KSP's reputation, does it deserve it?

[sickboy]

one of the, if not the, only game i still play avidly after years of playing, so yeah, highly deserved

[FuzzyLlama]

It has educational value. It is highly moddable. It might, one day, have a 64-bit Windows binary. You get to be an astronaut. It is the most underrated game in history.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Rowsdower
Please do not skirt the language filter.

[Stargate525]

I think the reason you think so (in this case) is because a lot of people who play this game enjoy the subject of space thoroughly and love to create things. The creativity for your space program is extremely varied, you can build rockets that look like giant cubes, or ones that look like real rockets and everywhere in between. Granted, it's your opinion, if you don't like the game so much then why do you reply on the forums saying negative things such as these and the dev team... You definitely don't know how much effort goes into this game, each person on the team spends hours, if not days getting out the next update, and you think that just because you play the game you have the right to criticize the massive amount of work that goes into this game...Damn you must be very ungrateful and spoiled. The game is still in ALPHA, not even to version 1.0 think about it, it has bugs and is still in development

So if you are going to complain, leave it in the dumpster outside the VAB and keep your subjective thoughts to yourself.

Whoa now.

I'm exactly as entitled to criticize as any person who critiques a movie, film, or game (including PCGamer, the Escapist, and IGN).

Time spent is irrelevant. Lots of hours went into the design of the Titanic, the Yugo, and the Chauchat, but that's no reason to defend them.

As I said before, I can't judge a game based on what people promise it's going to be someday. The game is being sold commercially, and that's how I'll judge it. As it IS, not as what it COULD BE.

And I gave the thing a 7.5! Good lord! Are you one of those people who assumes that anything not a 9 or 9.5 is utter excrement? I don't ascribe to binary judgements or score inflation; there is more to games than 'OMG ITS THE BESHT!' and 'UGH ITS HORRID AND MELTS MY EYEBALLS!'

More on the topic you hit before the rant, what I mean by a lack of customization is that there is nothing in the game that makes these things 'mine.' No matter how I make my rocket, it'll still be a vaguely-grey or orange thing. My career mode will look almost exactly the same as the career mode of anyone else, including the mission progression and rocket design. Unless you're faffing about, no one will make all their rockets giant cubes.

[Vanamonde]

This is the second warning to discuss the subject and not other members. If you feel someone is being rude, that's not an excuse to be rude back. Hit the "report post" button and let the moderators deal with it. If this does keep up, we'll start handing out infractions, and if necessary, lock the thread.

[boomerdog2000]

Long Version: I would say there might be a bit of bias towards KSPs reputation since it is virtually the only game that does a space program simulator/ rocket flight simulator. But as it stands it seems to do the parts that are in at the moment very well. Not perfectly, there are always a few little problems, but once you add user-made mods, most of those problems seem to go away.

All that aside, the amount of time I've enjoyed playing this still unfinished game definitely warrants the amount of money I paid. I've also used it to teach younger kids about space, and even used it to prototype some components for a college project.

Short Version: KSP deserves its current reputation and I hope it continues to do so into the future.

[TimMartland]

The learning curve is almost of dwarf-fortress proportions, but thats what is does so well. Its hard to get frustrated when explosions are so hilarious.

[El wonso]

KSP is considered to be a (very) good game by pretty much everyone but majority of the users think that it's still underrated. HUE

What's even more funny - some users (a lot of them actually) are discussing if the game is good or not (which looks more like praising ksp) although it's completely unrelated to the thread. I'm not saying they are stupid and/or brainwashed. But...

Final thought:

You think Apple has fanboys? Visit KSP forums.

[CaptainKipard]

This is the only game on my steam list that even approaches several hundred hours of gameplay. And I've been playing games for quite a long time now. It's a fairly unique game, it's highly modable, it's educational, and afaik it even drives some kids to consider a scientific education, because they want to be an astronaut. This game somehow makes that possibility feel more real.

It still has a long way to go, but it's already a lot of fun especially with mods and at the end of the day fun is what really matters. I'm wondering whether the question posed in the OP even makes sense. Being over/under-rated is irrelevant, when you're enjoying the game.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[MGCJerry]

Read first page... TL;DR remainder...

Yes, it deserves its reputation, if this type of simulator is 'your thing'. Yes, there is a learning curve... Ok, more like a rocket built by Bill slamming you into the VAB at full throttle while Jeb enjoys the short ride... ... Let me try to explain my thought on this.

