Poll: That old question Fantasy or Sci fi

[TheUsername0131]

Fighting in Sci-fi is not as good for me, because there are generally GUNS.

This is my main reason for liking fantasy over sci-fi, not necessarily 'cause swords are better but because MAGIC. Fireballs! People turning into bears and biting their enemies' heads off! Heck yeah!

And sure, in sci-fi you can have gadgets and stuff that are techno-mage-y, but they spoil it by having to make it realistic and plausable by giving it sciencey reasons for being able to work. With fantasy it's just I AM A BEING OF PURE AWESOMENESS HAVE SOME LIGHTENING BOLTS.

... Perhaps I am a simple soul who likes simple things...

To clarify, your proposition is that "techno-mage-y" and "sciencey reasons" spoil the fantasy by providing explanations for how stuff works in the context of the setting. But that with fantasy it is simply magic.

...Then how does the magic work?

What is the mechanism that allows characters to hurl fireballs and lightning bolts?

 

[TheUsername0131]

I suppose magic for the sake of magic is a bit more interesting than "Biologically engineered abilities harnessed and focused via the use of some sort of technology chip", but then you get something like Star Wars that has "Magic! In space!" (Ignoring the "Magic! In bacteria!" thing that George Lucas added later...)

"magic for the sake of magic."

Even if there are no smokes and mirrors involved, no apparent circuits, wires, or purposefully moving parts. There would still be principle by which it would operate.

 

[lord Claincy Ffnord]

Frankly, I like both, which I like more depends entirely on how I feel about it at the time, this holds true for books, movies and games. Although I do love it when there is both. (Only when its well done though, and I don't mean just something like mass effects biotics but more than that)

 

[shrekfan246]

"magic for the sake of magic."

Even if there are no smokes and mirrors involved, no apparent circuits, wires, or purposefully moving parts. There would still be principle by which it would operate.

Did you really quote me just to be pedantic? If I really need to explain what I meant, then fine:
"Magic in any instance where "magic", defined as a supernatural or preternatural phenomenon creatable by a character with an affinity toward the arcane, is present in a story but is not described in explicit detail how to work and is instead designated to simply work behind the limits the writer creates, is a bit more interesting than "Biologically engineered abilities harnessed and focused via the use of some sort of technology chip"."

Is that better for you?

Of course there are going to be principles behind how it works, I don't believe that I ever implied otherwise. But it holds my interest better when there's mystery because it isn't explained in excruciating detail.

It's magic and ridiculous pseudo-science techno-babble. There's no need to take it so seriously.

 

[TheUsername0131]

Did you really quote me just to be pedantic?

Yes.

If I really need to explain what I meant, then fine:
"Magic in any instance where "magic", defined as a supernatural or preternatural phenomenon creatable by a character with an affinity toward the arcane, is present in a story but is not described in explicit detail how to work and is instead designated to simply work behind the limits the writer creates, is a bit more interesting than "Biologically engineered abilities harnessed and focused via the use of some sort of technology chip"."

Is that better for you?

Certainly.

Of course there are going to be principles behind how it works, I don't believe that I ever implied otherwise. But it holds my interest better when there's mystery because it isn't explained in excruciating detail.

It's magic and ridiculous pseudo-science techno-babble. There's no need to take it so seriously.

I made no implication that this is a matter of severity.

But it holds my interest better when there's a mystery accompanied by a reveal for the curiosity.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Sci-Fi. The problem with fantasy is that those keys to power are the work of god or the unknowable weave of magic or the threads of fate. Ultimate success or failure hinges upon powers outside the control of even the rooks. Sci-Fi replaces all of that with something even the pawns can control: being clever.

Just look at Doctor Who - a science fiction show that has run for more than 700 episodes and a few dozen films. The Doctor prevails because he's intelligent and far too romantic to give up on a stupid cause.

 

[gazumped]

To clarify, your proposition is that "techno-mage-y" and "sciencey reasons" spoil the fantasy by providing explanations for how stuff works in the context of the setting. But that with fantasy it is simply magic.

