Jump to content

Am I alone in thinking that the Kerbals themselves can be a bit overrated?


How important are the kerbals to the game itself? (please pick closest to where you most comfortably align)  

166 members have voted

  1. 1. How important are the kerbals to the game itself? (please pick closest to where you most comfortably align)

    • 1 - They are a detriment to the game itself and the game would be better without them
      3
    • 1.5
      1
    • 2 - Unnecessary, but non-detrimental
      2
    • 2.5
      10
    • 3 - They add flavor to the game and it would feel empty without them but the game would still be fun
      41
    • 3.5
      33
    • 4 - Without them the game would have value but I most likely wouldn't still be playing it if they weren't there
      26
    • 4.5
      14
    • 5 - Absolutely essential, they are the core focus of the game and without them KSP is utterly worthless
      36


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Mikenike said:

I am as well. I have always cherished my rights, especially the first 10. (I like the first 4 the most). I am just so used to you guys showing up with most stuff to do your job, which has been as a moderator. I am used to seeing you and the other great mods fix stuff that messes up, i.e moving threads, removing/editing posts, and other moderation tasks. 

We do more than just moderate the forum. Every moderator is a volunteer, chosen from the ranks of active forum members to help manage and guide the forum. I was a (*ahem* problematic) forum member long before I was a moderator. Unfortunately, my employment has changed to the point where I can't spend as much time on the forum as I'd like. But that's about to change again and I am hoping that I can get back to the business of playing a lot of KSP and hanging out here more. :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adsii1970 said:

I was a (*ahem* problematic) forum member long before I was a moderator.

Why do you sound like me........... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So just my 2 cents here:

Since I think 2015, from time to time KSP popped up at my Steam shop page. I totally do not like games with cartoonish graphics, and seeing the Kerbals on that shop page image actually made turn away, I was assuming it's another one of those cheap and bad run of the mill games.

One day then one of my favorite youtubers had a little Let's Play series, and people really liked it. What the heck, I'll have a look. That was kind of an epiphany, so to speak, I learned that KSP was actually a hard physics and math based sim at its core. Purchased it the very same day and began playing. And almost immediately fell in love with my little green cute people.

Fast forward to today: a life without KSP and the Kerbals is possible, but meaningless :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 4:03 AM, Souptime said:

we need kerbals! we need kerbals!

I agree whole-heartedly. Probes are all well and good for getting there and back again; but the real excitement comes when you realize you need to do an EVA to change something that you forgot, or decided to add after you sent a ship into orbit or beyond. I decided to turn an Eve mission into an effort to deploy CommNet satellites around our purple neighbor. Sure, I could've sent a second ship, but what was the fun in that when I could send the satellites up and use Bob to attach them in various places on the mothership before sending it off into the wild black yonder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mikenike said:

Fine, then it would be like taking iconic characters from Mortal Kombat, and COD. It would be like taking Soap, Price, Ghost, Roach, Alex (MW2019), Alex/David Mason, Frank Woods, or any other iconic character from COD out. It would be weird to be chasing down a bad guy in the old MW series who wasn't Zahkev, Makarov, or Shepard. It would be like taking the Steve skin out from Minecraft. It wouldn't feel right.

Ok, that I can understand.

22 hours ago, Mikenike said:

We are being EXTREMELY hyperbolic because we can be. But we are trying to put our views into perspective for you. As for why you decided to argue MY and PROBE's views, I have no idea.

Well if you're going to intentionally make your argument ridiculous then  I'm confused as to why you're surprised that I've pointed out a disparity between our points of view.

I keep seeing this logic:

Kerbal is in the name of the game -> if kerbals are removed from the game then the game is ruined since they're in the title

This to me seems like very sloppy thinking. For instance lets name a game "A Great Game Except the One Part of it That Ruins the rest of the Game."

So in this obviously over the top point should "the One Part of it That Ruins the rest of the Game" be left in the sequel to the game because it's mentioned in the title? If not, why not?

<snip>

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VoidSquid said:

One day then one of my favorite youtubers had a little Let's Play series, and people really liked it. What the heck, I'll have a look. That was kind of an epiphany, so to speak, I learned that KSP was actually a hard physics and math based sim at its core. Purchased it the very same day and began playing. And almost immediately fell in love with my little green cute people.

Why does that sound similar?:P

Edited by VoidCosmos
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue with this discussion is that it’s about preferences. That’s always subjective, and the reasons for liking something (or not) are often hard to articulate, not entirely coherent, inconsistent, or all of the above. Les gouts et les couleurs and all that. So while I think it can be illuminating to share and describe preferences, arguing about them isn’t so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, it's time for me to put on my moderator hat again...