Yes KSP has issues (all games do). When its working, I have fun with it. That's why I buy games. To have fun. Heck 32 years old and, I still build with Legos Ive had since I was a kid. I came into KSP with basic understanding of orbital mechanics, TWR, model rocketry, etc. Even with that knowledge, a lot of times I just want to 'experiment' with stuff I know will fail.. Moar boosters??? I just want to see the...

$27 has given me a game & simulator that I can set my own goals, do my own engineering (and failing), where the objectives become something that I impose, not a developer. Sure once you land somewhere, big deal. Now do it more efficiently. Now bring 3 more kerbals, and bring the original one home. I like stuff where I HAVE to learn from my screw ups to progress. This is one of those games that I make it what it is. Just like whats the objective for playing in-person RPGS such as Dungeons & Dragons, Werewolf, warhammer. Its a mind game, and thats why I like it and thats why I think a lot of other people like it. Its an interest they have and most of the play occurs in the brain... I haven't played KSP as much as I REALLY want to due to time but I find myself playing KSP alone even when my roommate has his buddies over and theyre playing some old school UT or Starcraft over LAN...

* $27 helped keep my mind active when mom, whom I was close to passed away end of last year. I played KSP after having to deal with the hospital, family, outside people, paperwork, arrangements, etc...

* $27 entertains me when I've had a day where nothing worked, build a rocket, and land it on the mun just so I can say "something" worked today...

* $27 for the lolz when I want to experiment with crazy contraptions which most just rain down onto KSC.

* $27 for seeing how the KSP community explains how stuff works instead of the overly popular and ultimately cringe worthy "Google it" comment.

* $27 for learning something from KSP, or the community.

Despite the problems, I still play KSP (and want to play it more) and in my eyes, KSP deserves every ounce of reputation it has. Even if KSP loses its reputation, or if Squad goes poof (please no), I still have KSP that I spent $27 to go have fun, at my own pace.

Hope this made some sense... I'm good at not making any sense...

[Aghanim]

For everyone that say KSP have steep learning curve:

At least, the worst thing that can happen in KSP when you fail is your rocket explodes and you are disappointed. In Dota 2, the worst thing that can happen if you fail is everyone on your team flames you for being a noob and they ask you to uninstall.

Generally, I love sandbox games, including KSP. The amount of engineering required to build a rocket makes most of my friends trying to play it get bored, unfortunately...

KSP community is the best, every modder coexist peacefully, unlike Minecraft, no one is whining at Squad for unimplemented feature, most of the arguments are scientifically based. Its a nice break from this: http://dev.dota2.com/forumdisplay.php?f=446

And yes, I have tried to play DF once, and I loved it, but if you fail at that no one will ask you to uninstall that game, and lets hope that this peaceful community doesn't get disturbed...

[Pingonaut]

Look here, ì•„ë“œ 아스트ë¼ í¼ 아스페ë¼, if that is your real name.

Kerbal Space Program has earned its reputation because the developers are so good at what they do, and care so much about the game. Never before have I seen a game that has had practically no critics of any kind, and there's good reason for it.

The developers are very open about the direction they want the game to go. Players know what to expect and you don't have the problems that a game like Minecraft has had in the past, changing things no one wanted/expected to be changed (comparing the two because they are similar in that it's an early-access sandbox game).

They're also very good at polishing an update. Something you don't often see in an early-access game. It's very pleasing to think that you've bought a game that is basically out for testing, and the updates you receive have already been thoroughly tested before being released, to insure there are as few bugs as possible.

Yes, it has earned its reputation. That's for sure.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Pingonaut

[DocMoriarty]

I think KSP is overrated. There are lots of problems and shortcommings. Just look at all the inconsistent parts. Look at lots of annoyances the program has that could have been fixed. The dev team loves to stop finishing stuff at 80% and to hop to the next thing that will be unfinished. Very basic things are missing completely like the least little bit of statistics in vehicle assembly such as part count and weight. Cockpit Mk2 has still it's placeholder cockpit. Cockpits are anyway best case a joke. And don't tell me thats all because it's an alpha. Professionals don't hop from construction site to construction site leaving stuff unfinished at 80%.

It still is a very playable and good game compared to other stuff around. But it's certainly overrated.

