1.0 review from both newbie and seasoned player's perspective

[J.Random]

So, I've deleted my installation completely and reinstalled 1.0 to see what would new player see.

New player perspective:

1. Textures look horrible! ...? Oh, texture size set to "half" by default. That's weird. I don't remember any other game trying to show me its worst on first launch. Usually, it's either set to best/close to best or it tries to predict optimal settings for particular rig.

2. Let's fire up a tutorial, shall we? Ignoring all the insults thrown my way by the old geezer, let's build a simple rocket and... what just happened? It seems that tutorial... ended? I see a crapload of parts and I can continue to build things. Let's launch, just because we can... again, what? Game just quits into menu. I don't get it, let's launch the same tutorial again... WHAT??? Now I can't even select a pod. I'm clicking on it but nothing happens. Also, I can't exit the tutorial now because all buttons in the top right corner are inactive. So, Alt-F4 (it's great that I know this key combination, not everyone does). Maybe I'll launch the game again.

3. Screw bugged tutorials, I can build things myself, and launch, and go to the Moon or whatever... why are my things exploding? Overheat? No warnings? WAIT, WHAT? DEBUG MENU? I HAVE TO USE CHEATS JUST TO PLAY THE GAME? I'd like to punch devs and QA in the face now, thank you very much.

Seasoned player perspective:

4. Confetti fairings look awful, don't support partial deployment and break things. If fairings, decoupler and next engine are in the same stage, engine doesn't activate.

5. Any hope of stock wheel module handling multiple wheel colliders is lost. No rocker-bogie rover suspension for us. Medium and large landing gear don't even spin their wheels, which is kinda ridiculous.

6. Dynamic lights do not cast shadows. Google 'deferred lighting', which is available in UnityPro. Dear Squad, you call it a "Release" and you don't bother to spend 1500$ (it's a one-time payment)? No wonder Unity team doesn't help you to fix x64 issues - you're not their customer and they don't owe you anything.

7. If it was 1.0 Release, this thread wouldn't even exist. More so, most of it was updated right after "release". By one person (Thanks, Claw!). What does it tell us about QA process?

8. Kerbal professions are STILL linked to kerbal names. Seriously, Squad?

9. Water still looks like crap. I remember Squad members saying that "it's a placeholder". There may be no placeholders in proper release.

10. Procedural Mun craters. It was a great addition to the game. Community loved it, as I recall. I'm also recalling someone called HarvesteR saying that every planetary body will be revisited and improved at some point. Now, I'm pretty sure that save-breaking updates (like changing height maps for planets) are off the table after release. I mean, usually. So, either Squad thinks that it's OK to break saves for people using the supposedly finished commercial product or there will be no more polish on planetary bodies. Which one is it?

11. Sound FX are still somewhat bugged. If I'm in a map view, I would either not hear engine sound at all, or hear it constantly but muffled. Loud stuttering puffs are certainly not the way to do it.

12. Why is The Claw still available in one size only?

13. Antennas are still retracting after transmission and get stuck retracted.

Now, good things. New Big-Ass plane parts (do not pretend that you didn't expect it to be pronounced this way) are great. Engine thrust changing with air pressure is great and long-awaited for. ISRU is nice-looking, although it needs some work. Female kerbals... never thought they're much needed, I'd better have sexless/androginous kerbals, but it's not a bad addition to the game, just the one I don't care much about. That's about it.

PS One more thing I forgot because I'm used to RemoteTech:

14. Stock SAS SUCKS in any other than "hold direction" mode. Try setting Mk1 pod with parachute to hold surface retrograde at reentry, and all it does is just... vibrating. Same for small satellites. It doesn't account for vehicle mass, multiple SAS sources make it go crazy, it overcompensates and tries to shake vessel apart. This abomination was introduced in 0.90 (the one and only beta release we've got) and somehow is still alive.

Edited May 1, 2015 by J.Random

[Columbia]

Although that was a pretty aggressive way to bring the message, it really has a good point.

1.0 still has a few flaws, and I hope they fix it soon.

