Hey everyone, I'm a big player of Space Games of all forms, and this mini-genre (or 'theme', if you prefer) really has a TON of range and depth, and is a very fertile ground for indie and unique projects. I was recently playing a game called Avorion, after owning it for years without ever really engaging with it, and I've gotten hooked, and sunken 100+ hours into it in a couple weeks. That made me think about the variety of really cool games in this space, and about people who might not know some of these, or might be interested in a space-game junkie's thoughts on them (I am TooManySpaceGames on Steam, feel free to friend me). Note that I am not going to include games that you can no longer legally acquire, or which cannot run on modern hardware or OSes (sorry, Freelancer).
Without further ado, here are my Top-5 "AAA" Space Games:
5. No Man's Sky
A well-known comeback story in gaming, No Man's Sky debuted at E3 2014, and then released in 2018 with MUCH less in features than both the E3 trailer, and than what developers had directly promised in interviews. Hello Games (the creators) have since then spent the subsequent 6 years releasing very large updates- all free- that have taken the game beyond parity with the original promises.
It is a third-person RPG, that also features ship combat (though imo this is its weakest area), interacting with alien races (with a great language-learning system), ship/weapon/outfit customization, base-building, running NPC colonies, missions, etc. There's a LOT to do. If you enjoy large open worlds and exploration, it offers that in spades. It can be played solo or online, and there are live-service-esque features like timed events that give unique ships, outfits, modules, etc, all free.
NMS deserves special mention to the insane numbers that it can earnestly claim, with a total system count of 2.2 TRILLION possible solar systems, 18 quintillion possible planets and moons total. I say "possible" because everything is procedurally-generated, so they are only tracking essentially metadata about systems that have been visited, and most systems will never even be visited. It is still wild to think about.
4. Stellaris
An(other) RTS-4X (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) game from Paradox, Stellaris offers TONS of customization options (including mods), but at the cost of, well, high cost for the many DLCs. It is infinitely replayable, and very customizable in how you want the universe to be set up. It's tough to find AAA RTS-4X games in the space game realm, and other contenders like Endless Space 1/2 just don't have the breadth that Stellaris does.
Stellaris has a high focus on randomized events, narrative events, and overarching story lines. As an example, you may get a notification that an asteroid was spotted heading towards a planet, but when you send a fleet of ships to destroy it, discover that the asteroid is actually a monument built by an ancient race. You would then need to decide what to do with it, with various potential outcomes (e.g. destroy it, put it into orbit as a tourist destination, move it so it passes by the planet and goes on its way, etc).
Or you may find a giant derelict ringworld, or dyson sphere, or or deep-space scanning antenna, and be able to rebuild them and use them as a colony. Or you may invent a cool new warp drive, only to find that activating it alerts some inter-dimensional being to your presence, who then invades. Lots of cool narrative beyond the usual 4X "fight other groups for territory", though that is the meat of the game.
3. Eve Online
A game that you either love or hate, Eve is (in)famous for its player-centric and adversarial nature. It receives a lot of very unjust (imo) criticisms for being unplayable as a solo player or small group (patently false; I've run small group Corps, and have been playing it solo for the past 4-5ish years). It is really a sandbox, where you can attempt to do anything you want, with relatively few restrictions. It also has a truly player-driven economy, where the ships you fly, the guns and modules you equip, and the ammunition you shoot, were all built by players, from materials they mined from asteroids (and moons and planets) or farmed from NPCs.
I ran several corporations in "wormhole space"/ "j-space", which is basically an entire set of hundreds of star systems (in addition to the several thousand systems of "k-space", or "empire space" that the universe map covers) that are only accessible through ephemeral wormholes, and which have unique and cool properties. I later joined a medium-sized "Nullsec" alliance, and was part of a major series of wars between large alliances, mostly working as a Fleet Commander (FC) for stealth-bomber "blops" (black-ops) drops. After that I shifted over to solo-building capital ships to sell to large Nullsec corporations. Even after playing since 2011, I haven't touched all the various systems in Eve.
2. X4: Foundations
I only really got into the X series with X4, though I had owned X3 for many years, and failed several times to get hooked by it. To put it simply, the X series are first-person 4X games, where economic simulation is a really key focus. You can mine, build components, build ships, build stations, fight stuff, sell the stuff you build to NPCs, watch the NPCs fight stuff using the stuff you sold to them, etc. You can influence the actually-simulated outcomes of wars between NPC factions through economics, which is really cool. For instance, in one game I wanted one faction (Split) to take over a bunch of another faction's (Teladi) space, so I bought lots of shipbuilding materials FROM the Teladi at high cost to myself, and sold them to the Split to use or used them myself, which very quickly resulted in the Teladi being unable to replenish their fleets, and the Split taking over several Teladi systems.
There are no limits on what you can own (fleets, stations, etc) so you can absolutely build up a massive faction and eventually take over the entire universe.
