Why the hell aren't there more "space opera" / futuristic CRPGs?

[MRY]

(1) Magic really improves RPGs. It creates all sorts of zany strategic possibilities, new character classes, and a different resource for economy/attrition. Yes, I've read a bazillion space operas so I know they often have magic, sometimes described as psionics/psychic powers, sometimes called the Force, sometimes called mass effect or whatever it was called in Mass Effect. Don't care. I can't think of any space opera setting where ~magic was remotely as satisfying from a gameplay standpoint as magic in a high fantasy setting.

(2) Planetary romance is basically just fantasy only elves are called something alien and orcs are called something alien and magic is less fun. There is hardly any meaningful distinction to be drawn between Planet of Adventure (Vance) or John Carter of Mars (Burroughs) and Conan or other pulpy S&S. I like planetary romance to read, but I'm not really sure why you would distinguish between them. Dark Sun strikes me as being as much a "planetary romance" as a fantasy setting (reduced magic, thrikreen, renaming fantasy classes, alien landscape, etc.).

(3) Space opera is typically at a very different scale than RPGs, so when you say you want a space opera RPG and then scoff that Starflight isn't really an RPG, it's hard to know what you want. Space opera battles are often ship-to-ship or fleet-to-fleet, much of the action consists of politicking, etc. For this to work requires a whole different set of features, which yields a game more like Starflight. Mass Effect did pretty well, I suppose, but its approach required a large budget, and even then many feel it's not a legit RPG.

Anyway, I'm a fan of the genre and I wouldn't object to more of it out there, but I do feel like it's a hard thing to make.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Also, some newer episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits from years ago had AI ships that bred humans to maintain them.

You're probably thinking of an episode from the '90s The Outer Limits revival called "The Human Operators", adapted from a 1971 short story of the same name written by none other than Harlan Ellison and A.E. van Vogt.

 

[MRY]

Three more quick points.

(4) Many early RPGs were planetary romances (Ultima basically has the John Carter set up, plus space ships and supercomputers; Might and Magic is all on artificial planetoids with aliens and robots; I’m sure there are more if I stop and think).

(5) Players have a way harder time accepting combatants shooting each other a million times, which means combat requires a lot more in the way of gimmicks to work.

(6) Fantasy has a really good melee and range spread in a way space opera doesn’t unless, again, it’s just fantasy-lite a la planetary romance and people do swords vs. lasers.

 

[Cael]

Am I going to mention the white elephant in the room? Betcha I am.

Whenever people think of space opera futuristic crpg they think of Andromeda.

And it flop miserably.

The End.

Actually, Star Trek Deep Space 9 is space opera. A fixed location (more or less), an ongoing mythology and an evolving epic story arc that encompasses multiple seasons.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Am I going to mention the white elephant in the room? Betcha I am.

Whenever people think of space opera futuristic crpg they think of Andromeda.

And it flop miserably.

The End.

Strange argument.

Star Trek and Star Wars are both space operas (certainly, in part, when it comes to ST) and neither franchise can be considered a flop. I mean, the term itself can be summed up as 'melodramatic adventure set in space', usually involving epic storylines and a sense of scale. In and of itself, it's not the genre that's the problem when it comes to CRPGs.

Others have already identified the bigger issue: authenticity and believability are a lot harder to achieve on a grand scale than in a microcosm. Fantasy lends itself better to microcosmic character interactions, whereas space operas are at their best when they feel grandiose. Of course, that doesn't make a Baldur's Gate-style space opera game impossible, just harder.

For example, Stellar Tactics is giving it a go. We'll see how it works out.

 

[Cael]

Others have already identified the bigger issue: authenticity and believability are a lot harder to achieve on a grand scale than in a microcosm. Fantasy lends itself better to microcosmic character interactions, whereas space operas are at their best when they feel grandiose. Of course, that doesn't make a Baldur's Gate-style space opera game impossible, just harder.

For example, Stellar Tactics is giving it a go. We'll see how it works out.

There is not being able to write epic because it is hard to do so, and then we have "OH my GOD! KAMEA is THE greatest PRINCESS who HAS ever LIVED! And SHE is SO beautiful! SQUEEEE!!!"

