Why the hell aren't there more "space opera" / futuristic CRPGs?

[Darth Canoli]

I usually check wikipedia to translate novel titles i didn't read in english but you caught me red handed.

 

[Darkzone]

One interesting note, from theory of literature point of view Star Wars is fantasy not SF Basically all space opera universes that would do well as an RPGs are in fact fantasy in space, not SF. True/pure SF is not feasible for RPGs (where the basic mechanic is, let's face it, slaying monsters for gold and exp, regardless of the amount of story, exploration, etc). Even half SF/Fantasy like Babylon 5 would be quite hard to make as an RPG (point & click adventure game, by all means, probably a strategy could do as well).

Jar Jar Binks the sith lord theory (time 9:20):

 

[Chris Koźmik]

Also, I mean cmon, using the example of a Buck Rogers game (an antique setting) failing from 30 years ago, is hardly good empirical data on the genre's potential in 2020.

I look at it from another angle. During the golden era of RPGs they were unable to make a cult SF RPG... If you ask anyone to name a few RPGs from their childhood, how many of those will be fantasy and how many SF? There are simply no big cult SF games (if we exclude prohibitely expensive licences like Star Wars, Star Trek, Dune, etc). While people will name many non licenced fantasy games (not AD&D) that were super popular back then.

If you are a developer (assuming you have no personal preferences over SF/fantasy) which one would you choose? SF setting which historically never made it big (except licenced) or generic fantasy which has a tons of success stories?

Besides, I noticed the SF vs fantasy trend in other genres as well (not just RPGs). Comparing the reception of Stellar Monarch and Legends of Amberland for example. Well, the SF setting in Stellar Monarch was not bad, it had fans and everything but... LoA invokes stronger emotions in players Not sure how to put it, but I notice this sort of difference in how players react to settings and as a developer I would say fantasy wins. What's more interesting, even taking into account the oversaturation of fantasy setting games and shortage of SF ones. But that's my impression of the data from my games which might be misleading.

...list of games...

...list of games...

OK, there are new SF RPGs being made. But how many of those are the big stuff that got popular? Compared to fantasy. Even if we exclude licenced ones (Lord of the Rings universe and Witcher) still fantasy outbeat SF in terms of popularity (excluding licenced ones like KotOR and Fallout which is another story). Can you name a single one that would even compare popularity/sales wise with Legend of Grimrock? Or even Legend of Grimrock 2 (to be more fair)?

Again, a pure RPG, not a management-simulation-RPG hybrid. For example FTL did great.


BTW, I admit I might be a bit biased in the discussion because as a developer I personally like fantasy setting much more than SF

 

[JarlFrank]

If you are a developer (assuming you have no personal preferences over SF/fantasy) which one would you choose? SF setting which historically never made it big (except licenced) or generic fantasy which has a tons of success stories?

The one that isn't oversaturated as hell and actually manages to interest me personally. So I'd go for either sci-fi, a sci-fi fantasy mix (think old Might and Magic or the Cosmic Forge trilogy of Wizardry), or weird fantasy that bears little resemblance to the generic Forgotten Realms and its clones.

BTW, I admit I might be a bit biased in the discussion because as a developer I personally like fantasy setting much more than SF

Opposite for me. Fantasy is still one of my favorite genres but I've become allergic to anything generic. Miss me with that elves and dwarves and orcs shit. I got tired of it and need something fresh, and making a generic fantasy RPG couldn't keep me motivated.

 

[Chris Koźmik]

The one that isn't oversaturated as hell and actually manages to interest me personally. So I'd go for either sci-fi, a sci-fi fantasy mix (think old Might and Magic or the Cosmic Forge trilogy of Wizardry), or weird fantasy that bears little resemblance to the generic Forgotten Realms and its clones.

Oh yes, if you count M&M as SF-fantasy mix then by all means

Personally, I never liked this aspect of early RPGs of mixing space-robot-ninjas with elves & magic. I always liked a more "logical" and consistent settings. I also remember the uproar with HoM&M3 (or was it 4?) against the "gunpowder for dwarves" (they removed it later or in the sequel IIRC).

