Poll: How do you like your Science Fiction?

[hem dazon 90]

both

I like when gravity fails as much as snow crash

 

[RatRace123]

I like my Sci-Fi as... sci-fi
"Hard" or "Soft" Science, it doesn't matter to me. 'Sall good.

 

[Antitonic]

As long as it makes sense WITHIN CONTEXT, it can be as crazy as it likes.

 

[Nouw]

I like both Starship Troopers and WH40K so both.

 

[randomsix]

Usually I prefer realistic, but then I read Anathem and my mind was blown.

 

[Berethond]

I like it both ways

Also I like how people mention two really unrealistic series and then say that means they like it hard and soft.

 

[tkioz]

While I'm not a "hard sci-fi" fanatic, I like that if you're going to break a rule of nature you should at least make a token effort to explain it.

 

[DJDarque]

I've never been huge on science fiction, escpecially when it's really out there, but I do enjoy space western like the manga series Trigun. I'm too picky with what I read.

 

[TeeBs]

I don't really care, I just want it to be symbolic of something that's happening right now.

 

[Agayek]

It depends mostly on the mood of the piece. If it's at least mildly comedic or somesuch, I like just about any sort of ridiculous device or setting. If the work takes itself seriously though, the science better be fairly hard. I just can't take something seriously when I know it's blatantly wrong.

 

[latenightapplepie]

I can enjoy either, but I suppose I prefer the harder stuff. Not too fussed though. I believe that both types can make really excellent TV, film, videogames etc.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The Heisenberg compensator is a component of the transporters in Star Trek, used to get around the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which appears to prove that transporters are total BS (do they have Einstein compensators in the warp drives, I wonder?). I don't know if the writers were poking fun at the nerds who point out those sorts of flaws, or ironically acknowledging the flaw, or seriously suggesting that some sort of 'compensator' could make this particular impossibility possible. I'm kinda curious about that.

It's not the worst thing about how bad the Transporters are. The main problem is that you're basically storing matter as an energy form and then pulsing it to an unknown place where it spontaneously changes back. The Compensator just stops you ending up with a load of giblets, it doesn't actually acknowledge how to switch back.
And that's before you go into how devalued everything is if you can disintegrate one, store it and then re-integrate multiple times.

 

[Cazza]

I don't care. I do like plausible more but I don't like it when the story gets slowed down while they explain how everything works. Call it teleports or space ships but don't go it works like this because it might really work like this.

 

[XJ-0461]

Both, but I prefer the more out there stuff. I enjoyed Metropolis (1927) but I much prefer the crazier stuff that happens in stuff like Star Wars or Doctor Who. They're much better for escapist fantasy for me.

 

[Vigormortis]

I hate to generalize it, but...I'll take lasers, space-ships, aliens, and robots over elves, dragons, swords, and "magic" any day.

I wasn't actually refering to fantasy vs. sci fi, just the differing type of science fiction - the cases where the technology and science is potentially plausible versus the times where the science is unexplainable and flat out futuristically awesome.

When I mentioned 'magic' I didn't mean it in a fantasy sort of way, was just the easiest way to point out how some books don't explain how things work when there really seems to be absolutely no plausible explaination. i.e. virtual interfaces that just pop into thin air when you need them... the sort of thing the story just blames on advancements in technology.

I realized that, actually. That last part of my previous post was just a general thought/short rant. It wasn't in regard to your post. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

I realized that, actually. That last part of my previous post was just a general thought/short rant. It wasn't in regard to your post. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries I just didn't intend for the original topic to sound like I was asking for a sci fi vs. fantasy debate.