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

[mcwaffles2003]

First off, the vast majority of the time in the game I fly probes, and while I do enjoy the kerbals, mostly for the inside joke memes of the community and the video content able to be structured around them, I don't feel they are what makes KSP what it is. I bring them along when I need surface samples or I want to put a scientist in a space station. To me the core of the game is the simulation. I know of no other game like KSP that does what it does anywhere nearly as well, simple rockets is a FARRRRRRRRR cry from what KSP has to offer (but it does have some bits I like most like procedural engines).

I've never played another game with the depth of simulation KSP has along with the ease, variety, and unlimitedness of what modular parts I can stick together. Above that even, aside from factorio and maybe skyrim, I have never seen such a dedicated modding community as this game has and honestly, to me, mods  make this game what it is because with them you can make the game whatever you want it to be and some mods change the fundamental mechanics of the game. Things like kOS, FAR, or principia just blow me away seeing how fundamentally they can change the game.

That said I don't think the Kerbals being in the game aren't a great factor, but calling them something akin to being the lifeblood of it seems to put them on an unnecessary pedestal. I would love to see them become more useful in a practical sense to the missions I take on and wish I had more reasons to include them in my endeavors in the game. I enjoy their expressions and the light-heartedness they bring, I just have a greater interest in playing with my space legos. Honestly, legos is a great analogy for this as legos have their own little people that ad flavor to your creations as well, but for me kerbals offer the same appeal, they add flavor to it but I'd still play with it even if they weren't there. 

I'm honestly scared that KSP 2 ends up revolving around them too much somehow but most of that fear is driven by the fact that they're the thing I probably know the most about for KSP 2 and the devs seem to be praying at the alter of the holy kerbal.

 

That all said, I await my exile from the community and understand why I may be sacrificed to the Kraken.  

 

EDIT: Please comment your opinion on how you feel towards the role kerbals play within KSP.  Also, for the record I voted 2.5

Edited December 28, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Superfluous J]

I voted 3.5. I think they're quite important to the game and are a significant reason why I play KSP and not Simple Rockets 2, but the game itself is good enough I'm not quite willing to say I'd stop playing if they vanished, or wouldn't have started if they weren't there to begin with.

I will say I've often removed their portraits to gain that screen real estate back. It's the easiest part of the screen to cover with something else.

[The Aziz]

A space program of any sort needs that sentient particle. I'm not saying that you can't do anything you want with just probes, but logic suggests that you shouldn't let the AI do everything. Like, you know, living beings with any sort of brain tissue usually think and make decisions, and that is kinda important. But I am going too far off from the game.

Now, the kerbals are getting more and more important. Suddenly, engineers are ten times more useful. In the sequel, they'll be integral part of the whole colony system. Sure you probably could explore the galaxy with a probe but then you'd cut yourself off from the huge chunk of the gameplay. May as well just install Kopernicus and several star systems and you'd get the same result. So anyway, they're here, always were. Without them? Like you said, Simplerockets or Orbiter sim. Yet Another Spaceflight Simulator 2015 (YASS). It wouldn't have much soul. Would you do rescue missions if there wasn't your favourite veteran Kerbonaut stranded by your own mistake? You lose the probe, you send another. You lose a Kerbal, and unless you're like Danny2462, you place a flag in memoriam where they died.

To sum it up, KSP without Kerbals (SP? Get it? Without K?) would be like that probe of yours, hard, cold, completing orders without a word, soulless. Kerbals make this game feel alive.

[mcwaffles2003]

3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

A space program of any sort needs that sentient particle. I'm not saying that you can't do anything you want with just probes, but logic suggests that you shouldn't let the AI do everything. Like, you know, living beings with any sort of brain tissue usually think and make decisions, and that is kinda important. But I am going too far off from the game.

I feel like I would agree more with  this if probes acted more like probes. As for flying probes I do most of it manually and I think I would use kerbals more if something like time delay got in the way of me doing so and manual control of a probe was more delayed. But as it is, adding kerbals just ads final stage mass and an awkwardly shaped piece to my ship.

8 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

You lose the probe, you send another. You lose a Kerbal, and unless you're like Danny2462, you place a flag in memoriam where they died.

I'm a bit more like Danny with a less sadistic touch. If they crashed I'm just left there wishing they made a crater... would prefer they didnt crash, but since they did it should look cooler.

