I propose adding fauna: from silent wastelands to a living cosmic world

Zivals ●

I’m suggesting this because the planets in the first part of Space Engineers are currently completely lifeless. Even those that are supposed to support life show no signs of it — and this significantly reduces the game’s appeal. It would be amazing to see more life and detail added to them!

Yes, the second part has great graphics — it’s truly enjoyable to watch sunsets and fly through the clouds. But what’s the point of all that beauty if there’s no life on the planets?

Reply URL

1

Semtex ●

Look at it from another perspective—space engineers are the first line of space exploration. They come to lifeless worlds to breathe life into them and prepare them for humanity.

And look at it realistically: Earth has existed for some 4.5 billion years, life on Earth has existed for at least 3.5 billion years... But only the last half billion years you donot need a microscope to observe it...

URL

1

Semtex ●

The situation is even worse and more frightening...

Alien living worlds will most likely be incompatible with life on Earth. And if we want to colonize an alien living planet, space engineers will have to destroy alien life... Thoroughly and completely destroy it.

Space engineers are literally angels of death for alien living worlds...

URL

1

Zivals ●

You’re absolutely right - in reality, the emergence of life requires an extremely rare combination of circumstances, which may never occur. However, let’s focus on the striking resemblance between the planets in the game and Earth. Indeed, both in the first and second parts, these planets look nearly identical to our home world, and the developers explicitly hint that they are Earth’s doubles.

The presence of key elements on planet Verdure strongly suggests the potential for life. We observe:

liquid water (to be introduced in upcoming updates);
vegetation resembling trees;
shrubs and other forms of terrestrial flora;
familiar landscape features.

This design choice goes beyond mere aesthetics. It creates meaningful gameplay opportunities and opens up vast potential for narrative development, exploration, and even player‑driven scientific inquiry.

Of course, in reality, the origin of life demands a complex interplay of numerous factors - atmospheric composition, stellar radiation levels, geological activity, and more. Yet the game deliberately simplifies such scientific intricacies. (For instance, it even disregards thrust distribution - a vehicle’s engine can be placed anywhere to lift it off the ground, rather than being precisely centered to prevent tipping.) This simplification serves to make the storytelling more engaging and the gameplay more enjoyable.

Here’s the key takeaway: given all these Earth‑like features, the idea of life existing on Verdure isn’t just plausible - it feels virtually inevitable. The game’s visual and environmental design naturally leads us to imagine thriving ecosystems. The abundance of water, recognizable plants, and Earth‑like terrain instinctively prompt players to conclude: if a world looks habitable, it must support life. This intuitive inference isn’t forced upon us - it emerges organically from what we see on screen. In essence, the game’s very aesthetics make the presence of life seem like the only logical conclusion.

You’re absolutely right - in reality, the emergence of life requires an extremely rare combination of circumstances, which may never occur. However, let’s focus on the striking resemblance between the planets in the game and Earth. Indeed, both in the first and second parts, these planets look nearly identical to our home world, and the developers explicitly hint that they are Earth’s doubles.

The presence of key elements on planet Verdure strongly suggests the potential for life. We observe:

liquid water (to be introduced in upcoming updates);
vegetation resembling trees;
shrubs and other forms of terrestrial flora;
familiar landscape features.

This design choice goes beyond mere aesthetics. It creates meaningful gameplay opportunities and opens up vast potential for narrative development, exploration, and even player‑driven scientific inquiry.

Of course, in reality, the origin of life demands a complex interplay of numerous factors - atmospheric composition, stellar radiation levels, geological activity, and more. Yet the game deliberately simplifies such scientific intricacies. (For instance, it even disregards thrust distribution - a vehicle’s engine can be placed anywhere to lift it off the ground, rather than being precisely centered to prevent tipping.) This simplification serves to make the storytelling more engaging and the gameplay more enjoyable.

Here’s the key takeaway: given all these Earth‑like features, the idea of life existing on Verdure isn’t just plausible - it feels virtually inevitable. The game’s visual and environmental design naturally leads us to imagine thriving ecosystems. The abundance of water, recognizable plants, and Earth‑like terrain instinctively prompt players to conclude: if a world looks habitable, it must support life. This intuitive inference isn’t forced upon us - it emerges organically from what we see on screen. In essence, the game’s very aesthetics make the presence of life seem like the only logical conclusion.