Opposite for me. Fantasy is still one of my favorite genres but I've become allergic to anything generic. Miss me with that elves and dwarves and orcs shit. I got tired of it and need something fresh, and making a generic fantasy RPG couldn't keep me motivated.

Understandable But note that fantasy does not need to be generic (still it does require elves and dwarves :D), I would even say if you stray from the usual "robot-ninja-elf" syndrome and impose some limits on your universe you can do fairly unique stuff. The generic nature of fantasy usually comes from dropping in everything possible that sounds cool, without any self restrain.

 

[Darkzone]

....Sci-Fi....
BTW, I admit I might be a bit biased in the discussion because as a developer I personally like fantasy setting much more than SF

Since you can understand the difference between Sci-Fi and Fantasy, then you know that Science Fantasy is the only possibility to make it more accessible to a broader audience. (you know the recognition and etc thing...)
Star Wars was a good aim and Star Wars products like KTOR, SWTOR and SWG have and had a good run. But franchises more true to SF would had it more difficult as RPGs even with a very high name recognition. (Naturally the upcoming Dune film and series may change this.)
The problem i face is that i concur with you (on a gut feeling basis), but at the same time i cannot simply close it, because there are things like System Shock and Cyberpunk genere with Deus EX and now upcoming Cyberpunk.

 

[JarlFrank]

I also remember the uproar with HoM&M3 (or was it 4?) against the "gunpowder for dwarves" (they removed it later or in the sequel IIRC).

Absolute decline. I'm a gunpowder fetishist and try to cram in early matchlock handgonnes everywhere.

But note that fantasy does not need to be generic (still it does require elves and dwarves :D)

It absolutely does not require them!

Here's the kind of fantasy I like, which goes more after the 1920s-1950s pulp era than the Tolkienesque elf-dwarf-orc stuff:

Spoiler

Give me weird, exotic, imaginative. Mix it up with sci-fi elements and a unique flavor. Don't just give me the same thing I've seen a million times before. It's called fantasy, so make it fucking fantastic! There's nothing fantastic about repeating the same cliches over and over again, elves and dwarves and orcs and fireball-slinging wizards are utterly mundane at this point and I can't even get remotely invested in that kind of setting anymore.

The only way you can get me to work on a generic elves and dwarves fantasy game these days is to pay me up front

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Absolute decline. I'm a gunpowder fetishist and try to cram in early matchlock handgonnes everywhere.

Some members of HoM&M3 fanbase could be contenders for title "Worst dumbfuck that walked the Earth". I mean, the whole M&M setting was based on fact that all "fantasy" stuff is basically sci-fi stuff, but populace lost many knowledge after "demons" (literal aliens lol) attacked/AI rioted and yet "fanbase" tried their hard to narrow down setting to generic "endless fantasy world" where no sign of technological progress for ages. As if there wasn't enough settings of "pure fantasy" already.

 

[Cael]

Absolute decline. I'm a gunpowder fetishist and try to cram in early matchlock handgonnes everywhere.

Some members of HoM&M3 fanbase could be contenders for title "Worst dumbfuck that walked the Earth". I mean, the whole M&M setting was based on fact that all "fantasy" stuff is basically sci-fi stuff, but populace lost many knowledge after "demons" (literal aliens lol) attacked/AI rioted and yet "fanbase" tried their hard to narrow down setting to generic "endless fantasy world" where no sign of technological progress for ages. As if there wasn't enough settings of "pure fantasy" already.

I don't think the HoMM series has much to do with the MM series by that stage. They have basically evolved away from one another. HoMM is basically another setting altogether.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Absolute decline. I'm a gunpowder fetishist and try to cram in early matchlock handgonnes everywhere.

Some members of HoM&M3 fanbase could be contenders for title "Worst dumbfuck that walked the Earth". I mean, the whole M&M setting was based on fact that all "fantasy" stuff is basically sci-fi stuff, but populace lost many knowledge after "demons" (literal aliens lol) attacked/AI rioted and yet "fanbase" tried their hard to narrow down setting to generic "endless fantasy world" where no sign of technological progress for ages. As if there wasn't enough settings of "pure fantasy" already.