 

[Infinitron]

Indie developers and crowdfunding is where this is gonna have to come from. I have no doubt publishers have ruined the AAA side of the industry, and turned it into something that isn't even gaming anymore. Shun it. But we don't want AAA games if those are the conditions. Why does the community need big publishers? They are a relic, and we should buy from closer to the source if possible. People should start with small hardcore RPGs that are isometric, either by a small bunch of enthusiasts or a smaller studio, a blobber here and there (StarCrawlers was the right thinking). Torment: Tides of Numenera was in many ways exactly what PCs need, so InExile or Obsidian cracking out a BBB isometric would be good too.

Honestly the real exciting stuff in the industry has just migrated to indie and smaller companies, as demonstrated by stuff like Battlefleet Gothic: Armada, The Banner Saga, Battletech, Legend of Grimrock, UnderRail, Satellite Reign, Xenonauts, Shadowrun Returns, Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, Phoenix Point, etc. That is where real gaming has gone; I didn't believe it a couple of years ago, but I can see it clearly now.

That stuff is the real AAA, in terms of creativity, focus and purity. It's like they are doing what games were originally about; by and for nerds. Look at Battlefleet Gothic, I would never have expected such a tight adaptation of a tabletop starship-combat game to appear, but that is exactly what indie developers are doing right under the nose of the AAA shite, as seen in such tight games as Battletech too. In that kind of environment I could imagine some small French developer or something doing a really faithful Traveller adaptation, with the pen-and-paper rules respected.

oh_my_sweet_summer_child.gif

 

[Lone Wolf]

There is not being able to write epic because it is hard to do so

I think it's the presentation, rather than the writing, that's the big issue in whether CRPGs lean fantasy or space opera. Space operas usually do grandiosity by way of large scale space/ground battles, vistas, locations, varied aliens. To boil down a space opera to a handful of locations and small-scale fights is to kill its operatic element. Mass Effect is a good example of a space opera RPG, and it could only be done justice with the kind of budget and resources that Bioware was able to throw at the series; it had to liberally supply cutscenes to move from basic science fiction to space opera.

 

[Squid]

The problem is it's hard to fit stuff like fireballs and healing spells into a framework like that. With fantasy you have an easier time setting up diverse gameplay and characters, it can all be waved away with "a wizard did it."

(1) Magic really improves RPGs. It creates all sorts of zany strategic possibilities, new character classes, and a different resource for economy/attrition. Yes, I've read a bazillion space operas so I know they often have magic, sometimes described as psionics/psychic powers, sometimes called the Force, sometimes called mass effect or whatever it was called in Mass Effect. Don't care. I can't think of any space opera setting where ~magic was remotely as satisfying from a gameplay standpoint as magic in a high fantasy setting.

While I agree, with enough thought and a bit of creativity, I feel like you can cover a lot of roles you'd want in a cRPG with a sci-fi setting than you'd expect. Sure it may get a little fantastical at points or not be "enough sci-fi" for some but I really think you can make it work. It would never be enough to cover all the areas magic does but it probably can be done well enough to have a good game with it.
Unless I view what is and isn't scifi v science fantasy differently from most here, you could explain nanobot technologies well enough to seem plausible in the world you built and open up a lot of doors.

 

[Cael]

There is not being able to write epic because it is hard to do so

I think it's the presentation, rather than the writing, that's the big issue in whether CRPGs lean fantasy or space opera. Space operas usually do grandiosity by way of large scale space/ground battles, vistas, locations, varied aliens. To boil down a space opera to a handful of locations and small-scale fights is to kill its operatic element. Mass Effect is a good example of a space opera RPG, and it could only be done justice with the kind of budget and resources that Bioware was able to throw at the series; it had to liberally supply cutscenes to move from basic science fiction to space opera.

I am not sure about it needing all that much varied stuff. One of my earliest experiences with a epic style storytelling was a fantasy movie whose most epic scene was a lone rider charging across a wide, grassy, rolling valley in broad daylight, with mountains in background and heading towards a castle in the distance. The light, the wide expanse, the camera angle that focused on the rider before pulling back to show the rest of the valley before panning to the castle in the distance, the music. That was what was epic about it.

It was based on a Russian folktale, IIRC.

Another one that I remember is Last of the Mohicans. Just the five of them in the forest, traversing the streams and mountains, with that music in the background. That conveyed epic.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I see your point, but nonetheless wouldn't equate 'epic' with 'space opera', without adding in the other elements of the latter. Certainly, you can have epic fantasies and epic sci-fi - I only contend that fantasy is easier to do in CRPGs than space operas, due to the presentation requirements of the latter.

