JeuxVideos.com review of KSP: Lost faith in my country's "professional reviewers"....

[Emilio]

... but gained faith in ordinary users reviews

Last day, out of curiosity, I decided to check the review of KSP by JeuxVideo.com, the so called "Reference" in French gaming (I am french).

I can't believe people like this are called "experts".

First, as soon as I start reading, I see "Game classification : Recommended for 12 years and +".

First, since when KSP has an age rating ? Secondly, the european system rates the violence in games, not the difficulty. They are saying that KSP is a violent game, what the hell?

Then, as they usually do, they first review the game and then rate its Graphics, Gameplay, Lifespan, Sound Effects and Story.

The review is fairly positive, but is totally contradictory with the ratings they give.

They give the graphics a 8/20 (!), even saying that they hurt the eyes (!!)

Gameplay, 14/20, saying that physics laws are somewhat respected

Lifespan, 13/20. They say that there are not enough missions, and that only space simulators fans will keep playing.

Sound effects, 6/20 (!!!), saying that there are almost none.

Story N/A, since the game is a sandbox.

Overall, they give it a 13/20.

I was really disappointed by this so-called "professional"review, but I was happy to see the users reviews and comments :

Example user comments :

"An awesome game"

"All I can say is WOOOOW"

"The golden game of 2012"

"To the guy who wrote the "official" review : Judging an Alpha and giving it a 13/20 is completely stupid, this game is awesome"

"Original, Fun, Hard, Addictive"

"A game that honors Indie devellopers"

Overall user rating : 18/20

There you go, the community is smarter than the "Professional reviewers"

You can read the review yourself here... in french http://www.jeuxvideo.com/articles/0001/00018057-kerbal-space-program-test.htm

[Themohawkninja]

How can you review a game that is still heavily IN DEVELOPMENT!?!?!?

[SolarLiner]

Well, as french myself, I now know to not rely on jv.com for games reviews. But I want to see a "live gaming" with all their fails, just to laugh at 'em.

And yes KSP is violent because so many fellows kerbonaughts died in your savefile...

[glacierre]

There you go, the community is smarter than the "Professional reviewers"

This is the reason why you see things like this http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii Professional reviewer score 88/100, user score 3.8/10

Do not trust 100% user reviews (beware the hype), but review pages... simply skip them, you are never going to see a bad review of an AAA title, and then the get an indie game (10000 times closer to finished than... sim city 5, codemasters formula 1 dontcaretheyear, etc) and they suddenly get the sharp eye.

However:

How can you review a game that is still heavily IN DEVELOPMENT!?!?!?

If the game is (supposed) good enough to charge money for it, why should it not be judged? My 20 eur when I bought KSP were not "in development" euros, they were real money.

Not that I have any complaint from KSP, best game of 2012 easily.

Edited July 20, 2013 by glacierre

[rryy]

It seems they are using 0.17, which was before the graphics overhaul of 0.18 and the ambient music in the VAB/SPH and space, which may explain the graphics and sound ratings.

[thrashing mad]

To be frank, graphics are pretty bad compared to modern high budget titles (from texture quality to lighting and resulting renders), and sound effects are almost non existant (there's 16 of them if you look into 'sounds' folder). KSP still has a long way to go in those fields.

[Vostok]

I think this review is very fair, for the game's current state.

Obviously some players will find the whole sandbox more engaging, and it is personal opinion of the reviewer, but I would not say that the review is unfair. Especially judging it poorly on graphics and sound, two things that KSP doesn't do terribly well at the moment (granted, nice textures on parts, but things like planet terrain and the space skybox texturing (you can see the borders!) is rather embarrassing.) The sounds as they are now make your rocket sound like someone sucking the remnants of a drink through a straw, rather than hundreds of tons of exploding hydrogen, and they removed the sounds for landing gear and such, which didn't help anything.

Thankfully, the game is not finished yet!

[Sapphire]

only space simulators fans will keep playing.

Can I laugh in the reviewer's face, because I've never touched a space sim in my life and I have 100+ hours on this?

[Atanar]

Sound effects, 6/20 (!!!), saying that there are almost none.

Well, that's a viable point they made there. The sounds are only 15 files, with only 6 of those occuring while flying, 1 ambience and the rest is just clicksounds. The game could definitly improved there, and I think squad said it will be.

[Vostok]

I believe they have hired a professional sound designer, so I look forward to some point in future when we will have proper rocket-rumble.