I don't think the HoMM series has much to do with the MM series by that stage. They have basically evolved away from one another. HoMM is basically another setting altogether.

They were very close-knit during the M&M 6,7 and HoMM II-III era.

 

[JarlFrank]

Absolute decline. I'm a gunpowder fetishist and try to cram in early matchlock handgonnes everywhere.

Some members of HoM&M3 fanbase could be contenders for title "Worst dumbfuck that walked the Earth". I mean, the whole M&M setting was based on fact that all "fantasy" stuff is basically sci-fi stuff, but populace lost many knowledge after "demons" (literal aliens lol) attacked/AI rioted and yet "fanbase" tried their hard to narrow down setting to generic "endless fantasy world" where no sign of technological progress for ages. As if there wasn't enough settings of "pure fantasy" already.

I don't think the HoMM series has much to do with the MM series by that stage. They have basically evolved away from one another. HoMM is basically another setting altogether.

They were very close-knit during the M&M 6,7 and HoMM II-III era.

HoMM 3 and M&M 7 are set in the same areas even.

When the devs wanted to add a sci-fi faction in a HoMM3 expansion, the fans complained that it would ruin the purity of HoMM's fantasy and the devs budged and replaced it with the lame Conflux faction instead.

https://mightandmagic.fandom.com/wiki/Forge_(town)

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Absolute decline. I'm a gunpowder fetishist and try to cram in early matchlock handgonnes everywhere.

Some members of HoM&M3 fanbase could be contenders for title "Worst dumbfuck that walked the Earth". I mean, the whole M&M setting was based on fact that all "fantasy" stuff is basically sci-fi stuff, but populace lost many knowledge after "demons" (literal aliens lol) attacked/AI rioted and yet "fanbase" tried their hard to narrow down setting to generic "endless fantasy world" where no sign of technological progress for ages. As if there wasn't enough settings of "pure fantasy" already.

I don't think the HoMM series has much to do with the MM series by that stage. They have basically evolved away from one another. HoMM is basically another setting altogether.

They were very close-knit during the M&M 6,7 and HoMM II-III era.

HoMM 3 and M&M 7 are set in the same areas even.

When the devs wanted to add a sci-fi faction in a HoMM3 expansion, the fans complained that it would ruin the purity of HoMM's fantasy and the devs budged and replaced it with the lame Conflux faction instead.

https://mightandmagic.fandom.com/wiki/Forge_(town)

In their defense the way the Forge was done was pretty jarring, and Minotaurs with jetpacks didn't really fit setting that well. Also, they didn't use any of the well-known sci-fi enemies from older M&M games like drones and androids.
Also the approach to sci-fi was much different than what you usually see in a M&M where the sci-fi element is a big surprise waiting for you at the end. Perhaps it would be better received if the enemies started using OP android units in the last couple of missions instead of being very in-your-face like the forge was.

 

[CryptRat]

Was Centauri Alliance mentioned? I would not say it's as good as Buck Rogers : Countdown To Doomsday, which I think is awesome, but it's one of the rare other good RPGs in space in my opinion. It's basically The Bard's Tale in space but with the huge twist that the encounter rate is low. The plot is cool, the character system, combat and itemization work, the dungeons are all quite unique. It was not released on pc, I recommend the C64 version.

 

[Sigourn]

Give me weird, exotic, imaginative.

It's really sad how I can't think of an RPG that comes close to being as imaginative as those pictures.
That aside, I think "exotic" is an excellent word. There's a good mix of cultures in those screenshots you posted, and all of that is lost when devs go for the generic "dwarven smiths, elven archers" etc. It's no longer exotic and interesting when it's been done to death.

 

[JarlFrank]

Give me weird, exotic, imaginative.

It's really sad how I can't think of an RPG that comes close to being as imaginative as those pictures.
That aside, I think "exotic" is an excellent word. There's a good mix of cultures in those screenshots you posted, and all of that is lost when devs go for the generic "dwarven smiths, elven archers" etc. It's no longer exotic and interesting when it's been done to death.

