Media feedback, reviews on KSP 1.0

[Freshmeat]

I think the point of all the rage is that some people out here _really_ care for the game. And that must somehow mean it is worth playing for all of the involved. Not that it is a perfect game, as no game will ever be. But definitly good enough to argue long and hard about. Is there anyone here who has less than, say, 100 hours at the helm?

[CaptainKipard]

-snip-

Hanuman you give the impression that you're not familiar with the criticism levied against Squad. A lot of what you mentioned in this thread is either a strawman or completely irrelevant. Could you take the time to lay out a to-the-point coherent conclusion drawn from actual observations, because I really want to understand where people like you are coming from. You're making this really difficult though.

I think the point of all the rage is that some people out here _really_ care for the game. And that must somehow mean it is worth playing for all of the involved. Not that it is a perfect game, as no game will ever be. But definitly good enough to argue long and hard about. Is there anyone here who has less than, say, 100 hours at the helm?

Thanks for that.

[Lindwurm]

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

If this were the review system of a blog or fan site, you could dismiss it as extreme. Unfortunately, it's from a large magazine in Europe, and is an example of someone trying totally objective reviews - only to drop it like a hot potato once it became clear it didn't work.

You said review scores are meaningless, and I agree. Where I disagree is the assertion that breaking it down into sections makes them mean anything. You can't quantify graphics or gameplay. How can you objectively quantify these things? What would earn a game an 80% instead of a 90%? Would a triple-A game with a multi-million dollar budget like Watch_Dogs deserve a higher graphical score than something with hand-drawn 2D animations like Metal Slug? And if it does or doesn't, how would you quantify those scores?

[CaptainKipard]

If this were the review system of a blog or fan site, you could dismiss it as extreme. Unfortunately, it's from a large magazine in Europe, and is an example of someone trying totally objective reviews - only to drop it like a hot potato once it became clear it didn't work.

You're attempting to refute having a few categories, by showing what happens to a lot of categories. That's wrong.

You said review scores are meaningless, and I agree. Where I disagree is the assertion that breaking it down into sections makes them mean anything.

I don't know how else to explain this. Scoring categories is obviously more meaningful than scoring the whole game. For what it's worth (not a lot) you're still able to quickly judge whether you'll like it based on criteria that you care about. This is on the face of it true.

You can't quantify graphics or gameplay. How can you objectively quantify these things? What would earn a game an 80% instead of a 90%? Would a triple-A game with a multi-million dollar budget like Watch_Dogs deserve a higher graphical score than something with hand-drawn 2D animations like Metal Slug? And if it does or doesn't, how would you quantify those scores?

That's a great question that game designers, players and journalists would need to come to an understanding on. It's a huge topic but I'm sure anything we could come up with would be better than what we have now.

Just taking graphics for example, since that's what you picked, I would take into account things like:

1. The current state of PC technology particularly the median level of gaming machines, and how well the game performs in a set range.

2. Other games of similar type and level of detail and their performance.

3. How the graphics look in the scope of the game. E.g. Let's compare Besiege and KSP. Besiege has a small scope, KSP has a large scope. Besiege graphics obviously took less effort to make, but that is a decision for the team leaders. KSP would score lower because despite their commercial success they simply refuse to give KSP graphics the attention they demand from the large scope of the game. Going out of their depth or not hiring more professional artists is a decision that should factor into judging the end result.

4. Simply the quality of the graphics. That's probably the easiest to judge. Quality is not the same as complexity.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm happy that KSP has got the high score it deserves. Yes there are things I don't like about it, but overall it is still the best game I've ever played.

[Mr. Scruffy]

Graphics ratings: Now, THAT is a field, where times have changed concerning reviews in a meaningful way. Back in the day, there certainly was something to be said about the quality of the graphics in a game, since general capabilities of the hardware were limited. Compare the average 1983 c64 game (say ´centipede´) with the average one in 1988 (say ´Katakis´). Likewise for, say, PS1 games (with different dates, of course).

