KSP's reputation, does it deserve it?

[frizzank]

This sounds more like a troll than anything else.

It would be one thing to have a critique or review of the game, but to come on a KSP forum and suggest that it is overrated sounds fishy. It seems more like you don't enjoy the game and you can't figure out why everyone else is giving it so much praise.

I think this thread is overrated, can I start a poll on that?

[John Crichton]

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.

The version number is irrelevant...what matters is how playable a game is. Also, a game doesn't necessarily have to be "finished" at some point in time. I prefer developers who CONTINUOUSLY improve their game...just like CCP does with EVE Online. That game's been around for 10+ years, and guess what, it's still not "finished".

[Stargate525]

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

You're right about it being a poor analogy. It was late, and I was tired. Though I REALLY don't understand where you're coming from on this; I prefer my games' challenge to come from the gameplay, not fighting with the interface. I also really don't appreciate games that assume you have a net connection and a desire to go online and search out proper documentation. To me, your argument is like saying that you're glad your car didn't come with symbols on the control stick, because it leads you to find a good mechanic.

Me, I would have just returned the car.

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.

Too bad. I agree some of those I listed were small, but a lot of small problems adds up to something big. The art style...It's bland. All greys and whites, very little detail... I preferred the old-style tanks. And I argue that once you get into orbit and onto a planet, there is zero reason to go back there. There's nothing different to do, no new goal to achieve, it's routine. Once you visit every planet, you can shut the game off (I've done so before that). Everything is 'you can land. Can you land on this brown thing? How about this blue thing?'

[Nepos]

Heck I owned this for almost a year I think and just recently I have been able to land on the Mun. I am a SLOW learning and determined to make this statement true "with enough thrust even a brick can fly".

So it could be better but I love this game. The explosion make me laugh all the time. Trying to rescue a lost Kerbal in space is a blast. Anygame that make me think for hours at a time is a thumbs up

[DoctorCruz]

I think it needs more publicity. I know a ton of people that would love this game once they gave it a try.

[Tuck00]

The steep learning curve is part of the hook I think. My first rocket went straight up and fell right back down. I had no shoot, or other life preserving structures, but Jeb loved the whole short trip, RIP Jeb. Watching the epic failures is a great way to keep people as they climb the learning curve. I am a rookie as far as compared to a lot of the forum users, but I love the game and try to promote it to my friends. Someone once posted that 70% of there missions were rescue missions because sometimes they had to rescue the rescue mission, that is the story of my game.

KSP is a great game with great re-playability.

[Javster]

And it does so while keeping it fun enough that my little sister always asks me to play it with her.

You're lucky she does... Mine gets annoyed at me when I start spouting random space facts...

Back on topic, it is a game for people who know things about space. You can't play properly without an understanding of physics.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Javster

[briansun1]

Yes, it deserves it's reputation. I dare you to find one reason why this game sucks.

no multiplayer

[RickRastardly]

I've recommended this game to someone with a degree in Rocketry, and his reply was that he already plays it. nuff said.

[briansun1]

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.

it already has one

[KSK]

Too bad. I agree some of those I listed were small, but a lot of small problems adds up to something big. The art style...It's bland. All greys and whites, very little detail... I preferred the old-style tanks. And I argue that once you get into orbit and onto a planet, there is zero reason to go back there. There's nothing different to do, no new goal to achieve, it's routine. Once you visit every planet, you can shut the game off (I've done so before that). Everything is 'you can land. Can you land on this brown thing? How about this blue thing?'

Which is a fair point but if I may ask - how long did it take you to get to the point where you can navigate to any planet regardless of eccentricity or inclination? More importantly - was it fun while it lasted?

I would argue that it's OK for a game to stop somewhere. I would also argue that there's plenty to do once you've reached that point. Can you land a rover on a given planet? How about build a base there? A base that's more than just an oversized lander? A floating base on Laythe? Write your name in flags across Eeloo? Sure, this is pure Lego - building for building's sake. None of it has any real point gameplay-wise - but does that matter? I guess the answer is - it will for some folks and it won't for others.