[Moss]

I think the points you have made are interesting and relevant. However, you may find that you will receive some negativity for post. This is much less a "review" than it is an extensive list of grievances.

I personally think that at it's current state KSP 1.0 is unplayable, but in my opinion, not for any of the reasons you've specified here. My complaints more lie with the illogical tech tree, awful parachute mechanics and "physics-less" heat shields. Besides that, I have a lot of faith in Kerbal Space Program and I respect the concept as a game. I'm just holding out for when it's perfect.

[J.Random]

Yeah, it looks too negative. Maybe I'll change the title. Thing is, I can understand when the game has bugs. Managing a large project's code is hard. What annoys me is no-brainers which you can see at the first sight, or failed promises.

[Sonny_Jim]

If it was 1.0 Release, this thread wouldn't even exist

To be fair, it's better to release something with known bugs and has been tested, than to fix the bugs and release without testing, as you might inadvertently introduce more critical bugs.

So, either Squad thinks that it's OK to break saves for people using the supposedly finished commercial product

No one said it was finished and I'm pretty sure the readme says to expect game save breakage between versions. They've also said they are planning to release a few 'free' updates so really it's not as bad as you paint it.

Overheat? No warnings? WAIT, WHAT?

Even as a seasoned player, I found this *very* annoying. It's almost perverse to implement a heat system and not give the player some way of monitoring or alerting them to problems. It does seem to tie into the whole Squad fixation with "It's more fun to guess if something will work with trial and error otherwise KSP will turn into a spreadsheet game".

I've run into a few new bugs myself (ISRUs stuck at 100% overheat, Ore contract bug) and some old ones are still there (navball map view filter bug) but all in all I've been very happy with v1.0. Constructive criticism does get listened to by the devs.

[MKI]

So, I've deleted my installation completely and reinstalled 1.0 to see what would new player see.

New player perspective:

1. Textures look horrible! ...? Oh, texture size set to "half" by default. That's weird. I don't remember any other game trying to show me its worst on first launch. Usually, it's either set to best/close to best or it tries to predict optimal settings for particular rig.

2. Let's fire up a tutorial, shall we? Ignoring all the insults thrown my way by the old geezer, let's build a simple rocket and... what just happened? It seems that tutorial... ended? I see a crapload of parts and I can continue to build things. Let's launch, just because we can... again, what? Game just quits into menu. I don't get it, let's launch the same tutorial again... WHAT??? Now I can't even select a pod. I'm clicking on it but nothing happens. Also, I can't exit the tutorial now because all buttons in the top right corner are inactive. So, Alt-F4 (it's great that I know this key combination, not everyone does). Maybe I'll launch the game again.

3. Screw bugged tutorials, I can build things myself, and launch, and go to the Moon or whatever... why are my things exploding? Overheat? No warnings? WAIT, WHAT? DEBUG MENU? I HAVE TO USE CHEATS JUST TO PLAY THE GAME? I'd like to punch devs and QA in the face now, thank you very much.

Seasoned player perspective:

4. Confetti fairings look awful, don't support partial deployment and break things. If fairings, decoupler and next engine are in the same stage, engine doesn't activate.

5. Any hope of stock wheel module handling multiple wheel colliders is lost. No rocker-bogie rover suspension for us. Medium and large landing gear don't even spin their wheels, which is kinda ridiculous.

6. Dynamic lights do not cast shadows. Google 'deferred lighting', which is available in UnityPro. Dear Squad, you call it a "Release" and you don't bother to spend 1500$ (it's a one-time payment)? No wonder Unity team doesn't help you to fix x64 issues - you're not their customer and they don't owe you anything.

7. If it was 1.0 Release, this thread wouldn't even exist. More so, most of it was updated right after "release". By one person (Thanks, Claw!). What does it tell us about QA process?

8. Kerbal professions are STILL linked to kerbal names. Seriously, Squad?

9. Water still looks like crap. I remember Squad members saying that "it's a placeholder". There may be no placeholders in proper release.

