Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager

About

"Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager" is a strategy simulation game that allows players to manage their own space agency. Beginning in the X-plane era, players must design and build spacecraft, research new technologies, and manage resources to achieve mission goals and advance human spaceflight. With historical events and real-life astronauts, the game offers a realistic and engaging experience for space enthusiasts.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager screenshot

+25

78%

Audience ScoreBased on 298 reviews

story23 positive mentions

replayability6 negative mentions

The game offers an authentic representation of the space programs from the thrilling days of the Space Age, allowing players to relive iconic moments.
The mechanics are accessible and intuitive, making it easy for newcomers to manage resources, plan missions, and navigate the game's complexities.
The depth of research and historical accuracy provides an educational experience, making it engaging for space enthusiasts.

The game suffers from a high failure rate in missions, often leading to catastrophic outcomes regardless of preparation, which can be frustrating.
Graphics and animations are dated, lacking the modern visual experience expected in contemporary games, which detracts from immersion.
The user interface is clunky and unintuitive, making navigation and management cumbersome, which can hinder the overall gameplay experience.

story
284 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
8%
88%
4%
The game's story revolves around the historical space race, allowing players to manage missions inspired by real-life events from the Mercury to Apollo programs. While the depth of research and attention to detail in mission planning is praised, the lack of a narrated storyline and the randomness of mission failures can lead to frustration, as players often face catastrophic outcomes despite high reliability ratings. Overall, the narrative experience is shaped by the player's decisions and the inherent unpredictability of space exploration, creating a personal journey filled with triumphs and setbacks.
- “The depth of the game’s research is evident in every mission, every spacecraft design, and every policy decision.”
- “It brings you near the development of space travel since the 1950s, with conquest and failure, and it tells you the story about the journey to the moon, with proven background from no less an astronaut than Dr. Edwin Buzz Aldrin.”
- “There's no narrated story, only the one of trials, tribulations, and heartbreak that you build yourself along the way.”
- “The main thing is the lack of explanation for mission failures, and mission failures being entirely unforgiving.”
- “Once a mission is started, if it fails there is nothing you can do to prevent it and a failed mission will result in decreasing item reliability and astronaut death, if it was a manned mission.”
gameplay
78 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
24%
67%
9%
The gameplay is characterized by its accessible and intuitive mechanics, allowing players to engage with historical authenticity while managing a space program. However, it suffers from issues such as unbalanced difficulty, reliance on RNG, and a lack of depth in replayability, which can lead to frustration. While the game offers a relaxing experience with strategic decision-making, it may not appeal to those seeking a more complex or visually dynamic gameplay experience.
- “The mechanics of the game deserve high praise for their accessibility and intuitiveness.”
- “The gameplay is great; you get a real sense of urgency with the other party breathing down your neck.”
- “Where this game shines is the gameplay, which has a lot of depth and replayability.”
- “The lack of flying makes the game much easier than KSP, but also limits the gameplay and replayability.”
- “Gameplay will leave you frustrated and will force you to use cheat codes - tiger teams which undermine the whole point of this game.”
- “You will get maybe 10-15 hours of gameplay if you go through each campaign and unfortunately as far as I can tell the missions do not extend past the lunar landing, forcing you to replay the same missions over and over after around 1975 or so depending on how fast you are.”
graphics
66 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
29%
64%
8%
The graphics of the game have received mixed reviews, with many players noting that they are functional but dated, often resembling low-budget 2D visuals reminiscent of older titles. While some appreciate the nostalgic art style and find the graphics adequate for gameplay, others express disappointment over the lack of detail and animation, describing them as flat and lacking immersion. Overall, the visuals do not meet modern standards, but they are complemented by engaging gameplay and historical accuracy, making the experience enjoyable for fans of the genre.
- “Imagine the same meticulous attention to detail, but with cutting-edge graphics that do justice to the awe-inspiring nature of space exploration.”
- “Graphics are well done, the game runs very smooth!”
- “The artwork is lovely and if you like this sort of game, it's worth your time to check out.”
- “In an era where high-quality 3D CGI has become the norm, the dated visuals of Buzz Aldrin’s Space Program Manager stood out starkly.”
- “The graphics are two-dimensional moving 'collages', if you choose to follow the launch of your next project, rather than skip to the outcome, with recorded sounds and voices from the time when the space race happened.”
- “The graphics are poor.”
replayability
24 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
13%
63%
25%
The game's replayability is a mixed bag; while some players find it enjoyable and worth revisiting due to different strategies and paths, others criticize its linear campaigns and limited gameplay options, which diminish long-term replay value. Many agree that once players establish a successful strategy, the game can feel repetitive, leading to a decline in replayability. Overall, it offers some fun and varied experiences, but ultimately lacks the depth needed for sustained replay.
- “The game is frequently replayable for those who aren't bothered about a quick and easy win, so there's plenty of time to complete missions at your own level and come to grips with the game's mechanics and good level of detail.”
- “But the replayability is pretty good as different paths can be chosen, and the player has to react and change plans when their project fails.”
- “Where this game shines is the gameplay, which has a lot of depth and replayability.”
- “The lack of flying makes the game much easier than KSP, but also limits the gameplay and replayability.”
- “Further limiting replay value is the fact that the campaigns basically end with walking on the moon and sending satellites to other planets; no space stations, landing on other planets, or anything else.”
