feel it's worth typing it all out.

Edited May 11, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Travisfv]

Firstly, a lack of time-based mechanics very much hurts this style of game. That's as much as I'll say about that.

Disclaimer: What comes is my opinion that career mode should start as a guided tutorial and open into a free-form, player-guided experience.

Career mode being the default, this is the first thing most new players will see. I seriously doubt most will even touch the tutorials. They're over-rot and separate from the main game experience. This brings me to my first point. Contracts are a perfect method of slowly introducing the mechanics to new players. Contracts could teach players fundamentals over time, rather than the current info dump that is the tutorials as they are now. This being the case, beginning contracts need to guide the player; teaching them good habits based around part testing and world records. Part testing, as it is now, only teaches bad habits and not what the part should actually be used for. Players should not have to deny contracts because their current situation makes them illogical or impossible. The excuse that you can just deny poor contracts is not good design.

The tech tree should also accommodate this. As new nodes are unlocked, new, appropriate contracts will be introduced. Technology needs to accommodate the players needs. Basic solar panels should be unlocked before Mun missions. Ladders need to be accessible once the player can build a functional jet / lander / rover / rudimentary architecture. No part should be available before certain counter parts. 2.5m decouplers, engines, or pods should never be available before 2.5m tanks.

In an attempt to slowly teach the player. Not every building needs to be accessible from the start. Strategies can wait tell players are comfortable with contracts.

Speaking of buildings. Let's talk upgrades. The game should not be harder at the start. By locking conics and maneuvers behind upgrades, you are insuring that early career is several times harder for new players and only truly passable by experienced players. The difficulty of career should come from trying to get to the next planet, not artificial barriers.

So, that's some of my thinking. There's more, but, honestly, I've seen so many good ideas on this forum with little improvement to the actual career mode. It's hard to feel it's worth typing it all out.

You make some really good points. Some I agree with, some I do not. My main point of contention being the structure of career mode. I do not believe starting as a tutorial is the best solution, and that is because experienced players like myself who enjoy career for the challenge of not only managing funding but also giving a sort of sense of progression over the more freeform sandbox mode.

I simply suggest that the difference be that a career tutorial be an option that you tick at the beginning on the save. That gives experienced players a way to skip the "getting to know you" phase and get right into running their space programs.

As for technology and unlocks, I do agree that there are some really silly layouts for the whole tree. I actually just found myself looking for a 2.5 meter tank because I saw the skipper engine as an option. Ended up trying to slap an adapter to the bottom of a 1.25 meter tank to still get the power I was looking for.

I also agree about the conics. I am practically able to make maneuvers accurately for rendezvous without needing the node whatsoever. It's sure helpful for getting to Duna, but even then I'll have that building upgraded well before I attempt such a mission.

I'd really like the "Program" part of Kerbal Space Program to be added to the game. Right now, all I have to do is check to see if funds are there to launch a rocket or upgrade a building. I really enjoy Kerbal Construction Time and Kerbonomics, both add a sense of the program being much larger than its current representation. I recently purchased Buzz Aldrin Space Program Manager, and that is exactly what I'd like to see in Kerbal Space Program. Maybe not so in-depth as to worry about flight controllers and SET personnel, but like you said but did not elaborate on, time needs to be a factor. In the craziness of finals, I've left Kerbals on Minmus for 3 years and 407 days. I need to penalized for that. Perhaps a mod has done that.

Anyway, thank you for your input. Although I feel out levels of dissatisfaction are vastly different, at least we can remain civil and discuss them.

[Superfluous J]

KSP is an extremely complex game, and at its core it's hard to play. The game is SUPPOSED to be hard, and for a while the hardness is softened by explosions and teh funnay that so many forum members think is horrible.

Some parts of KSP are hard because of UI problems. Right clicking parts and then having to click on buttons (that, if your ship is rotating, are very hard to click) is a core mechanic and it's needlessly hard to do. Bugs in patched conics cause you frequently to not be able to place maneuver nodes or trust what they're telling you will happen. You have to bounce around the Space Center screen, loading and unloading screens when a simple "take me to the VAB" button or menu would be far more elegant. However, most of these things do not become apparent until you have invested a significant amount of time into the game. The amount of time that reviewers simply do not invest.