[hildegain]

I think KSP is overrated. There are lots of problems and shortcommings. Just look at all the inconsistent parts. Look at lots of annoyances the program has that could have been fixed. The dev team loves to stop finishing stuff at 80% and to hop to the next thing that will be unfinished. Very basic things are missing completely like the least little bit of statistics in vehicle assembly such as part count and weight. Cockpit Mk2 has still it's placeholder cockpit. Cockpits are anyway best case a joke. And don't tell me thats all because it's an alpha. Professionals don't hop from construction site to construction site leaving stuff unfinished at 80%.

It still is a very playable and good game compared to other stuff around. But it's certainly overrated.

Kerbal Space Program isn't a house or a building of any other kind. Nobody is waiting to move into this home. It's entirely a fun product. Also, they're not hopping from site to site. They're getting the roof to the point where it can stop water from getting in to fit some of the pipes and then to finish up some of the flooring. Last time I checked, Squad weren't retiring from KSP to make another game at random times. Please re-think your analogy because it is seriously flawed.

Yeah some stuff has been left unfinished but that's kind of the point when you're still in the design and development process of making your game. Much of what is in KSP might not even exist when the final version comes around. Part designs, textures, planets, skyboxes, cockpits, kerbals etc. are all subject to change but the fact that we currently right now have the largest exploration game that allows you to do physics based construction of ships that can take you to the stars (the only game that really offers this) makes it quite a big deal.

I'm all for criticisms of KSP (I still hate the current aerodynamics, the lack of vegetation and features on kerbin and other planets, I want to be able to set up colonies, interact with my ship's interior outside of the cockpit etc) but your criticism was close to just hateful. Sure, cockpits are simple and the lack of a MK2 cockpit might be annoying but really, when modders have made fantastic complex cockpits and a MK2 cockpit of their own, it becomes less of a priority for squad to do it when people don't stop complaining at them that they're not devoting time to one project or another.

You complain that they leave things 80% done but there are many more hundreds or even thousands who complain daily on the forums that the feature they want implemented (right now) is not currently on the "in the next patch" list. Currently they're working on implementing the framework for multiplayer (been requested for a looooong time) and now many responses are "WTF about the ****ty career!?" and the patches before that were more like "Omg why not more parts!? I don't care about career!".

It doesn't matter what Squad does, either they can dedicate the manpower and time into one feature over another or a modder can come in and have their own stab at contributing. I really don't see the problem.

[OtherDalfite]

You complain that they leave things 80% done but there are many more hundreds or even thousands who complain daily on the forums that the feature they want implemented (right now) is not currently on the "in the next patch" list. Currently they're working on implementing the framework for multiplayer (been requested for a looooong time) and now many responses are "WTF about the ****ty career!?" and the patches before that were more like "Omg why not more parts!? I don't care about career!"..

Except multiplayer mode was stated to never be added. The only reason squad is adding it (I highly doubt they will even come close to finishing it, given how big of a task it is and how squad is now afraid of commitment) is because the community made them cave. Squad pulled a Jeb_. Caving to the community is the start of the downfall of the game.

As to how I feel about it, if things hadn't gone drastically down the chute since 0.18, I would definitely say it deserved it's reputation. From 0.19 to the current version, I'm still angry at the lack of actual progress and the louder than ever shouts of "it's an alpha!". Yes, it's an alpha, but they are selling it. If they don't want criticism, have a closed beta. The moment you decide to charge money for a product that isn't finished, you are opening yourself to criticism whether you like it or not.

[LayZboy]

I think it's too dependent on mods right now. Some mods are required because things just never got implemented in a reasonable time frame. Want to see how much thrust your craft has? Need a mod. Want to have engines for all the fuel tank sizes? Need a mod. Want something to do other than explosions? Need a mod. For this I'd put in the somewhat over-rated section.

I like the game and have played it a lot, but my interest has wavered in stock-game because of mis-matching parts, parts that aren't there & a lack of things to do once you've been everywhere.

[boomerdog2000]

Except multiplayer mode was stated to never be added. The only reason squad is adding it (I highly doubt they will even come close to finishing it, given how big of a task it is and how squad is now afraid of commitment) is because the community made them cave.

I would guess the actual reason is KMP showed that multiplayer could actually work. So with the new ideas, the devs decided to run with it since it is a feature that it seems they believe would improve the game.