I hate having to go in and edit or hide posts - but when I've posted a warning not to post comments which are personal attacks OR could be considered as flamebait (The word “flamebait” is a noun for the actual message or content that is being used to try to promote an emotional or passionate response), then stop. Several posts containing personal attacks and statements which were of a nature guaranteed to evoke a response from the intended party have been edited or removed.

This thread's topic is about the necessity or lack of a necessity to have a fictional creature in a computer game/simulation that happens to be about space. It does not give any forum user the right to belittle anyone for having a differing opinion or point of view. Please remember there are others who are on this forum who are just as passionate about their opinions as you are of yours. Therefore, at times, when you can see the tensions are escalating, there's nothing wrong with simply agreeing to disagree. There's nothing wrong or irrational about wanting to defend our opinions but it's against the forum rules to make the disagreement personal. Arguing for the sake of arguing contributes nothing to those wishing to make a positive contribution to the thread, or on a larger scale, the forum. Starting an argument about the way a forum member expresses their ideas or opinions is not constructive and never ends well for anyone involved. It is considered quite provoking and could become "flamebate" itself. 

This thread contains a lot of good comments both for and against the removal of the little green cartoonish characters. It would be a shame to have to lock the thread because some folks cannot keep the thread on topic or create a lot of such hostility on it. Either would cause the moderation team to be forced into a situation where we would have to consider leaving the thread locked.

So, the condensed version:

  • It's okay to disagree with the opinions of others as long as the disagreement does not become personal or insulting.
  • Keep the discussion focused on why or why not Kerbals should be included with Kerbal Space Program. Or what other options Kerbals could look like.
  • If you find yourself enraged over another forum members' opinion, simply agree to disagree.
  • Report any post you feel is hostile or may violate the forum guidelines.
  • Focus on the content of what a forum member's post/statement/argument is and not on the way they are presenting it.
  • It's never okay to argue about arguing. It never goes in a positive direction.
Link to post
Share on other sites

145 people voted in this poll and only 3 voted for the removal of Kerbals, there's no need to come here to defend their presence into the game since 97% of users discussing here (OP included, since he voted 2.5) agree that, at least, they're not detrimental to the game (only 4 people voted below 2).

The argument is how important they are and it's probably justifiably sprouted from the fact that we had a bunch of reveals focused around their design one after the other. 

I personally find 5 as extreme as 1 and I hardly believe that all the people that voted that would choose "Silly Kerbal plumbing chores 2" over "totally serious Human Space Program 2"*.

Kerbals, just like dupes in ONI, set the tone of the game and play an important part in downplaying the seriousness and the hardness of space travel, but they're definitely not the "core" of the game that can be perfectly summed up in the expression @mcwaffles2003 used in the OP: "playing with space Legos".

 

Edited by Master39
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Master39 said:

145 people voted in this poll and only 3 voted for the removal of Kerbals, there's no need to come here to defend their presence into the game since 97% of users discussing here (OP included, since he voted 2.5) agree that, at least, they're not detrimental to the game (only 4 people voted below 2).

The argument is how important they are and it's probably justifiably sprouted from the fact that we had a bunch of reveals focused around their design one after the other

I personally find 5 as extreme as 1 and I hardly believe that all the people that voted that would choose "Silly Kerbal plumbing chores 2" over "totally serious Human Space Program 2"*.

Kerbals, just like dupes in ONI, set the tone of the game and play an important part in downplaying the seriousness of the hardness of space travel, but they're definitely not the "core" of the game that can be perfectly summed up in the expression @mcwaffles2003 used in the OP: "playing with space Legos".

 

Dude, you give me hope. We might prioritize the importance of kerbals differently but thank you for understanding why I made this thread and that I don't hate kerbals.

I made 1 and 5 specifically to be ridiculous and figured the poll would center around 4.

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 4:26 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Have to say, I'm surprised by the amount of 5's I'm seeing. I put 1 and 5 in there as rediculous extremes and I find it weird so many would closely identify their position of the game without kerbals as "utterly worthless". Also, that inverted bell curve showing... Wow apparently this is polarizing in the community 

People always rate things in extremes. Look at reviews on any site with star ratings — they're usually either 1, 4 or 5 stars.

If you aggregate all the ratings for some things, say a list of movies, you can basically dismiss anything under 4 stars out of hand as total crap.