Some parts of KSP are hard because - well - the game is hard, especially for a beginner. You're launching freaking rockets into freaking space, after all, and any misstep along the way can sever your entire rocket stack into two (or more) pieces, explode your parachutes, land sideways, or any of dozens of other outcomes that aren't "successful mission!" And that's assuming you can even get to space, which is unlikely without - again -investing a lot of time that reviewers simply don't have.

So the reviewers see this hugely complex system for building rockets. They cobble something together. Then they are presented with this hugely complex system for launching the rocket to space, and they likely fail to ever get there. They have fun, don't notice the problems, see the huge potential that we all see, assume it's actually there because hey the 90 minutes is up and they've got 5 other games to get to today, write up a glowing review, and never ever touch the game again.

Really in hindsight it's inevitable.

[stibbons]

Wow. This thread has decided that

a) Reviewers who spend too long with the game can't write a trustworthy review because they're too attached.

Reviewers who don't spend enough time with the game can't write a trustworthy review because they haven't been exposed to flaws.

But that's only after several pages of yet another conversation warped until it's nothing but people whining about whether the game was ready for release or not. Really, it's too ridiculous for words.

[Fishslap]

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.

I agree about reviewers in general. I wouldn`t trust them to tell me the time of day after all the turkeys they have given scores in the 70s for economic reasons. Dragon Age II is quite possibly the worst game I have bought in the last 20 years; certainly the worst one I was looking forward to a lot. And it got like 75%s to 85%s across the board. So I get your beef on that score. But I think your definition of a game is slightly weird. A sandbox is a place where children play games is it not? So you could say that the adult supervision of the traditional game designers is removed, allowing the players to make up their own games within a defined set of parameters. But you`re still playing games. The sandbox itself just isn`t the game. Just like a football pitch isn`t a game either. You do need it to play a game though. The more regulated the gaming experience is the less replayability you will have, just like football would be very boring if it was choreographed. The free movement of the participants is what makes each game different. And KSP is similar to that.

If you work with children you see these two basic kinds of approaches to games as well. Some kids hate adult supervision and want to play their own games - with or without rules - while others become apathetic if they aren`t told by an adult what to do. Rather than forcing freedom of choice on kids who don`t want it or aren`t ready for it yet you treat them differently instead. Sandbox games for big children who like freedom and your traditional games for those who don`t.

Using your definition of this I do think it`s fair to say that KSP is a masterful sandbox. Certainly one of the most impressive I`ve experienced. Maybe it`s up to the players to make masterful games in it. Let`s see how it goes. The community seems alive and well, so if MP can be introduced ( I have a hard time seeing it considering the time compression aspect of things, but who knows?) even more walls will come down. Those who like to set their own goals may never run out. Or at least very slowly.

Anyway, rave review at Eurogamer as well:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-05-07-kerbal-space-program-review

Edited May 11, 2015 by Fishslap
Speling erorrs

[CaptainKipard]

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.

I don't understand why you appealed to an extreme example to rebut this. It seems fallacious to me.

whining

If you can't think of more appropriate language then maybe you shouldn't be expressing yourself at all. Manage your emotions.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[r4pt0r]

You don't need to pick on stibbons, he isn't wrong in his original statement.

[Fishslap]

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.

This happens with every single game unfortunately. There is a tendency that people who like the games are busy playing them and don`t write on forums while people who aren`t satisfied tab out to complain about something. Personally I had just seen KSP and didn`t know anything about it, tried the demo and bought it right away. And I`m blown away. If you have played the game loads and loads and say that then you`re a "fanboy" And if you`ve just started like me you "haven`t played it enough to realize that it secretly stinks" you see. You just can`t win at forums. Certain people would be standing underneath Michelangelo while he was painting the roof of the Sixtine Chapel complaining about skin tones and inadequately sized genitalia. "WHY IS GOD WEARING A DRESS!?! YOU BLASPHEMER!"

Oh well, I`m out before rant mode activates...

Edited May 11, 2015 by Fishslap
I FORGOT A HYPHEN!

[CaptainKipard]

You don't need to pick on stibbons, he isn't wrong in his original statement.

I don't need to "pick" on their trollish language, because of some other thing they said?

And I`m blown away.

It looks like you're not busy enough playing it to not visit the forum to say how much you love it. And there are many others like you too. Your point fails.

[Fishslap]

It looks like you're not busy enough playing it to not visit the forum to say how much you love it. And there are many others like you too. Your point fails.