10. Procedural Mun craters. It was a great addition to the game. Community loved it, as I recall. I'm also recalling someone called HarvesteR saying that every planetary body will be revisited and improved at some point. Now, I'm pretty sure that save-breaking updates (like changing height maps for planets) are off the table after release. I mean, usually. So, either Squad thinks that it's OK to break saves for people using the supposedly finished commercial product or there will be no more polish on planetary bodies. Which is it?

11. Sound FX are still somewhat bugged. If I'm in a map view, I would either not hear engine sound at all, or hear it constantly but muffled. Loud stuttering puffs are certainly not the way to do it.

12. Why is The Claw still available in one size only?

13. Antennas are still retracting after transmission and get stuck retracted.

Now, good things. New Big-Ass plane parts (do not pretend that you didn't expect it to be pronounced this way) are great. Engine thrust changing with air pressure is great and long-awaited for. ISRU is nice-looking, although it needs some work. Female kerbals... never thought they're much needed, I'd better have sexless/androginous kerbals, but it's not a bad addition to the game, just the one I don't care much about. That's about it.

@3 Wait what? This is how the game has been forever and will never change. 1.0 wont make a newbie become a pro by walking him through how to build a rocket, get to space, orbit, to the moon, to the surface back to Kerbin, and back to the surface through re-entry. If a newbie wants to the creators for creating the game this hard then they should really research what this game is XD

@4 the stage separation is very odd and could be done better. But I want to play around with it more before I really decide if how they did it hurts gameplay wise. Engine thing is something to fix though. I always disliked how the LV-N shroud came apart, the fairings are similar, but worse. Its something to work on, being able to choose how many parts or at least directions would help with more cramped designs.

@6 Wait what dynamic lights are you talking about?

@7 It says it was rushed. Not unexpected what so ever.

@9 looks fine to me, doesn't lag the crap out of my game which is really the only thing that matters in a space game.

@10 At this this point I would only believe this to happen in a future update where they add more planets, if they ever do such an update. It would be fitting to break saves at this point and move some of the planets around possibly. Otherwise oh well thrown out the window.

@12 did they say they would give out different sizes? Smaller sizes don't seem very useful for any sort of asteroid handling as the crafts that could carry these are far to small and larger sizes aren't exactly necessary for the same task. The current size one isn't hurt gameplay wise by its size, so having a bigger one isn't exactly necessary to handle even the largest asteroids. More RCS and fuel would be more useful than a larger claw.

@13 this one i have noticed for a while. I'd throw it in the minor bug category that is even lessened by the fact i throw all my antennas into the cargo bays to stay retracted anyways haha.

[J.Random]

@6 Wait what dynamic lights are you talking about?

Suit headlamps and illuminators. They don't cast shadows. The only light source able to cast shadows is the Sun, and it seems to be emulated with directional light instead of being a point light (it was discussed in the CactEye thread).

[Schmonzo]

What annoys me is no-brainers which you can see at the first sight, or failed promises.

Failed promises... you have been here for two years, this game has been an alpha product for a long time. The devs promised A LOT of things that are not in the game and even promised to not waste time on other things that are or will be. That is what alpha games are about. I am quite sure that harvester planned on another game when he first started coding and know that I imagined it to be very different when I first backed this game with my money.

I have been very disappointed with quite a few things about ksp and that made me realize that I can't complain. This is not my game, I just financed it with nothing else than the endresult (whatever it may be) for me to play. If you want to rely on promises made by the devs look at a game once it is finished, check out what the devs are promising. If you like what you see buy it, if it's not what the devs promised on release, get your money back and move to another product.

Plus at least this game has good and (since we are not on the steam workshop) free mod support. And with all the mods out there you can pretty much make this game into whatever you want.

[J.Random]

Well, it's not Alpha/Beta/EA anymore, it's time to deliver.

[michaelsteele3]

I was personally amused by the Newb's perspective

[tater]

Many true observations… 10 really bugged me as well.