...Then how does the magic work?

What is the mechanism that allows characters to hurl fireballs and lightning bolts?

Well, some stories/games/etc do explain it to some extent, such as greatness of willpower or it got granted by a divine being, but it's (as far as I've ever seen) always something vague or at least something that wouldn't be plausible in real life.

Don't get me wrong, devices that you need a diagram to explain how it works is cool too, but there's just a satisfying kind of feeling when a character can hurl fireballs "just because, alright?"

 

[Snotnarok]

OP to comment on your gun comment it's hard for creators to make a sci fi thing with other weapons like swords and what not because it'll get tied to Star Wars, because what else really did do that? In my comic I got the main character using regular metal swords and have pretty much written her off as never getting a laser sword.

Spoiler

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2012/094/4/d/neige_vs_louis_by_gx3rcomics-d4v0hgo.jpg

I think Sci-fi in general is just difficult for people to pull off because anything else we know of we can just say what it is. But then you say a anti-mater reactor...Well what the hell is anti-matter? How does that make power? Okay that's explained, now they go to the next room and get a snack from a replicator...wait what that? Makes food from no where? Sounds like magic. Explain that, okay dammit can we get to the story yet!? No we have to explain how the shields work and why 1 shot took them down and life support.

:L I love sci fi *not sarcastic*

 

[TheUsername0131]

Don't get me wrong, devices that you need a diagram to explain how it works is cool too, but there's just a satisfying kind of feeling when a character can hurl fireballs "just because, alright?"

So if the character explodes in a shower of rainbows and glitter, you'll still have the satisfaction of "just because, alright?"


I'm not suggestion an engineering lecture on the natural laws of the setting and what's permitted, but merely accepting things with the satisfaction of "just because, alright?" seems counter intuitive.


If its deliberately surreal, or outright comedy, Then it seems just fine, but when its supposed to follow its own form of realism, where things are reliable, reproducible and demonstrable. Then "just because, alright?" doesn't seem to cut it.

It's not cheating if you say its mysterious, or its the way things are.
But too flat out go and say: "just because, alright?"
That's just treating the audience like morons.

Allegories, Fables, Fairy tales, are permitted to leave it at that, because reasoning takes a back seat too the story. Low fantasy, where magic is rare and mysterious is able to treat it as such. Where it is commonplace... explanations are frequently expected, or at least alluded to. Even if those explanations are wrong.

In a TV show or movie, where a character comes up with never-before-seen instant-bullshit its often accepted, in a book where the author is supposedly given ample time to create a cohesive and consisted setting, it crosses the fine line between insulting and bewildering readers.

When they try to take it seriously by implementing a systematic, predictable, repeatable and quantifiable phenomena (with thematic exceptions,) then the differences lie only in the ideology and aesthetics.

How many stories, scifi and fantasy respectively involve some wise guy searching for an unlikely hero to defeat some great evil?

But back to the original point, you can have the "magic" seem less technological and more mysterious. You can providing information to give depth to the story whilst maintaining the mystery. But leaving some rather crucial like that with the enigmatic statement "just because, alright?" which depending on the context could be considered outright offensive.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Why the old question "Fantasy or Sci-fi?" is hypocritical and loaded question. Also they both embellish nonsensical utterance.


"Magic is just the idiot's word for science. Science relies on tested facts, not prattling nonsense. Now stand over there while I power up my neural diatomic wavelength nullifier."
? Dr. Shark


"Magic works here, science works there, swords work everywhere."
-Grimjack

Swords generally work "everywhere." depends entirely on density, sharpness, chemical and structural tendencies.


Dr. Venture: Either way I'm just not impressed with your tricks.
Dr. Orpheus: Tricks?! How dare you! With just a thought I could rise into the air!
Dr. Venture: Or you could put on these anti-gravity boots.
Dr. Orpheus: I could incinerate this entire lab! Make you believe that you are a very special episode of Blossom! And shoot lightning from my hands!!
Dr. Venture: Ooohh. Laser ray, mind-control helmet, Tesla coil. Anything else?
? Venture Brothers


If it involves D&D then its a real Sh*t storm of outright contempt and ridicule.