Now this has changed quite a bit. Today, it´s not about getting the most out of a limited ressource anymore - well, at least not to the same extent. Today, it´s more like trying to rate art: Do the gfx support the atmosphere of the game? Is the colorscheme eye-pleasing? I mean, how do you rate a game´s gfx, that is intentionally trying to look 8-bit-ish? Poor, because it doesnt utilize modern hardware at all, or good, because its original and supports the feel of the game very well? Does the average FPS-game really deserve a better score than pretty much any other game from most other genres, only because now you can look 25m further, when compared to the last iteration of the same game? Is rating the graphics of a game more like judging an engineer´s or an artist´s work? If it´s the later, things get really complicated, especially once you try to condense it down to one single number. "Mona Lisa = 96%, The Scream = 92%"? Does that work?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Mr. Scruffy

[rcp27]

I find it interesting to see the same people who complained bitterly at the 0.90 stage that "the game is not ready for 1.0, if they release it without several further beta releases, all the reviewers will see it and write terrible reviews." Now with the successful reviews coming in, the same people are saying, "reviewers are terrible, their reviews are wrong, they are not seeing all the flaws I see in the game." Perhaps these people (I won't name names) should consider the fact that, to most people, the flaws in the game, while present, are not game breaking, and as a whole, the game is a good quality product and a critical and commercial success.

[klgraham1013]

I find it interesting to see the same people who complained bitterly at the 0.90 stage that "the game is not ready for 1.0, if they release it without several further beta releases, all the reviewers will see it and write terrible reviews." Now with the successful reviews coming in, the same people are saying, "reviewers are terrible, their reviews are wrong, they are not seeing all the flaws I see in the game." Perhaps these people (I won't name names) should consider the fact that, to most people, the flaws in the game, while present, are not game breaking, and as a whole, the game is a good quality product and a critical and commercial success.

I'll name my own name. I suppose I considered certain problems with the game to be more problematic then they ended up being.

[CaptainKipard]

I find it interesting to see the same people who complained bitterly at the 0.90 stage that "the game is not ready for 1.0, if they release it without several further beta releases, all the reviewers will see it and write terrible reviews." Now with the successful reviews coming in, the same people are saying, "reviewers are terrible, their reviews are wrong, they are not seeing all the flaws I see in the game." Perhaps these people (I won't name names) should consider the fact that, to most people, the flaws in the game, while present, are not game breaking, and as a whole, the game is a good quality product and a critical and commercial success.

You spend too much time outside if you don't know that the state of games journalism is universally panned. You've added nothing of substance to this discussion.

The game is of mediocre quality. You seem to be confused because it's the first game of its kind. Because its the first it will be the worst, and because its the first the originality of it will be praised despite its obvious and frankly easily fixable flaws.

This is what I can't stress enough: People like KSP because it's something new. The execution leaves a lot to be desired. I wish people would finally realise this simple difference.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[Lord Aurelius]

I find it interesting to see the same people who complained bitterly at the 0.90 stage that "the game is not ready for 1.0, if they release it without several further beta releases, all the reviewers will see it and write terrible reviews." Now with the successful reviews coming in, the same people are saying, "reviewers are terrible, their reviews are wrong, they are not seeing all the flaws I see in the game." Perhaps these people (I won't name names) should consider the fact that, to most people, the flaws in the game, while present, are not game breaking, and as a whole, the game is a good quality product and a critical and commercial success.

And following klgraham1013's example, I'll do the same in saying that I was one of those critical of 1.0 based on those arguments as well. I'm happy to see that the game is being so well received by reviewers, but I'm still disappointed to see how many rough edges remain (and how reviewers in general tend to selectively ignore such things, companies don't need to be praised for releasing rushed, half-done games). Hopefully Squad won't ignore the valid criticisms presented on the forums because the reviewers were willing to turn a blind eye to (or didn't actually play the game enough to encounter) them.

