Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Learn better - not 'required to learn anything ever'.

My point was that if you know how to play KSP in the first place you've learned quite a bit without needing to identify with the Kerbals in the first place.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Also, I'd like to say that this is just saying why we don't NEED female Kerbals, not that they won't be a welcome addition or at least something new. Not having each Kerbal look the same is perfectly fine with me and I won't crusade for the removal of female Kerbals.

I'm not that bullheaded.

[Endoperez]

Learn better - not 'required to learn anything ever'.

My point was that if you know how to play KSP in the first place you've learned quite a bit without needing to identify with the Kerbals in the first place.

I agree, but it's missing my point.

If there's a simple way to turn that "learned quite a bit" into "learned a lot", I believe it is generally better to try and move to that direction. Having an "ideal self" in the game makes a kid more involved and interested in the game, making the game more fun and improving learning.

Regarding your last point, I agree that there's no need for the change, but it would be a welcome one, a good thing with no bad sides, and a welcome change from the passive "who cares" attitude shared by many developers.

We don't need Half Life 3 either.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Yes, we do.

Anyways, even so, wouldn't they still not identify with the little big headed green guys regardless?

And even if they do, who's to say a lot of children play KSP?

There was a poll held on the forums a few months back that came out to say that only around 20-40% of the community is children below 18.

A lot of the community also doesn't like the idea of female Kerbals. The many posts about them prove that.

So wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just not bring them in and appease the vast majority of people?

[Endoperez]

Yes, we do.

Anyways, even so, wouldn't they still not identify with the little big headed green guys regardless?

And even if they do, who's to say a lot of children play KSP?

There was a poll held on the forums a few months back that came out to say that only around 20-40% of the community is children below 18.

A lot of the community also doesn't like the idea of female Kerbals. The many posts about them prove that.

So wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just not bring them in and appease the vast majority of people?

I don't play shooters so Half Life 3 should never ever be released. It's a stupid game any way.

20 to 40 % of the community is under 18, but that's just the forums, not the people who play the game. Internet communities are generally only a fraction of the people who play the game.

A lot of the community also likes the idea of female Kerbals, otherwise the community wouldn't know that people like them, so they wouldn't make many threads to oppose the idea. Like, for example, there aren't a lot of threads about how Overgrowth doesn't need dragons, but there's lots of threads asking if Overgrowth will have guns, bows, dismemberment or internet multiplayer. Those features are requested often by people who like Overgrowth. That doesn't mean implementing them is a good idea, but the fact that regular users complain about them only proves that the features are also REQUESTED often.

It would only make sense to not implement a feature if the cons outweigh the pros. What are the cons? Some people will not like it for some reason. What are the pros? Some people will like it for various reasons including immersion, roleplaying, being able to play as characters of their own gender and better learning results on kids.

I think the pros outweigh the cons.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

I don't play shooters so Half Life 3 should never ever be released. It's a stupid game any way.

20 to 40 % of the community is under 18, but that's just the forums, not the people who play the game. Internet communities are generally only a fraction of the people who play the game.

That being the only significant polling data, I'd say we'll have to assume that is relevant and accurate information. Or else we can't be sure.

A lot of the community also likes the idea of female Kerbals, otherwise the community wouldn't know that people like them, so they wouldn't make many threads to oppose the idea. Like, for example, there aren't a lot of threads about how Overgrowth doesn't need dragons, but there's lots of threads asking if Overgrowth will have guns, bows, dismemberment or internet multiplayer. Those features are requested often by people who like Overgrowth. That doesn't mean implementing them is a good idea, but the fact that regular users complain about them only proves that the features are also REQUESTED often.

But they really aren't, threads mentioning female Kerbals are somewhat few and far between, and have been met with either "No" or "Meh" responses.

It would only make sense to not implement a feature if the cons outweigh the pros. What are the cons? Some people will not like it for some reason. What are the pros? Some people will like it for various reasons including immersion, roleplaying, being able to play as characters of their own gender and better learning results on kids.

I think the pros outweigh the cons.

That's subjective, we have to remember that KSP is still unstable and still has problems far more relevant then females, and even then without accurate data we shouldn't assume that children are learning how to do orbital mechanics just because they have male characters that are technically genderless.

[Endoperez]

Statistics can lie. For example, 12 % of all humans haven't died. Does it mean that 1 in 10 humans are immortal? No, it's the result of human population exploding only recently.

Taking a small sample size distorts results. KSP forums are a small sample of all KSP players. That means that we have no reliable information and can't be sure.

Okay, then what is the reason to loudly complain about a feature when it's not ralked about otherwise? What does it achieve?


Making graphics isn't out of programming time, assuming theu have dedicated artist(s).

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Statistics can lie. For example, 12 % of all humans haven't died. Does it mean that 1 in 10 humans are immortal? No, it's the result of human population exploding only recently.

Again, it's the only data we have to go on.

Okay, then what is the reason to loudly complain about a feature when it's not ralked about otherwise? What does it achieve?

They only talk about it when it comes up though, and it does.

[Endoperez]

Statistics can lie. For example, 12 % of all humans haven't died. Does it mean that 1 in 10 humans are immortal? No, it's the result of human population exploding only recently.

Again, it's the only data we have to go on.

If it's the only data we have, we can't come to a conclusion about all the players who play Kerbal Suicide Rockets.

A lot of the community also doesn't like the idea of female Kerbals. The many posts about them prove that.

But they really aren't, threads mentioning female Kerbals are somewhat few and far between, and have been met with either "No" or "Meh" responses.

They only talk about it when it comes up though, and it doe.

If they only talk about it when it comes up, then there's only a few people suggesting the idea, but somehow posts opposing are still more numerous than posts for the idea... How does that work? Every time someone posts the idea, several people appear on the suggestion thread to oppose the idea?

[Phoenixwarrior141]

No, the few people who care to comment generally don't agree. The people who post about female Kerbals are few and far between and generally don't come up too often.

[Endoperez]

No, the few people who care to comment generally don't agree. The people who post about female Kerbals are few and far between and generally don't come up too often.

So only a few in the community care either way? Most are neutral, neither for or against?

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Most don't care, but they do recognize the game doesn't need it.

[Endoperez]

Most don't care, but they do recognize the game doesn't need it.

Games can be improved by adding unneeded things. I mean, it could be argued that music isn't needed...

[Ragdollmaster]

As entertainment media, games are inherently 'unnecessary'

[Endoperez]

As entertainment media, games are inherently 'unnecessary'

But "fun" is necessary to live a happy life. There are many sources of fun, so any single source considered on its own can be is unnecessary, but at the same time, all sources of fun considered as a group are necessary.

Games are just as necessary as cuisine (as opposed to mere nutrition), music, movies, books, culture, entertainment sports, festivals, parties and celebrations.