"It is said that science fiction and fantasy are two different things. Science fiction is the improbable made possible, and fantasy is the impossible made probable." ~ Rod Serling "a handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method." ~ Robert A. Heinlein "Wells used the term originally to cover what we would today call ‘hard’ science fiction, in which a conscientious attempt to be faithful to already known facts (as of the date of writing) was the substrate on which the story was to be built, and if the story was also to contain a miracle, it ought at least not to contain a whole arsenal of them." ~ James Blish "Science fantasy is a mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon and/or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy. In a science fiction story, the world is scientifically possible, while a science fantasy world contains elements which violate the scientific laws of the real world. Nevertheless the world of science fantasy is logical and often is supplied with science-like explanations of these violations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy Science fiction and science fantasy can be closely related but are not the same thing. Some people may even say that it's subjective, this is just not true. This is not to say that science fiction can't have some fantastic elements. Fantastic elements in a science fiction story have to be defined and based off of real scientific/technological principles. The warp drive, popularized for many by the Star Trek franchise, was first mentioned in 1931 (Islands Of Space ~ John W. Campbell) a scant twenty-eight years after the flight of the Kittyhawk. It was not until 1994, sixty-three years later, that theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre and subsequently Harold Sonny White where able to generate mathematic proofs for what has been dubbed the Alcubierre drive. These are things that John W. Campbell could not have know in 1931 when he coined the term warp. Campbell graduated with a degree in physics and applied his knowledge of scientific principle to his work as a science fiction writer and editor. Who Goes There?, written in 1938, by Campbell is the original story behind The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and again as The Thing (2011). I am not opposed to fantastic elements in science fiction. What I am opposed to is a lack of scientific and technological principles in a science fiction game. This is the downward trend toward science fantasy that CIG seems to be taking more and more with Star Citizen. I also have nothing against science fantasy. There are several stories set in the science fantasy category that I not only enjoy but that have also inspired some of my own writing over the years. SC however has been pitched as a science fiction story not a science fantasy story. If CIG doesn't want to invest the time into plausible or reasonable explanations for their science and technology they should just stop trying. They should just accept/admit that they are aiming for the soft science fiction or science fantasy categories and stop trying to explain things. Their explanations and mechanics are becoming more and more immersion breaking rather than immersive. Some of you will come up with counter arguments about things like humaniform aliens being immersion breaking. That would be true if you didn't apply logic or scientific principle. Spacefaring humaniform aliens actually make the most sense based on several factors chief amongst them being convergent evolution. The key word there is spacefaring. I backed for a Battlestar Galatica (2004) style game, with aliens. I wanted a reasonably in depth sensor based game play which is what was pitched. Instead sensor game play seems to be headed in an arcadey direction that ignores things most people should have learned in an eighth grade science class. BSG managed to achieve the WW2 feel while still feeling grounded and reasonable. This is the type of game that CR pitched, with aliens. Currently SC is not on the same level of science fiction as BSG. This issue is also becoming prevalent in other mechanics and ship designs. I understand the need for game balance and that these things are in flux, it is after all still alpha. I am however noticing a direction that seems more heavy handed than necessary, look at the Mustang Delta and the Valkyrie. I think things like the current mining game game should be completely scrapped and revisited. Breaking rocks on the surface doesn't feel scifi or immersive to me. This should involve ground penetrating radar game play that involves extracting minerals from below the surface. I know planets are height maps not voxeled and I'm not suggesting making holes merely temporary terrain deformation decals. Sensor game play isn't really in yet but from several dev statements it is becoming a more streamlined catch all setup. Devs talk about this system with inaccurate terms that don't mean what they say. CR once stated that he wanted sensor game play to reflect one of his favorite movies, Das Boot. The dev statements regarding sensor indicate that it will not reflect that type of game at all. There will be no tense hunter/hunted stealth play that we see in movies like Das Boot or The Hunt For Red October. Instead we will just be getting a slightly advanced version of a standard FPS "radar". Cargo game play has been unnecessarily dumbed down by it's 100 unit count per SCU. This was done arbitrarily because they thought 1000 units per SCU would be too hard to keep track of. You can not divide a 1 meter cubic space into 100 equal units. This means that 100 units of the same exact object can not be placed evenly within a one meter cubic space without leaving illogical unused empty space. Calling things something they aren't and not releasing lore to support them is becoming more common. EMPs is an example of this. They have stated that they are not EMPs as there is no logical way that EMPs would work against space ships that are shielded against constant exposure to cosmic radiation. Yet they have released no lore piece explaining what they are. Another of these things is survival. I'm not a huge fan of hardcore survival games and I'm glad that SC is not headed in that direction. Having said that specific environments and situations should be hardcore survival mode. Without basic gear like portable survival shelters (which they have said no to multiple time) or other gear to support that game play survival will merely be running to a shelter or waiting for a ride before you die. There several other things I'm sure others will point out. Ultimately this boils down to I backed and wanted a science fiction game and SC is starting to lose that feel for me. Would it take extra effort on CIGs part? Yes, but I feel that the extra effort to firmly establish their science fiction footing now would make the game better in the long run. If a science fiction story from a guy in 1931 can establish the base principles for something that seventy years later NASA has invested money in researching then I'm sure that the writers at CIG can set a better foundation. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf Notes: 1. This has nothing to do with game engine or code so I have no idea how those you making that leap are doing that. 2. No kidding 900 years in the future we wouldn't pilot spacecraft and space travel is achieved at all will basically be a really expensive RTS run ALMOST completely by AI. 3. Science fantasy has nothing to do with the fantasy genre. The word fantasy in science fantasy means that the science involved is not remotely based on science. 4. ... 5. Profit.