The entire point of the suggestions forum is for the community to contribute ideas to the progress of the game. If it were the start of the downfall of a game every time Squad implemented something the community asked for this game would have died a long time ago.

[LawnDartLeo]

I think it's too dependent on mods right now.

Mods are the point of KSP. Without mods KSP is a novel but short lived distraction. Let Squad work on core game items that allow for such an open environment and let the community implement the rest. That may sound like advocating Squad capitalize on the efforts of others but the fact is that the efforts that people put into their mods are driven by personal interest and the satisfaction they get out of making mods. No disrespect to Squad but there are mod developers out there that make content that exceeds the quality of the base game significantly. I am very appreciative of those people and thankful that Squad allows them the freedom to do what they do.

[Stargate525]

It's entirely a fun product.

No it's not, it's their livelihood. Calling it a fun product is an excuse, nothing more. Unless I'm misreading what you mean by that, in which case, my apologies.

Mods are the point of KSP. Without mods KSP is a novel but short lived distraction. Let Squad work on core game items that allow for such an open environment and let the community implement the rest. That may sound like advocating Squad capitalize on the efforts of others but the fact is that the efforts that people put into their mods are driven by personal interest and the satisfaction they get out of making mods. No disrespect to Squad but there are mod developers out there that make content that exceeds the quality of the base game significantly. I am very appreciative of those people and thankful that Squad allows them the freedom to do what they do.

Isn't that a little like saying that the point of a horrible vodka is the soda you put in it? Or the point of a rusted-out jalopy is the new engine you get to put into it? Yes, the mods make KSP good. But... shouldn't the game be good WITHOUT the mods?

[AlternNocturn]

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it deserve its reputation? Sure it's in early access, but it's literally still making fun, fresh, enjoyable gameplay opportunities for everyone that plays it, veteran or not. Not to mention it was 100% mod-friendly out-of-the-box so that you literally had to try to make the game stale.

[Monkeh]

Over 500 hours. Still not bored. KSP is amazing.

[SofusRud]

Mods are the point of KSP. Without mods KSP is a novel but short lived distraction.

With over 800 hours of playtime with purely vanilla KSP, I beg to differ.

[LawnDartLeo]

With over 800 hours of playtime with purely vanilla KSP, I beg to differ.

That gets into the whole vanilla vs. modded argument which is outside of the scope of this discussion. Ok, fine, FOR ME it would be short lived. The mods are what make the game for me.

No it's not, it's their livelihood. Calling it a fun product is an excuse, nothing more. Unless I'm misreading what you mean by that, in which case, my apologies.

Isn't that a little like saying that the point of a horrible vodka is the soda you put in it? Or the point of a rusted-out jalopy is the new engine you get to put into it? Yes, the mods make KSP good. But... shouldn't the game be good WITHOUT the mods?

I would hardly call KSP horrible Vodka or a rusted out jalopy. It is, however, a decent foundation upon which the community can build and expand upon to. Go to any custom car show and you will see automotive artwork that started out as rusted out wreck discovered in a field. The person who found that wreck didn't see a wreck but rather a starting point for something much greater. KSP is not without its flaws, nor is the community short on excellent artists, modelers and coders who make it a better game. Were the base game absolute rubbish, I do not think that we would be having this discussion because KSP would have failed a long time ago.

Edited March 3, 2014 by LawnDartLeo

[John Crichton]

I'm sitting at work thinking about how to optimize my SSTO's DeltaV once reaching LKO...so it's pretty safe to say the game is awesome

[Superfluous J]

Isn't that a little like saying that the point of a horrible vodka is the soda you put in it?

Actually I think it is You don't buy crappy Vodka to sip straight

Yes, the mods make KSP good. But... shouldn't the game be good WITHOUT the mods?

While I don't agree with the idea that KSP sucks without mods, I do agree that mods make a good (and getting better) game even better. So IMO it already is good without the mods.

But if a game has enough potential and is open enough to mods, then I think it's okay if it's just a husk of functionality that allows modders to connect to.

Though probably not for $25...

[boomerdog2000]

Mods seem to be more for personalizing the game to each person. A lot of people have their list of mods that they install at the first opportunity. Others are perfectly content with the stock experience. Neither is wrong. If anything it should improve the reputation that the devs supplied tools for the modders, to allow people to personalize the game the way they want.