Initial Reaction

[Krasny]

My initial reaction after playing the game for a few hours is that it is a pretty dull game.

The core gameplay consists of researching technology until its maxed out then launching the spacecraft and hoping for the best. Rinse and repeat.

I would avoid this game at its current stage of development. To quote the game, "Launch......... Fail."

If you wish me to use more colourful language, playing this game is rather like having carnal knowledge of a dead sheep.

[Nacho84]

Hello Krasny,

Thanks for the feedback. Sad to hear you didn't like the game. We are currently working on lots of features and improvements, so please make sure you check out the updates.

Cheers,

[Krasny]

If you want a more detailed review please let me know.

I'm pretty sure the blessed Scott Manley will do a Let's Play.

[wolf14455]

I agree that Scott Manly do awesome videos. He can surely make this game(one of my new favorite games bytheway [:)] ) justise.

[Nacho84]

ORIGINAL: Krasny

If you want a more detailed review please let me know.

I'm pretty sure the blessed Scott Manley will do a Let's Play.

Sure, feel free to open up a new thread with your suggestions. I won't be able to answer them all, but rest assured that I read everything that is being posted at the forums and take notes of all suggestions.

Cheers,

[histgamer]

I can hear your concerns as BARIS had a similar feel at times. I would make sure to keep following this and dont give up on it yet. I think that's a symptom of a lot of sandbox games. Once you have objectives and you have to struggle to prioritize and get things done with a limited timeframe I think you'll enjoy the game a lot more.

ORIGINAL: Krasny

My initial reaction after playing the game for a few hours is that it is a pretty dull game.

The core gameplay consists of researching technology until its maxed out then launching the spacecraft and hoping for the best. Rinse and repeat.

I would avoid this game at its current stage of development. To quote the game, "Launch......... Fail."

If you wish me to use more colourful language, playing this game is rather like having carnal knowledge of a dead sheep.

[IainMcNeil]

One of the things we're working on is making progress slow as you reach higher chances of success so you have to make a call about how long to research before launching. At the moment we don't have it tail off enough so you progress too fast and then hit the wall too quickly.

This is exactly what the Early Access is for - to identify and resolve these issues so please give us as much feedback as possible.

The gameplay is going to come from balancing the prestige you need to get the higher budgets and costing things so that you have to carefully balance the books. Right now once you know what to do its too easy to get a lot of money. There are also lots of additional layers that will add in to make things more interesting.

[Krasny]

The big problem with them game is that you do the same thing over and over again, using LOTS of clicks.

The only real challenge of the game seems to be navigating one's way through the obtuse UI.

Additions that may make the game more interesting are:

1. Having an actual opponent that's trying to beat you. Commies make great bad guys. Although not in the last Indiana Jones movie.

2. A political layer.

3. Events, dear boy, events.

4. Less binary outcomes, ...... Success and ....... Fail, makes for a very dull game.

5. Visual representations of missions, maybe similar to the orbit map in Kerbal.

6. Maybe go into more detail with designs of launchers and the launched.

7. Percentages make for very dull game mechanics.

Consider Apollo 1. In the game it would be represented by ....... Fail. In the real world it was a human tragedy caused by poor decisions of myopic well intentioned men, in a less risk averse time to ours.

Currently the game feels like a dull boardgame hidden by a poor UI. As it stands it is not worthy of Buzz Lightyear's name, let alone Buzz Aldrin's.

To conclude I think the game turns something that is awe inspiring into something that is dull, and the game should avoid the boardgame paradigm and go down a more simulation route.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Krasny

The big problem with them game is that you do the same thing over and over again, using LOTS of clicks.

The only real challenge of the game seems to be navigating one's way through the obtuse UI.

Yes, I want some changes here too.

Additions that may make the game more interesting are:

1. Having an actual opponent that's trying to beat you. Commies make great bad guys. Although not in the last Indiana Jones movie.

I saw that if this initial game is successful they may do that. Although the game is engaging at present and we still haven't seen the full game yet, I still think this design decision may prove to be costly though. Maybe I'm just used to competition and BARIS.

2. A political layer.

Coming ...

3. Events, dear boy, events.

Coming ...

4. Less binary outcomes, ...... Success and ....... Fail, makes for a very dull game.

Well not dull, but certainly not very realistic.