 

[Cael]

I see your point, but nonetheless wouldn't equate 'epic' with 'space opera', without adding in the other elements of the latter. Certainly, you can have epic fantasies and epic sci-fi - I only contend that fantasy is easier to do in CRPGs than space operas, due to the presentation requirements of the latter.

Actually, the HBS game did very well to convey epic-ness in the opening cinematic, and all it was was some painted slides and extremely good music.

Too bad that was the only even remotely good thing about it.

 

[MRY]

The problem is it's hard to fit stuff like fireballs and healing spells into a framework like that. With fantasy you have an easier time setting up diverse gameplay and characters, it can all be waved away with "a wizard did it."

(1) Magic really improves RPGs. It creates all sorts of zany strategic possibilities, new character classes, and a different resource for economy/attrition. Yes, I've read a bazillion space operas so I know they often have magic, sometimes described as psionics/psychic powers, sometimes called the Force, sometimes called mass effect or whatever it was called in Mass Effect. Don't care. I can't think of any space opera setting where ~magic was remotely as satisfying from a gameplay standpoint as magic in a high fantasy setting.

While I agree, with enough thought and a bit of creativity, I feel like you can cover a lot of roles you'd want in a cRPG with a sci-fi setting than you'd expect. Sure it may get a little fantastical at points or not be "enough sci-fi" for some but I really think you can make it work. It would never be enough to cover all the areas magic does but it probably can be done well enough to have a good game with it.
Unless I view what is and isn't scifi v science fantasy differently from most here, you could explain nanobot technologies well enough to seem plausible in the world you built and open up a lot of doors.

It might be possible. I can't think of any science fiction RPG with satisfying AoE attack spells though. (I mean, I suppose at some point you can just make Spelljammer...)

Anyway, my point is that space opera RPGs would necessarily be bad. I'm a big fan of the first two Mass Effects (my computer is too weak to play the third), I love the Starflights and Star Control II, and I enjoyed the Buck Rogers games. I think with enough work and resources, you can make a fine space opera RPG. But the question was "why aren't there more?" -- the answer is, because there are structural reasons why RPGs are much easier to make in a fantasy setting. "Why don't more people eat with their feet?" "Because it's really hard and also pretty unsanitary." "But once this guy did it, and he made sure to really wash his feet first..."

 

[DraQ]

(1) Magic really improves RPGs. It creates all sorts of zany strategic possibilities, new character classes, and a different resource for economy/attrition. Yes, I've read a bazillion space operas so I know they often have magic, sometimes described as psionics/psychic powers, sometimes called the Force, sometimes called mass effect or whatever it was called in Mass Effect. Don't care. I can't think of any space opera setting where ~magic was remotely as satisfying from a gameplay standpoint as magic in a high fantasy setting.

Because you're focusing on the wrong thing.

When you write

Magic really improves RPGs. It creates all sorts of zany strategic possibilities, new character classes, and a different resource for economy/attrition.

you emphasize the first sentence, whilst you should actually be focusing on the second one.

Of course magic is rarely satisfying in SF simply because magic is usually an awful fit for SF. The thing is magic is not the important part here - the important part is the opportunities it opens. Anything opening the same or comparable kind of opportunities, but better fitting the setting will be better than magic in SF.

Anyway, you should REALLY read Rajaniemi's "Quantum Thief" trilogy as it seems tailor-made to host a truly grand SF cRPG in its setting, even though it's quite a bit harder than your typical space opera (the soft parts generally stem from it being post-singularity and thus defying reasonable predictions), and should really make your objections seem laughable in hindsight.

Some highlights:

• The action is confined to our solar system - it nevertheless is an extremely large, diverse and vibrant place as portrayed in books.
• Pretty much all the characters are "human posthumans" - outwardly and largely psychologically human (not in small part because quite a few started out pre-singularity as ordinary humans, while some others come from technologically restrictive societies), but nevertheless with synthetic bodies (at the tech level present in books the distinction between artificial and natural fades and in any case doesn't align even roughly with any line between biological and mechanical) filled to brim with gadgetry giving them capabilities quite a few GODS in high fantasy settings would be envious of. The books feature quite a few incredibly flashy action scenes using that outline quite clearly what you could do with such a setting mechanically - abilities, combat mechanics, even combat resource management.
• The books are incredibly dense conceptually. The concepts are pretty well researched, although the author expects the reader to do the homework, sometimes even just name dropping a concept and trusting the reader to infer how it actually explains what is happening at the moment (which it does - if you actually make the effort to educate yourself and then connect the dots)
  
• The background conflict (that eventually does rise to the foreground) is really cool and is eventually revealed to have Universe level causes and consequences.
• It renders pretty much every of your points in this and following post moot and invalid.