[Violent Jeb]

@3 Wait what? This is how the game has been forever and will never change. 1.0 wont make a newbie become a pro by walking him through how to build a rocket, get to space, orbit, to the moon, to the surface back to Kerbin, and back to the surface through re-entry. If a newbie wants to the creators for creating the game this hard then they should really research what this game is XD

...

@12 did they say they would give out different sizes? Smaller sizes don't seem very useful for any sort of asteroid handling as the crafts that could carry these are far to small and larger sizes aren't exactly necessary for the same task. The current size one isn't hurt gameplay wise by its size, so having a bigger one isn't exactly necessary to handle even the largest asteroids. More RCS and fuel would be more useful than a larger claw.

3 - OP is pointing out how absurd it is that we have to open the debug menu to access thermal data in flight.

This is a problem for several obvious reasons.

a - requiring a debug mode to read thermal data is hardly evidence of a complete, or even well-thought out feature.

b - most new users have no idea how to access the debug menu. We are never told how in the mindless and brief tutorial.

c - even if you can access the debug menu, like myself, i still can't find temperature data to save my life.

Honestly, if i've paid for the game, I have a right to complain when certain features are a complete letdown. I also have a right to not candy-coat it, in the hopes that one day a dev might stumble upon constructive criticism and actually do something, instead of releasing junk like this.

For #12, you're completely missing the point. Oh sure, we don't NEED a bigger claw, just like we don't NEED bigger landing gear. But you are alienating anybody who wants to build a large ship with visually pleasing, appropriately sized components. Why not just make one set of parts if only half the components are going to be available in a given size.

1.0 was completely broken compared to .90 - which is fairly unprecedented. At least .90 was playable, didn't require hot fixes just to access the game.

While we're at it - The introduction to a new player is not good. They don't even tell you which building is which beyond simply saying, "here you are, you build stuff in the VAB" (without indicating it). So a new user has like 8 institutions with no idea how any of them are relevant to the gameplay let alone what buildings you should be upgrading, or which research you should unlock based on your desired contracts or playstyle.

Consider this,

I start a new game, on "easy/normal/whatever the default is". I right click on the ship building facility, and upgrade it! Voila, i'm now completely broke, not enough funds to do any contracts and either have to find my way to an emergency loan, or restart the game.

So I start a new game. I right click on the research building, upgrade that.. Voila, i'm now completely broke again, not enough funds to do any contracts and either have to find my way to an emergency loan, or restart the game.

So I start a new game. I build three or four giant rockets, run out of money.. Voila, i'm now completely broke, not enough funds to do any contracts and either have to find my way to an emergency loan, or restart the game.

So I start a new game. I don't upgrade, I don't build large junk. I finally make it part way to space, and parts start exploding, with no discernible reason why. I guess it must be aero - So i'll build my craft a little slower - it'd be nice to have a Dv readout, but you need mods even if you want to know where you can go in this game. Real cool. So I lauch this craft, and it still blows up.. Too fast again. I try to build a third craft and.. Voila, i'm now completely broke, not enough funds to do any contracts and either have to find my way to an emergency loan, or restart the game.

Wow, this is some tedious trial and error stuff. You'd better jump online and find someone who's been around before .23 who can give you some actual advice on progressing in this game. That's some real genuine gameplay right there. A new player needs 10x the funds that the custom slider will even allow. 10-50m funds would be a "start"

It has literally nothing to do with them making a "hard" game. They had a very logical and fluent system before they integrated career mode. It seems like they continued to tack bad ideas on top of bad ideas, to try to make something fun come from career mode. There have been threads on how to make the system more "game like" - whereby the game gets harder as you go, unlike now, where it starts exceptionally difficult and then becomes easier. That is completely asinine video game design. The difficulty hasn't particularly changed since .16 - but they've put in SO MANY barriers to having a fun experience that you feel in control of, that it's next to impossible to play a vanilla career mode, unless ofc you enjoy grinding out pointless contracts, littering space with garbage.

Honestly the community has been very pleasant and forgiving.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Violent Jeb
Made somewhat more pleasant