Still, KSP is an amazing game and I want to see it succeed, and rave reviews will definitely help it on that front.

Edit: (This was posted while I was writing)

You spend too much time outside if you don't know that the state of games journalism is universally panned. You've added nothing of substance to this discussion.

The game is of mediocre quality. You seem to be confused because it's the first game of its kind. Because its the first it will be the worst, and because its the first the originality of it will be praised despite its obvious and frankly easily fixable flaws.

This is what I can't stress enough: People like KSP because it's something new. The execution leaves a lot to be desired. I wish people would finally realise this simple difference.

Definitely this. As a concept, KSP is brilliant, but from a technical (and graphics, audio, gameplay, balance and polish) standpoint the game still has a lot of issues. Squad honestly isn't a very good software developer, but I will give them credit for acting on the initial idea (there are tons of great ideas for games that never get developed at all) and having the perseverance to see it through to where it is now. Hopefully Squad can learn from their mistakes going forwards and really improve KSP. Moving to Unity 5 will be a great opportunity to address some of the legacy systems they didn't get around to for 1.0, hopefully they'll take advantage of the opportunity.

Whatever happens I still want KSP to succeed, its success will mean that other companies will be more likely to start developing games along these lines and competition is always good for the consumer. We've shown that there's a market for this kind of game, and if KSP ultimately doesn't live up to our expectations, then at least there's now a good chance that another company could identify this and release a better game.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[r4pt0r]

blah blah

nice strawman.

[Frybert]

Erm...what does this have to do with Add-ons?

[Lord Aurelius]

Erm...what does this have to do with Add-ons?

Nothing at all. There are probably better places in the forum for this thread (i.e. General KSP Discussion).

[Randazzo]

You've added nothing of substance to this discussion.

Nor have you, except your own opinion, which in my opinion is now less valid than his opinion since you simply disregarded his opinion while he acknowledged your opinion and states his disagreement with it.

Lots of opinions in here.

Know what opinions are like?

Yeah.

It ultimately doesn't matter what any of us think. The game is out, and it's doing well.

[Zopzodeman]

As a concept, KSP is brilliant, but from a technical (and graphics, audio, gameplay, balance and polish) standpoint the game still has a lot of issues.

Moving to Unity 5 will be a great opportunity to address some of the legacy systems they didn't get around to for 1.0, hopefully they'll take advantage of the opportunity.

Whatever happens I still want KSP to succeed, its success will mean that other companies will be more likely to start developing games along these lines and competition is always good for the consumer. We've shown that there's a market for this kind of game, and if KSP ultimately doesn't live up to our expectations, then at least there's now a good chance that another company could identify this and release a better game.

I have read on this forum long enough and have KSP since 0.13 or so... i am not one that posts often , but i fully agree with Lord Aurelius´ standpoint here.

They had 4 years+ to develop this game and had so much feedback from the community (even in the form of modifications ,to get things in that the base game lacked) and still they bork the most important release by not listening to the concerns people had with going from 0.9 straight to 1.0...

Techtree still a mess , Game is still a resource hog ,Graphics are seriously lacking (still no clouds?), new Aero different (why did they not talk with ferram? he has the grasp on Aero it looks like...) , no real working tutorial-campaign,64bit version far from being here (not able to go over the mem limit for a 32bit sys is a real pain for such a resource-hog game ...) and so on....these points have all been discussed to death i wont go further into detail.

If Squad cant take criticism and fanboys also (i also count as one seeing i have logged approx 800 hrs) then there is seriously something FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with some people.

Oh and moving this thread to Add-On-affairs subsection is pretty dumb move to silence critics...

Edited May 11, 2015 by Zopzodeman
Moving to false sub-forum

[sal_vager]

Ticked the wrong thread, whoops....

[Hanuman]

Hanuman you give the impression that you're not familiar with the criticism levied against Squad. A lot of what you mentioned in this thread is either a strawman or completely irrelevant. Could you take the time to lay out a to-the-point coherent conclusion drawn from actual observations, because I really want to understand where people like you are coming from. You're making this really difficult though.