 

[Life of the Party]

Planetary romance is basically just fantasy

Spoiler

 

[MRY]

You're agreeing, right...?

 

[Life of the Party]

No.

 

[Arrowgrab]

To answer the OP: it has a lot to do with buy-in.


Today, any sort of fantasy (be that p&pRPG, CRPG, film, literature, whatever) requires very little buy-in. If the average person has read seen Lord of the Rings and has a general awareness of Conan the Barbarian, he’ll be able to get most fantasy settings with minimal effort. „Oh, it’s just like LotR, but the technology level is up to flintlocks and elves are conniving Nazis. Got it.” „Oh, it’s like Conan, but there are a lot more sorcerers and not all of them are evil. Got it.” The average Joe can pick up the fantasy game/film/whatever and already has a mental framework to place it in.


In contrast, sci-fi has a much higher buy-in. The average person knows Star Wars, Star Trek (if American)… and that’s it. The average person doesn’t know Dune, nor Heinlein, nor Warhammer 40k: in the grand scheme of things, all sci-fi except Star Wars and Star Trek is niche as fuck.

And that’s a problem because sci-fi is wide and varied. Old corny Flash Gordon / Buck Rogers space opera is sci-fi. Wagnerian space opera (Star Wars) is sci-fi. Trek is sci-fi. Dune, Clarke, Heinlein, Blade Runner, your favourite post-apocalyptic stuff, WH40k – all sci-fi, and all very, very different from each other in style, underlying assumptions, genre traditions and themes.

Which means that if you create a new sci-fi setting, then it’s either a Star Wars-ripoff, or the average Joe (a.k.a. the customer) won’t understand it. He won’t say „Okay, it’s kinda like Dune, now I can intellectually and emotionally relate to it”, because he doesn’t know Dune. And you can’t just put enough information in the game to make them get it, because they’re too lazy to read that much information.

And consequently, people don’t make sci-fi stuff, because it won’t reach enough paying customers.

 

[MRY]

No.

Are you defining fantasy as exclusively elves and dwarves? Even then, "robed dude with sword riding a pterodactyl around mountain fastness" is literally the nazgul in LOTR.

 

[DraQ]

To answer the OP: it has a lot to do with buy-in.


Today, any sort of fantasy (be that p&pRPG, CRPG, film, literature, whatever) requires very little buy-in. If the average person has read seen Lord of the Rings and has a general awareness of Conan the Barbarian, he’ll be able to get most fantasy settings with minimal effort. „Oh, it’s just like LotR, but the technology level is up to flintlocks and elves are conniving Nazis. Got it.” „Oh, it’s like Conan, but there are a lot more sorcerers and not all of them are evil. Got it.” The average Joe can pick up the fantasy game/film/whatever and already has a mental framework to place it in.


In contrast, sci-fi has a much higher buy-in. The average person knows Star Wars, Star Trek (if American)… and that’s it. The average person doesn’t know Dune, nor Heinlein, nor Warhammer 40k: in the grand scheme of things, all sci-fi except Star Wars and Star Trek is niche as fuck.

And that’s a problem because sci-fi is wide and varied. Old corny Flash Gordon / Buck Rogers space opera is sci-fi. Wagnerian space opera (Star Wars) is sci-fi. Trek is sci-fi. Dune, Clarke, Heinlein, Blade Runner, your favourite post-apocalyptic stuff, WH40k – all sci-fi, and all very, very different from each other in style, underlying assumptions, genre traditions and themes.

Which means that if you create a new sci-fi setting, then it’s either a Star Wars-ripoff, or the average Joe (a.k.a. the customer) won’t understand it. He won’t say „Okay, it’s kinda like Dune, now I can intellectually and emotionally relate to it”, because he doesn’t know Dune. And you can’t just put enough information in the game to make them get it, because they’re too lazy to read that much information.

And consequently, people don’t make sci-fi stuff, because it won’t reach enough paying customers.

There are many forms of buy-in and many ways to hook your audience.
You can start with something seemingly familiar and comfortable, then bait-and-switch; you can hook them with awesome action; environment provoking sense of wonder; even emotional investment (if you can pull early emotional investment off - which you most likely can't).
For me buying the same old thing because it's the same old thing, but paying for it as if it was a new one is incomprehensible. At best I might want *more* of some same old thing, but more already implies it will be different in some substantial way, else I would be content with what I already have.

