KSP's reputation, does it deserve it?

[helaeon]

KSP rules. My surprise is with its high regard on the internet and that it's not a super super niche thing. The cartoony aspect and the humor make up for the crushing difficulty of doing spaceflight in a plausible way and dealing with the kinds of problems that NASA does. It's reputation and popularity cause me to believe maybe there is hope for us all. The friendliness, helpfulness, and overall decency of the KSP community makes it all the better. Someone asks a question about what Delta-V is and there's no belittling or "OMG I can't believe you don't know that", we teach physics instead. It's glorious.

Maybe it works because they aren't over-thinking it. Building stuff is fairly simple but there is room for complexity and cleverness if you want it. You can take things as far as you want. If you want to never leave Kerbin SOI and do things completely there, build space stations, moon bases, crazy bonkers efficient landers, whatever... that's up to you. There's nobody there telling you that you're wrong. Maybe that's a big part of it's regard. We don't have to try and figure out what the developers want us to do, or have them explicitly tell us (like so many other sandbox games).

[macegee]

Oh, I've got a few lines ready for KSP 1.0 release that I think won't need any correction by that time:

SQUAD is just like an SRB. It was flying up, and then burnt out. It got to its Apoapsis somewhere near 0.18, but then started falling back to the ground, failing to achieve stable orbit. They've made their "one small step", but were unable to move any further after that.

That's how it is now. And I don't think it'll change. Unfortunately.

PS: I can't forgive them for not giving us engineering/in-flight info and still not fixing the UI (anyone still likes to fly in map view? I don't).

Edited February 27, 2014 by macegee

[Streetwind]

Pros:

- Teaches real science

- Promotes creativity

- Fairly immersive, engages emotional investment

- Good gameplay and puzzle design

- Cross-platform

- More complete playable than most early access titles

- Regular updates

- Active modding community provides free extra content

Cons:

- Noticeably unfinished

- No multiplayer option (yet!)

- Unity engine technology is very much out of its league here, resulting in:

--- 32bit code

--- Mediocre graphics

--- Single-threaded game loop

--- Physics simulation errors

--- Part interconnectivity limitations

--- Planned feature limitations

--- Slow development of engine features that specifically benefit KSP

--- etc.

Overall:

- A good game with a good and likely long future, but held back somewhat by its technology base.

- Would definitely recommend to other people (and have done so).

As for how much reputation it deserves, I don't feel qualified to answer. I haven't actually bothered to check what its reputation is (beyond coming across the opening post in this thread).

[CalculusWarrior]

Oh, I've got a few lines ready for KSP 1.0 release that I think won't need any correction by that time:

SQUAD is just like an SRB. It was flying up, and then burnt out. It got to its Apoapsis somewhere near 0.18, but then started falling back to the ground, failing to achieve stable orbit. They've made their "one small step", but were unable to move any further after that.

That's how it is now. And I don't think it'll change. Unfortunately.

PS: I can't forgive them for not giving us engineering/in-flight info and still not fixing the UI (anyone still likes to fly in map view? I don't).

I personally see the dev process as a staircase, rather than a ballistic trajectory. Rather than falling back to Earth/Kerbin eventually, they progress in a series of discrete steps. The game simply keeps getting better as they go along, striving to reach the ideal goal of a perfect game at the top of the staircase. (Even if the pace is too slow for some peoples' tastes) If they don't end up reaching that goal, KSP is still an amazingly good game, one which I will continue to play for many years to come.

I think it's the only game which I think about and work on designs for when I am not playing it. To me, that's a sign of a great game (or perhaps I'm just addicted to it). Either way, I feel KSP needs more reputation!

[Stargate525]

Does wiki count as source of keybind documentation? 'Cause it has key bindings.

No. Just like minecraft, a need to use outside sources to get information on basic controls and gameplay is a failure of the game's design. Can you imagine the flak that CoD would have gotten if you had to go to an outside wiki to know the keybind to crouch?

[Sirrobert]

Does wiki count as source of keybind documentation? 'Cause it has key bindings.

No, it should be in game.

All in all, the game is pritty avarage. What really stands out, is the potential, and the concept

[irongut]

the lack of keybind documentation is annoying

Keys look well documented to me: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Controls

[Kasuha]

No, it should be in game.