5. Visual representations of missions, maybe similar to the orbit map in Kerbal.

Not going to happen I guess. It would have been brilliant though to have this as an overlay to a 3d representation similar to kerbal without the piloting though. I am happy to live with the graphics and music as they are though. Just not that the graphics should dictate the game.

6. Maybe go into more detail with designs of launchers and the launched.

Yes, I'm sure I'm echoing other people here but it would be nice to have the option to upgrade or downgrade missions from the launcher / VAB. Also, being able to mix and match rockets for missions instead of locking this in. I feel like it is too rail roaded at present due to the animations you have. Game play is being compromised because of this IMHO. A payload should be able to be launched on a number of available rockets as long as the payload/thrust is adequate. I'm sure Ignacio is very passionate about the subject matter but it feels like in the balance between education and game-play - educating us what happened instead of what could happen is the winner here unfortunately.

7. Percentages make for very dull game mechanics.

Can do, but my gripe is the lack of more readily available information See my R&D post. tm.asp?m=3454911 for a small summary, but certainly there are more stats I'd like. If this is a game of stats, educate me and make it more technical.

You say in the press release that you have been researching this for years ...If it can't be a race into space then make it more educational, flexible and technical or something like that [;)] I need to think more about this obviously [:D]

Consider Apollo 1. In the game it would be represented by ....... Fail. In the real world it was a human tragedy caused by poor decisions of myopic well intentioned men, in a less risk averse time to ours.

Currently the game feels like a dull boardgame hidden by a poor UI. As it stands it is not worthy of Buzz Lightyear's name, let alone Buzz Aldrin's.

To conclude I think the game turns something that is awe inspiring into something that is dull, and the game should avoid the boardgame paradigm and go down a more simulation route.

I think that boat has left, but there is hope that this can be made more challenging and interesting with the additions that are coming. I live in hope. $20 is a small price to pay for the hard work exhibited here and I'm sure that with a little more BARIS playtime on the dev's part - inspiration can be found[;)] http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 26&t=45814

I'm satisfied with the purchase and want Ignacio to know that with a little UI tweak here and there and some more injection of game play ideas that don't lock us in - this will hopefully be a game worthy of Buzz's name and a true successor to BARIS.

I have more specific idea's but want to play a little more with the upcoming patch and the promised Gemini program before I continue.

[edit]For mistakes and additions.

[Saturn V]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: Krasny

1. Having an actual opponent that's trying to beat you. Commies make great bad guys. Although not in the last Indiana Jones movie.

I saw that if this initial game is successful they may do that. Although the game is engaging at present and we still haven't seen the full game yet, I still think this design decision may prove to be costly though. Maybe I'm just used to competition and BARIS.

Yeah, that's exactly the thing I pointed out in the thread I started a little while back. I think the lack of a direct competition, and the strategic variation and choices involved in that, are a problem. I had a hard time seeing how competing against nothing but an artificially imposed budget restriction and time deadline would be anywhere near as interesting as matching moves with an opponent while also battling budget issues. It seems I was not the only one to have this concern.

I am happy to live with the graphics and music as they are though. Just not that the graphics should dictate the game.

After reading some of the development background it really does seem as if the needs of the animations was what was driving the game design. And that is just a bad idea IMO.

I'll be brutally honest: I really don't care about the animations. I think they're the least important part of the game. I mean, really, after you've seen the same animation for the same mission in your tenth play through of the game, do you really want to see them again? When I played BARIS, the grainy video were neat the first few times, but after that, when a mission was going on, I ignored them. My eyes were instead glued to the little graph at the bottom, as I sweated out whether the green bar would edge into red on each mission step. I think I'd feel the same way about SPM's animations, regardless of how well made they are and how nice they look. They are secondary to the main game play IMO.

When I think of what could have been done with an updated race to the Moon motif, with all the depth of information that's come out about the Soviet lunar program, I think a game on that theme could have offered the player a strategic experience just as deep and engrossing as any of the many war games Matrix has on offer. But for whatever reason SPM was aimed in a different direction.

That's the developers' prerogative, certainly, I'm just not sure it's enough to make me want to be a part of it. I had been planning on joining the EAP, but now I'm not sure I will. (One can add to the foregoing the talk in other threads about the multi-platform nature of the game is impacting its PC version.)

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: Krasny

1. Having an actual opponent that's trying to beat you. Commies make great bad guys. Although not in the last Indiana Jones movie.

I saw that if this initial game is successful they may do that. Although the game is engaging at present and we still haven't seen the full game yet, I still think this design decision may prove to be costly though. Maybe I'm just used to competition and BARIS.