It's not my fault that vast majority of fantasy creators are terminally lazy, uncreative and, it seems, intellectually crippled.

 

[MRY]

To answer the OP: it has a lot to do with buy-in.

Today, any sort of fantasy (be that p&pRPG, CRPG, film, literature, whatever) requires very little buy-in. If the average person has read seen Lord of the Rings and has a general awareness of Conan the Barbarian, he’ll be able to get most fantasy settings with minimal effort. „Oh, it’s just like LotR, but the technology level is up to flintlocks and elves are conniving Nazis. Got it.” „Oh, it’s like Conan, but there are a lot more sorcerers and not all of them are evil. Got it.” The average Joe can pick up the fantasy game/film/whatever and already has a mental framework to place it in.

In contrast, sci-fi has a much higher buy-in. The average person knows Star Wars, Star Trek (if American)… and that’s it. The average person doesn’t know Dune, nor Heinlein, nor Warhammer 40k: in the grand scheme of things, all sci-fi except Star Wars and Star Trek is niche as fuck.

I like this theory, but I'm not sure that is based on reality.

Here is a list of the 100 top grossing films of all time:

Spoiler

1. Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
2. Avatar (2009)
3. Black Panther (2018)
4. Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
5. Titanic (1997)
6. Jurassic World (2015)
7. Marvel's The Avengers (2012)
8. Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
9. Incredibles 2 (2018)
10. The Dark Knight (2008)
11. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
12. Beauty and the Beast (2017)
13. Finding Dory (2016)
14. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
15. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)
16. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
17. The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
18. Shrek 2 (2004)
19. E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
20. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
21. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
22. The Lion King (1994)
23. Toy Story 3 (2010)
24. Wonder Woman (2017)
25. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
26. Iron Man 3 (2013)
27. Captain America: Civil War (2016)
28. The Hunger Games (2012)
29. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
30. Spider-Man (2002)
31. Jurassic Park (1993)
32. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
33. Frozen (2013)
34. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)
35. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (2011)
36. Finding Nemo (2003)
37. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
38. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
39. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
40. The Passion of the Christ (2004)
41. The Secret Life of Pets (2016)
42. Despicable Me 2 (2013)
43. The Jungle Book (2016)
44. Deadpool (2016)
45. Inside Out (2015)
46. Furious 7 (2015)
47. Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
48. American Sniper (2014)
49. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
50. Zootopia (2016)
51. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)
52. Spider-Man 3 (2007)
53. Minions (2015)
54. Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
    
55. Alice in Wonderland (2010)
56. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
57. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
58. Forrest Gump (1994)
59. It (2017)
    
60. Suicide Squad (2016)
61. Shrek the Third (2007)
62. Transformers (2007)
63. Iron Man (2008)
64. Deadpool 2 (2018)
65. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
66. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
67. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
68. Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
69. Iron Man 2 (2010)
70. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
71. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
72. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
73. Independence Day (1996)
74. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
75. Skyfall (2012)
76. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
77. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
78. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)
79. The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)
80. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (2010)
81. The Sixth Sense (1999)
82. Up (2009)
83. Inception (2010)
84. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (2012)
85. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
86. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
87. Man of Steel (2013)
88. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
89. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
90. Monsters, Inc. (2001)
91. Home Alone (1990)
92. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015)
93. The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
94. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1 (2011)
95. Meet the Fockers (2004)
96. The Hangover (2009)
97. Gravity (2013)
98. Sing (2016)
99. Monsters University (2013)
100. Shrek (2001)

We hit the first legitimate fantasy at #35 (it's Harry Potter, not LOTR). (Query what we do with super heroes; IMO, more science fictional, but I dunno, let's leave them out.) By contrast, even throwing out Star Wars, we have Avatar at #2 and ET at #19. All through my growing up, there were tons of well-made science fiction movies and hardly any well-made fantasy ones. That sort of changed with LOTR, but how many have been made since?

But this is vidya, you say. But is there any indication that science fiction video games like Starcraft, Halo, etc. faced barriers to entry? Heck, Space War is one of the first video games!

I really think it is a subgenre specific issue. Space opera and science fiction do just fine in genres other than party-based RPGs.

 

[Cael]

To answer the OP: it has a lot to do with buy-in.