I'm talking shaking-ornaments-off-shelves-in-your-house here, none of your pathetic whooshing noises.

[Flixxbeatz]

You really can't trust "Professional" reviews sometime...

[jfx]

So basicaly you say the review sucks because you have a different oppinion?

The sound and graphic ratings are ok - even flattering when compared to some other indy titles. And children under 12 willl have a better experience when playing ksp supervised.

[Mercy]

So uh, because they didn't give a game you like a perfect rating, that means they're bad reviewers?

Sorry, that's not how it works. They were using an older version anyway, and the game isn't even finished, so overly praising it is just as bad if not worse as overly criticising it. To me it seems these guys did neither.

[Xeo]

Never read a "test" on JVC, unless you are looking for a good laugh. I'd even go as far as saying "never read anything about video games on a "professional" French site" in fact. Parole d'étudiant en JV

Off-topic :

The PEGI system doesn't rate violence only (and neither does the ESRB), it's a bit more complex than this. However if KSP ever gets rated, it might get a 12+ because of the "cartoonish violence" involved by the possibility of killing Kerbals, which are "clearly identifiable humanoid characters". Globally, you can consider that any game containing any kind of "violence" will be 12+. If the violence involved is more or less "realistic", if improper language is used, you can play it online or if there is any "horrific" content, it will be at least 16+. If there's any evocation of sexuality, drugs or money games, it will likely be rated as 18+ but it can still be 16+ in some cases. But if there's any "crude violence" (understand blood, on-screen deaths, etc.) it's automatically a 18+ game.

EDIT : in my opinion, testing a game in alpha (alpha clearly meaning "the game is not feature complete, some core mechanics aren't in yet") is flat-out dumb. If it were in beta (i.e. feature complete, in polish / balance phase), it would be a little more useful, as one could get a better opinion regarding the quality of the player experience. But still, it would be more of a "preview" than a test.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Xeo

[Themohawkninja]

If the game is (supposed) good enough to charge money for it, why should it not be judged? My 20 eur when I bought KSP were not "in development" euros, they were real money.

Not that I have any complaint from KSP, best game of 2012 easily.

Squad is a company with people that need an income, so the game needs to cost money so he company can live, which is nearly regardless of the development state of the game.

[Temeter]

The problem isn't really reviewer, but the reviewing method. Rating seperate elements on a x/20 scale doesn't convey much to begin with, and this is why more established critics like film reviews don't even bother with this nonsense. Applying this system on a game in development is even more stupid. Just look at the sound, i think their rating there is actually understandable. However that's just because the sounds aren't made yet, so rating it in the first place isn't really possible.

This should have been a solely text-based preview without any rating.

Anyway, the few general reactions of journalists to ksp i've read until now were usually surprisingly positive, considering it's such an unusual, complex and hard game without direct rewards.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Temeter

[Emilio]

So basicaly you say the review sucks because you have a different oppinion?

No. What I am trying to say, is that they are reviewing an (early) Alpha game like they would review a fully completed game. Wich an alpha is not. And they are rating it on the graphics and sound effects (usually not very good during alphas). And would you really go as far as to say KSP's graphics "Hurt the eyes" as they said?

This is an alpha game

And this is a completed game.

See the difference?

Never read a "test" on JVC, unless you are looking for a good laugh. I'd even go as far as saying "never read anything about video games on a "professional" French site" in fact. Parole d'étudiant en JV

OK, je m'en souviendrai

Also thanks for your info on the PEGI/ESRB system.

The problem isn't really reviewer, but the reviewing method. Rating seperate elements on a x/20 scale doesn't convey much to begin with, and this is why more established critics like film reviews don't even bother with this nonsense. Applying this system on a game in development is even more stupid. Just look at the sound, i think their rating there is actually understandable. However that's just because the sounds aren't made yet, so rating it in the first place isn't really possible.

This should have been a solely text-based preview without any rating.

Anyway, the few general reactions of journalists to ksp i've read until now were usually surprisingly positive, considering it's such an unusual, complex and hard game without direct rewards.

You are entirely right, that's also what I think.

[glacierre]

Squad is a company with people that need an income, so the game needs to cost money so he company can live, which is nearly regardless of the development state of the game.

Fine, but has nothing to do with what I said. Somebody was surprised that an alpha (although I personally think KSP qualifies amply for beta in most categories) would deserve a review.

And my point is that to play this alpha you need to pay money, so it makes perfect sense to have reviews that help you decide whether you should or shouldn't cash out.

(other point is how much reviews actually help for any of that)