What I look for in fantasy (and what got me attracted to the genre in the first place) is a sense of discovery, of venturing into the unknown, of experiencing new vistas. Most of the fantasy literature I like does something interesting and imaginative with the concept (oldschool sword and sorcery has a lot of "sense of wonder" in it, especially Clark Ashton Smith, for example). Reducing your idea of fantasy to "it's got elves and dwarves and magic and buildings look vaguely like medieval europe and people dress like on a renaissance fair" is extremely limiting and, frankly, boring.

It's why I quite enjoyed BG2's setting, it's got some exoticism to it and does weird stuff like planar travels, while BG1's setting felt insanely bland to me.

Especially in RPGs there's a big problem of developers not putting enough imagination into their fantasy, and not enough influences outside of classic D&D and its copycats.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

I look at it from another angle. During the golden era of RPGs they were unable to make a cult SF RPG...

BTW, I admit I might be a bit biased in the discussion because as a developer I personally like fantasy setting much more than SF

I think you might be allowing your personal preference to cloud your objectivity.

Because the attempts at space RPGs in the 80s and 90s were just objectively not that good, that's all, there is no negative implication on the worth of the genre to RPGs. The pool of science fiction RPGs was tiny and in that tiny pool, no classics emerged because no Star Trek/Star Wars/Babylon 5/Mass Effect worthy attempt at world-building or thematic effort was made. The programming community was small. Science fiction inclined developers were drawn to other genres, and made all-time classics in the fields they gravitated toward - space flight sims, strategy, shooters, 4X games, etc. They could have easily applied the same world building to RPGs, but those had emerged out of medievalist wargames. Fantasy developers, justifiably worshippers at the shrine of Tolkien, were inclined to tabletop wargames and RPGs. There is no greater mystery there; had Gygax developed a wargame based on Star Trek maybe we would have endless simulacra of Klingons in our CRPGs today. Tolkien in 1954 also provided an earlier, popular framework for how to write an adventure story with thematic depth (Isaac Asimov's Foundation is not adventure material), where popular adventure of that kind didn't emerge in space opera until later, being popularised in 1967 and 1977 by Star Trek and Star Wars. As soon as someone tried it properly, with KOTOR, it was wildly successful.

This thread exists to argue that is something that needs to happen more often.

It's really sad how I can't think of an RPG that comes close to being as imaginative as those pictures.
That aside, I think "exotic" is an excellent word. There's a good mix of cultures in those screenshots you posted, and all of that is lost when devs go for the generic "dwarven smiths, elven archers" etc. It's no longer exotic and interesting when it's been done to death.

This is why I stand by Torment: Tides of Numenera, no matter if people felt it was flawed, because it was such a welcome attempt at an exotic setting. That makes it valuable to anyone looking to expand the pool of sci-fi RPGs. Far future, unrecognisably distant, post-singularity science fiction in 'The Book of the New Sun' tradition. We need more diversity like that. I wish they made another couple of Numenera-set games, but I wish for an alien-culture-filled space opera even more. A world that has gone through eight or nine technological singularities and then fallen into ignorant dark ages. A valley of the dead full of memorials where you can access the dead consciousnesses of the embalmed. A bio-technological growth gone wild after millions of years. Nano-technological storms that decompose everything they touch.

Like I said to someone a couple of pages back, when asked what I want from a space RPG...

I personally am attracted to setting most of all; I like to explore imaginative and new societies/places, and interact with people in them, either my companions or natives; in short - to learn. I want to walk around, explore, talk, learn historical secrets, solve problems, either through intellect or force. All my favorite science fiction is like this. Starships are merely a vehicle for getting to the next alien city, jungle or ruin; people usually leave them to explore an exotic locale on foot. Star Trek is 90% drama; investigative or interpersonal. Star Wars maybe 80%, with a bit more pew pew.