Key bindings are present in the game - in settings. Just not directly accessible when you go launch your first rocket and it goes pssssssshhh and falls on the ground instead.

I found wiki very convenient for that as I am used to playing games windowed which allows me to access internet and everything else easily. But I understand not everybody is like that.

[real]

I can't vote on polls yet so let me vote for 2# Its reputation is what it deserves. (and get a comment more for my vote-limit )

[Simon Ross]

Certainly not perfect, but then again, which game ever is ?

In terms of playability it certainly rates up there with just about any game I have ever played, and trust me, I have been around for a while :-)

Certainly one of the biggest plus points is the community involved, both on the mods side and just the general interaction between individuals. Very few other games sport this level of involvement

[Hello moto]

No. Just like minecraft, a need to use outside sources to get information on basic controls and gameplay is a failure of the game's design. Can you imagine the flak that CoD would have gotten if you had to go to an outside wiki to know the keybind to crouch?

Ten buttons to press to find crouch in cod, and about 7 seconds to find the right button. Not a very good comparison.

Only a failure if it wasn't intended.

I for one believe more games should force gamers online to look for keybinds if they don't want to experiment. It means they come across communities like this. It's how it happened for me, and I'm glad it happened.

I am growing to absurdly dispise games that come with all these instructions on how to play and keybind lists.

[qromodynmc]

I may think it is little bit underrated but,still in alpha-ish stage,So cant really say anything about its reputation. Still ksp is one of my favourite games,Along with Witcher series

[Liowen]

Yup. It would be like going to a football team's fan club and asking them what they think about the team...

You have never met a Lions fan before

On topic though I would say it isn't overly hyped on the gaming scene other than it's followers and maybe an article here and there, and this is actually a good thing. If a game, or game genre, becomes too main stream stream it starts losing that thing that made it special, and bigger companies will flood the market with dumbed down versions of the original. While games like this will be popular with some who find fun in a challenge, it will be less enjoyable to those who want a "end" to the game so they can put an arbitrary time showing how fast they did something, or an achievement system that rewards you for doing the most basic things in game (IE "Achievement: You put a command pod on the launchpad +10"). Even with some of the issues it has currently I have enjoyed this game more than some bigger games I have recently play, and those bigger games are usually released with many issues or missing content that has to be released or fixed later. As far as promoting the game, right now given Squads size, I would hope they concentrate on players doing so by word of mouth than spending their resources on ad campaigns, or paying people to hype the game.

Also if you want to see a game that is overrated, and under severing of it, look no further than the Call of Duty series. It is the same rehashed game play mechanic in everyone, with a multiplayer element that is the same as Counter Strike, and yet it gets tons of praise from players. To be honest I feel it has gotten worse over time, graphically it has gotten better but gameplay wise it has gotten worse. I can feel the rage I will get with this comment already

Edited February 27, 2014 by Liowen

[peadar1987]

On keybindings, I expect for 1.0 they'll have a tutorial you can walk through that will take you through most of the keybindings (Werher von Kerman: "Gut, gut, ve are on zee Launch pad. Hold zee shift key to throttle up, zen press zee space bar to ignite zee engines"). No point in making it now before the game is ready to release.

[Whirligig Girl]

I'll play devil's advocate.

It's got more praise than I think it deserves. Yes, it's a pretty decent game, especially for alpha, but it's not the best game I've ever played. Some of the UI is annoying, the lack of keybind documentation is annoying, that the game doesn't tell you how far back your quicksave is is VERY annoying. The amount of customization available for your program is almost nil, and the replayability is woefully lacking. While it's gotten better, the art style is... meh. The parts don't really have very much flavor to them. And speaking as a jaded player of abandoned alphas, this Dev team has zero track record for me to trust that any of the above will be fixed in any meaningful way.

If I had to rate the game objectively... I'd give it a seven or eight. Fun, worth the money... But could still be better.

Most of those points were nit-picking. Replayability is huge. The Art Style is pretty, and you customize your program in the way you build, fly and dream your crafts. Keybind documentation is easy to find, and I hate devil's advocation.

