verdant monkai said:
Cry Wolf said:
verdant monkai said:
Sci fi is too brief for me when you explore a world you only see a city or a small area, of the planet. I usually do not get too see as much as I would have liked (I am the person who cant move on in an adventure game until they have searched every room in the area, I WANT TO SEE IT ALL).
This is a problem with the material you're consuming, not the genre itself. For an easy example; take a look a Firefly too see how the proper development of a setting in Science Fiction should be. Actually; the original Mass Effect did a great job with setting as well. You've just got to realise that to compare (space) Science Fiction to Fantasy in this regard you must substitute "Universe/Galaxy/System" for "Continent/Land/Kingdom".
verdant monkai said:
Fighting in Sci fi is not as good for me, because there are generally GUNS. Guns take all the fun out of combat for me. With swords and stuff YOU CAN HAVE A FIGHT. With guns it is just point, aim, blam then dead. That is not really fighting it is just killing without the challenge or build up. (I am aware that characters in these things don't usually die from one shot, but the gun is too powerful and takes all the length out of fights)
Eh. I think, generally speaking, violence is usually poorly done and overused. When used correctly, violence in either works equally well if given equal quality. That said, it's generally cheaper to make a passable gun fight then it is a passable sword fight so you do get a greater quantity of "meh" gun fights. I've also got to admit I love a good sword fight.
However, Science Fiction gives you much cooler toys to play with. Gun play? Sure, it works, but how about some vehicle chases! Space battles! Yay!
verdant monkai said:
I am to set the record straight a Sci fi lover, for example I love Mass Effect (except the ending) and I love WH40k. I just find I generally prefer fantasy, because of those three above reasons.
I have not added a "I like them both" option to the poll because I want you to choose one or the other, but you can dislike both them of course. Whatever your choice please give a reason why. And for those of you who delight in picking apart OP's arguments, that's fine but please contribute to the discussion as well.
EDIT: I derped.
So, why is my love for Science Fiction greater than my love for Fantasy? I love the speculative aspect it provides me. Nearly all Science Fiction can be broken down to "what if?" that Fantasy really doesn't have going for it. It also provides a much greater number of plot elements to explore before having to degenerate to "because magic" (fuck you, ME 3 ending). Once you introduce magic, very few narratives manage to provide relatable characters without giving up and using archetypal characters.
1. This 'problem' is prevalent throughout most sci fi stuff. Not played Firefly, but I dont think Mass Effect did a good job of this, planets were pretty much a settlement and a square mile of terrain. Not enough for me (I understand that it is almost impossible to go into the level of detail I would like, because I want to much. Fantasy provides me with a lot more of the location and setting than Sci fi does, because Sci fi often has to be a bit brief, this is not always the case but it often is).
2. Must disagree with you. picture the scene: two space warriors start to fight, both go behind cover (yawn), and one pops up and snipes the other in the head (not much of a fight is it?). With fantasies you could make a duel truly epic.
Big Sci Fi battles are cool, lasers and tanks. But I still prefer swords skeletons and arcane blasts. Also most space battles look like a washing machine cluster fuck to me.
3. When used well Magic can be a really good plot element Eragon's ancient language for example is a fantastic addition to the story, there are fucking shit examples of magic though I agree (Harry Potter). Magic does not make you give up archetypal characters where the hell did you get that from? If you mean characters have to be all Warriors/wizards/thieves. That is more of their job not who they are, although they have their stereotypes to be sure. But this is not always the case.
4.Not only fuck the ending may it burn in the depths of Hades!!
See, part of my problem is I was mostly talking about film and television. If you're talking about video game combat - hell yeah I love fantasy fights
but I don't like combat in video games. I think alternatatives are much more entertaining.
On the topic of setting for videogames specifically; I'd love for more open world science fiction. Though I suggest you give Deus Ex: Human Revoloution a go, as it has brilliant detail in setting
and provides alternatives to combat (also, awesome melee take downs!).
Heh, Eragon is pretty poor example of Fantasy in my opinion, so I'm not sure it's worth me arguing through that (at the very least, I'm poorly informed - despite reading most of the books - to discuss it in anything more than vague terms).
However, in relation to magic, archetypal characters and relating to characters as a viewer/player/whatever then I really have to reassert my point. My creating a scenario in which an undefinable, unlimited power is a major factor in the narrative then the responses of the characters are driven into archetypal roles either due to poor writing or because there is no relevant reaction to magic that the audience would care about in anyway shape or form.
There are, of course, exceptions. I did say I loved both. Magic is a key part of fantasy, as fantasy without fantasy is, well, not-fantasy. It is however both one of the greatest elements of the genre and it's weakest. It does, however, need internal logic and thus "magic" in such a raw, undefined form is a negative element.
It's also worth noting science fiction can have quite the same problem as, like the great quote, "sufficently advance technology is indistinguisable from magic". However, in both cases this is evidence of bad writing.
Oh, and this is relevant and from one of my other posts in another thread:
Cry Wolf said:
...It's also is incapable of making anything but the broadest social/human commentaries which is overwhemlingly prevelant in fiction already.
Science Fiction on the otherhand tends to be the exact opposite. Even it's social/human commentaries have the potential to be deeper, and has a wide range of speculative moral and technological issues to discuss. When Science Fiction is grounded in potential relatity it creates more relatable characters then Fantasy can hope for as well.
Firefly, by the way, is the best science fiction television series ever. It's worth watching, especially if you like detail in setting.
esert Dagobah:Swamp Hoth:Tundra Naboo:huge grassy field), just looking at our own planet shows this is unrealistic, because we have a lot of different environments. With Fantasy you get to see all the diverse varied aspects of the world, not just one kind.