1. Mass Effect Series
Rather than call out one specific game, I think Mass Effect merits mention as a unified body (including Andromeda). Mass Effect is a third-person RPG space opera, following a mostly linear storyline (unlike my usual propensity towards large sandboxes). It includes 3 'mainline' games, and one spin-off (Andromeda, that focuses more on open-world exploration than 1-3). It is a truly phenomenal series, though it struggles to hold up gameplay-wise the further we get from its release. Its writing manages to be both very human and very epic, with a cast of close-knit and memorable characters, while also managing to feel like you are having a wide-ranging impact on the world. It never feels like you're "along for the ride" in these events, which is a pitfall that many RPGs fall into (*cough* Bethesda games post-Morrowind *cough*).
If you are a fan of BG3, or DA:I (and somehow haven't played ME), this is right up your alley.
If playing it is too daunting, especially given its age, there are videos on YouTube that condense the story and events down into a mini-movie (though this obviously loses the personal choice aspect).
Honorable Mentions: Starfield, Star Citizen, and by popular demand, Elite: Dangerous
I hesitated to include these, as there is a lot of very negative reaction out there towards the first 2, and I have personal bad blood with E:D, but I feel that not to include them would be remiss towards any serious discussion of AAA space games, and everyone was (rightfully) pointing out the omission of E:D.
Starfield is of course Bethesda's reskin of their Creation Engine games... IN SPACE! Highly-anticipated, it received both very fair and very unfair criticism upon its release. Now that the Creation Kit (modding tools) are in players' hands, it has me very optimistic that it will turn into the kind of wide-AND-deep RPG we all wanted.
If you have not played a Bethesda game before... do not start here.
Start with Morrowind.
Or (for everyone who rolled their eyes reading that), start with Fallout 4. Both are much better introductions to Bethesda games. And no, New Vegas is not a Bethesda game, and the fact that Obsidian was able to eat their lunch with their own engine should not dissuade you from appreciating their actual games on their own merits (and demerits). So also play New Vegas, but don't do that in lieu of playing actual Bethesda games.
Star Citizen is a MMO space sim from Chris Roberts, the creator of Freelancer and the Wing Commander series, famous in part for Mark Hamill's starring role back in the heyday of FMV games. Star Citizen is the multiplayer MMO world counterpart to Squadron42, a singleplayer space action game that they are also currently developing (which stars a LOT of big-name actors), but which is not yet open for players to test.
Star Citizen is a sandbox, that shares much in game design structure with especially Eve Online, though that is a highly-sensitive and argued subject in the SC community. It is incredibly impressive, with about the best graphics you'll see in a video game, and in its incredible technical capabilities (like actually traversing a solar system from planet surface, to space, to planet seamlessly, sans loading screens. It it still very much in-development, and there is a lot of criticism over its funding model (they are not publisher-backed, but instead crowdfunded, first on Kickstarter, and now via ship sales). They host free-fly events regularly, so you can always try it for free, and the entry-level game packs (it's not subscription-based) give you the game + 1 ship start at ~$45.
It's worth mentioning because it is the closest thing to a true space sim out there. You really do just get dropped on a planet with whatever starting ship you have, a little money, and are turned loose to do what you want. I have had an ongoing debate with my wife about whether sandbox sims are the true final goal of all games (my opinion), and SC is a really incredible achievement even in its in-development state, as a sandbox sim.
Elite: Dangerous is a sandbox Spaceflight Sim from Frontier Games and founder David Braben, who famously made the original Elite games (which are generally considered to be largely responsible for Space Sim games as a genre), played in an online or offline world. It is incredibly expansive, only second to No Man's Sky in number of solar systems to explore, and at least somewhat based on actual scientific survey data about many of the systems, which is pretty cool. The original Elite (1984) was a space trading game, and Elite: Dangerous is still at its core about this.
It has very snappy, sometimes very unforgiving combat, and has expanded since launch to include things like planetary landings, FPS combat, and a bunch of other content, though it is all a separate purchase from the base game, under the title "Horizons". I cannot personally comment on Horizons content, as I only played the original game.
If you really like very realistic solar systems, and a much more 'laid back' experience of just Zen-jumping your way across the galaxy, E:D is a great option.
Anyways... let me know what you think!
What other AAA space games do you love? What do you think of those on this list?
I'll be making parts 2 and 3 going over Medium and Small games soon, so if you enjoyed this, stay tuned!
Atmospheric flight combat sims, and I haven't played either much, but maybe Il-2: Sturmovik: Great Battles or DCS? Those kind of fit the "slap a lot of money on the counter, and we give you a hard sim with a lot of levers" bill.
I have a HOTAS setup too, along with pedals. And I'm kinda with you on wishing that there were good space flight combat HOTAS games. But...I'm skeptical that it's gonna happen.
You need to have enough people running around with a dedicated throttle and flightstick to get sales up enough to make it worthwhile to focus a game on it.
I feel like the decline in flightsticks may have been a factor in moving away from the combat flight genre (both space and air-breathing), that the late '90s/early 2000s may be permanently the heyday.