[Liowen]

On keybindings, I expect for 1.0 they'll have a tutorial you can walk through that will take you through most of the keybindings (Werher von Kerman: "Gut, gut, ve are on zee Launch pad. Hold zee shift key to throttle up, zen press zee space bar to ignite zee engines"). No point in making it now before the game is ready to release.

Actually there already tutorials in game, but it is up to the player to actually use them. Most player skip them, thinking they do not need them, and then complain about how there is no information in game on how to play. For me it was easy as it is similar to the old flight sims I use to play, although I need to remap RCS controls to the number pad, if I can, to make it feel more natural, but if I cannot I will use the arrow keys and control/shift on the right side for my RCS controls.

[KSK]

I'm voting for option 2. KSP definitely deserves its current reputation and given that that reputation seems to be almost universally positive, I think it's hard to argue for option 1. As folks have pointed out, it's a little rough around the edges in places but I'm confident that those rough edges will be smoothed away in time. KSP isn't a finished product after all.

And purely as an aside, I like the fact that KSP doesn't have achievements. Others may beg to differ of course but I don't think my first ever Mun landing was at all spoiled by not having an 'Achievement Unlocked - Mun Landing!' style message pop up. Quite the opposite in fact - shutting down that engine, watching the lander drop those last couple of metres onto the Mun (without breaking) and then taking Jeb out on EVA and watch him bounce around in low gravity - I didn't need a pop-up to tell me that was an achievement.

[John Crichton]

It caters to people who love sandbox game...and it that respect it's AMAZING!!!

I'm coming over from Eve Online, also a sandbox game, and KSP is the only non-Eve game that offers the amount of complexity I like. I get bored with a lot of games quickly if a certain complexity is missing. I don't like games that "hold my hand" while I play.

So yeah, KSP totally deserves praise...especially considering it's only at 0.23!!

[pauix]

The game deserves its praise. It has gone a long way since the first days, and its future is very promising. It has now got a game mode for people who don't feel comfortable with a full sandbox (the career mode, and in the near future we should expect missions) while still retaining the "I can do whatever I want" feel that makes it different.

This game totally deserves the praise it is getting. There's nothing like sucessfully returning from another planet with a ship full of science.

[Torham234]

I hold KSP in high regard. Its made engineering fun to play, and the relatively realistic approach to orbital mechanics is educational at the very least. Combine that with a fact that the game is still in development and is being developed by a small Indie team with limited resources, and one can but feel privileged to play it. For me, its wroth every penny of its price tag. That is a fact that a lot of games today cannot claim. It's a shame that I had to wait 20 years until someone actually made a game like KSP.

TLDR: It definitely deserves its reputation.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Torham234

[Mipi]

It amazes me that many people welcome the fact that KSP is "only" at 0.23. As a buyer, I see a serious problem in it. 2 1/2 years, and KSP is only at 0.23? Another game which will never be finished. My opinion, voted for the last option.

[Direk]

702hr played is what steam is telling me. By far more than any other game I own. It defiantly has its flaws, which are all too often just excused by saying "well the game is unfinished". But its strengths greatly out weigh them. At least in this gamers opinion.

If you can even call it a game. More of a simulator than anything.

[Geschosskopf]

KSP is a great for what it does. IMHO, it's more a toy than a game per se. It has just enough realism in it to set the tone, from which players are free to role-play or add mods to customize their sense of reality. And then the players are free to devise whatever contraptions they can imagine, using stock or mod parts, and do whatever jobs they can think up. All very good, all very fun.

But OTOH, KSP's biggest failing is that the above freedom has hidden and severe limits. First, even with mods, there's really not much you can actually DO in KSP. You can go somewhere and come back. Maybe slurp up some Kethane or other mod-based resource on the way, but that's about it. But that's OK because really there's not much else to real life, either. The real downer is the rather low limit on the number of such things you can have going on at once.

KSP is at the bottom line a rocket-breeder. You can just keep making stuff and sending it to space, so you might think, if you keep at it long enough. you could eventually build a huge space presence with sprawling colonies on every planet all connected by a functioning trade network. Sadly, no. Put too much stuff in any 1 place and you start getting laggy. Put too much stuff in space, no matter how widely spread, and the game starts getting unstable. And even at the smaller scale the game allows, you have to micromanage everything or nothing gets done. So there it is. You have the infinite void of space in front of you but are not allowed to come close to filling even a corner of it. I find this frustrating.

