Poll: Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy,who wins?
- Thread starter PUR3_GAM3R33
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why can't everyone win?
I like both! So can we please get along? Anyone?
I have cake! And protein shakes!! I could probably get some booze, and wrench wenches.
I like both! So can we please get along? Anyone?
I have cake! And protein shakes!! I could probably get some booze, and wrench wenches.
Lets just get Commisar Yarrick The Hero Of Hades Hive and Uskarar E. Creed Lord Castellen Of Cadia and those two would win the battle by themselves
I honestly don't know which to pick, Sci-Fi has Space Marines, the Enterprise, Lightsabers etc and Fantasy has Gandalf, magic, Andúril etc...it's such a close contest. I guess I'll side with Fantasy, solely because I prefer it over Sci-Fi although not by much.
Fantasy, as it's typical for the good guys in a fantasy themed plot to succeed,
whereas in sci-fi it's not uncommon for them to fail at their actual goal
whereas in sci-fi it's not uncommon for them to fail at their actual goal
Well, jedi are essentially magicians so they would be fantasy based unless you're talking about just lightsabers rather than the force, in that case, I wouldn't argue with you, although lightsabers are somewhat implausible by science as we know it. The force can't be seen as a paranormal ability since it's not really a psychic ability but rather an omniscient deity-like all encompassing entity... I'm pretty sure that's beyond scientific understanding.Aean said:
The protoss and Zerg, while I admittedly don't know much about Starcraft, are aliens and don't have truly unrealistic abilities as far as I know so, yes, they would be considered sci-fi. Dragons aren't really the most impressive of fantasy entities, or at least the basic ones aren't. A sci-fi dragon would have to base its abilities off of what's scientifically plausable. Therefore, the most that it could be believed to develop would be fire breath and that would be extraordinary. A fantasy dragon could have 20 heads, each using a different form of breath, each more deadly than the last. And be magical. And immortal. And a god. That is why fantasy would defeat Sci-fi in a battle. Sci-fi has to be plausible. Fantasy doesn't.
Sci-Fi tends to be more creative. It still borrows heavily, but you don't hear things like "standard Sci-Fi races". That's my biggest peeve with Fantasy. Make something new, dammit. I enjoy meeting new races, learning their cultures, and just seeing or imagining how they look. While reading books, I almost always stop for a few minutes when a new race is described so that I can create a mental picture of them.
Well it depends on the media for me. I've enjoyed more scifi books, like Philip K. Dick and Asimov. Videogames though, I tend to like the fantasy setting more, like Dragon Age and Fable. Movies...hard to say, nudge to scifi.
All in all, I think I like the fantasy setting a tad more, so I voted for it. Sometimes real science gets in the way of me enjoying scifi. Tries too hard to sound possible, so I think about it and go "no that wouldn't work, silly" where as fantasy I just go "magic, sure. Can't argue with that." Fantasy doesn't bother trying to sound possible, that's why it's called fantasy. Science fiction can get into bad science too often though, and I hate bad science. Scifi has more potential for depth though, I think. It's harder to do it right, but can come up with some really deep stories, which is why it's so close.
[edit] Whoops, misread the topic, haha. Didn't realize it was an actual battle, not jsut a popularity contest. Hrmm. Well scifi tends to be on a completely different scope usually. Making stars go supernova kind of shit, fantasy doesn't usually go much past destroying a civilization or race. Fantasy heroes tend to have an absurd amount of luck though, fate and destiny and all. Scifi heroes tend to be more tragic, haha. Could see a fantasy guy jumping in a magic portal and blowing up the mothership by throwing a magic sword into the engine core or something, and all the future scifi guys groaning at how implausible it is.
Take out BS luck/destiny stuff and scifi would decimate the fantasy people. Hell, regular old modern technology would have a good chance against it. Super powerful wizard is throwing fireballs, high-powered rifle snipes him before he gets close. Treants and trolls against an Abrams? Good luck, haha. Nuclear strike Mount Olympus, see how immortal they really are.
All in all, I think I like the fantasy setting a tad more, so I voted for it. Sometimes real science gets in the way of me enjoying scifi. Tries too hard to sound possible, so I think about it and go "no that wouldn't work, silly" where as fantasy I just go "magic, sure. Can't argue with that." Fantasy doesn't bother trying to sound possible, that's why it's called fantasy. Science fiction can get into bad science too often though, and I hate bad science. Scifi has more potential for depth though, I think. It's harder to do it right, but can come up with some really deep stories, which is why it's so close.
[edit] Whoops, misread the topic, haha. Didn't realize it was an actual battle, not jsut a popularity contest. Hrmm. Well scifi tends to be on a completely different scope usually. Making stars go supernova kind of shit, fantasy doesn't usually go much past destroying a civilization or race. Fantasy heroes tend to have an absurd amount of luck though, fate and destiny and all. Scifi heroes tend to be more tragic, haha. Could see a fantasy guy jumping in a magic portal and blowing up the mothership by throwing a magic sword into the engine core or something, and all the future scifi guys groaning at how implausible it is.
Take out BS luck/destiny stuff and scifi would decimate the fantasy people. Hell, regular old modern technology would have a good chance against it. Super powerful wizard is throwing fireballs, high-powered rifle snipes him before he gets close. Treants and trolls against an Abrams? Good luck, haha. Nuclear strike Mount Olympus, see how immortal they really are.
I would have to go with fantasy on this. Most of what you get it science fiction is raping science with numerous abominations when it comes to breaking the laws of physics while pretending they do not. Fantasy is more of a "Screw the laws of nature! I got magic!"
Fantasy wins everytime because it can ignore logic. Science is crippled by having to make sense.
Proof: Shoot your little brother with a finger gun and see how many different ways he can argue for him having killed you instead.
Proof: Shoot your little brother with a finger gun and see how many different ways he can argue for him having killed you instead.
Sci-Fi. They would show up, and before the puny fantasy armies even new they were at war, they could destroy the planet Death Star style. Sure, they may have some immortal beings, but they are suddenly immortal while floating in space and freezing solid rather quickly, and right after firing, the Sci-Fi fleet jumps with the Improbability Drive, and no one knows where they are going.
Magic isn't limited... and yet fantasy is full of wizards who can't do what you ask because "even magic can't do that."Dethenger said:
I think Supernatural best exemplifies my view of technology vs magic. The Dresden Files also manage to do this. Sure, magic is damn powerful, but it can't stop a bullet fired from a mile away unless they already knew it was coming. But if they knew it was coming, why even show up there?
You can have elements of sci-fi in a fantasy and still have it be fantasy, but you can't have elements of fantasy in sci-fi and still have it be sci-fi. So fantasy wins, although I love both.