1). - Space games in the style of Planescape: Torment, or KOTOR II, featuring culture/philosophy/world building

2). - Space games in the style of Mass Effect, Dragon Age, etc, featuring less of the above, but a classic 'epic story'

3). - Space games in the style of Fallout, Arcanum, etc, featuring choice/consequence and freedom to experiment

And I would want all three in considerable numbers, to increase the pool of the genre.
​

We should increase the pool of the genre, since we simply don't have that many choices right now beyond Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic I & II, Mass Effect 1, 2 & 3 and Torment: Tides of Numenera. We will soon have Colony Ship: A Post-Earth Role Playing Game, which will be the first major attempt by a smaller studio. We have the prospect of Archetype Entertainment's BioWare veterans creating a new property outside the grasp of EA. But we need more still. All our hopes can't rest on them.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

I look at it from another angle. During the golden era of RPGs they were unable to make a cult SF RPG...

Do you not count Starflight and Star Control 2 for some reason? Most everything else isn't really a fair comparison because they were clones of some popular fantasy RPG.

If you are a developer (assuming you have no personal preferences over SF/fantasy) which one would you choose? SF setting which historically never made it big (except licenced) or generic fantasy which has a tons of success stories?

It depends on if that person wants something safe and reliable or something risky, but possibly rewarding. Even Star Wars started out as some guy trying to ape Flash Gordon and Akira Kurosawa. I'm sure that was a safe bet.

Because the attempts at space RPGs in the 80s and 90s were just objectively not that good, that's all, there is no negative implication on the worth of the genre to RPGs. The pool of science fiction RPGs was tiny and in that tiny pool, no classics emerged because no Star Trek/Star Wars/Babylon 5/Mass Effect worthy attempt at world-building or thematic effort was made. The programming community was small. Science fiction inclined developers were drawn to other genres, and made all-time classics in the fields they gravitated toward - space flight sims, strategy, shooters, 4X games, etc. They could have easily applied the same world building to RPGs, but those had emerged out of medievalist wargames. Fantasy developers, justifiably worshippers at the shrine of Tolkien, were inclined to tabletop wargames and RPGs. There is no greater mystery there; had Gygax developed a wargame based on Star Trek maybe we would have endless simulacra of Klingons in our CRPGs today. Tolkien in 1954 also provided an earlier, popular framework for how to write an adventure story with thematic depth (Isaac Asimov's Foundation is not adventure material), where popular adventure of that kind didn't emerge in space opera until later, being popularised in 1967 and 1977 by Star Trek and Star Wars. As soon as someone tried it properly, with KOTOR, it was wildly successful.

Bruh, do some research, that kind of adventure in space opera didn't start with Star Trek, that would are E.E. "Doc" Smith, Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, whom you should have noticed. Hell, What Mad Universe by Fredric Brown (an amazing writer btw) was making fun of the genre. In 1949. Its not that nobody knew how to do it until 1967, its that Star Trek and Star Wars have completely eclipsed the genre before then.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

Bruh, do some research

Please don't start this, keep it civil. You have nothing to prove to anyone. I knew someone would say Lensman. But if you read carefully what I said, I just said Star Trek "popularised" a certain view of the genre with the public. I think it's alright to say that earlier sci-fi was not quite yet the Tolkien moment for the genre in terms of meeting multiple criteria, without killing any sacred cow. Even Tolkien didn't invent a hero's journey or anything, but he certainly captured the public's imagination. We know that Star Trek and Star Wars were big cultural moments for their genre and it's all I suggested, without needing to get into semantics.

Maybe I could have worded it better, I usually do try, but it was already late.

 

[Twizman]

Give me weird, exotic, imaginative.

It's really sad how I can't think of an RPG that comes close to being as imaginative as those pictures.
That aside, I think "exotic" is an excellent word. There's a good mix of cultures in those screenshots you posted, and all of that is lost when devs go for the generic "dwarven smiths, elven archers" etc. It's no longer exotic and interesting when it's been done to death.

What I look for in fantasy (and what got me attracted to the genre in the first place) is a sense of discovery, of venturing into the unknown, of experiencing new vistas. Most of the fantasy literature I like does something interesting and imaginative with the concept (oldschool sword and sorcery has a lot of "sense of wonder" in it, especially Clark Ashton Smith, for example). Reducing your idea of fantasy to "it's got elves and dwarves and magic and buildings look vaguely like medieval europe and people dress like on a renaissance fair" is extremely limiting and, frankly, boring.