Yeah, that's exactly the thing I pointed out in the thread I started a little while back. I think the lack of a direct competition, and the strategic variation and choices involved in that, are a problem. I had a hard time seeing how competing against nothing but an artificially imposed budget restriction and time deadline would be anywhere near as interesting as matching moves with an opponent while also battling budget issues. It seems I was not the only one to have this concern.

Yeah I posted this a while ago, so we're on the same page here - fb.asp?m=3370121

I don't want to go too negative yet, but I have to agree so far. Maybe tension will be created with some good ideas and thoughts and I'd certainly agree with your post below.

I was actually going to suggest that the animations should be allowed to be turned off / fast forwarded or augmented by a text dialogue or dials / warning buttons. But seeing as your solution is so much better with a climbing and falling graphic - I'd fully support that.

This one change would provide so much more to the game than the MB of graphics so far. Sure we haven't seen the error messages yet, but I should feel like I'm sitting in Mission Control with all the info flowing in (Like in Apollo 13 with the board of data and people calling out "go flight!" ) and the tension rising rather than looking at points on a circular graphic.

Even as an extension, allowing me to get more involved in that "go - no-go" process would be nice.

I am happy to live with the graphics and music as they are though. Just not that the graphics should dictate the game.

After reading some of the development background it really does seem as if the needs of the animations was what was driving the game design. And that is just a bad idea IMO.

I'll be brutally honest: I really don't care about the animations. I think they're the least important part of the game. I mean, really, after you've seen the same animation for the same mission in your tenth play through of the game, do you really want to see them again? When I played BARIS, the grainy video were neat the first few times, but after that, when a mission was going on, I ignored them. My eyes were instead glued to the little graph at the bottom, as I sweated out whether the green bar would edge into red on each mission step. I think I'd feel the same way about SPM's animations, regardless of how well made they are and how nice they look. They are secondary to the main game play IMO.

When I think of what could have been done with an updated race to the Moon motif, with all the depth of information that's come out about the Soviet lunar program, I think a game on that theme could have offered the player a strategic experience just as deep and engrossing as any of the many war games Matrix has on offer. But for whatever reason SPM was aimed in a different direction.

That's the developers' prerogative, certainly, I'm just not sure it's enough to make me want to be a part of it. I had been planning on joining the EAP, but now I'm not sure I will. (One can add to the foregoing the talk in other threads about the multi-platform nature of the game is impacting its PC version.)

I think that it is a little too early to say where this will go, but if the Dev makes some changes and is willing to listen to the community and has enough time to do it then I'd say come and get involved. 2 months seems like a short time to full release and I think there is much more to do here. I'd like to see what he does to alleviate some of our concerns and maybe a plan of action that is well thought through.

It may be too late to have a "Race" mechanic without going back to the drawing board, but if he can create tension and gameplay though other mechanics (not just budget / time) then this may work well enough.

So, maybe a wait and see approach might be good until we see how Ignacio and Ian react to the proposals of game play change.

[histgamer]

I think the game has tons of potential even as a mainstream game but I think it would need to include competition with another nation in a space race during the campaign. Leave the sandbox open as it is now, it's enjoyable and a good game but I think it would be far better for a competitive campaign. Then again I can't criticize the campaign element of the game yet given it's not out, I hope its very enjoyable as well.

[Saturn V]

I don't want to go too negative yet, but I have to agree so far.

Just to be clear, I'm not denigrating the efforts of the team developing SPM or saying the game is bad or anything like that. Any game that is putting aspects of the space program out there for players to enjoy is to be applauded. I'm just not sure, as it stands at the moment, is whether SPM is a game on that subject for me. If others find it enjoyable, then that's great. (I hope plenty of folks do.)

I still may take the plunge on the EAP, but at this point I'm a little more hesitant than I was earlier.

[IainMcNeil]

A lot of the suggestions are planned. This is an early access guys

If you are expecting a finished game then wait till the final release!

[Blind Sniper]

I agree with all of you but there is a lot of space for improvements.
Personally the graphic is not a problem, it is not beautiful but I can live with that.

Now we are still in beta and we a raw game, I have no doubt that it will improve.
What I really miss is the PBEM system [:(]

About the dull/boring question: even after every improvements, campaign, politic pressure, ans so on it is always a research/launch game style.
The aim is to reach the Moon trying different paths in less time but you have to reach the Moon.
You won't play it every hour per every day per a month like War in the Pacific, Skyrim etc., it is fun but in a differnet way and I think is not for everyone.