Cherry picking the one flaw you think you see in someone`s reasoning while ignoring everything else isn`t very impressive either.

[CaptainKipard]

Cherry picking the one flaw you think you see in someone`s reasoning while ignoring everything else isn`t very impressive either.

Ok well if you insist on calling it cherry picking then head over here for example and count all the pro and anti posts. The thread is not anywhere near as one sided as you think.

[Hanuman]

Wow. This thread has decided that

a) Reviewers who spend too long with the game can't write a trustworthy review because they're too attached.

Reviewers who don't spend enough time with the game can't write a trustworthy review because they haven't been exposed to flaws.

But that's only after several pages of yet another conversation warped until it's nothing but people whining about whether the game was ready for release or not. Really, it's too ridiculous for words.

You put it a bit more eloquently than I could have, but I completely agree. The reviewers can't possibly be right, and if you don't agree with that then you're just a fanboy and you can't possibly be right either. Wandering into this thread feels a bit like stepping in something gross. The only thing you can do is figure out the best way to get it off your shoe.

[LordFjord]

So after being offline for a little bit I wanted to catch up on my thread... jeez folks, calm down.

<ignores all the negative rumbling>

Anyway, just before the 1.0 release, people were really really upset of the imminent release without another beta iteration because it "could" have generated so much negative press about KSP.

I started the thread to collect the feedback by the media, to get an idea how KSP was received in the public.

Of course the release was risky, but I think it turned out to be good for Squad. I have yet read an average or below rated review about KSP.

And this is good for Squad and good for further development of KSP.

[magnemoe]

Wow. This thread has decided that

a) Reviewers who spend too long with the game can't write a trustworthy review because they're too attached.

Reviewers who don't spend enough time with the game can't write a trustworthy review because they haven't been exposed to flaws.

But that's only after several pages of yet another conversation warped until it's nothing but people whining about whether the game was ready for release or not. Really, it's too ridiculous for words.

a) will obviously be an fanboy, this is not an bad thing, i guess most reviewers review games they like, would be pretty pointless reviewing an game where you saw the entire genre as boring.

Note that trying to be objective is not always the right thing, Dragon age 2 was not an totally awful game as an standalone game, as an follow up to DA:O it was an catastrophe.

Reviewers don't have 100 of hours trying most games, lots of KSP problems only show up late in game, mostly memory leaks and 32 bit limit. Reviewers would not get into this.

[Mr. Scruffy]

[...] However, most of these things do not become apparent until you have invested a significant amount of time into the game. The amount of time that reviewers simply do not invest.

Some parts of KSP are hard because - well - the game is hard, especially for a beginner. You're launching freaking rockets into freaking space, after all, and any misstep along the way can sever your entire rocket stack into two (or more) pieces, explode your parachutes, land sideways, or any of dozens of other outcomes that aren't "successful mission!" And that's assuming you can even get to space, which is unlikely without - again -investing a lot of time that reviewers simply don't have.

So the reviewers see this hugely complex system for building rockets. They cobble something together. Then they are presented with this hugely complex system for launching the rocket to space, and they likely fail to ever get there. They have fun, don't notice the problems, see the huge potential that we all see, assume it's actually there because hey the 90 minutes is up and they've got 5 other games to get to today, write up a glowing review, and never ever touch the game again.

[...]

You seem to have very low expectations for a professional review - maybe realisticly so. If they ´simply do not have the time´ to do their job, maybe they should look for another? I can remember a gamezine from the late 80´s, early 90´s, which would not publish a review before the reviewers have finished the game in question. You know, games like ´Ultima IV/V´ or other epics. They might call the devs for hints, even cheat, but pull all-nighters, if needed, to actually give a competent review in time for the next issue´s publication. If they didnt play through the whole thing, they´d explain why (´the game broke at this point´, ´it was sooo bad, that after 3 hours, i seriously had it with it and there was no indication of anything getting better...´, ´we made it up to the final boss, but couldnt kill him in time for the deadline of this month´s issue - and we decided we´d still give the review this month, in the hopes that this final scene will not have a significant enough impact on the overall expression, to justify the delay of publishing next month, instead´, or something along those lines).

