But at the same time, even while realistic physics are in their own way important, I would argue engaging and fun gameplay is more important.
You need both to be a good game.
Case in point... legend of Zelda... the first one... great game... fun and engaging gameplay... but the graphics suck horribly compared to todays games so most people won't play it. It's hard even for someone that played when they were littel to play through it again.
Why is that?
because graphics matter.
Physics are becoming a required feature in games. You need it.
The game is not meant to be a real-world space simulation, it's basically a science fiction game. If you argue the small things like engine trails and maneuvering, why not keep going the realism route and argue that phase jumps between planets should be impossible too and for realism's sake every ship should fly only on sub-light (to borrow the popular term) engines?
If you're going to just exclude gravity from your vision of the universe while at the same time having stars and planets and other things that could only form in gravity then why have ships at all? why not have massive swarms of flying elves that fire arrows from their nostrils?
Make some effort to be realistic. I can accept FTL drives and all sorts of nifty inventions. But try to obey some of the laws of physics...
You see how realism can easily go too far to make the game enjoyable?
Only because I knew before your horrible example... What I'm suggesting wouldn't ruin gameplay it would enhance it by adding whole layers of tactics for your ships.
Debris (and collision detection) would add a good element to the game. Line of sight would also, to allow you to hide behind planets from visual sight and possibly from sensors.
Why is that good and gravity bad?
Gravity is if anything more important.
There's nothing that says the races in the game aren't advanced enough to figure out how to maneuver ships, and hey, maybe the fact that their ships can maneuver means they do constantly have various thrusters firing and thus also need to keep their main engines burning to offset the various forces?
That makes no sense... you've stretched so far to grasp a hopeless point you've just dislocated your arm...
Improvements to gravity, space phenomena (whether nebulae, black holes, asteroid fields, even different type of stars like pulsars, dwarfs, or even two stars about to collide or supernovae) are all realistic in the scope of the universe and I would say would add a deep level of strategy and entertainment to the game. But bringing the game's level of 'realistic' technology to our own would not have the same effect, and it would be counter-productive and detracting to the entertainment we get from it!
If I brought the tech level to our own then there wouldn't be space ships fighting each other at all.
so you can stop exaggerating. Expecting the laws of gravity and inertia to apply is not unreasonable... give me a flipping break.
Tactics are what make REAL TIME strategy games good. A real time strategy game with no or poor tactics might as well be turn based.