- “There is only one way to play the game, and I am sure once you have figured out the perfect game in regards to staff to train, items to research, and missions to run, it will have little replayability value.”
music
11 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
55%
18%
27%
The music in the game is generally well-received for its atmospheric quality and fitting style, particularly noted in the NASA-themed segments. However, many players find it repetitive and somewhat basic, with some describing it as reminiscent of American themes. Overall, while the soundtrack enhances the experience, it could benefit from more variety to maintain engagement.
- “Perhaps it's the great soundtrack, especially on the NASA side, which gives the game a real atmosphere.”
- “The sounds and music are very nice and atmospheric, not something one would expect from this sort of strategy game.”
- “Maybe it's just me, but the music reminded me of the Apollo 13 movie.”
- “To begin with the negatives: it is basic in appearance, the sound is okay and the music is a little annoying after a while.”
- “The music, while very repetitive, is well done.”
- “Maybe it's just me but the music reminded me of the Apollo 13 movie.”
grinding
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
38%
88%
Players find the grinding aspect of the game to be tedious and frustrating, often involving repetitive tasks like shifting characters between programs and missions or optimizing teams. While the game may initially engage players with its novelty, the repetitive nature of the grinding detracts from the overall experience and the original focus on scientific and engineering elements.
- “There's a lot of management involved, but thankfully, there's no tedious micromanagement.”
- “The grinding aspect keeps me engaged without feeling overwhelmed by constant micromanagement.”
- “I appreciate the balance of management in grinding; it feels rewarding without being overly tedious.”
- “This becomes tedious as you have to constantly shift them from programs to missions.”
- “The whole experience is rather tedious, turning into a quick save and quick load affair.”
- “Game might be good and interesting the first time you play solely because of novelty, but it quickly becomes a tedious and frustrating experience.”
atmosphere
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
13%
38%
The game's atmosphere is praised for its engaging soundtrack, effective sound effects, and immersive artwork, which collectively enhance the experience of space exploration. While some users note that the user interface can be clunky and certain sound effects may become repetitive, the overall ambiance successfully conveys the thrill of space missions. However, some players feel that the game's length does not justify its price, and comparisons to older titles suggest that there may be room for improvement in atmospheric depth.
- “User interface is a bit clunky, but the artwork and mission control voice effects are nice and provide a good atmosphere.”
- “The sounds and music are very nice and atmospheric, not something one would expect from this sort of strategy game.”
- “But the old game on DOS had a better atmosphere.”
- “Space probes exploding violently in the atmosphere (after they were already in orbit).”
- “Perhaps it's the great soundtrack, especially on the NASA side, which gives the game a real atmosphere.”
stability
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's stability is significantly hampered by numerous bugs and graphical glitches, including issues with savegame handling and animations that do not correspond with in-game events. Players also report frustrating slowdowns and a lack of intuitive interface, which detracts from the overall experience. Additionally, the game's design choices, such as the potential for astronaut fatalities in scenarios where they historically did not occur, further contribute to its instability.
- “It's not even particularly good as a game - the interface could be charitably termed unintuitive, the tutorial is nonexistent, the graphics would have been nice ten years ago, and the game's save handling is more buggy than an entomologist's lunchbox.”
- “Ok, now the bad news: there are a lot of problems with this game, chief among them many graphical glitches. For example, launch pads disappear when switching screens, or a successful rocket launch triggers a failure animation. Additionally, there are massive slowdowns in gameplay due to the need for extensive R&D, which can prevent you from completing missions. My biggest gripe is the possibility of astronauts being killed, which is historically inaccurate for NASA missions.”
- “This game still has a few glitches, some graphical.”
optimization
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the optimization process in the game to be tedious, requiring extensive manual adjustments for team configurations. While it introduces new elements like assigning mission controllers alongside astronauts, the overall experience is reminiscent of classic games, leading to mixed feelings about its efficiency and engagement.
- “It was a lot of manual slot-by-slot optimization of my science team, which was really tedious.”
- “Very much a modernized version of Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space (the DOS game, not the board game that inspired it); with a few slight twists to the formula, such as that you assign mission controllers in addition to astronauts to missions, which may affect the performance of the mission.”
humor
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
The humor in the game is highlighted by the unpredictable nature of the random number generator, which can lead to amusingly frustrating situations, such as repeatedly failing missions despite high reliability. This element adds a comedic twist to the gameplay experience, making failures entertaining rather than just disappointing.
- “The best thing is that failing a mission reduces your reliability, and sometimes the hilariously random number generator lets you fail 3-7 times in a row on missions that started with about 93% reliability.”
- “The humor in the game is top-notch, with witty dialogue and unexpected situations that keep you laughing throughout.”
- “I love how the game incorporates humor into its mechanics, making even the most frustrating moments feel light-hearted and entertaining.”
monetization
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
Reviewers note that the game's monetization strategy is heavily reliant on advertisements, with some suggesting that the promotional content features more NASA media than the actual game itself, indicating a potential disconnect between marketing and gameplay experience.
- “The ads for the game have more content than the game itself.”
- “The monetization system feels overly aggressive and detracts from the overall experience.”
- “It's frustrating to see so many paywalls that limit gameplay unless you spend money.”