tough question... i love both but honestly i think i tend to go with Fantasy more. Big epic battles with dragons and swords can't be beaten by laser guns and space ships. (of course in a game's context only, for movies it's a bit different)
I know...I'm just saying that the reasons you put forth for your preferences in genre seem kind of odd...which is fine because thease things arent always 100% logical (I cant explain why swords and sorcery bore me, they just do), its just that when they dont make sense to others then we offer up counter points and try and understand whyDarken12 said:Not to me. I have no problems with your reasons for liking or disliking the genres, or with anybody else's on this thread. I think they're all quite all right.
Urban Fantasy.Sack of Cheese said:Which one do you like better?
...Except for maybe doing all that when Chicago has been relocated to the inside of a spaceship.Bara_no_Hime said:Urban Fantasy.Sack of Cheese said:Which one do you like better?
There's nothing more awesome than a Wizard in a leather trench coat and fedora riding a reanimated Tyrannosaurus through downtown Chicago. Nothing.
Perhaps it was your use of generalizations that caused these debates. I know you have already made your point on this matter in another post but i am sure you understand that generalizations tend to make make people feel shunned. By you saying "Sci-fi is all optimistic" you can accidentally make the people who like Sci-fi feel discriminated against; I know this is what it felt like to me. I am sure you never had such intentions but these things happen. It is for this very reason I try and avoid generalizations, though every now and again they slip through.Darken12 said:Doesn't speak well of the forum's tolerance for the harmlessly unusual, then.Vault101 said:its just your reasons for disliking it seem quite....odd...not wrong, just oddDarken12 said:I never said there was anything inherently wrong with sci-fi. If you like sci-fi, good for you. Have fun. Enjoy yourself. Send a postcard from space, even. I was just explaining why *I* didn't like it. Personal opinion =/= objective statements.
hence why your geting alot of argument over it
Science fiction came first, though.Tuxedoman said:I've always seen sci-fi as an offshoot of fantasy. Fantasy is a very broad genre after all, and it pretty much covers anything that has something unreal in it as a driving force. Sci-fi is the same, except in SPEHS.
You know, there's just no winning with people. You write excruciatingly detailed reasoning why you think something is one way or another, and they're either ignored because TL;DR or painstakingly taken apart by nitpickers who dislike your opinions. So you summarise everything in a single, neat paragraph for everyone's convenience, and you get accused of broad generalisations. Dislikers gonna dislike, I guess, and there's no way to avoid that no matter what you do.Thommo said:Perhaps it was your use of generalizations that caused these debates. I know you have already made your point on this matter in another post but i am sure you understand that generalizations tend to make make people feel shunned. By you saying "Sci-fi is all optimistic" you can accidentally make the people who like Sci-fi feel discriminated against; I know this is what it felt like to me. I am sure you never had such intentions but these things happen. It is for this very reason I try and avoid generalizations, though every now and again they slip through.
This. As long as they're decently written either setting works for me.canadamus_prime said:Why do I have to choose? Can't I enjoy both?
To be fair, there is fantasy that sets up rules for the universe - maybe not so much in high fantasy (although there are some of them), but it's not uncommon in Urban Fantasy (like Megan Lindholm's Wizard of the Pidgeons) or Futuristic Fantasy (like CS Friedman's Coldfire series).SciMal said:Fantasy became boring to me in my late teens. It was getting to ridiculously arbitrary. You'd have writers pulling rules out of their asses which were completely new, unpredictable, and ultimately convenient to the plot - and then forget they ever existed two books later.
At least with Sci-Fi, the rules of the Universe are based on reality. They are semi-predictable, or if the writer is any sort of good, consistent with previously shown rules.
Yeah well thats people for youDarken12 said:You know, there's just no winning with people. You write excruciatingly detailed reasoning why you think something is one way or another, and they're either ignored because TL;DR or painstakingly taken apart by nitpickers who dislike your opinions. So you summarise everything in a single, neat paragraph for everyone's convenience, and you get accused of broad generalisations. Dislikers gonna dislike, I guess, and there's no way to avoid that no matter what you do.Thommo said:Perhaps it was your use of generalizations that caused these debates. I know you have already made your point on this matter in another post but i am sure you understand that generalizations tend to make make people feel shunned. By you saying "Sci-fi is all optimistic" you can accidentally make the people who like Sci-fi feel discriminated against; I know this is what it felt like to me. I am sure you never had such intentions but these things happen. It is for this very reason I try and avoid generalizations, though every now and again they slip through.
This might be a little late, and someone may have already pointed this out, but I have to comment on this. Star Trek is most assuredly soft sci fi, just as much as Star Wars. Soft sci fi is characterised by routine violation of the laws of physics as we currently understand them, regardless of how it is explained in-universe. Faster than light travel, transporters, and all the other technobabble of Star Trek is what makes it "soft".Unit420 said:Sci-fi.
But there's more to it than that, you need to distinguish between soft science fiction and hard science fiction.
Soft sci-fi would be Star Wars. The technology is there, everyone uses it but it's not part of the plot. So there is usually no explanation as to how anything works, but there is also not any need for any explanation; we just happily join the universe and explore as we watch it. A lightsaber? Yeah cool
Hard sci-fi would be Star Trek. The technology is often very central to the plot and technology is around every corner of every episode acts.
Both have pro's and con's but honestly I prefer soft sci-hi. Battlestar Galactica (2004 series), X-Files, Homeworld and most of the Stargate franchise are my favorites
I'm not so sure. Anything to do with the aliens in 2001 might as well have been magic. The human stuff was very hard, though.lithium.jelly said:This might be a little late, and someone may have already pointed this out, but I have to comment on this. Star Trek is most assuredly soft sci fi, just as much as Star Wars. Soft sci fi is characterised by routine violation of the laws of physics as we currently understand them, regardless of how it is explained in-universe. Faster than light travel, transporters, and all the other technobabble of Star Trek is what makes it "soft".
Hard sci fi adheres completely or almost completely to our current scientific understanding. Examples of hard sci fi would include Rendezvous with Rama, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series.