So I agree with those who say that KSP needs to offer more to experienced players. And I think the best way to do this is to change the game engine or something that greatly raises the limit on how much stuff you can have going. Without this, adding new planets just increases the amount of space you can't fill.

[Arran]

It amazes me that many people welcome the fact that KSP is "only" at 0.23. As a buyer, I see a serious problem in it. 2 1/2 years, and KSP is only at 0.23? Another game which will never be finished. My opinion, voted for the last option.

On Average an AAA title takes 3 to 4 years to make, of witch you only get to see teasers, and dev interviews full of Hype, and broken promisses (Peter Moulinoux anyone ) and have often a much larger team that work on the title.

You (well, by example more) started to play the game at its earliest development, an stage you barely see without early release games, and SQUAD took a huge risk with this, considering 70% of gamers have no clue what comes around the corner in making a new game, especially a game that is in unchartered waters, unlike some AAA titles that emerges from prequel after prequel, and becomes with each new version shallower and buggier due maximizing profits over gameplay.. Considering all this, and SQUAD aint doing bad at all..

I am following several Early Acces games, and updates are on those even alot sparser, some of them i considered abbadoned, to see after 8 to 10 months a update, or even seen completely rewritten games at it core because the devs ran into unsolvable problem, and took several months before they found a sollution (rewriting 60% of the core code)

My opinion of KSP, its a great game, it took ages, but finnally an inovating new genre game, that isnt build around killing a mindless stream of NPC's but is far from finished, and has some fundamental design flaws like a bad UI, lack of in game information and such. But as long its not 1.0 i cannot be to much bothered as long these issues are beeing adressed in time (prolly near the end).

In all i had more fun with this $8 game (i know price went up in time) and still play it, then i had of many TripleA games.

[Xavven]

I think this game deserves its good ratings. It's just my personal opinion, but in general the gaming market has gone soft. I know that makes me sound like an old curmudgeon, but I'm an old-school 90's gamer who likes an actual challenge.

I get very tired of the Call of Duty style games that, as others have already mentioned, are on rails and hold your hand through the whole game. Even MMORPGs have suffered from noobification -- every quest giver has a floating icon over his head, and your quest journal tells you exactly where to go, what to do, how many you have to kill, and then you get a GPS marker on your automap and sometimes even a route planned for you automatically. The problem with this is that you don't even have to think anymore. You just follow the directions like you're some drone. Well I'm sorry, but I don't stamp license plates for a living and that's because it's boring as #*(@! I sure as heck don't want to come home and "play" and "game" that my dog could be trained to operate for 2 biscuits a day.

This quote is just so perfect:

Others may beg to differ of course but I don't think my first ever Mun landing was at all spoiled by not having an 'Achievement Unlocked - Mun Landing!' style message pop up. Quite the opposite in fact - shutting down that engine, watching the lander drop those last couple of metres onto the Mun (without breaking) and then taking Jeb out on EVA and watch him bounce around in low gravity - I didn't need a pop-up to tell me that was an achievement.

You get an AMAZING feeling when your lander touches down and you suddenly realize you had been holding your breath for the last 45 seconds. You let out a giant sigh of relief and then this rush of accomplishment. If Call of Duty were to have the most graphically intense, amazing moon battle scene like something right out of a Michael Bay film, you'd think, "hey, cool setting!" for about 5 seconds and well, that would be that. And yet KSP, with its admittedly bland landscape graphics can invoke much more powerful feelings.

I bet you this screenshot reminds you of the first time YOU landed on Ike and saw Duna rising behind you. Remember that feeling!? Remember it!?! Well, look at how crappy those graphics are. I mean, look at it again. The polygon count is low, the texture resolution is low, there's no mountain with a cave and cliffs and missiles streaking through the air, or badass mechs with gatling guns blazing. It's plain. And yet the first time you nail that landing, it's the prettiest and most awe inspiring thing you've ever seen. And why? Because it was hard to get there. You had to design your own rocket - and yeah there are generally good principles to follow - but it's your own creation that managed to get you there. I bet you nobody else's Ike lander looks exactly like mine - and that's an older model that I've since dramatically improved.