[Lewie]

To me, the game wouldn't feel right. There's just something about the terror in their cute 'lil eyes as they hurdle to their death on an unholy abomination....the game just wouldn't be the same without the little guys.  

Edited December 28, 2020 by Lewie

[Kerminator K-100]

I feel that Kerbals make the game connectable.  A probe core is cold and lifeless and not very interesting, but the kerbals add life to the game. I love seeing the awe on their faces when I make it to space or touch down on a new planet. Without the kerbals, I wouldn't feel the need to return a ship safely, I can just transmit everything, but I want the kerbals to make it home. Without kerbals, this game would be cold and dry.

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

That all said, I await my exile from the community and understand why I may be sacrificed to the Kraken.  

Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice!

Edited December 28, 2020 by Kerminator K-100

[VoidCosmos]

I would politely disagree with the OP. 

The game is about simulation. Yes I agree with this. But for it to be a simulator, it has to have a equivalent to a Human. And also look at Simple Rockets 2 for example. The astronauts look so boring unlike our cute little kerbals (not trying to discourage the creators of SR2). Like most of the users above me (including me) have started playing this game and not SR2 is because of the kerbals! I just wouldn't want to imagine playing this lovely game without any kerbals! And also, it wouldn't be called Kerbal Space Program without the kerbals

Edited December 28, 2020 by VoidCosmos

[mcwaffles2003]

31 minutes ago, VoidCosmos said:

The game is about simulation. Yes I agree with this. But for it to be a simulator, it has to have a equivalent to a Human.

This, I just disagree with, it simulates probes just fine.

31 minutes ago, VoidCosmos said:

And also look at Simple Rockets 2 for example. The astronauts look so boring unlike our cute little kerbals (not trying to discourage the creators of SR2). Like most of the users above me (including me) have started playing this game and not SR2 is because of the kerbals! I just wouldn't want to imagine play this lovely game without any kerbals! And also, it wouldn't be called Kerbal Space Program without the kerbals

See, the reason I dont play SR2 is because of the lack of simulation accuracy and variety of parts/terrain. In SR2 a ship doesnt encounter heating when moving at mach 5 in low atmosphere, it doesnt undergo dynamical stress and tear itself apart if it veers from prograde and flips in an atmosphere. I don't even have to care if the CoD is behind the CoM, if I want my rocket to point in a direction it just does... Also, the game just doesnt have many parts to play with. In KSP I can put a bunch of lights with different colors on a rocket for instance and I can conduct a plethora of science experiments, the world in SR2 is much more bland and stale and I have no desire to see other planets. In KSP the worlds can be bland but they're getting much better and they are leagues beyond SR2. Visiting the giant green ball that is jool with a bunch of little planets around it is beautiful, the sandy zen garden surface of duna when that first interplanetary probe lands.

 

You cant do this in SR2:

Spoiler

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[VoidCosmos]

38 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

This, I just disagree with, it simulates probes just fine.

How about an Apollo style mission?  Does a probe simulate that 'just fine'? 

[jastrone]

what would be the point of going places if you cant plant flaggs and go around in EVA

[Frank_G]

I can´t vote, because there is not the right thing to vote for... without the Kerbals, the game would lose its heart... absolutely essential and good to see, that the devs put some extra work into them.

[mcwaffles2003]

18 hours ago, VoidCosmos said:

How about an Apollo style mission?  Does a probe simulate that 'just fine'? 

This is equivalent to asking "Yeah! well... can you spell hamburger with numbers?". Can you tell me what the word choreography smells like? How do you like being asked non sequiturs? It's dumb, right? 100% pointless, literally. 

Can I simulate a manned mission without using people? Sure stick a probe core on the empty capsule I guess?

22 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I bring them along when I need surface samples or I want to put a scientist in a space station.

Also, recreating real missions from the past doesn't really interest me much. When I play with legos I dont buy kits and build a manufacturers blueprint, I just build what I want at the time with a random assortment 

14 hours ago, Frank_G said:

I can´t vote, because there is not the right thing to vote for... without the Kerbals, the game would lose its heart... absolutely essential and good to see, that the devs put some extra work into them.

