Poll: Fantasy or Scifi?
- Thread starter Sack of Cheese
- Start date
Recommended Videos
SciFi. About the only thing I like in fantasy is dragons, but the rest of the stuff (goblins, trolls, elves, fairies) just bothers me, which is probably why I can't stand most RPG's.
I like them both, but I generally lean towards sci-fi more. I prefer it when the author keeps their universe under at least a few constraints, and sci-fi tends to do that more.
However, I do have a weak spot for 40k, which is usually described as science fantasy.
However, I do have a weak spot for 40k, which is usually described as science fantasy.
I prefer Scifi, I wish that media would move away from fantasy and toward more cyberpunk or even steampunk settings.
I can't get into the whole idea of elves and ogres and stuff. It draws me away from what ever the media is. I can see how immersive Skyrim is but the minute I walk up to a lizard man or a cat I get sucked out of it and immediately start to feel like I am too old for this.
Fantasy seems childish to me, I know it isn't but the idea of mages and stuff really makes me feel like I am listening to a little kid.
I hate that I feel this way because it ruins the Lord of the Rings films. I watched them all, extended back to back and while I was very impressed by the visuals and I felt like I was a part of the action during the major battles, the second someone started talking I felt silly for being engrossed in a silly fantasy world.
I think the thing is reality. Sci-fi isn't real, we can't make cyborgs that are powered by steam but it feels like something that could happen. I know that the fantasy world isn't real, but sci-fi can make similar things seem real. Instead of magic, I can get immersed in a story with psychic powers or the force. Aliens can seem more real to me than pointy eared humanoids. This is probably why I love games like Starcraft and most of the Mass Effect trilogy.
That said, mechanical dragons sound pretty awesome, someone needs to capitalize on that.
I can't get into the whole idea of elves and ogres and stuff. It draws me away from what ever the media is. I can see how immersive Skyrim is but the minute I walk up to a lizard man or a cat I get sucked out of it and immediately start to feel like I am too old for this.
Fantasy seems childish to me, I know it isn't but the idea of mages and stuff really makes me feel like I am listening to a little kid.
I hate that I feel this way because it ruins the Lord of the Rings films. I watched them all, extended back to back and while I was very impressed by the visuals and I felt like I was a part of the action during the major battles, the second someone started talking I felt silly for being engrossed in a silly fantasy world.
I think the thing is reality. Sci-fi isn't real, we can't make cyborgs that are powered by steam but it feels like something that could happen. I know that the fantasy world isn't real, but sci-fi can make similar things seem real. Instead of magic, I can get immersed in a story with psychic powers or the force. Aliens can seem more real to me than pointy eared humanoids. This is probably why I love games like Starcraft and most of the Mass Effect trilogy.
That said, mechanical dragons sound pretty awesome, someone needs to capitalize on that.
If you condescended harder you would implode.Baneat said:
Believe it or not there's a thing called "taste" everyone has a different one, whether you like it or not ASoIaF is well written and a lot of people like it (well, at least the first few books were well written).
Just because every book doesn't explore the deep meanings of humanity versus an ever uncaring world (Or whatever Brave New Wold rip of we want to discuss) doesn't mean its bad.
I voted SciFi.
Fantasy settings, particularly those based on Lord of the Rings or D&D, have never appealed to me a whole lot. I find them kinda dull. The movies and games are often quite well-made, I'm just not the target audience I think.
I do love Soda, though...
Fantasy settings, particularly those based on Lord of the Rings or D&D, have never appealed to me a whole lot. I find them kinda dull. The movies and games are often quite well-made, I'm just not the target audience I think.
I do love Soda, though...
Sci-Fi. Fantasy feels too swamped down by Tolkien wannabes, whilst the great majority of Sci-Fi worlds are unique and something you don't see very often (I mean, you've got Star Wars, Star Trek, Mass Effect, the Honor Harrington universe, the Stainless Steel Rat universe, and many, many more, each one completely different and unique). I swear, I'm really bored of elves and dwarves. I still love works of both genres to bits, but Sci-Fi manages to feel a lot more refreshing.
