of course i voted first <img src="' http://spacesimcentral.com/forum/public/style_emoticons//icon_e_smile.gi f"' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />

my decision is mediacre, i like some realism, but it really shouldn't go to far.

if i need to have special knowledge about the matters of spaceflight it disappoints me a little.

i simply like to play, i don't like full simulations, where i have to study i don't know what book first before i can play.

i don't like to do or have to understand complicated expressions in a game.

i'm also convinced that this tears out any fun in a game for me and that it has a negative influence on the flow in the game.

examples there would be in all genres where this goal has been missed, from my pov at least.

from on a certain point of realism the game gets scattered and looses flow or playability.

as my beloved game is Frontier/E2 i take this as example for a good balance of realism and gameplay.

opposite to that would stand flightsims, where i have to read a handbook first before the plane will start it's motors,

besides i don't know any (or can't remember it) simply because i don't play realistic simulations.

really i rather like to play a simple arcade shoot 'em up from ~1985

Considering that there are no full realism space sims (other than the likes of Orbiter, which is more akin to a very early X-Plane in space), how would you even know? Most games that attempt even only a light level of realism often fail at the implementation because realistic environment modeling means one has to design real systems models to deal with them. If you happen to be a flight sim enthusiast, imagine something akin to a DCS Starship or DCS Starfighter simulation; with real simulated systems to deal with the real simulated environment. So far, no one has wanted to design a virtual spacecraft to that level of detail, so all we get are the same handwaiviem WWII dogfight trader games in space.

I personally prefer simulations over games, as I enjoy getting to learn about real things and concepts by playing a video game. I'd love to see a somewhat near future era (~100 or so years from now, sublight speeds) Starship simulation which features a realistic environment (physics: speed of light, effects of relativity, etc.), full detailed crew and damage models, accurate weapons/sensor/EW models and all of the necessary systems to deal with the intricacies of space flight with as little handwaiving as possible.

Iam with Potts on this, I don't mind some simulation but I like to have fun while playing a game.

Having ploughed through many flashy (and some not so flashy) games over the years, I remain a fan of the original Elite, so these days I play Oolite almost exclusively (I play Astroids 3D for a little relaxation after a long, gruelling cruise through hostile space). Very little realism, plenty of handwavium - and oodles of immersion. However, I did vote for the second option - suspension of disbelief is one thing, but some stuff (most especially planets - and to a slighter lesser extent - ships) have gotta look kinda right!

So many time I've seen people on forums and youtube arguing about a sim being brilliant or boring. The conclusion I come too is that a simulation can't really be called a "game" in the usual sense. Yes, it is still a game because we play it on a machine with keyboards/joysticks etc etc. But they are designed with realism in mind rather than fun. If you are one of the people that say "But they are fun" then you are just one of the ones that like sims.

It makes it difficult to vote but I went for extreme because for me, a simulator gives you the closest thing to travelling through space that you're ever likely to get. In reality, I'm probably not going to own a starship. So a game that gives a recreation of what it would REALLY be like is absolutely fascinating to me.

Basically, we need both sims and games. I'll play Pioneer or something for the realistic space exploration, and Oolite for fun gaming. They are both set in the same environment but its two very reasons for playing.

When someone decides "I'm going to make a space game" they need to decide if its going to be a sim or a game. With both options you risk cutting out a large proportion of your audience. But if you try and make a game that does both you run the risk of the game not knowing what its meant to be.

The question isn't just "how far should a space simulation game go in realism?", but also "how to make realism fun?".

More often than not, space sims with realistic distances and full Newtonian physics are boring, unintuitive and sometimes even beyond unplayable.

But then, look at Independence War 2 for instance. It has long travel disances, Newtonians physics and all that stuff...yet somehow, it manages to have one of the best-feeling and most enjoyable 'flight model' I've ever experiences. The way the ships react with a solid weighty sensation, the way that cool-looking HUD(representing your head + helmet) is thrown around (but smoothly, not in an annoying way!) everytime you turn sharply at a high (but sub-light) speed, you can almost feel those high-G levels somewhere in your head.

After you've experienced this, going back to a spacesim with arcady flight dynamics makes you go kinda "meh". So in my opinion, there is no clean line drawn limiting how far you can go. How to turn a realistic element into a responsive and rewarding gameplay mechanic, should be the focus here.

It's all about combat.

Simulator is simulator, a tool (that geeks like us play for fun lol), must be realistic no matter how detrimental to "fun" factor.

Space game featuring combat must be fun above all other considerations, reality be damned!

Dude, strap a couple of aim and shoot weapons onto a pair of x37-bs, throw them both into orbit and see how long it takes them to destroy each other.

