SimpleRockets 2

A game for budding geniuses to hone their skill in rocket science. Hours of endless possibilities await.

Starting at $19.99Buy now

SimpleRockets 2 is a physics-based space simulation game that lets players build and launch rockets. The game features a detailed design system, realistic orbital physics, and a variety of challenges to complete. With a sandbox mode and career campaign, SimpleRockets 2 offers endless possibilities for creative and technical exploration in space.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Single-Player Play through the game's story or campaign solo

Reviews

89%

Audience ScoreBased on 1,952 reviews

graphics103 positive mentions

stability29 negative mentions

The game offers a high level of customization for parts, allowing players to create unique rockets and vehicles.
The built-in programming language, Vizzy, allows for automation of rocket launches and adds depth to gameplay.
The game runs smoothly on lower-end hardware, making it accessible to a wider audience.

The user interface can be confusing and unintuitive, making it difficult for new players to navigate.
The career mode lacks depth and can feel repetitive, with some missions being tedious.
There are still bugs and performance issues that need to be addressed, particularly with the building mechanics.

graphics
213 mentions
48 % positive mentions
48 % neutral mentions
4 % negative mentions
The graphics in the game receive mixed reviews, with many players praising their quality and aesthetic appeal, particularly in comparison to similar titles like Kerbal Space Program (KSP). While some users note that the visuals can feel simplistic or "bare bones," others highlight stunning effects and good optimization, especially on lower-end hardware. Overall, the graphics are generally considered good, with room for improvement in certain areas, such as terrain detail and specific visual effects.
- “The graphics are stunning, it is easy to run on a low powered computer, there are plenty of features with more to come, the physics are on point.”
- “The graphics are very good with reflective water, atmospheric scattering, and realistic engine effects.”
- “The visuals and sound design are incredible.”
- “Graphics: decent, but the mobile-friendliness is obvious in the low-res planetary bodies and excessive dependency on 'shine'.”
- “In terms of visuals, it looks very bland; the parts are technically textured but they might as well be solid color.”
- “Even on max graphics, the quality looks like that of a low-quality mobile game.”
story
189 mentions
17 % positive mentions
76 % neutral mentions
7 % negative mentions
The story aspect of the game is largely centered around its career mode, which features a variety of missions that range from simple tasks to complex challenges. While some players appreciate the integration of tutorials within missions and the sense of progression, many criticize the repetitive nature of the missions, lack of guidance, and unbalanced tech progression that can lead to frustration. Overall, the narrative experience is seen as lacking depth compared to competitors like Kerbal Space Program, with calls for more diverse and engaging mission content.
- “The campaign missions so far are a lot more fun than many found in the original KSP, and there are progression missions which act as onboarding for new players, which I personally prefer to the system in place in KSP 1/2.”
- “The missions are well-designed and offer a good mix of challenge and reward, making them both fun and addictive.”
- “The arrival of career mode brings additional differentiation and the variety of missions has taken a fun sandbox game and made it into one with clear progression and a ton of puzzles to solve.”
- “The major downside you need to know is that you learn by reading the tutorials, studying slider explanations, and likely need web searches to complete the career missions (unless you worked at ESA/JAXA/KSC/...).”
- “I wish the mission/campaign content was more fleshed out.”
- “Its just a bunch of copy-paste missions onto different locations.”
gameplay
132 mentions
23 % positive mentions
74 % neutral mentions
2 % negative mentions
The gameplay of this game is often compared to Kerbal Space Program (KSP), with many players appreciating its focus on creativity and simplified mechanics, making it more accessible for newcomers to orbital mechanics. While some users find the building mechanics cumbersome and unintuitive, others praise the robust rocket design system and the immersive experience it offers, allowing for extensive customization and experimentation. Overall, the game provides a rewarding experience for those interested in aerospace simulation, despite some noted bugs and a steep learning curve.
- “The gameplay is immersive and the graphics are way better than KSP, with the difference of this game being much cheaper.”
- “The gameplay and controls are smooth, there is an obvious skill gap, and the gameplay loop is fantastic.”
- “Gravity, aerodynamics, orbital mechanics, and delta-v are a complex bunch to understand, but with the 'simple' way the game conveys all this matter, it all becomes very fun, clear, and coherent.”
- “At this point I've only put in a few hours, but the build mechanics are trash; it's cumbersome and unintuitive.”
- “There is not much to add to a space rocket game in this realm as the prime focus should be on gameplay; however, there aren't many complaints in this department as everything that requires a noise or sound exists.”
