I'm a proponent of enjoyable gameplay over pedantic realism and I'm more than willing to ignore any desire for realism or science fact included just to satisfy someone's inability to suspend belief... just the same way I can readily accept there are dragons and magic in Skyrim...I'm sure nobody worried overly much about the flight physics of the dragons
I'm also a proponent of that as well... but I'm also very much a proponent of verisimilitude: the
illusion of truth. This is doubly true for science-fiction games. If you're going to introduce a novel technology, such as FTL travel, then you should a) be
consistent when applying that technology, and b) logically think through the repercussions of that technology. Doing so places limitations on those within a setting, and its the limitations, and how they need to overcome them, is what makes a story or game interesting to me.
Failing to do either tends to lessen my enjoyment of media, whether its novels, TV, film, or games. Failing to do
both, especially in a game, can kill it completely. It's one of the reasons why I tend to rate the Disney era of Star Wars films lower than the best of Prequel Trilogy, because even the best written of them, Rogue One, keeps treating the hyperdrive as a magical "do everything" technology, rather than one with well defined limits... even though it always traveled at the speed of plot.
Thankfully for my sanity, I have no desire to dive too deeply into the morass of conflicting sci-fi technologies that is Star Citizen. Maybe if Chris Roberts had released the game when he said he would (2014), that would be different.
...
And yes, I'm very much interested in the mechanics of how dragons fly in Skyrim, as long as it maintains verisimilitude with its setting. A well thought out dragon is a thing of beauty, especially as an antagonist.