Quote

5 - Absolutely essential, they are the core focus of the game and without them KSP is utterly worthless

 

15 hours ago, jastrone said:

what would be the point of going places if you cant plant flaggs and go around in EVA

Seeing the pretty planets and overcoming the challenge of getting there

Edited December 29, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[DunaManiac]

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I don't feel they are what makes KSP what it is

I actually feel the opposite. Kerbals to me are what seperates KSP from the pack of space simulators of Simple Rockets 2 and Orbiter. They allow some emotional attachment that you otherwise  wouldn't have with another space simulator. Overall, I like Kerbals, as it gives the game some heart, but they're not absolutely essential.

[Guest]

I vote 5, there are many other space flight simulators but this one is just more fun to play and the kerbals are the root of that reason. It makes you want to play more.

[Superfluous J]

7 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I dont play SR2 is because of the lack of simulation accuracy and variety of parts/terrain. In SR2 a ship doesnt encounter heating when moving at mach 5 in low atmosphere, it doesnt undergo dynamical stress and tear itself apart if it veers from prograde and flips in an atmosphere. I don't even have to care if the CoD is behind the CoM

...and I didn't play it long enough to find this stuff out, at least partly because it didn't have something akin to Kerbals to give it heart.

[Souptime]

the game NEEDS kerbals, cause y'know.. KERBAL space program? without thm it would be Space Program

And i feel like this will become the new metallic hydrogen thread...

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, DunaManiac said:

I actually feel the opposite. Kerbals to me are what seperates KSP from the pack of space simulators of Simple Rockets 2 and Orbiter. They allow some emotional attachment that you otherwise  wouldn't have with another space simulator. Overall, I like Kerbals, as it gives the game some heart, but they're not absolutely essential.

SR2 has overly simplistic mechanics with a much lesser variety of parts and orbiter is more comparable to MS flight Sim 2020, just its the glide an overly complicated brick edition. 

Don't get me wrong though, I don't dislike the kerbals, I really do like them and their charm. The VAB would feel empty without them walking around in it. Just, they're not what brought me here or what keeps me here, the evolving mechanics of the game and the awesome people here who make their own additions to it are. 

2 minutes ago, Souptime said:

the game NEEDS kerbals, cause y'know.. KERBAL space program? without thm it would be Space Program

And i feel like this will become the new metallic hydrogen thread...

I am not personally of the opinion we get rid of the kerbals, far from it, I just don't think they are the single greatest part of the game.... 

[Souptime]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I just don't think they are the single greatest part of the game.... 

>:(

[mcwaffles2003]

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 

[VoidCosmos]

I would say kerbals are virtually the topping of the cake. Without them the game would be worthless 

[ConArt70]

I definitely think Kerbals give the impression this is a childish game and puts some people off playing. Personally I would prefer the game without Kerbals and just have regular human astronauts. 

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, VoidCosmos said:

I would say kerbals are virtually the topping of the cake. Without them the game would be worthless 

You think cake is worthless without sprinkles or other toppings? Idk, to say KSP has 0 value at all without kerbals to me is, putting it mildly, a tad extreme.

I'm getting the vibe people here wouldn't mind if KSP 2 turned into The Sims with a kerbal skin.

[K^2]

I don't think they need to be terribly complex. I don't think I ever wanted more out of Kerbals than what base KSP already has. But at the same time, without them, the game would be kind of empty. How often would you even bother to look back at a lander that crash-landed on another planet? But now if there's a stranded crew, what sort of monster wouldn't launch a rescue mission? It's definitely a big part of replayability of the game.

[jimmymcgoochie]

How many people remember the name of the first probe landing on the moon? No Googling (or other internet search engine of your choice-ing) allowed.

 

 

...anyone?

Spoiler

Luna 9, if you didn’t know

How about the name of the first manned landing on the Moon?

 

And that’s why Kerbals are necessary in the game. While probes, landers and rovers can do some pretty incredible things these days, putting humans on another planetary body-and bringing them back- remains the single greatest technical achievement in human history; it’s an order of magnitude more difficult than a probe, which doesn’t need food, water, air, precise temperature and pressure conditions to complete its mission, plus almost all probe missions are one way trips whereas every crewed mission needs to come back home again.

Sure, I could throw all manner of probes and rovers around in KSP, but it’s not nearly as challenging or interesting as flying a big, heavy, inefficient pod around with a little green alien in the corner of the screen clinging on in terror or gawping in awe- often within seconds of each other!

[Souptime]

we need kerbals! we need kerbals!