I won't lie. That gave me a pretty good laugh. What I wrote was my to-the-point coherent conclusion drawn from my actual observations of some of the forum outcry since the moment 1.0 was announced. It's pretty obvious that we both see the game differently, and I know from reading your other posts that no matter what I write, you'll just do your best to pick it apart at the seams.

This is good enough for me and all I intend on giving you: We disagree, and I think you're wrong.

[CaptainKipard]

We've shown that there's a market for this kind of game, and if KSP ultimately doesn't live up to our expectations, then at least there's now a good chance that another company could identify this and release a better game.

Exactly.

nice strawman.

Which part was the strawman. You conveniently and intentionally left that out and replaced the words with "blah blah".

Nor have you, except your own opinion, which in my opinion is now less valid than his opinion since you simply disregarded his opinion while he acknowledged your opinion and states his disagreement with it.

You're confusing opinions with arguments.

An opinion is "I think Y"

An argument is "X is true therefore Y"

I've been a gamer for literally decades now. I think I have enough experience to spot quality and the lack of it by now and I for sure know how to construct a valid and sound argument. It's a gift.

I won't lie. That gave me a pretty good laugh. What I wrote was my to-the-point coherent conclusion drawn from my actual observations of some of the forum outcry since the moment 1.0 was announced. It's pretty obvious that we both see the game differently, and I know from reading your other posts that no matter what I write, you'll just do your best to pick it apart at the seams.

This is good enough for me and all I intend on giving you: We disagree, and I think you're wrong.

And despite my request I still don't know why you think that. It's your decision not to clarify, so I'll just put this to rest.

Also if your argument were solid don't you think there'd be no seams to pick?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[Temeter]

Don't you guys love how playing games apparently makes you an expert game designer able to judge the failures of developers who managed to bring out very succesful games?

[CaptainKipard]

Don't you guys love how playing games apparently makes you an expert game designer able to judge the failures of developers who managed to bring out very succesful games?

If you don't feel qualified to judge a game just because you played it then what makes you think the rest of us do. Stop projecting. Also what makes you think we're not formally educated to do so?

[Superfluous J]

You seem to have very low expectations for a professional review - maybe realisticly so.

Pretty much. I haven't trusted professional game reviews since the 90s and haven't read one - except to see how bad it is - since Lets Plays on YouTube became a big thing. If I want to see if I'd like a game I try the demo and/or watch a few people playing. I can usually tell pretty quick if I want to buy the game.

It's not the reviewers' fault, any more than it's a boulder's fault for rolling down a hill and over your car. If they took days, weeks, or months to review every game, by the time their review came out nobody would care and they'd have died of starvation anyway for having not made any money over that time. The system itself is broken.

Let me get this straight. I love KSP and think the scores are fantastic and - for the most part - justified. I want the game to do well and am glad it is doing well in the press.

[Temeter]

If you don't feel qualified to judge a game just because you played it then what makes you think the rest of us do. Stop projecting. Also what makes you think we're not formally educated to do so?

Q.E.D, now the discussion switched from meta-discussion about discussions to psychoanalysis (because that's what writing on a forum teaches you!). While obviously not even understanding what others are actually talking about.

Maybe you should stop looking at others and realize how utterly pointless this thread's direction has become?

[Frybert]

*sniff sniff* I smell smoke.

[CaptainKipard]

Q.E.D, now the discussion switched from meta-discussion about discussions to psychoanalysis (because that's what writing on a forum teaches you!). While obviously not even understanding what others are actually talking about.

Maybe you should stop looking at others and realize how utterly pointless this thread's direction has become?

Get to a constructive point fast. You're starting to look like a troll.

[Fishslap]

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.

I do insist and don`t take instructions from people who hurl sophistic oneliners at me. I made many points. You picked one and tried to dismiss it with some cheap rhetoric. You don`t seem a likely partner for an adult conversation therefore.