"Put another way, a wizard of Ritual Magic will sneer at a bard who approaches magic as music, casting spells based on poetic rules. And of course both will scoff at the cleric whose magic is based on articles of faith rather than academic or artistic viewpoints."
-TvTropes Un Equal Rites


But magic is not always a precise science, or even well understood depending on the story's setting.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2011/12/rulesofmagic4.jpg
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Don't get me wrong, devices that you need a diagram to explain how it works is cool too, but there's just a satisfying kind of feeling when a character can hurl fireballs "just because, alright?"

For this example you propose a character that can hurl fireballs "just because, alright?"

Is it then as likely to be an innate talent, or because the character carries propane canisters and uses them to project a long controllable stream of fire, or other cause?

what are the consequences?

Does the character produce the flames spontaneously, or does it require preparation?

To what extent can the character exert an influence over the flames produced, or is it point and burn?

Is the character immune to the flames they've produced, and by extension other flames?

What are the inherent dangers? Such as igniting an underground smouldering of a coal deposit, burning down villages, etc.

Is the character a flame-spewing apocalypse in human form, or even a pyromaniac?

Do environmental conditions such as humidity and temperature affect the ability to produce flames?

 

[TheUsername0131]

Sci-Fi. The problem with fantasy is that those keys to power are the work of god or the unknowable weave of magic or the threads of fate. Ultimate success or failure hinges upon powers outside the control of even the rooks. Sci-Fi replaces all of that with something even the pawns can control: being clever.

But those same fantastical elements do exist in Doctor Who, albeit a subversion of it.

The doctor deals with predicaments where he has to wrest "keys to power" from beings that claim godhood or a position tantamount to it, whom literally treat the cosmos as a less that allegorical chessboard, such as The Eternals.

Even the Time Lords in their own unchanging custodial ways that led to stagnation, decadence and inaction (unless provoked hold a godlike dominion over time itself insofar as they asserted a right of ownership. Only to be destroyed by their own egotism.

But as you stated, ultimate success is not the instrument exclusive to such beings, that The Doctor prevails in defeating such adversaries with wit and cunning, exploiting the inadequacies, preconceptions and arrogance of his adversaries.

But the Doctor as a Time Lord himself is not immune to corruptible tendencies, as he often finds himself meddling with the affairs of others, trying to enforce his perceptions of humane treatment and romanticism. Making his greatest enemy ? his own hubris. (Which got his third incarnation killed.) [He got better. But he is sometimes blinded by his pride.]

They replace theological, mystical mumbojumo explanations in favor of tangential relations between cause and effect, ?how? and ?why.? But even some of his ad-hoc solutions made in the spur of the moment frequently constitute Deus ex Machina, and made up techno-babble.

Just look at Doctor Who - a science fiction show that has run for more than 700 episodes and a few dozen films. The Doctor prevails because he's intelligent and far too romantic to give up on a stupid cause.

Sometimes the plot demanded circumstances where the supposed "threads of fate" hold their own, and even he cannot change it without disastrous consequence, bringing the point across that even he is not infallible. (Though this does not prevent him attempting to circumventing such restrictions, or failing that a compromise.)


In recent years the techno-babel has become a source of deliberate humor.

The Doctor: "Tracked you down with this. This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

Doctor Who has become synonymous with chase scenes, running through corridors and rock quarries.


The Doctor despite the best intentions frequently endangers others, attracts danger and occasionally commits acts of genocide, and the rare case of hypocrisy. {Which trouble him very much so.}

 

[dalek sec]

I usally lean towards Sci-fi most of the time. For me weapons wise I'll always pick a las gun over a bow and arrow any day of the week. Honestly, the only fantasy I like as of late is bending from the Avatar shows.

So most of the time you'll see me all decked out for a sci-fi battle but every so often you'll catch me bending some water at my foes.