If someone doesnt even manage to get to orbit, in a game which is about space-travel, freedom of speech still allows said person speak about the game in private terms, but that person surely is not eligable for a professional review of it, imo. In that sense, a game like KSP can hardly be reviewed in less than a full workday by someone who has not played it before. Just like you cannot review a movie, that lasts two, in just one hour. A pro who does this, is not doing his/her job properly, imho. A pro-reviewer, especially one that likes the game in front of him, should be enthusiastic enough about gaming, that extra-hours kinda go without saying, if need be. To just dabble with it for like an hour or two is not fitting the bill of a pro-review. Putting a game that got rated top-notch back on the shelf by the same reviewer after such an amount of time, never to touch it again... well, that´s like a car-reviewer keeping his ferrari in the garage all the time - it would show a lack of dedication to the medium, which is required for the job that person is doing. "If you like that game, and if you even get paid to play(test) it, why did you stop after 1 or 2 hours?" The answer better not be: "Well, i am not so much into gaming, really...", but its hard to come up with another, for me, at least.

EDIT: Seriously, if a review has to be done in 90 minutes, there is something fundamentally wrong with the industry. It sometimes takes me 90 minutes to write an email (if i put some effort into it)! Like i said above 90-min-reviews on computer games is like basing a "review" of a movie on nothing but the trailers for it. Under such conditions, the reviewers will have to look not for an "objective", independent judgement, but for the fast and easy way out. "Let´s see what others have said... Oh, good reception overall? Okay, some 80+% score then... - Now let´s have a quick look at it to find some stuff to write about...".

Edited May 11, 2015 by Mr. Scruffy

[Sonny_Jim]

I'm interested to see a review from someone totally new to the game and not someone who's been playing it for years already.

[Hanuman]

I can remember a gamezine from the late 80´s, early 90´s, which would not publish a review before the reviewers have finished the game in question. .

And what do those two things have in common? Pre-internet era, when deadlines and the pace of things were much different. If you take a month or more to write a review now, and 50 other places do it in 8 hours, you will not keep traffic, and will soon be out of a job.

Times change. Is it better or worse? No idea, and I don't care, as I personally have never relied on reviews by anyone but friends. But it is undeniably different now.

The hand-wringing over the "bad reviews" KSP 1.0 might get, have come to naught but that's proving to not be good enough. Now some of the same people who rallied behind that want to call the good reviews flawed. Nothing is going to be good enough at this point. People that want to complain will find a new angle of approach to do just that.

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.

See? There is no vindication to be had here. SQUAD should take it as confirmation that forum complaints about the specter of bad reviews were unjustified, because that's exactly what happened. Sure, it may have come from a good place, in wanting everything to succeed, but rather than be happy that it's going well, it's just becoming "the next angle" to be upset about. That's not cool.

[Curveball Anders]

I'm interested to see a review from someone totally new to the game and not someone who's been playing it for years already.

So would I.

But the problem is that it might be hard to find someone both competent and interested enough to write a review of a computer game who hasn't heard of KSP, tried during early access and most likely discussed with others.

And what makes it worse is that KSP is a bit of a strange bird.

If you put it in the hands of a j.random gamer the majority would just go '...?' and walk away.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Curveball Anders

[klgraham1013]

snip

You can not grade KSP on it's sandbox alone. It provides other modes which must be graded on their merits as well. You're reviewing the whole product, not just the best piece of it.

[Mr. Scruffy]

And what do those two things have in common? Pre-internet era, when deadlines and the pace of things were much different. If you take a month or more to write a review now, and 50 other places do it in 8 hours, you will not keep traffic, and will soon be out of a job.

Times change. Is it better or worse? No idea, and I don't care, as I personally have never relied on reviews by anyone but friends. But it is undeniably different now.

The hand-wringing over the "bad reviews" KSP 1.0 might get, have come to naught but that's proving to not be good enough. Now some of the same people who rallied behind that want to call the good reviews flawed. Nothing is going to be good enough at this point. People that want to complain will find a new angle of approach to do just that.

[...]

´Change of times´ or not, it doesnt change some minimum requirement of time to be invested in order to give a proper review. Nothing will ever change that. If i was to review* a book, i would have to read it. All. Anything less, and my review becomes an inferior product and at the very least, i should put a disclaimer on it, saying ´only read half of it´, or something. So, if across the board, reviewers have to deal with such time-constraints, we do not get any reviews at all any more, but something more akin to ´first impressions´ for anything that is not a very casual game. I mean: How is anyone gonna judge long-term motivation on a game, when he´s basically forced to put it down after 2 hours, to give just one example?

