A common argument I come across on this forum when people are defending questionable design choices is that SC is a simulator, and if you don't like simulators you shouldn't be playing. This would be fine if it was true, but it isn't. Not really. DCS is a simulator. Orbiter is a simulator. Hell, even Kerbal Space Program is a simulator. Star citizen is a "space sim". This is old school terminology which has been applied to every spaceship game since gaming began. Wing commander, freelancer, x-wing, etc have all been called space sims, even though they are not real simulators. The "sim" in space sim here should really stand for "simplification", not "simulator". Star citizen is a space simplification, not a real simulator. SC has maximum speeds in space, no orbital mechanics affecting your flight path, visual range space battles, and gravity generators. SC avoids reality for the sake of good gameplay in so many areas, why do we ignore that when it comes to certain game mechanics? Arguing that we should have long travel times, overheating engines, and other less than fun mechanics on the basis of "it's a simulator" is disingenuous. Star Citizen is really a game about having adventures in space, be that with friends or on your own. Coming here and hoping for DCS levels of sim is silly. I agree that SC should have deep mechanics and should be difficult to master. I disagree that this means the game should be obtuse, frustrating, or boring. I appreciate that there are quite a few hardcore sim fans on these forums, but a spaceship mmo is not the place to get your kicks. Loading up a passenger plane and flying it for multiple hours across Europe, with no excitement beyond the occasional elevator trim might work for some people, but the vast majority of space sim players don't want that. One last thing, please don't come into this thread accusing people like me of being "dirty casuals". I have been playing games for the better part of three decades, and tend to prefer complex games over simple ones. I have hundreds of hours down in games like IL-2 Sturmovik and Silent Hunter 3, and I have a steam list longer than my arm including shooters, strategy games, open worlds, and multiplayer arenas. My gaming credentials are strong, and I am not trying to argue that star citizen should be aimed at mobile gamers. I am trying to argue that enjoyable gameplay should trump time-sink mechanics only justified by that little word - "sim". Edit - OK, lots of people are fixating on the wrong thing here. Whether you believe the word "simulator" applies here is not really the point I was trying to make. Yes, SC simulates lots of stuff - the economy, simple newtonian physics, heat, energy, and so forth for the ships, etc. But what it does not simulate is space flight. In SC you don't have to contend with gravity while in space, you have a very slow upper limit to your speed, near infinite (or infinite) delta V, and a magic quantum space drive. So yes, in certain contexts, SC is a simulator, but it is not, and never will be, Orbiter or DCS in space. This is a good thing! Star citizen is meant to have a depth of simulation while being accessible and fun. I should be able to launch from a planet, leave atmo, travel to another planet, and land with relative ease and in reasonable time. If I want to dig deeper, I should be able to tune my ship to do better at the risk of system failures or overheating. Justifying steep entry-level learning curves, exceptionally long travel times, or any other less than fun mechanic based on SC being a sim is the thing I take issue with. SC is not a true-to-life simulator. It simulates spaceships that work on rules made up by the developers, so the developers can tune those rules to make gameplay interesting, but accessible. Do I want to have to fight to keep my ship flying if she's taken a beating in combat? Hell yeah I do. Do I want to fight to keep my ship flying when she's brand new off the lot and I'm taking her out for a joy ride? Hell no.