I bet it would be a total snorefest for 99% of people (exception being aforementioned geeks, I'd pay-per-view to see the telemetry for that!).

So I like realism for sure, I've put in my simulator hours like everyone, but realism only to a point and that point is the fun factor of combat not being diminished.

Combat is always a massive aspect of any game it's featured in.

When I play a space game with combat I want fast paced dynamic dramatic fun battles and the laws of physics can be twisted any which way that will achieve that.

All the tropes and traditions of space combat were established long before we ever actually went to space, and we've never had cause to actually try real combat in space so our expectations are informed by fiction.

So all these conventions that the player expects from a sci fi space combat experience come from many decades of fictional entertainment and are probably not really very compatible with the rules of real space physics maths stuff if we were to actually strap a weapon on to a spacecraft.

To paraphrase that famous quote about real life spaceship combat - "it'd be really boring."

...but of course when the dust has drifted away after those epic non newtonian battles and I'm doing something relaxed like trading or exploring I have no shame expecting a game to provide full 100% accurate physics!

We're so easy to please...

I voted for the medium option. By that i am not asking a slack on the simulation. However, no one is an Engineer, navigator, co, pilot, marine, all at once. Essentially i prefer to tweak my realism, as i learn to master.

I prefer a futuristic scenario, -a simulation of a more or less plausible world, including more than the wonders of just piloting a ship. Orbiter is a wild game simulator, but it is on my knifes edge and i miss fun besides the learning. 

to sum it up. i find it best, when i have different levels of detail, i can dive into depending on what role i fancy at any given time.

My ultimate dream is a 'Cosmos Sim'. A sim of worlds, with a AAA space sim game to glue the worlds together.

Extreme, but with the other options too. I think a player should be able to set their own realism level that suits them, easy to get the hang of things then gradually ramp it up to extreme.

Everything points to more realism. Maybe not in control but definitely in terms of graphics.

Agreeing with everyone above (ahem...) it boils down to what game type it is - wether a simulation or a more adventure focused game. Space is big and there is room for everyone. Regardless, some level of realism is always a bonus (e.g graphics), although too much can be an hindrance.

Rephrasing the question, what level of realism would I want in Elite?

Not as much as in Frontier, regarding combat effects. Space combat in the future may come to resemble more the navy of old than the air combat, so creating an interesting space combat with pure Newtonian experience and hands on controls approach is not very likely to succeed. That does not mean the flight and fight experience should be "planes in space".

Traveling between - or within - star systems should have realism toned down (well, are hyperdrives realistic?).

But when it comes to planets, orbits, nebulas, sure realism is nice 🙂

I'd go for a good game everytime. Frontier and FFE got routine very quick as did Elite (although I was more innocent in those days!)

My need for realism varies: I always wanted games like these:

A game that would allow you to fly something like an X wing around the galaxy (epic unrealistic space battles, being able to fly down to a planet from orbit, freedom to go where you like, missions but sandbox play - a mix of X wing and Elite!)

Or: a game that would be something like Niven's known space (Ringworld etc, crazy Aliens, interesting astrophysics etc) - something I think Frontier was aiming towards with it's realism.

I think the latter is very hard because most coders/game designers are not hard SF writers - a generic space opera universe with a bit of imagination (i.e. steal from all the best movies and books) would be great. Vega Strike would be awesome with more work IMHO, shame it seems to have stagnated. 

My gaming time now is limited really. I don't have the patience to pore over Elite or GTA type games for hours (let alone EVE), although I do like the idea of freedom to explore and some of these homebrew game engines look beautiful. I think a game for me to play right now needs a streamlined front end, not too much realism although - I do like realism when it comes to modelling scale of the universe.

@EvilKoala

such type of simulation will be made first by defense contractors for their ..ehm well preferred customers...

then after the one or another decade we will get something like virtualbattleSPACE <insert some more than 1 digit number here>

until then iam quit happy with a gameplay like in Freelancer (for the rather more action) and Space Rangers 2 (for the Sandbox-save-the-galaxy-while-drinking-contraband)

oh i wish there would be (at least in 3d-Simulation) no funky LSD-style background textures - something i loved in those elite 1 to 3 games

Too much realism isn't good for your health. But from today's trend seems some people have elitist attitude that every game should be as realistic as ArmA 3 or DCS; always prefer anything extremely realistic and start whining, calling them 'shitty console port' or such even when something is *slightly* not realistic.

But that doesn't means 'realism is bad m'kay?', I still do enjoy stuff like FS2, LOMAC/DCS, IL-2, et cetera.

[/personalexperiencerant]