Please note though, that i am not refering to any particular review - it is a general statement.

EDIT: Imagine, you´d meet some movie-reviewer, whose review on movie XY you read, and you have watched XY. Now, you start to strike up a conversation about it, saying something like: ´I always wondered if you noted the subtile twist in this or that charactars behaviour towards the end of the story - how the events of the story changed him´, and the person you talk to replies: ´Uhem, i have not actually seen that scene you are refering to... so, ehhh... - you know i only had 90 minutes to write that review..., so i had to skip some scenes´. That would be like me saying ´yeah, i couldnt actually read the meters of all those houses in that street, so i had to guesstimate some of them...´ If i did that, i´d not only get fired but sued, too, for i´d have been pretending to do a job, which i did not do.

And i am not willing to accept this, on the sole basis, that this is ´just´ about games, a medium which i value most dearly.

*LATE EDIT: Isnt that what the word ´review´ implies: Looking back on it. Now, i can only do that, if i put it behind me - not after i stoped in the middle of it.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Mr. Scruffy

[klgraham1013]

This happens with every single game unfortunately. There is a tendency that people who like the games are busy playing them and don`t write on forums while people who aren`t satisfied tab out to complain about something.

This seems to be a common rebuttal recently. It is possible to play the game and find time to post on the forum. I mean, turn that phrasing around. You could just as easily say the people who love the game the most are the ones who make time to post on a forum.

[Hanuman]

´Change of times´ or not, it doesnt change some minimum requirement of time to be invested in order to give a proper review. Nothing will ever change that. If i was to review a book, i would have to read it. All. Anything less, and my review becomes an inferior product and at the very least, i should put a disclaimer on it, saying ´only read half of it´, or something. So, if across the board, reviewers have to deal with such time-constraints, we do not get any reviews at all any more, but something more akin to ´first impressions´ for anything that is not a very casual game. I mean: How is anyone gonna judge long-term motivation on a game, when he´s basically forced to put it down after 2 hours, to give just one example?

Please note though, that i am not refering to any particular review - it is a general statement.

I get what you're saying, but whether or not it changes the amount of time for what you consider a proper review, it has changed the amount of time that can be spent on a review. The only thing you can do if reviews are that important to you, is try to find a source for them that you can trust, which is the same as it always was.

It's not really had much of any effect on me, as a demo or trial version was always my go to solution. If a game didn't have a demo, but still looked really cool, I might fall back to a review, but more often I'd simply wait until I considered cheap enough to risk it. KSP has a demo, one that I put many hours into before I ever got the full game.

Generally speaking, I think that most everyone that posts here really likes KSP. Whether or not they feel it should be changed this way or that way or is perfect is moot, because that's something that always happens. There will always be people that want X or Y to be done super realistic or just the way they want, so you can't always take them at their word as being a life or death issue. The problem comes that even though they genuinely like KSP and want it to do well, they also spread hysteria over their own pet issue and bring things down for everyone. That's a shame.

This review stuff is just an outgrowth of it, which is even more of a shame. It's completely possible for a reviewer to consider something as being a 100/100 masterpiece game and not consider the world-breaking issue someone is a champion for as being anything important, or necessary to include in that score. If you call the review flawed because they don't dislike or even care about the things you dislike, then you are wrong. The review isn't flawed, you simply just don't happen to agree with it. That's just how it is.

Not you, as in you, Mr. Scruffy, but the general you as in "other people".

[Sky_walker]

You seem to have very low expectations for a professional review

I would call these a realistic expectations. KSP requires tons of time, reviewers simply don't put it into the open sandbox games like KSP, and even fewer got any scientific knowledge to quickly notice that something is completely wrong.

[NFUN]

Wow. This thread has decided that

a) Reviewers who spend too long with the game can't write a trustworthy review because they're too attached.

Reviewers who don't spend enough time with the game can't write a trustworthy review because they haven't been exposed to flaws.

But that's only after several pages of yet another conversation warped until it's nothing but people whining about whether the game was ready for release or not. Really, it's too ridiculous for words.

I never said that. I think the reviews were mostly fair, and if one has to play dozens of hours to really notice most of the bugs, it's a damn good game.