I lean a bit more to Sci-Fi simply because it has never failed to lead to new ideas/technology in the real world. In many ways science fiction has impacted the real world more than any other genre
It should be noted that all Science Fiction is a subsect of fantasy. To Whit, both are based off of a pretense of ideas that are not (or not yet) a fact in our reality. The difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy is really that Science Fiction is extrapolating ideas from Science, rather than just come up. Often times this makes all Science Fiction Stories "high concept" stories (A giant "What If?" Scenario), rather than Hero's Journeys (Though that happens in Sci Fi too).
A good example of this is Pebble In The Sky, which is basically about a man who is hurled some fifty thousand years into the future, where human beings are part of the Tranton Empire (established in the foundation series) and Earth is a radioactive superslum, where humans have completely forgotten that this is the planet we come from. Now the basis of this book is the Scientific Elements that it talks about. It makes mention of the main character having hair on his face (because humans have lost beards by this point, a factor of our evolution), the main character has to have his brain augmented to speak the new language (or dialect) of the people of this world, taking note that language changes over time and it is unlikely we will be speaking the same language over time.
In contrast to this we have things like Star Wars and Dishonored, often considered Science Fiction, but because the very basis of these worlds insists upon forces that do not exist in the universe that we know it, and can be better described as magic than any Science that we refer to this as fantasy, or rather Science Fiction minus the Science, which leaves us Fantasy.
All this said, I tend to gravitate more toward Science Fiction, but that's more of a personal taste than anything to objectively do with the medium. I love Science (sometimes with my penis), so anything based off of Scientific Ideas has an appeal to me.
One thing I would like to address is this disconcerting idea that one is better than the other because they have more ability for stories. People cite the Creativity of fantasy vs. the limitations of Science (and some reason it's optimism, which is a bad thing?), or the vastness of Science Fiction vs the Tolkien Stagnation of Fantasy. These are both patently untrue, neither one of these genres are capable of more stories than the other, nor is either genre inherently Stagnant. While people point out the stagnation of Fantasy through Tolkienesk Ideas, I think you should give the following books a look at:
The Chronicles of Amber - A series of books about the true reality and it's Princes, and it's basic pretense is that all reality is a "shadow" cast from the ultimate reality of Amber. And it's Princes through the force of "Pattern" can manipulate these shadows.
The Discworld Series - A 40 book long series dedicated to being the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy of Hard Fantasy, where Death is one of the Main Characters.
The Incarnations of Immortality Series - Which is about the role of Gods being an office job.
Anything by Christopher Moore, who writes about Mythogical creatures or roles in a modern day setting, my favorite being "A Dirty Job", which is about a man becoming a death.
... Is it weird that my favorite fantasy books include incarnations of Death?
Well, for the opposite camp, who find Science Fiction to be limited by reality (and too optimistic?), I would like to point out that the limitations are simply the vast wonders of the universe and creativity, so here are some books if you find Sci Fi too constraining, or unable to tell a creative story, that you Should check out.
Dragon's Egg - An interesting book about a species living on a Neutron Star, who progresses so fast the humans in orbit can watch it's civilization unfold before their eyes.
The Foundation Series - Gotta have some Asimov in here, this about the trials and tribulations of making a Galactic Empire.
The Dune Series - About a desert, almost inhospitable planet, that because of the nature of it (it is the only planet that produces Melange-Spice) it is the most important planet in the universe. THe political struggle around it, as well as the natives caught in between the struggle.
1984 - A (very optimistic) book about dystopian future (set 29 years in the past) in which a society is brainwashed by fear and doublethought and the presence of the omnipotent Big Brother.
A Door Into Summer - About a man running from his shitty life by putting himself in suspended animation for 30 years.
I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream - A Short Story about a Supercomputer gaining Sentience, Wiping out the entire human race save for five people that it keeps alive to torture for the rest of eternity, so that their only viable escape is the cold embrace of death that it denies them. (It's so beautifully optimistic, it leaves butterflies in my stomach).
My point isn't to convert any of you with this, after all we all have our tastes. But by saying one is better than the other in any objective level, you're just being pretentious at best. The fact is there are GREAT books on either side of the fence, and I will read a Heinlein Book as quickly and voraciously as I will a Pratchett work, because I love great stories. And while ideas can get eyerolling sometimes (for instance, I'm a big trekkie, but the Roddenberry Ideal Human can go fuck himself) and some ideas can get repeated (for instance, almost every fantasy book I mentioned has Death as the Main Character), none of this means their bad, or not worth your while, or too "optimistic" for you (seriously, what is that about?).