URL

1

Semtex ●

Life apparently arises relatively easily if conditions are at least somewhat suitable; basically, all that is needed is sufficient liquid water on the surface of a planet. Liquid water takes care of the other conditions...

Life is probably found almost everywhere in the universe, and the universe cannot easily destroy life if once it has been born. Some scientists claim that life on Earth has been destroyed six times. And seven times it has been born...

If there is one thing that is really difficult for life, it is overcoming the phase "slime and mucus"... On our Earth, it took three billion years... more than two-thirds of the planet's existence.

URL

1

Zivals ●

You’ve already provided the key to the answer: if life arises “relatively easily” given liquid water, then the planet Verdure must be alive. The absence of life here isn’t a feature-it’s a logical gap. Is there water? Then life should have already emerged and evolved at least to the stage of slime-after all, according to your own words, that’s the only difficult phase, and on Earth it took three billion years. In a planet with suitable conditions, emptiness doesn’t look like a possibility-it looks like a violation of the universe’s rules.

URL

1

Semtex ●

Perhaps the planet is still too young... and life on it has not yet left the water... Perhaps eukaryotes have not yet appeared and all living organisms are still prokaryotes. We do not know how old the planet is, and no one has yet examined the mud under a microscope.

Over a hundred million years, mountains will grow, and over another hundred million years, wind and rain will level them into plains. But life in puddles of water will remain almost unchanged. Early life evolved slowly. It was only with the emergence of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms that evolution accelerated significantly.

URL

1

Zivals ●

Based on the nature of flora on Verdure, we can confidently conclude that the planet has been evolving under stable, favourable climatic conditions for many millions of years. This isn’t mere speculation - it’s grounded in fundamental principles of evolutionary biology and ecology.

Complex vascular vegetation (analogous to trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants) cannot emerge overnight. Its development requires prolonged natural selection and the establishment of robust biochemical mechanisms: photosynthesis, nutrient transport, and reproduction strategies. Even under ideal conditions, such evolutionary advancements take tens of millions of years to unfold.

The very diversity and structural complexity of Verdure’s flora indicate a mature ecosystem. The presence of stratified plant communities (like canopy layers, understorey, and ground cover) implies that:

stable biogeochemical cycles have been established;
soil microbial communities have formed;
mutual adaptations between plant species and their environment have evolved over time.

From an ecological standpoint, such vegetation creates inevitable prerequisites for fauna development. Plants serve as:

a food source (providing organic matter and energy);
a habitat (offering shelter and breeding grounds);
a microclimate regulator (influencing humidity, temperature, and atmospheric composition).

However, it’s important to note: advanced flora does not necessarily imply equally advanced fauna. Earth’s history provides clear examples:

Early Devonian forests (~400 million years ago) — vascular plants and fungi already existed, but animal life was extremely scarce;
Young volcanic islands - first colonised by plants and microorganisms, with animals arriving centuries later.

If Verdure were in the early stages of biotic evolution, we would expect to see primarily primitive vegetation - mosses, lichens, low‑growing shrubs, and minimal soil communities.

But what we observe is different: a complex, multi‑layered flora with tall‑growing forms, developed understorey vegetation, and stable soils. Such an ecosystem cannot exist in isolation from the animal world. Why?

Because:

Pollination and seed dispersal in most complex plants rely on animals (insects, birds, mammals). Without them, these species would rapidly decline.
Nutrient cycling in a mature ecosystem requires decomposers (worms, insects, microorganisms) to break down organic matter.
Population regulation of plants is impossible without herbivores and predators - otherwise, certain species would outcompete others, disrupting ecological balance.

Therefore, the presence of complex, structurally diverse flora on Verdure logically implies the existence of developed fauna. This isn’t conjecture - it follows from universal ecological principles: in a mature biosphere, plants and animals co‑evolve, forming stable food webs and ecological niches.

In other words: if a planet has trees, it almost certainly has creatures that feed on them, pollinate them, and live in their canopies. Life begets life.

Based on the nature of flora on Verdure, we can confidently conclude that the planet has been evolving under stable, favourable climatic conditions for many millions of years. This isn’t mere speculation - it’s grounded in fundamental principles of evolutionary biology and ecology.

