AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, I want to be clear, I don't think anyone can really claim to know what is or is not 'realistic', that was my point. I mean, we can say some fiction is 'harder science' (IE more plausible scientifically or technically) perhaps, but in the cultural sphere I'm of the opinion that any claims are pretty much just nonsense. So, I point out elements of technology that Marc ignored, or ramifications that he appears to have ignored in his world building. Yet he is perfectly free to hold that his idea is more realistic, and nobody can really gainsay that. (and you can see above where @RealAIHazred has done EXACTLY THAT!We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I've never seen an SF RPG that attempts to be realistic really work in play. I've heard plenty of GMs talk about their endless SF worldbuilding and how much more true-to-life this or that element is and how they've worked out the details and ramifications and everything else that other SF games handwave. But somehow those ironclad, fully buttoned-up settings don't get a lot of play. If I was a player and I had to sit through GM setting exposition after exposition I'd run screaming.
So, I don't think your positing that some 'more true to life' games are less successful has a basis. Nobody can say, or agree on, what is more or less true to life. Obviously we could say that Metamorphosis Alpha is not very hard sci-fi and Traveller is pretty hard, but clearly 'hardness' is not the issue here... Some games capture a genre and milieu, tone, and color better than others, and tend to be more successful, though other factors (like being the earliest really mechanically well-designed playable SF RPG in Traveller's case) probably also matter.