A good example of this is Pebble In The Sky, which is basically about a man who is hurled some fifty thousand years into the future, where human beings are part of the Tranton Empire (established in the foundation series) and Earth is a radioactive superslum, where humans have completely forgotten that this is the planet we come from. Now the basis of this book is the Scientific Elements that it talks about. It makes mention of the main character having hair on his face (because humans have lost beards by this point, a factor of our evolution), the main character has to have his brain augmented to speak the new language (or dialect) of the people of this world, taking note that language changes over time and it is unlikely we will be speaking the same language over time.
In contrast to this we have things like Star Wars and Dishonored, often considered Science Fiction, but because the very basis of these worlds insists upon forces that do not exist in the universe that we know it, and can be better described as magic than any Science that we refer to this as fantasy, or rather Science Fiction minus the Science, which leaves us Fantasy.
All this said, I tend to gravitate more toward Science Fiction, but that's more of a personal taste than anything to objectively do with the medium. I love Science (sometimes with my penis), so anything based off of Scientific Ideas has an appeal to me.
One thing I would like to address is this disconcerting idea that one is better than the other because they have more ability for stories. People cite the Creativity of fantasy vs. the limitations of Science (and some reason it's optimism, which is a bad thing?), or the vastness of Science Fiction vs the Tolkien Stagnation of Fantasy. These are both patently untrue, neither one of these genres are capable of more stories than the other, nor is either genre inherently Stagnant. While people point out the stagnation of Fantasy through Tolkienesk Ideas, I think you should give the following books a look at:
The Chronicles of Amber - A series of books about the true reality and it's Princes, and it's basic pretense is that all reality is a "shadow" cast from the ultimate reality of Amber. And it's Princes through the force of "Pattern" can manipulate these shadows.
The Discworld Series - A 40 book long series dedicated to being the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy of Hard Fantasy, where Death is one of the Main Characters.
The Incarnations of Immortality Series - Which is about the role of Gods being an office job.
Anything by Christopher Moore, who writes about Mythogical creatures or roles in a modern day setting, my favorite being "A Dirty Job", which is about a man becoming a death.
... Is it weird that my favorite fantasy books include incarnations of Death?
Well, for the opposite camp, who find Science Fiction to be limited by reality (and too optimistic?), I would like to point out that the limitations are simply the vast wonders of the universe and creativity, so here are some books if you find Sci Fi too constraining, or unable to tell a creative story, that you Should check out.
Dragon's Egg - An interesting book about a species living on a Neutron Star, who progresses so fast the humans in orbit can watch it's civilization unfold before their eyes.
The Foundation Series - Gotta have some Asimov in here, this about the trials and tribulations of making a Galactic Empire.
The Dune Series - About a desert, almost inhospitable planet, that because of the nature of it (it is the only planet that produces Melange-Spice) it is the most important planet in the universe. THe political struggle around it, as well as the natives caught in between the struggle.
1984 - A (very optimistic) book about dystopian future (set 29 years in the past) in which a society is brainwashed by fear and doublethought and the presence of the omnipotent Big Brother.
A Door Into Summer - About a man running from his shitty life by putting himself in suspended animation for 30 years.
I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream - A Short Story about a Supercomputer gaining Sentience, Wiping out the entire human race save for five people that it keeps alive to torture for the rest of eternity, so that their only viable escape is the cold embrace of death that it denies them. (It's so beautifully optimistic, it leaves butterflies in my stomach).
My point isn't to convert any of you with this, after all we all have our tastes. But by saying one is better than the other in any objective level, you're just being pretentious at best. The fact is there are GREAT books on either side of the fence, and I will read a Heinlein Book as quickly and voraciously as I will a Pratchett work, because I love great stories. And while ideas can get eyerolling sometimes (for instance, I'm a big trekkie, but the Roddenberry Ideal Human can go fuck himself) and some ideas can get repeated (for instance, almost every fantasy book I mentioned has Death as the Main Character), none of this means their bad, or not worth your while, or too "optimistic" for you (seriously, what is that about?).
Sci-fi. I love good fantasy, but sci-fi for me is better food for my mind. It helps explore the human condition and can offer a glimpse in the future or an idea to strive towards.
