The video argues that the true vastness of space in games like Elite Dangerous comes not from immense distances between star systems but from the dense, layered complexity within individual star systems themselves. It suggests that space games should focus on creating rich, volumetric environments with distinct zones and interactions to make space feel genuinely expansive and immersive, rather than relying solely on large-scale travel.
The biggest misconception about Elite Dangerous and other space games is that space is vast solely because of the immense distances between objects. This view leads to the common feeling that space games are “as wide as an ocean, as deep as a puddle,” meaning they have vast maps but shallow gameplay. The real scale of space, however, is not just about distance but about the density and separation of objects within any given region. Space can be filled with an overwhelming number of things—stations, shipyards, habitats, debris fields—all packed into a relatively small volume, yet remain invisible or unnoticed due to the nature of space itself.
The video argues that a star system should not be treated as a simple list of planets or points on a map, but as a complex, layered volume of space with distinct regions. For example, Earth’s orbit is not a mere ring but a three-dimensional shell filled with countless potential locations that coexist yet remain out of sight from one another. This creates a sense of scale based on separation and density rather than just travel time or distance. Such a reframing emphasizes that the vastness of space is felt not by how far you travel, but by how much there is to discover and interact with in a given area.
Elite Dangerous, despite having a one-to-one scale Milky Way with 400 billion star systems, primarily conveys bigness through distance and travel time, which can feel empty or repetitive. The video highlights that the true impressiveness lies in the sheer number of celestial bodies and potential destinations within even a small region of space, especially near the galactic core. This density and complexity near a player’s location create a more meaningful sense of scale than just the distance to the edge of the galaxy.
Most space games fail because they treat star systems as nodes or waypoints rather than dynamic, volumetric spaces filled with layered regions. This results in gameplay that feels like a checklist or a series of icons to visit, rather than an immersive world to explore. The video suggests that good space game design should focus on creating distinct zones within star systems—zones of traffic, danger, industry, or secrecy—that players can discover through exploration and interaction, not just by moving from point A to point B on a map.
Ultimately, the video calls for a shift in how space games are designed. Instead of striving for ever-larger galaxies, developers should focus on enriching the depth and density of individual star systems to create a sense of vastness through complexity and separation. This approach would make space feel truly big—not because of distance, but because of the hidden worlds and layers waiting to be uncovered right near a planet like Earth. The best space games, therefore, might be those that make players feel lost just thousands of kilometers from home, rather than light-years away in an empty void.