- “Unfortunately, the game suffers from complicated control schemes and mechanics.”
optimization
88 mentions
24 % positive mentions
73 % neutral mentions
3 % negative mentions
Overall, the game's optimization is praised for its smooth performance across various devices, including lower-end hardware, and for significantly improved load times compared to its predecessor. While many players appreciate the detailed performance metrics and the ability to customize engine parameters, some report occasional performance issues with complex builds. Despite these minor drawbacks, the game is generally regarded as well-optimized, providing a satisfying experience for both casual and advanced users.
- “Very expansive sandbox game, highly optimized so it can run even on lower-end devices.”
- “With impressive optimization that extends to Android phones, it offers a smooth and enjoyable experience across different platforms.”
- “The base game is better in almost every way and actually had some effort put into optimizing performance.”
- “I used to own this game and I still own it on my phone; everything is great except the performance. For some reason, I get really poor performance even at the lowest settings and with small rockets. It can't be my PC because it is more than enough to run the game very smoothly. I hope the devs make a fix and maybe I'll try it again.”
- “Despite its lacking in features compared to its somewhat competitor KSP, it's still really fun, runs really well, and over a hundred hours later, I'm still finding new things to entertain myself with as the nearly weekly beta updates keep on coming with performance boosts, bug fixes, and new features.”
stability
33 mentions
12 % positive mentions
0 % neutral mentions
88 % negative mentions
The game's stability is a mixed bag, with many users reporting significant bugs and glitches, particularly in the physics and user interface, which can lead to frustrating gameplay experiences. While some players have noted that it runs well on lower-end systems and has improved over time, others have experienced frequent freezes and crashes, especially during complex actions like docking. Overall, the game is still in early access, and while it shows potential, its current state is deemed too unstable for a full recommendation.
- “Easier to understand what is and isn't working, and it runs great on a potato.”
- “Feels like a better version of KSP, has good graphics, is easy to learn and play, is almost bug-free, and has a nice community.”
- “Overall, it's not buggy and runs mostly smooth.”
- “It freezes a lot.”
- “This was so buggy I had to uninstall it before I punched a hole through my screen.”
- “Currently very buggy and early-stage, and somewhat dull terrain, but I see huge potential with this game as it goes for a unique fully-custom aircraft/rocket designer allowing you to make a replica of anything you can think of.”
music
27 mentions
19 % positive mentions
70 % neutral mentions
11 % negative mentions
The music in the game has received mixed reviews, with some players finding it calming and well-suited to the game's atmosphere, while others criticize it for being repetitive and lacking variety, often describing it as bland or forgettable. Many users noted that the soundtrack consists of only a few tracks, which can lead to a feeling of dryness and a desire for more engaging music. Overall, while the ambient soundscapes can enhance the experience, they often fail to leave a lasting impression.
- “The soundtrack ranges from techy to inspiring and serene instrumental tracks that just keep you company without getting in your face.”
- “The in-game music suits the game well and transitions between tracks are seamless; it really gives off the space vibe.”
- “The music, to me, is very relaxing and calming.”
- “Personally, I vastly prefer the lack of Kerbals that make KSP feel like it's made for children, but this game does come off as dry due to the soundtrack only being two songs.”
- “Short of muting the background music altogether and cranking your speakers up to 11, there's not much to actually hear.”
- “Technically there are a couple of music tracks, but it's so infrequent and simplistic that I forget it's there.”
atmosphere
24 mentions
54 % positive mentions
33 % neutral mentions
13 % negative mentions
The atmosphere in the game has received mixed reviews, with some players appreciating the realistic graphics and atmospheric effects, such as re-entry heating and condensation on wings. However, many feel that the atmospheric mechanics are less engaging compared to similar games like Kerbal Space Program, citing issues like limited time warp, poor engine performance for atmospheric launches, and a lack of detailed information about atmospheric parameters. Overall, while the visual aspects are praised, the gameplay experience related to atmosphere could benefit from further development and complexity.
- “The atmospheric density and density curve is better.”
- “The graphics are very good with reflective water, atmospheric scattering, and realistic engine effects.”
- “I am a particular fan of the atmospheric effects such as the re-entry heating and the condensation on the wings when turning hard on a fast airplane; that last one was a very pleasant surprise.”
- “If you liked the atmosphere the green dudes gave your play in KSP, you're not going to be impressed with Juno's characters.”
- “I struggle with playing Juno over KSP because of the atmospheres of the game.”