It's why I quite enjoyed BG2's setting, it's got some exoticism to it and does weird stuff like planar travels, while BG1's setting felt insanely bland to me.

Especially in RPGs there's a big problem of developers not putting enough imagination into their fantasy, and not enough influences outside of classic D&D and its copycats.

I can't believe someone mentioned my favourite fantasy author CAS. Happy to see his work acknowledged! And yes reading your post reminded me of Conan.

 

[V_K]

It's really sad how I can't think of an RPG that comes close to being as imaginative as those pictures.

Geneforge.

 

[Louis_Cypher]

Appreciating Star Trek, it's worth remembering that before Star Trek, science fiction television was pretty bereft of serious world-building. You had My Favorite Martian and Lost in Space airing on TV, for comparison. Gerry Anderson stuff like Stingray and Irwin Allen stuff like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea were okay but were still only a persistent universe in the sense that they were near to Earth's present-day military. It is a matter of record that Gene Roddenberry was trying to bring the same degree of naturalism that was present in westerns and police procedurals of the time to a 23rd century multi-planetary civilization, and I think it shows how ahead of the game it was.

From the writer's bible:

SHIP'S POWER: The Enterprise engines (the two outboard nacelles) use matter and anti-matter for propulsion, the annihilation of dual matter creating the fantastic power required to warp space and exceed the speed of light.
...
STARFLEET AND STARFLEET COMMAND: Naturally, there is a headquarters somewhere, general orders and a whole command hierarchy. Again, we try to stay away from it as much as possible. The galaxy is incredibly vast, the problems out there are complex, and a Starship must necessarily operate as a semi-autonomous unit.
...
ORBIT: The Enterprise usually takes up what we term "standard orbit" around a planet. Depending on a number of conditions or needs, this distance can be from one to seven thousand miles high. Our vessel was constructed in space and has never felt the solidity of the surface of a planet. In other words, it doesn't land, it stays in orbit.
...
The mission of the U.S.S. Enterprise? Isn't it something like that of, say, English warships at the turn of' the century?: Very close. As you recall, in those days vessels of the major powers were assigned to sectors of various oceans, where they represented their government there. Out of contact with the Admiralty for long periods, the captains of such vessels had broad discretionary powers in regulating trade, bush wars, putting down slavery, assisting scientific investigations and geological surveys
...
But projecting the advanced capabilities of your starship, wouldn’t man at time have drastically altered such needs as food, physical love, sleep, etc?: Probably. But if we did it, it would be at the cost of so dehumanizing the STAR TREK characters that only a small fraction of the television audience would be interested​

This is why, when shown to a science fiction preview audience at a convention, the show received a standing ovation, and it's why Isaac Asimov later became a staunch defender of the franchise. Like the paradigm shift visual moment of a Star Destroyer passing over the camera in Star Wars, Star Trek represented an evolutionary leap, and it can be easy to forget that. Unlike many early cinema serials that have aged badly scientifically (I have watched the original Flash Gordon serials), or the pulp literature (I have read things like Armageddon 2419 A.D. to understand the origins of pulp science fiction), Star Trek is also still to this day damn good television that is easy to watch.

Star Trek was a work in progress, but it had the suggestion of multiple empires in a Cold War, multiple warships exploring space, supported by a wider civilization; it eventually had technical manuals, star charts, constructed languages, etc. It consciously tried to ground space in realism. How does this compare to science fiction literature? Some literary sci-fi had been complex, but hadn't reached household popularity, e.g. Isaac Asimov's Foundation. How does it compare to earlier serials shown at cinemas? Ones like Commando Cody, Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers were conversely household names, but lacked world-building on that scale. Perhaps TV is overlooked in importance to the genre, and one potentially important distinction is that Star Trek also had a Hollywood technical department to flesh out how it's civilization actually looked.

Like Tolkien, people could imagine themselves inhabiting it; with Middle-Earth people knew it's geography, it's cosmology, it's moral core, he built it as a professional philologist over decades. Of course Star Trek is pretty degraded now, as they have ignored everything the original writer's bible said about grounding the action/characters in believable writing since 2009's revival.