My guess is that there are a number of factors:
Gamepads got analog thumbsticks and analog triggers. They aren't ideal for flight sims, but that's enough analog inputs that most people who aren't absolutely devoted to the genre are going to just live with a gamepad rather than buying a bunch of extra input hardware that can only be used with that game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joystick
The XBox gamepad became very common as a convention on the PC, whereas up until that point, it was more-common to have all kinds of oddball inputs, and it was expected that a player would set up the controls on a per-game basis. I think that not having to do input configuration made gamepad-on-the-PC more approachable, but it also made it harder to sell people on games that require actual input. HOTASes are still in the "setup required" family (and it's good that they have the flexibility, as you can't have a one-size-fits-all HOTAS setup). Maybe you could have Internet-distributed profiles for different hardware, choose something reasonable out of box, kinda like how Steam Input works.
Ubiquitous Internet access has made multiplayer more common than it was around 2000. If a game supports competitive multiplayer, then having configurable input (and macros and such) may be undesirable, because you want a level playing field. Game developers may not want to permit for a variety of inputs if it doesn't make for a level playing ground and they're doing multiplayer. There's some game that I recall (Star Citizen?) where I remember players being extremely unhappy about changes being made that favored mouse-and-keyboard players over flightstick players.
Newer combat aircraft are fly-by-wire. There's no mechanism to let one "feel" resistance, and so not much reason for flight sim games to do so either. For a while, there were force-feedback joysticks (we typically use "force feedback" today to refer to rumble motors, but strictly-speaking, it should refer to joysticks that push back against you). That was never a huge chunk of the market, but it was a reason to get dedicated hardware.
I assume that modern aircraft don't need trim adjustment; having trim controls is another thing that you can add inputs for on-controller.
For space combat games, manipulating the throttle doesn't have the significance that it does with an air-based combat flight sim. Like, you aren't constantly storing and releasing kinetic energy as you ascend and descend. You don't have much to crash into. Stalling isn't a problem. Exceeding aircraft speed maximums isn't a problem. A lot of space combat flight sims aren't "hard sims", so you don't need to worry about things like engine overheating the way you might in Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946 (though I suppose that one could introduce dynamics for that; Starfield has a "peak maneuverability" speed, so there's an incentive to reduce speed to do a turn before speeding back up).
Many space combat sims aren't simulating existing hardware; developers are only going to introduce mechanics if it significantly adds to the gameplay. In Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946, I have a ton of controls that are there because they reflect real-world mechanical systems. Armored cowlings over air intakesthat can be set to variable levels of openness. Prop pitch. Fuel mixture. The only real analog I can think of in space flight combat sims are maybe "system energy levels".
HOTAS is really limited to PC gaming. It's not incredibly friendly to other video game hardware. With a console, you need to have the input hardware mounted somewhere, something that a living room couch isn't as amenable to as a desk. With a mobile phone, you want to have the hardware with you, and so size is at a premium; I think that few people are going to want to lug around a throttle and flightstick with their phone, even if the hardware can technically handle it.
Some games are doing VR (e.g. Elite Dangerous) and in VR, I think that if the world does go heavily down the VR route -- which it has not yet -- that it'll be likely that there will just be virtual controls using VR controllers rather than dedicated HOTAS input devices. The concept of only seeing the ship kinda isn't an ideal match for the physical controls. Yeah, you don't get tactile feedback, but it gives you a lot of flexibility in ship control layout. Now, yes, there's a VR+HOTAS crowd like you; going all the way with inputs and outputs. But I don't know how many people are willing to put the money down for a top-of-the-light flight sim rig, and video games have fixed costs and variable revenue, so they benefit from scale, getting a lot of people pitching in money. You really don't want to target just a small market if you can avoid it.
I think that the best bet for broader HOTAS support down the line is one of the two:
Go low-budget. Yeah, a lot of flight sims are AAA...but I'm not sold that they absolutely need to be. I've played some untextured polygon games that are pretty good (like Carrier Command 2). I understand that BattleBit Remastered is considered pretty highly too. That's a big whopping chunk of assets that just don't exist. And if you do that, you can target a much smaller audience and still make a reasonable return. Just focus on flight mechanics or something. Maybe down the line, if there's enough uptake, sell some kind of DLC with fancy assets.
Push HOTAS support out to some kind of game-agnostic software package. Like, say there were enough people who really wanted to play HOTAS games. Have an open-source "HOTAS app" that provides most of the functionality: distributing input profiles, linking together collections of devices, setting indicator LEDs, etc. The game just links up with that app, and doesn't attempt to handle every device out there. It exposes a bunch of input values that can be twiddled, and some outputs. There's some precedent for that kind of software; Steam Input, or (not input-specific) VoIP apps with game integration, like Teamspeak. Buttplug.io basically fills that "third-party open-source middleware" role for outputs for adult video games and sex toys.
Either way -- push HOTAS out to a separate cross-input-device, cross-game software package, or going lower-budget, reduces the need to be mass-market, which -- in 2024 -- HOTAS isn't.