That has to do with expectation. When people see sci-fi, they expect a modicum of logic and science behind it. The problem with that is that there is no way a single guy will be able to catch all of the logical inconsistencies in a setting of his own making, especially if it was to be expanded to an epic scale. This is made worse with the existence of places like the codex, where any logical inconsistencies are taken apart, pilloried and basically destroying the whole notion of suspension of belief. Even worse are the screechers of twatter, farcebook and other social media as well as the main stream tabloid rag(head)s which take apart the setting for not conforming to their expectation of a modern society.

Both science and fiction in a sci-fi is therefore assaulted with a spiked cricket bat up the arse with no recourse but to curl up in a corner and expire with a whimper.

Fantasy, on the other hand, is only assaulted by the twats because there is no expectation (in most cases) of it trying to conform to but the most basic of physics. You throw in a guy with a bunch of wu xia moves and anyone that cries about him defying the laws of physics with his super leaps will get laughed at by the fella playing a wizard who blows people up with a word ("fireball!").

That is the problem sci-fi faces. The proliferation of nerd culture, I think, is actually BAD for sci-fi in general. Which is quite ironic.

 

[Davaris]

Indie developers and crowdfunding is where this is gonna have to come from. I have no doubt publishers have ruined the AAA side of the industry, and turned it into something that isn't even gaming anymore. Shun it. But we don't want AAA games if those are the conditions. Why does the community need big publishers? They are a relic, and we should buy from closer to the source if possible. People should start with small hardcore RPGs that are isometric, either by a small bunch of enthusiasts or a smaller studio, a blobber here and there (StarCrawlers was the right thinking). Torment: Tides of Numenera was in many ways exactly what PCs need, so InExile or Obsidian cracking out a BBB isometric would be good too.

Honestly the real exciting stuff in the industry has just migrated to indie and smaller companies, as demonstrated by stuff like Battlefleet Gothic: Armada, The Banner Saga, Battletech, Legend of Grimrock, UnderRail, Satellite Reign, Xenonauts, Shadowrun Returns, Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, Phoenix Point, etc. That is where real gaming has gone; I didn't believe it a couple of years ago, but I can see it clearly now.

That stuff is the real AAA, in terms of creativity, focus and purity. It's like they are doing what games were originally about; by and for nerds. Look at Battlefleet Gothic, I would never have expected such a tight adaptation of a tabletop starship-combat game to appear, but that is exactly what indie developers are doing right under the nose of the AAA shite, as seen in such tight games as Battletech too. In that kind of environment I could imagine some small French developer or something doing a really faithful Traveller adaptation, with the pen-and-paper rules respected.

You are almost there.

Cypher: Whoa, Neo. You scared the bejeezus out of me.
Neo: Sorry.
Cypher: It's okay.
Neo: Is that...
Cypher: The Matrix? Yeah.
Neo: Do you always look at it encoded?
Cypher: Well you have to. The image translators work for the construct program. But there's way too much information to decode the Matrix. You get used to it. I...I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, red-head. Hey, you a... want a drink?
Neo: Sure

 

[DraQ]

That has to do with expectation. When people see sci-fi, they expect a modicum of logic and science behind it. The problem with that is that there is no way a single guy will be able to catch all of the logical inconsistencies in a setting of his own making, especially if it was to be expanded to an epic scale.

That's why you get other people to check your stuff - you bounce ideas off people - preferably working in the field involved, you get beta readers, you get consultants, you don't retreat to your hugbox when those people point out that you suck and your ideas don't make the slightest modicum of sense*, etc. That's what actual sci-fi writers, at least the good ones, do**.

What you don't do is invent a three-eyed human derper moulded from corpse jelly (or RGB starbrat) and then complain about spiked cricket bats when you should be relieved they are not applied to you personally, only your work.

*

See Niven's reaction when he was told that Ringworld would crash into its sun - he didn't whine, didn't moan, but sat down and wrote a sequel addressing the issues, even though he didn't plan to.

Because that's what a man, possessing a pair of literal balls (or a woman in possession of a pair of figurative ones - though it's a bit fuzzy these days) ought to do.

**

And then you have people like Egan, who can actually single-handedly tear most of the physics down, fuck around with universe's spacetime metric, derive completely different physics fromn that, build a new universe on top of that and set a story in it that completely relies on this new, completely alien physics, then fill it up with plethora of tiny, inconsequential details that are all direct consequence of altered laws of physics.
And I see no reason why I shouldn't hold other media up to this standard just because most of their creators are sordid losers.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

Space opera is typically at a very different scale than RPGs

This I feel is the main reason. Making the scale/feel work between a cRPG and "space opera", that's a toughy.