Edit: I should also say that I don't get as much time to play (as opposed to write about or comment on ) KSP as I might like. I have loads of places left to visit, without resorting to my slightly contrived goals above. So I'm probably coming at this from a slightly different perspective than you.

Edited February 27, 2014 by KSK

[xcorps]

I

would argue that it's OK for a game to stop somewhere.

I'd say that barring multiplayer/competitive games, the list of games that DON'T stop somewhere is very limited.

[Torham234]

Which is a fair point but if I may ask - how long did it take you to get to the point where you can navigate to any planet regardless of eccentricity or inclination? More importantly - was it fun while it lasted?

I would argue that it's OK for a game to stop somewhere. I would also argue that there's plenty to do once you've reached that point. Can you land a rover on a given planet? How about build a base there? A base that's more than just an oversized lander? A floating base on Laythe? Write your name in flags across Eeloo? Sure, this is pure Lego - building for building's sake. None of it has any real point gameplay-wise - but does that matter? I guess the answer is - it will for some folks and it won't for others.

Edit: I should also say that I don't get as much time to play (as opposed to write about or comment on ) KSP as I might like. I have loads of places left to visit, without resorting to my slightly contrived goals above. So I'm probably coming at this from a slightly different perspective than you.

Exactly. Quite often I see someone complain that the game is boring for them and there is nothing left to do after they mastered it. Well, witch other games can they list that can captivate them for years on end? for example, is someone complaining that after they play Mass Effect to the end, there is "not much left to do". Even a hundred hours of gameplay is good value for money in a game. After that, I would expect most the games to loose their charm. The most important thing is: Did I have fun while I played? If you had fun playing KSP, than it has fulfilled its goal - to entertain you. KSP is like a set of lego, if you have the mindset to entertain yourself by building and engineering, than you will have fun, and you will set your own goals and objectives.

[Boris_T_Roach]

Heres my take, seeing as I'm a long term user of KSP (bought May 2012... played the demo for ages until finally splashing the cash out).

Its a game in which your job is to build a rocket and fly a bunch of loonies into orbit/the ground (delete as applicable).

Thats it.

If your love is building huge contraptions that may or may not fly.... KSP

If you love flying rockets, KSP

If you love planning a multi-vessel research expedition to another world KSP

If you want to relive the glory moments of 1969.. KSP *

And for the peopel I know have just got the game because of the vast number of screenshots posted to my steam profile**, you dont need to be a rocket scientist to do all of the above.

If you dont make it into orbit ... just strap moar boosters on and go for it again

And it helped keep me sane*** while I was sick for 3 months after a life threatening illness

Boris

*"We're breathing again down here...."

**http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197964668916/screenshots/

*** sane'ish

[Rowsdower]

Right now, KSP is fairing quite well in the internet. For example, when I searched Google using searchwords such as "KSP is overrated","KSP sucks", it only showed reviewers prasing KSP and describing the reasons regarding how it doesn't suck. I was highly mystified of this grotesquely one-sided reputation, and decided to find out more by asking people who know the most.

Jeb forbid that someone actually likes the game, right?

Like it, love it, hate it, "meh" - whatever you feel about the game, I'm glad that you all continue to interact here and make your voices known.

[Justin Kerbice]

- No multiplayer option (yet!)

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

--- Mediocre graphics

--- Single-threaded game loop

MP has positive and negative aspects, I hope KSP will never become kind of MMO something which we can't play offline alone and quiet.