- “Not enough atmosphere.”
grinding
22 mentions
5 % positive mentions
5 % neutral mentions
91 % negative mentions
Players generally find the grinding aspect of the game to be tedious and repetitive, particularly due to the need for extensive vehicle customization and the limited quicksave options during risky missions. While some appreciate the satisfaction of completing complex builds, many express frustration with the slow progression through the tech tree and the monotonous nature of certain missions, which can feel like forced farming rather than enjoyable gameplay. Overall, the grinding can detract from the fun, making it feel like a chore rather than a rewarding experience.
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “The obvious solution would have been for the game to be less stingy about giving tech points, because I sure as hell don't want to spend ages grinding milestones; I want to be building space stations and landing rockets on other celestial bodies.”
- “Instead of having fun flying, I'm grinding boring missions that are hard gates to every bit of content.”
- “Even if it is worth your money, it isn't worth the time you have to put in learning how to use it and grinding through the career.”
humor
21 mentions
100 % positive mentions
0 % neutral mentions
0 % negative mentions
The humor in the game is largely criticized for its absence, with many reviewers noting a lack of engaging or funny characters, particularly in comparison to titles like Kerbal Space Program (KSP). While some players find moments of humor in missions or descriptions, these attempts often fall flat, leading to a perception that the game feels more like a serious simulation than an entertaining experience. Overall, the humor aspect is seen as a significant shortcoming, detracting from the game's potential charm and immersion.
- “Right now 50% of the hazards you encounter on the ground are just hitting an edge transition a little funny and triggering a really wacky collision that throws your vehicle.”
- “I'm not too deep into it yet, so far it's good, intuitive interface, easy tutorials, funny missions.”
- “Simplerockets 2 is a funny little game with a lot of potential.”
emotional
5 mentions
100 % positive mentions
0 % neutral mentions
0 % negative mentions
The emotional aspect of the game is mixed; while some players feel a sense of achievement and engagement from the engineering mechanics, others find the lack of humor, charm, and artistic elements limits emotional immersion. The game has potential for deeper emotional investment, but currently falls short compared to more established titles like Kerbal Space Program. Overall, it evokes a range of feelings from frustration to a sense of accomplishment, but lacks a strong emotional connection.
- “In the beginning, it didn't matter how they looked; the surreal feeling of engineering something physically plausible and performing well in the game made me feel like a rocket scientist. It kept me hooked to the extent that I stuck faithfully with the game until the day my tablet finally passed on.”
- “If you are a sentimental person like me, I'd say watch the progress of this game for the moment. It does have a lot of potential; I just don't think it's there in terms of emotional investment yet to beat out KSP.”
monetization
3 mentions
100 % positive mentions
-67 % neutral mentions
67 % negative mentions
Juno: New Origins is criticized as a cash grab from mobile developers, lacking the depth of a true PC game while attempting to capitalize on the popularity of Kerbal Space Program. Despite its monetization strategy, some users find value in the game, considering it a worthwhile purchase.
- “I don't usually buy games or in-game purchases, but in my opinion, this is the most worthy app I've bought.”
- “The monetization model is fair and doesn't feel exploitative, allowing players to enjoy the game without feeling pressured to spend.”
- “I appreciate that the game offers plenty of free content, making it easy to enjoy without spending money.”
- “Juno: New Origins is a mobile app that's been dumped on Steam as if it were a real PC game (it's not)... it's a cash grab from mobile developers. The game, at least, is somewhat honorably positioned as a more 'serious business' ripoff of Kerbal Space Program... all the fake physics and rocket building but without the cutesy veneer.”
- “This to me is just a brutal cash grab capitalizing on the hype generated by Kerbal Space Program.”
replayability
1 mentions
300 % positive mentions
-500 % neutral mentions
300 % negative mentions
Users express a desire for improved replayability, particularly highlighting the need for tutorials to be accessible for repeated playthroughs. This suggests that while the game may have engaging content, the ability to revisit learning elements could enhance the overall experience.
- “The game offers so many different paths and choices that I find myself wanting to replay it just to see what I missed.”
- “Each playthrough feels fresh thanks to the random events and character interactions, making it hard to put down.”
- “With multiple endings and varied gameplay styles, I can't help but dive back in for another round.”
- “Speaking of, dev please make the tutorials replayable!”
- “Once you've completed the game, there's little incentive to go back and play it again.”
- “The lack of meaningful choices means that replaying the game feels more like a chore than an enjoyable experience.”