[jjknap]

I like the graphics. I think the art is beautiful. While the real footage in BARIS was neat, it is nice to see the real spacecraft pictured. They are flying the Pegasus Spacecraft for goodness sake(A space nut like me loves that!) [&o]

[Kipper]

When I think of what could have been done with an updated race to the Moon motif, with all the depth of information that's come out about the Soviet lunar program, I think a game on that theme could have offered the player a strategic experience just as deep and engrossing as any of the many war games Matrix has on offer. But for whatever reason SPM was aimed in a different direction.

For me the two main challenges for this game were 1) how to replace *the excitement of the race element* of BARIS and 2) how to give some sense of *building* a space program - designing your own program rather than the current selecting from a "shopping list of pre-cooked configurations."

The design precludes meeting these two elements, so now for me the question is, what can the devs do to come up with new ways to inject that kind of fun, excitement and satisfaction in the coming patches? It's late in the development cycle though: the great gameplay mechanics and fun of BARIS were in place before the first line of code was ever written: it started as a board game, and BARIS was a computer port of that game. Let's wait and see.

[pests]

As an initial reaction, I saw:
1) after one started updating buildings, it was no longer possible to return to assigning staff or altering missions - one was essentially locked out of updates/changes
2) some warning that ones mission/new program choices would force a budget to be exceeded (and hence gameover) would be useful
3) programs requiring astronauts should state this rather than being surprised later
4) a brief purpose description would be useful when one moved a mouse over a building
5) I agree it would be more interesting to be able to customize mission steps than have a set mission (then successfully doing certain mission steps but failing the overall mission with those steps would not prevent one from doing a later mission)
6) When hiring staff, it would be helpful to know how many one could hire and current program staffing deficiencies for missions up front
7) You might consider reporting staff skill improvements (if any) after missions
8) It appears one is limited to two-three programs initially due to funding - I ran out of funds trying to do 4 programs despite 3 successful operations

[Panjack]

I'd like more feedback about personnel performance and any change in their ratings (which I hope occurs in the game).

How about personality characteristics: someone might be great at designing rockets but is a disruptive person and, so, some periods the advance in some rocket might get delayed because of conflicts within the team of scientists/engineers.

The same astronaut was the best flyer for all x-15 flights and all mercury flights. I only needed this one astronaut to do all my human missions.

I'm all for not having a gender-biased game, but having so many female personnel in the 1950s struck me as anachronistic.

Confused that it appears the best characteristic for an X-15 pilot was "leadership."

A report after missions as to the important factors at each stage (and the level of skill or whatever) that appear during the mission would be helpful. And some knowledge of this before a mission would be helpful (to help determine how to allocated people).

Is there a financial report so that you know what monies you're spending each year?

Question: why do people cancel missions at the last stage? What information does one get that makes one decide to do this? Or is it just to rectify a mistake?

How about more "middle management" personnel overseeing other people? Perhaps individual scientists, mission control people, or astronauts might develop management skills over time (as other skills decay or become obsolete).

It might be cool to have mini-biographies for each person in the game, say, "XXX was hired in 1955 and worked telemetry on the successful XX launch in 1959 but after the failed XXX mission in 1961 (when he again worked on telemetry) he never worked on another mission. He moved into the private sector in 1968."

[CV60]

One feature I would like to see is a "design your own rocket and probe." Possibly you could tie having more complex probes (probes with more scientific gear) would get higher mission points. But that means a heavier probe/less reliable probe and a larger, more complex rocket to lift it. I can add stages or engines, but with an increased cost/decreased reliability trade off. Do I go with more launches using smaller, specialized probes, or do I build an expensive uber probe that might fail in the launch? Then there is the research angle-do I spend the research time trying to get more powerful engines, or do I simply go with proven technology and save time? Another issue that is missing is the time element. In the game, I can simply decide I'm going to fly a mission, and it is assumed that the parts are all on hand, and I can begin assembly immediately. In fact, I need to plan these missions far in advance to stockpile the various parts and get the people trained and prepared. A failure can stop a program in its tracks, years can be lost, as happened with CHALLENGER.

The game has a lot of potential, but I agree that right now it needs to be more challenging for the adult crowd. I'm sure the developers will get there.[:)]