Introduction

So I've been playing Simplerockets 2 for a few months as of this review (which will also be posted on the App Store) and I think it's about time I write an honest review about the game that is as in depth as I can possibly get it to be.

This review will discuss the gameplay, what I don't like, visuals, its competition with other similar games, the community and my final thoughts.

Gameplay

First things first, the gameplay. It is pretty fun and can get addicting if you know what you're doing, now the people who say "it's confusing" and "takes too long to build rockets" are batsh-t idiots with 5 second attention spans. They walked into rocket building SIMULATOR that uses procedural parts as its main selling point, yet they expect it to be an easy game that resembles f-ckin', Galaga.

The rocket building is awesomely complex but most people with average intelligence should be able to figure out how to use the many sliders. There isn't a really big learning curve as even with the rocket engines, the performance analyzer in the designer gives you a basic grasp of what does what.

Although campaign mode is coming soon as of this review, there is currently not much of a reason to explore other planets other than for fun.

What I don't like

I've already listed one of them below but this section's gonna be entirely dedicated to what I don't like about this game.

Starting with the physics engine. Oh boy, I have many things to say about it but on the most part it's pretty realistic (a little better than KSP and SFS) however like with every man-made creation it comes with its fair share of problems. Now KSP players reading this may be familiar with the dreaded Kraken, even in Simplerockets 2 the Kraken persists, although it is in the form of putting hinged parts on a craft that has way too much acceleration. Moving parts are also wobbly for some reason which can come with a slew of issues.

Simplerockets 2 is missing quite a few things that to be honest should've been already in the game since its inception. It's missing some combustion cycles, power supplies, sandbox features (like mods that shouldn't have to be mods to begin with) and much more. But I won't be very harsh on the developers for this as they already work hard enough on the game with their really small team and the game's not even passed early access as of this review.

Visuals

In terms of graphics, the game lives up to its name, it is a simple rocket building simulator that can easily be run on even the most potato computers. Although you can make the game look like a work of art if your device allows it as there is like a dozen graphical adjustments you can make in the settings. That's not to say the game can be pretty laggy at times. If you're running a high part count craft or have higher graphical settings, your frames will suffer the pain of a million supernovas.

As for the realism of the graphics, the chemical rocket plume is pretty... meh. Don't get me wrong, this game can't have 4K 60 FPS Ultra-HD Photo scanned bullsh-t, but for a rocket simulator you gotta do better. Although it is still fairly accurate to real life especially with the under expansion and shock diamond animations which are pretty much unseen among current rocket building simulators.

It breaks my heart to say this but the reentry effects are disappointing. All it does is just surround your craft with a transparent and glowing orange overlay while games like Spaceflight Simulator and Kerbal Space Program really make it look like your craft's surrounded in burning hot plasma.

Competition

Simplerockets 2 fairs pretty well against KSP and SFS. SR2 is the most unique as it gives the most freedom with its parts, it's also the cheapest (yes I am aware SFS is free and I will get into that later). SR2 currently doesn't have much to make it "better" than KSP other than procedural parts as it's missing science experiments and a campaign mode as of this review, however, SR2 is way cheaper and has better optimization.

Now to SR2 vs SFS. I'd say SR2 beats SFS by a mile because there is no need to buy microtransactions to get basic f-cking parts and features, SFS may be free but when taking into account its million microtransactions that you're basically forced to buy if you wanna have fun, SFS costs a grand total of motherf-ckin' $14.96 for a free to play game while SR2 doesn't lock anything at all behind paywalls. SR2 also has many parts SFS doesn't, such as cargo bays, wings/fins, hinges and pistons. SR2 is also way more realistic in its graphics, rocket building, physics simulation and planets.

Community

Oh boy the community... okay, so, starting with the good. The community on the most part is great to interact with and they will give you helpful feedback for your crafts or assist you when needed. But like every community, there's bad apples. I've encountered some narcissistic users who think their opinions are correct no matter the circumstance and everyone else is wrong, they will basically argue with you until a moderator steps in or if you submit to their autistic screeching.

Now to my main gripe about the community, replica builders. So SR2's procedural parts are both a blessing and a curse because a majority of players just love building replicas instead of making their own original designs, which is confusing because most of them are actually really good at building rockets but it's like the mere thought of a creative design frightens them.

Final Thoughts

I highly recommend Simplerockets 2 if you're a KSP player and especially an SFS player. SR2 offers more in depth building and is super fun to just mess around, especially since it's a sandbox game so it even has cheats for you to screw around with.

Of course there are flaws with the game but just know that the developers are working as hard as they can to make it an enjoyable experience for at least the majority of players. Even if some users of the community are rude you can always just simply report and ignore them and they won't be able to do anything.

Tags
Discussion

14 Comments

  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image

    @HorizonsTechnologies oh

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image

    @NovaAerospace I’m in it lmao

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image

    @HorizonsTechnologies you should join the Integrated Space Systems server, it's a little less active and smaller but the community actually has their sh-t together in there

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image

    @DrooMulticompany what @NovaAerospace said. There is so much toxicity and the moderation is genuinely awful.

    One example, one time I asked for help because I was having trouble in the game then someone just said I had a “skill issue” and nobody helped me whatsoever.

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image

    @DrooMulticompany narcissists, sh-tposters, trolls, basically most of the internet stereotypes you don't like

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    6,743 DMCcorp

    @HorizonsTechnologies explain?

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    137 Matteovir

    @NovaAerospace
    Thanks!
    Nice review!, i agree with you in every aspect. I used to play at KSP, but i definitely prefer SR2 because it allows to reproduce reality and new things; and i love the graphics!

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    3,369 Bayourex

    I play sr2 and sfs and used to play ksp

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image

    Yeah there are a lot of dark sides to the community. The largest server for SR2, SRC, is awful.

    +1 2.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    1,176 YaMomzBox420

    @NovaAerospace Nice review! I've been meaning to do one myself, but I think it'll be a video review if I do. I also keep forgetting to leave a review on Google Play and Steam even though I probably should(especially google since I'm a beta tester so feedback goes directly to Jundroo).

    I've never played KSP or SFS, so I don't really know all the differences, but I still think SR2 is the best choice considering the price to play. I also agree with your assessment of the community(I'm also surprised you included that in the review since most people wouldn't count that as part of the game, but it definitely is)

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    1,176 YaMomzBox420

    @Zenithspeed never played KSP (although I want to just to compare it to SR2 and finally know what all the fuss is about). Supposedly, they've been working on a mobile version of KSP for the last 2-3 years now, but I still haven't seen any announcements about that since they first mentioned it back then. Either it turned out to be too hard to implement on most devices, or they realized that they'd be competing more heavily with games like SR2 and SFS and decides to just keep the status quo as is. Idk though

    +1 2.8 years ago
  • Profile image

    @jrzspace sadly I don't got a website so this one is the best I got

    +1 2.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    1,161 jrzspace

    Do you have a website? You should put this on your website. Unbiased thoughts tbh.

    2.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    26.9k Zenithspeed

    as somebody who's previously played KSP too, i agree. imo both games share the 1st place spotlight. KSP has better graphics and celestial body detail, maybe a better damage model, while SR2 has the ability to make parts any color, adjust shape of many things, and an awesome planet building tool (no idea how modded KSP planets are made), and most importantly it's usable on many different devices, including mobile.
    (i haven't played KSP since like 2 or 3 years (the laptop i had it on became unusable, and my new laptop doesn't have it) so i might be off with some things regarding it)

    +1 2.8 years ago

3 Upvotes

Log in in to upvote this post.