Complex vascular vegetation (analogous to trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants) cannot emerge overnight. Its development requires prolonged natural selection and the establishment of robust biochemical mechanisms: photosynthesis, nutrient transport, and reproduction strategies. Even under ideal conditions, such evolutionary advancements take tens of millions of years to unfold.

The very diversity and structural complexity of Verdure’s flora indicate a mature ecosystem. The presence of stratified plant communities (like canopy layers, understorey, and ground cover) implies that:

stable biogeochemical cycles have been established;
soil microbial communities have formed;
mutual adaptations between plant species and their environment have evolved over time.

From an ecological standpoint, such vegetation creates inevitable prerequisites for fauna development. Plants serve as:

a food source (providing organic matter and energy);
a habitat (offering shelter and breeding grounds);
a microclimate regulator (influencing humidity, temperature, and atmospheric composition).

However, it’s important to note: advanced flora does not necessarily imply equally advanced fauna. Earth’s history provides clear examples:

Early Devonian forests (~400 million years ago) — vascular plants and fungi already existed, but animal life was extremely scarce;
Young volcanic islands - first colonised by plants and microorganisms, with animals arriving centuries later.

If Verdure were in the early stages of biotic evolution, we would expect to see primarily primitive vegetation - mosses, lichens, low‑growing shrubs, and minimal soil communities.

But what we observe is different: a complex, multi‑layered flora with tall‑growing forms, developed understorey vegetation, and stable soils. Such an ecosystem cannot exist in isolation from the animal world. Why?

Because:

Pollination and seed dispersal in most complex plants rely on animals (insects, birds, mammals). Without them, these species would rapidly decline.
Nutrient cycling in a mature ecosystem requires decomposers (worms, insects, microorganisms) to break down organic matter.
Population regulation of plants is impossible without herbivores and predators - otherwise, certain species would outcompete others, disrupting ecological balance.

Therefore, the presence of complex, structurally diverse flora on Verdure logically implies the existence of developed fauna. This isn’t conjecture - it follows from universal ecological principles: in a mature biosphere, plants and animals co‑evolve, forming stable food webs and ecological niches.

In other words: if a planet has trees, it almost certainly has creatures that feed on them, pollinate them, and live in their canopies. Life begets life.

URL

1

Semtex ●

You are right about NMS. There are many NMS worlds, but in reality they are uninteresting and/or unimaginative. And too often nonsensical...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Devonian forests... Animals (in the sense of vertebrates) may have been rare, but other fauna (worms and "insects," including various snails, spiders and centipedes) were certainly abundant. Aquatic organisms were already richly developed in the Cambrian period, and when a food source in the form of the first plants appeared on land, the fauna quickly left the water to follow it. This is simply a consequence of ecological pressure—no food source goes unnoticed, and the organism that learns to exploit it first has an evolutionary advantage.

Pollination is more complicated. Flowering plants in their modern form appeared relatively late, almost at the end of the dinosaur era. And they are evolutionarily closely linked to flying insects.

Volcanic islands are colonized very quickly in terrestrial conditions – just one year after the huge eruption of Krakatoa, spiders were found on the islands...

There is also another example – somewhere in the Himalayas or Hindu Kush, a landslide created a high-altitude lake (more of a pond) with no inflows or outflows, existing only from melted snow. A scientific expedition explored it three years after its creation – and found fish in it. The nearest watercourse was more than twenty kilometers away, and the nearest known occurrence of fish was almost fifty kilometers away...

The explanation is known—migratory birds used the isolated body of water as a resting place and brought fish eggs to the lake... Stuck to their feathers - or perhaps in their droppings...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I more or less agree with your conclusions.

With one reservation—a complex terrestrial ecosystem does not necessarily need large organisms such as terrestrial vertebrates (whether reptiles, dinosaurs, or mammals), just as an aquatic/marine ecosystem does not necessarily need vertebrates (fish). In both ecosystems, they are successfully replaced by other "design solutions," although these are burdened by many limitations—in terrestrial organisms, for example, the problem of effective respiration limits the size and weight of existing terrestrial invertebrates. On the other hand, the size of an individual's body can be replaced by the number of individuals, and the size of the biomass will be the same.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)