Edited by Rocket Witch
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kerbals are not needed in the pretty serious space engineering simulator like KSP has become, but obviously nobody actually thinks that they should be removed from the stable project.
They just should not have been added if KSP in its current state was being designed from scratch.
(KSP-2 is not from scratch, it's a remake of a widely known franchise).

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 3:42 AM, Incarnation of Chaos said:

The "K" in KSP is for "Kerbal"

Sorry, that should tell you quite a bit already. And if that isn't enough; just marvel at those emotes as they ride some hilariously shoddily constructed deathtrap to orbit and tell me that isn't totally worth it.

Well, the SP is for "Space Program", and the aspect of managing a space program is severely lacking in the base game. So it would just move the title from 66% wrong to 100% wrong, which makes this not really a compelling argument :P

 

Personally I will go with 2.5:  The Kerbals are not integrated well into the game, going kerballed you gain some small bonuses and have to pay with only adding some seating to the craft, but they are not actually detrimental. They do add a tiny bit of flavour, but that (together with the "kerbally" part descriptions) sometimes adds to weird mood missmatches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2021 at 10:01 AM, Spaceman.Spiff said:

I agree that they need more lifelike physics and motion, but perhaps the animation could be changed so that as they level up (and become a more experienced pilot/astronaut) they would "resist the Gs" better than brand new ones. That way you have newbie pilots sloshing around while the 5-star pilots would be able to maintain some composure.

Cool idea!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give to Kerbals longer legs!

P.S.
What's an adjective to Kerbin (not as a celestial body, but as a world)?

As there are Kerb-in, Kerb-als, Kerb-ol, etc, so the word root is "Kerb".

So, the adjective to Kerbin (as a world, a setting) is "Kerbal".

So, the title "Kerbal Space Program" does not require Kerbals. Kerbin is enough.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were not for the Kerbals, it wouldn't really be Kerbal Space Program. The game would just be another spaceflight simulator without them. The goofy green guys are what makes the game stand out, and most people. Friends of mine who don't play the game know it as "that rocket game with the green aliens".  They're a core part of the game and I doubt it would've lasted as long as it has without them.

If I was playing today, and they just magically vanished, would I keep playing? Probably. Would the game have gotten as popular as it is now without our very verde friends? I seriously doubt it.

Edited by Kernel Kraken
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kernel Kraken said:

game would just be another spaceflight simulator without them.

Another one like?

Because, Kerbals or not I failed to find worthy alternatives every time I looked.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Another one like?

Because, Kerbals or not I failed to find worthy alternatives every time I looked.

 

Kerbal Space Program 2 Honestly? I couldn't find one that good other than Simple Rockets 2, and that only came out recently. I'll have to keep digging, but you make a good point. Lots of games simulate spaceflight (EVE, No Man's Sky, SpaceWar!, various Star Wars games) but most are far future sci-fi action games and not sandbox games. Simple Planes is pretty awesome, but you're restricted to the one planet. Spore is a sandbox game with a space stage, and you can make your own spaceships, but it's mostly cosmetic and it's not the main focus of the game. It also uses Star Wars flight physics, so I'd hesitate to include it in a list of KSP's competitors.

Come to think of it, what are KSP's competitors? There's lots of shooter games of every genre, tons of side scrollers, tons of racing games, and tons of voxel-based building games. I can only list 2 sandbox spaceflight simulators off the top of my head (KSP, Simple Rockets) and a whole bunch of unrealistic space combat games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 4:32 PM, Kernel Kraken said:

Lots of games simulate spaceflight (EVE, No Man's Sky, SpaceWar!, various Star Wars games)

On 1/22/2021 at 4:32 PM, Kernel Kraken said:

 It also uses Star Wars flight physics, so I'd hesitate to include it in a list of KSP's competitors.

Funny thing is these don't even come close to "simulating" spaceflight. In the case of star wars the ships steer like aircraft or cars and slow to a stop when you "let off the gas", No Mans Sky pretends gravity doesn't exist, haven't played eve or space war. But essentially:

On 1/22/2021 at 4:32 PM, Kernel Kraken said:

I can only list 2 sandbox spaceflight simulators off the top of my head (KSP, Simple Rockets) and a whole bunch of unrealistic space combat games.

This is what I've been on about. Simple rockets 2 just doesn't cut it in comparison to KSP, though it's not a bad game, just no where near as fleshed out as KSP is by miles... I like its procedural engines though and I hope KSP takes notes on that front. I haven't used its visual programming language but based on what I've seen it looks like this would be very useful:

Spoiler

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...