Its very much the same question I have. Usually when a decision is made to make everything one gender when it comes to animals, the default is female. Its less work and usually players can gender the mount, pet, whatever themselves since the players’ imagination will just fill in the gap.

They decided to make horses male. Specifically, and then model the parts. I don’t know why. Maybe that is the -joke- that was referenced in the OP. Though I think they (the author of the OP) meant in reference to the official reply itself they linked. But I suspect there is an inside joke, especially given some colorful documentation in the past on modding buffs and reminding us to put in things to remove them.

I can see a reasoning for a single gender. As others pointed out that when crafting a white or black horse, the horse was always male. This was not a bug. This was using an item (the non-placed horse crafted from a foal) to craft another item. When a horse is placed, the stats and attributes (including gender) are randomized and assigned. When a horse is used to craft a black or white (and I assume the others that… maybe assumed in lore to be genderless), the male gender is assigned and not randomized.

But back to just a single gender, it makes sense from a coding standpoint not to develop some system that keeps the gender in mind from a foal to a horse to a placed horse or to a recrafted (with fodder) special horse. When there is no functional gameplay difference.

IMO they should have chosen female and gotten rid of all the other convoluted variables that go into horse attributes that have little effect on actual gameplay, but we’re going into very wide tangent territory.

1 Like