I've read the points and counterpoints about realism going around. The polls, the feuds, the civil discussions. And I want to just drop an idea here as part of the ongoing discourse.



My thesis is simple: the claim to want realism is an error. The request actually being described by the ED Realists is for naturalism, not realism. And that difference is crucial to understand, because it resolves a fruitless and misguided dispute with ED Gamists.



What is the difference between realism and naturalism?



Realism is a style that is meant to reflect the hard realities of whatever is depicted. I'll make comparisons to visual art, because that's my wheelhouse. Realism is a "warts and all" style. It is an unflinching look at the way things are, without any adjustment or decoration beyond what cannot be gotten rid of in the medium. Paint is still paint, photos are still photos. For that matter, games are still games.



Naturalism is a style that sticks close to the appearances of the world, but smooths over some of the unpleasantness to create a more attractive experience. All those portraits of the famous and wealthy that dot our history, all those believable illustrations in books, all those landscapes, all those NASA Photos of the Day with color adjustments to make them more appealing wallpapers - those are all naturalistic. They show us things we immediately recognize because they're rendered believably, but are not interested in showing the blemishes or unappealing angles.



In short, realism is a style that unflinchingly shows what is, and naturalism is a style that shows what is believable.



How does realism versus naturalism matter in ED?



Because ED is a game, not a job or a lifestyle or something meant to be anything other than an entertaining diversion, virtually no one truly wants realism. Not even the ED Realists. We want the splendor and excitement of space travel, of starfighters, of stunning interstellar vistas. ED Gamists don't want to give up that level of game experience, either. On the other hand, neither ED Realists nor ED Gamists want the tedium of flight checks, weeks spent in dock for repairs, hours spent loading and unloading cargo, and so on.



What both ED Realists and ED Gamists want is a naturalistic experience of being a spacefarer in an open-world galaxy. We want a naturalistic style of play that feels like space without getting bogged down in the work that being a spacefarer would realistically require. The minutiae of space travel are papered over so we can get on with the experiences that are relatively high-yield with respect to enjoyment. Traders bang out trade routes, chasing credits/hour. For them, the game is perfecting a run from station to station in minimum time. Combat pilots "git gud" and play a competition within the believable but patently artificial physics of the game. Explorers become experts of navigating a galaxy map that is a naturalistic, procedurally generated extrapolation from real-world astrography and revealing the aesthetic treasures FDev has hidden within.



How does the view from naturalism help?



It gives us a more balanced viewpoint to do away with fallacious arguments. For example, ED Realists say, "If you don't like load screens and long travel times, it's not the game for you," because those things are "realistic." But, they're not. They're design decisions that need criticism to be improved and create a more enjoyable - even a more naturalistic - play experience. Meanwhile, the ED Gamists need to let up about "muh immersion," because we do also want to feel immersed in the fantasy of spacefaring in a 3303 that never will be.



In sum, naturalism is what we're craving in ED, not realism. The challenge is for us, as a community, to understand that this what we say we want and help FDev by providing feedback about how their design is creating or could create more immersive and enjoyable gameplay.