 

[ItsChon]

One thing I think is important when it comes to Sci-Fi settings is to make sure that the level of technology is tastefully done. I think the best balance is when Earth technology gets scaled up, because the more wacky/advanced you get with tech, the more bases you have to cover when it comes to possible solutions to dealing with a problem.

If any of y'all have seen Treasure Planet, the Disney movie that rebooted Treasure Island, that's an example of a great Sci-Fi universe that I honestly think could make for a great RPG.

 

[Kem0sabe]

There's only one space opera rpg franchise, mass effect. No one has ever tried to do it before or since. Dunno why, because mass effect when it was good, 1 and 2, was fucking awesome and sold well to high critical acclaim from press and fans.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

There's only one space opera rpg franchise, mass effect. No one has ever tried to do it before or since. Dunno why, because mass effect when it was good, 1 and 2, was fucking awesome and sold well to high critical acclaim from press and fans.

Because it's more difficult.
Compare Mass Effect to Dragon Age. The latter is basically some generic tolkien-shit/D&D with a few original ideas mixed in, anything incoherent can be handwaved away as "a wizard did it".

Now you have two major issues with sci-fi:

1. There is no "standard" sci-fi setting. The equivalent of what fantasy games do would be making a game that's just Star Trek except with space elves that are a little less gay. You have to create all kinds of lore, backgrounds, races, entire world histories, etc., You have to give a convincing reason as to why the game is set where it is set.
2. In (soft) science-fiction, the impossible must be grounded in reality so as to be made probable. This is where the distinction between science fantasy and science fiction is made. Compare mass effect fields in Mass Effect to the force in Star Wars, as they are extremely similar in many ways but differ heavily in a major way: how they are explained in-universe. The former is completely explained in game as a scientific phenomenon, the latter is essentially a spiritual, near religious concept. The latter is, as above with Dragon Age, handwaved away as "a wizard did it".

Why is the second one an important issue? Consider the backlash to how Star Wars attempted to explain the force in-universe but fell on its face and was universally hated by fans. An insufficient or bad explanation of the impossible made probable makes for bad sci-fi.

The reason post-apoc is by far the most popular sci-fi subgenre in video games is that it's largely a cheat to skip most of this. Also, while definitely not the extent as Tolkien/D&D have done, Fallout(and the material it drew from) has done a lot to standardize post-apoc for video games.

 

[Grauken]

One interesting note, from theory of literature point of view Star Wars is fantasy not SF Basically all space opera universes that would do well as an RPGs are in fact fantasy in space, not SF. True/pure SF is not feasible for RPGs (where the basic mechanic is, let's face it, slaying monsters for gold and exp, regardless of the amount of story, exploration, etc). Even half SF/Fantasy like Babylon 5 would be quite hard to make as an RPG (point & click adventure game, by all means, probably a strategy could do as well).

Why hasn't someone, say, adapted Traveller into a CRPG? Why is there no Star Trek RPG? Or Babylon 5 RPG?

Star Trek requires a licence. Babylon 5 requires a licence. Dune requires a licence (and you will *NOT* get one, even if you are a big company like Fantasy Flight Games; read about the story behing Rex: Final Days of an Empire). Tolkien-like fantasy, well... does not require a licence

In short, to make a SF based game you need a licence (unless you make something specific like Wasteland/Fallout/Roadwar) because people will instantly expect the INSERT_HERE_THE_SUPER_POPULAR_SF_MOVIE_TITLE movie. For fantasy you can make your own universe and you can still have elves, dwarves, wizards, dragons and magic.

The need for a licence is especailly deadly when connected with much lower interest for SF RPGs from players compared to fantasy RPGs (so you both target a snaller audience and have much higher costs).

Also, compare the Buck Rogers sales and Pools of Radiance sales... the SSI employes even claim they were forced to make Buck Rogers by the licence owner "against their better judgement", in case you doubt that fantasy RPGs are more popular among players.

In the end, all you can count on is some very big thing (like Star Wars RPG or Dune RPG) made by the biggest of the biggest mega corporations or some MadMax style RPG which is generic enough to not require a licence.

Still, that's a bit sad...

Sorry, but that's utter bullshit