Feedback from a Veteran Space Engineers Player
Note: This feedback was written with the help of AI to better organize my thoughts in English. The ideas, opinions, and experiences are entirely my own after spending more than 20,000 hours playing Space Engineers.
Introduction
I've spent over 20,000+ hours playing Space Engineers. And a 100 or so hours in Space Engineers 2
This feedback doesn't come from someone who dislikes the direction of Space Engineers 2.
It comes from someone who genuinely loves the original game and wants Space Engineers 2 to become the best engineering sandbox it can possibly be.
I'm not asking you to recreate Space Engineers 1.
I'm asking you to preserve the philosophy that made it so unique.
Natural Progression
One of Space Engineers' greatest strengths wasn't that it was difficult.
It was that progression felt natural.
You started with almost nothing.
You mined ore.
You refined it into ingots.
You manufactured components.
You built production facilities.
You designed better ships.
Those ships allowed you to gather more resources.
More resources allowed you to build larger ships.
Larger ships allowed you to explore further.
Exploration rewarded you with new opportunities and new engineering challenges.
Every step naturally created the next goal.
Nothing felt forced.
Nothing felt artificial.
Progression happened because I became a better engineer.
When parts of this engineering chain are removed or simplified, progression becomes faster—but it also becomes less meaningful.
The journey is what creates attachment to what you build.
Backpack production feels like a magical refinery on your back and i unatural.
Natural Exploration
Exploration should happen because the world gives players reasons to explore.
Not because the game tells them to.
In Space Engineers, I traveled because I needed something.
- Rare resources
- Better locations
- NPC stations
- Trading opportunities
- A place to establish a new base
Distance mattered.
Building a Jump Drive felt like a huge milestone because space itself had value.
Instant travel removes part of that value.
When distance no longer matters, exploration becomes much less meaningful.
Travel isn't wasted time.
Travel is part of the engineering challenge.
Accessibility Should Not Mean Less Depth
I fully support making the game easier for new players to learn.
Better tutorials.
Better explanations.
Better UI.
Better onboarding.
These are fantastic improvements.
But accessibility should not come from removing gameplay systems.
It should come from helping players understand those systems.
Space Engineers wasn't difficult because the systems were too deep.
It was difficult because many of those systems were never properly explained.
There is a huge difference between simplifying the learning experience and simplifying the game itself.
Please don't simplify the gameplay loop.
Simplify learning the gameplay loop.
Engineering Should Drive Progression
One of my biggest concerns in the early alpha was locking blocks behind NPC contracts.
The problem wasn't the contracts themselves.
The problem was that progression no longer felt connected to engineering.
In Space Engineers, I unlocked new possibilities by solving engineering problems.
I built better miners.
I improved my production.
I designed more capable ships.
I expanded my infrastructure.
My engineering decisions naturally unlocked the next stage of the game.
With contract-based unlocks, progression feels disconnected from what makes Space Engineers unique.
Instead of asking:
"How can I build a better ship?"
the game starts asking:
"Have I completed enough contracts?"
That completely changes player motivation.
NPC contracts should provide rewards.
Money.
Reputation.
Unique opportunities.
Optional content.
But they should never become the primary way to unlock engineering progression.
Engineering should unlock engineering.
Im guessing this is a tempoary implementation until a progression tree can be implemented
but i had to ask.
Building Faster Isn't Always Better One concern I have is the idea that making building faster automatically improves the experience.I don't believe that's true.
When everything is built almost instantly, progression loses its weight.
In Space Engineers 1, building a large ship represented hours of mining, refining, manufacturing, planning and engineering.
That investment made every ship feel valuable.
When the entire production chain becomes shorter, players may reach their goals faster, but those goals often become less satisfying.
Removing meaningful steps doesn't necessarily reduce frustration.
Sometimes it removes the very reason players become attached to what they've built.
Space Engineers Was Never Just a Building Game Many people think Space Engineers is simply about placing blocks.I don't.
To me, Space Engineers is an engineering sandbox.
The building is only the visible result.
The real gameplay happens underneath.
Mining.
Production.
Power.
Logistics.
Resource management.
Infrastructure.
Ship design.
Problem solving.
Exploration.
Every one of these systems supports the others.
That interconnected design is what made the original game so special.
Player-Driven Progression One thing I worry about is replacing player-driven progression with designer-driven progression.In Space Engineers, I progressed because of my own engineering solutions.
Not because I completed a checklist.
Not because I reached a level.
Not because I finished enough contracts.
I progressed because I built something that allowed me to solve a new problem.
That feeling is incredibly rewarding.
It makes every achievement feel earned.
My Biggest Concern My concern isn't that Space Engineers 2 is becoming easier.My concern is that it's becoming shallower.
Those are not the same thing.
You can make a game easier to understand without removing the systems that give it depth.
Teach players.
Guide players.
Help them understand the systems.
But let engineering remain the heart of progression.
The Almagest System and Large-Scale Multiplayer
I also have a question about the long-term vision for The Almagest System.
From the current in-game map, it appears to consist of multiple sectors, each containing its own planet or moon, with instant travel between them.
I'm genuinely curious about how this is intended to scale for dedicated servers in the future.
For example:
- Imagine there are 10 sectors.
- Each sector has around 10 active players.
- Every player is building large ships and stations.
- Mining voxels.
- Running automated production.
- Flying around.
- Engaging in PvP.
- Crashing grids into voxels.
- Creating complex engineering systems.
That could easily become more than 100 active players spread across the entire Almagest System.
My question is:
Are these sectors intended to be part of one continuously simulated dedicated server, or is there another server architecture planned to distribute the simulation?
I fully understand that VRAGE3 is a major technological leap forward compared to the original engine, and I'm excited about what it makes possible.
However, every real-time simulation still has practical limits.
Physics.
Voxel modifications.
Large grids.
Massive player-built infrastructure.
PvP battles.
Automation.
No matter how optimized the engine becomes, those systems will always consume server resources.
One of the reasons projects like Nexus became so popular in Space Engineers was because the community found ways to connect multiple dedicated servers into what felt like one larger universe.
Instead of forcing a single server to simulate everything, the workload could be distributed while still preserving the feeling of a connected world.
If The Almagest System is intended to become the future of multiplayer, I would love to better understand the long-term technical vision behind it.
This isn't criticism.
It's genuine curiosity from someone who believes large-scale multiplayer is one of Space Engineers' greatest strengths.
I hope the long-term architecture allows the universe to grow alongside the community, rather than eventually being limited by the simulation of a single server.
Final Thoughts
I don't want Space Engineers 2 to copy Space Engineers 1.
I want it to preserve the philosophy that made the original unforgettable.
- Natural progression.
- Natural exploration.
- Meaningful engineering.
- Player-driven progression.
- Logical gameplay systems.
- A world where every new capability is earned through creativity, problem-solving, and engineering—not through arbitrary unlock systems.
Space Engineers became one of the greatest sandbox engineering games because progression emerged naturally from engineering itself.
Please don't replace player-driven progression with game-driven progression.
I truly believe Space Engineers 2 has the potential to become something incredible.
The new engine, graphics, and building system are amazing.
My hope is simply that the underlying gameplay philosophy becomes just as strong as the technology behind it.
Thank you for continuing to develop the game and for taking community feedback seriously.
I like this feedback
Replies have been locked on this page!