Mediocre ?? The (very) bad thing these past decade in video games was to hide a poor games behind stunning graphics (the only thing people see on picture, on a magazine, on a game show), ex: Crysis 2: dumb IA (a CELL soldier with a dead foe: "Hey, are you injured ?" many times), poor design, quite good sadely but too bad to last. Game dev just put everything of graphics leading to have a lot of beautiful bad games !

single thread: what a joke, people seems to have been widely brain-washed by Intel. Their architecture is not a good as they claim to be and multi-thread/multi-core/multi-anything is not a magic solution than improve performances with 100% guaranty. Like when building a large rocket, every fueltank you add need more engine, more fuel, ... until TWR is high enough or not.

[Stargate525]

Which is a fair point but if I may ask - how long did it take you to get to the point where you can navigate to any planet regardless of eccentricity or inclination? More importantly - was it fun while it lasted?

Heh, fair enough. I never said it wasn't fun, don't get me wrong. But it is, in its current state, very much a sandbox game. I still have two of the Jool moons to visit, but... I don't have any incentive to do so. It's basically 'land on this blue rock' and 'land on this bumpy rock.'

I would argue that it's OK for a game to stop somewhere. I would also argue that there's plenty to do once you've reached that point. Can you land a rover on a given planet? How about build a base there? A base that's more than just an oversized lander? A floating base on Laythe? Write your name in flags across Eeloo? Sure, this is pure Lego - building for building's sake. None of it has any real point gameplay-wise - but does that matter? I guess the answer is - it will for some folks and it won't for others.

I agree; few games have kept me for more than a hundred hours or so. ButI guess my big complaint is that right now KSP doesn't have enough of a sandbox to really support long-term freeplay (those suggestions are all, essentially, the same. 90% of each of those missions is the same, and that gets boring quickly), but it doesn't have enough flesh on its career mode to be a linear game either.

That, and it has the luxury of being the only game of its kind. It is, simultaneously, the best space rocket sim and the worst space rocket sim.

[costermonger]

Heh, fair enough. I never said it wasn't fun, don't get me wrong. But it is, in its current state, very much a sandbox game. I still have two of the Jool moons to visit, but... I don't have any incentive to do so. It's basically 'land on this blue rock' and 'land on this bumpy rock.'

This is why I'm looking forward to contracts/missions.

You can always invent your own missions and constraints, but the addition of the career mode really got me back into the game. If 'land this part on that bumpy rock's equator, on a budget of X' is where these contracts go, I'm going to be a happy individual.

I love sandbox games, but they're at their best when they provide you with an objective and then leave you to your own devices.

[rottielover]

Go watch 1 or 2 of Angry Joe's game reviews (personally I recommend the review of 2014's "Rambo" game for $40).

Now, think about the people that paid $40US for that game, and those that paid $17-23US for KSP.

$ for $ most "finished" games make KSP look like it should cost $7,000.

Plus this is about the only game I can think of that I have no issues at all when my 2 year old comes into the room and wants to "play rocket ships with daddy". Can you say that for just about any other game out there?

Finally I leave you with this thought:

"Space, the final frontier"

[DJEN]

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.

Some games took over a decade to be developed, you know.

[panfish5]

I have a bad feeling about this thread...

[Stargate525]

This is why I'm looking forward to contracts/missions.

Oh me too. But I can't judge this game on what's been promised or a theoretical finished version. I'm judging it on what it is.

[DJEN]

I have a bad feeling about this thread...

Yup, you'd better have one.

[Kerba Fett]

KSP is kinda like chess. Nobody says chess sucks, but on the other hand, only selected few play it, those who have what it takes. And everyone else says chess is a great game.

Actually, I say chess sucks any time the subject comes up. The pieces don't look like what they're supposed to represent and the rules seem pretty arbitrary. There's no terrain or line of sight usage, no flanking, no ranged attacks.

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone even plays it any more.

[Xavven]

Actually, I say chess sucks any time the subject comes up. The pieces don't look like what they're supposed to represent and the rules seem pretty arbitrary. There's no terrain or line of sight usage, no flanking, no ranged attacks.

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone even plays it any more.

Dude, and the graphics totally suck. Black and white squares? Really? The devs couldn't come up with anything better than that?