"The Forever War" was a good read. And, it hit close to home (in a way) as I have family that fought in Vietnam.jackdeesface said:
If you're enjoying that might I suggest either "A Fire Upon the Deep" or "A Deepness in the Sky" by Vernor Vinge? The former is a high-concept space-opera/thriller (and a fun read), while the latter is dark space-opera used as an allegory to present the horrors and dangers of mind-control, slavery, and totalitarian-control regimes.
I'm currently reading "The Children of the Sky", a direct sequel to "A Fire Upon the Deep". It's most assuredly science fiction, but the world in which the story takes place is pre-industrial. So, it's a bit like an old-world period piece as well. Just...you know....with aliens.
It depends, really.
I LOVE fantasy games from Dungeon's and Dragons to MTG to Skyrim, but can't stand to read fantasy novels. I've tried LOTR, game of thrones and the like, but can never get into the fantasy setting when it comes to books.
Sci-fi novels on the other hand, are flipping amazing! (Looking at you Asimov)
I LOVE fantasy games from Dungeon's and Dragons to MTG to Skyrim, but can't stand to read fantasy novels. I've tried LOTR, game of thrones and the like, but can never get into the fantasy setting when it comes to books.
Sci-fi novels on the other hand, are flipping amazing! (Looking at you Asimov)
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
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
Hi. I'm the poster you're referring to with all those quips about optimism.AperioContra said:
Science Fiction is painfully fanboyish. Pretty much all of science fiction (yes, even the dystopias you mentioned) is born of an author's enthusiasm for what the future might hold. And that is an incredible turn-off for me, because it usually comes in 3 different flavours, each more unpalatable than the last: The first flavour is "*squee* The future will be so awesome!" where the writer practically giggles with enthusiasm at the ideas they are exploring in the story that he is so sure will come to happen at some point. The second one is the "cautionary tale", like 1984 (and maybe IHNMaIMS, perhaps, since I haven't read it. Most dystopias fall here), where it's basically nothing but preachy moralising (and the reason I term it as optimistic is because the author is so sure about how the future is going to turn out and his own ability to thwart it). The third flavour is the "window dressing" sci-fi, where the author just throws futuristic tech at the wall and writes about what sticks.
In all cases, the excessive certainty and enthusiasm that the authors have is a major turn-off. While nobody in their right minds would think that anything in the Fantasy genre could come to happen, the sci-fi genre is treated with this childlike glee that makes me shake my head in utter disapproval.
Well, you see, Sci-Fi is just a subgenre of fantasy so far as I can tell. Its like asking whether you like fiction, or Wizard books. Wizard books are a part of fiction. They're in no way mutually exclusive.
Going by the more common Magic or Space distinction though, IDC. Both can be great. I prefer more realistic sci-fi focusing on political and personal motivations, rather than adventuring in space and blowing shit up with lasers, though, and Fantasy I generally prefer slower paced things that focus on the world, and some of the characters in it, and even if it does have some big overarching war or W/E it mostly ignores it, except for a few incidents.
Going by the more common Magic or Space distinction though, IDC. Both can be great. I prefer more realistic sci-fi focusing on political and personal motivations, rather than adventuring in space and blowing shit up with lasers, though, and Fantasy I generally prefer slower paced things that focus on the world, and some of the characters in it, and even if it does have some big overarching war or W/E it mostly ignores it, except for a few incidents.
Ok, I'm sorry, but this all sounds like "Fantasy can't happen, therefore its less fanboyish and 'Squee, this is awesome'-ish than Sci-Fi", which is false.Darken12 said:
Ignoring the fact that other types of Sci-Fi exist, and it seems to be mostly you putting the mindset of "The future will be THIS awesome" sort of mindset onto them, the exact same stuff happens in Fantasy. Same cautionary tales. Same "Wouldn't it be awesome if this could happen?" and same throwing magic into the real world sort of shit.
Sci-fi also isn't more possible to happen than Fantasy, as your last paragraph would imply. FTL - no. Pulse lasers than move so slow you can see them? No. Time travel? No.
Yeah, "If we're wrong about the laws of Physics then that could happen" is true, however if we're wrong about the laws of Physics Magic and shit could happen too, it just depends on what we're wrong about.
You're justification for your opinion doesn't really cut it for me. Seems more like your problem of looking to the future enthusiastically, and the extent of what you're willing to believe, than something wrong with Sci-Fi as a genre. Could be misinterpretting something though, but that's what it comes across as.
