Science Fiction v Science Fantasy

[Kal-Nor]

This post has zero spoilers but is a long post. You've been warned!

A few of you probably know that I'm presently driving through Europe to spend Christmas with my family in Spain, having an abundance of time on my hands I was.  thinking about a few of the criticisms thrown at The Force Awakens. I think overall most people enjoyed the film for what it's was and that it basically wasn't the prequels. And I get a feeling that it was a huge success regardless of a few plot holes.

I think some of these criticisms are justified and I even think we could add a few of the same criticisms to the originals. (Except people are blinded by nostalgia) But for some reason Star Wars tends to get a pass on theses type of inconsistencies where a scifi films like Star Trek doesn't. Although I enjoyed watching JJ's Star Trek films I would say that they didn't feel part of the Star Trek verse I grow up with, but just another take on the original story. And I  couldn't really care if I didn't see this version of the franchise continue. Whereas I could happily say that The Force Awakens was spot on. It felt part of the Star Wars verse!

So why was this? I came to the conclusion that it's basically down to genre. Star Wars is Science Fantasy, it doesn't matter to us how light Sabres work or the mechanics of a working Millennium Vulcan. What matters is the journey of the characters and the telling of a story. It follows the old fantasy makeup of farm boy/girl to hero scenario.

But Star Trek is Science Fiction, it's important that it tells a story that involves everyday issues that fans relate to, it's important that the Enterprise is based on physics, yes physics of the future but physics we more or less understand. It's important that everything a character can do in the film or book, we as individuals could achieve within our reality (with training). Stars Wars is an escape from reality while Star Trek is a look into our promising future. And as such Star Wars will always have a larger audience.

So this leads me to the point of this post, (finally....) Star Citizen and where a lot of division arises and confusion exist, Some of us are looking at it from a Science fantasy aspect why others look at it through the eyes of Science fiction. So what is Star Citizen?, a Science fantasy or a science fiction. If we're basing it on popularity then I'd have to say it should follow the S.Fantasy, but personally I'm more S.Fiction and it's probably one of the reasons I like to keep the realism aspect to the game.

Personally I think i first saw it as S.fantasy but has moved closer to S.fiction the past year or so. Do you agree with me and if so how would you classify Star Citizen? Does it lean to one side and has it changed over the past few years?

Note of reference:
Just to add to this, I'd rate: Battlestar Galatica (new) as S.Fiction while Firefly.. Boarders on S.Fantasy. I think JJ's Star Trek was trying to cross over to a more S.Fantasy base and as such got stuck in the middle. Is Star Citizen like that? And can it be both things to both groups?

[OldBloke]

Great post, Kal :thumb:

As someone who likes their SciFi strictly in the 'fiction' camp then my hope is that SC will, where possible, be Science Fiction. With regards to the game's mechanics I appreciate that the 'rule of cool' will need to be applied in places purely for gameplay reasons.

The true test, IMHO, will be the missions. I want believable characters giving me real-sounding missions that make total 'in-fiction' sense. This is where, for me at least, Elite fell down. Once the shock and awe of the excellent flight model and the beautiful graphics waned what was left was trading runs or repetitive/ridiculous/broken missions.

I want SC missions to always make me feel I'm immersed in a realistic space game and for that to happen I should never feel I'm grinding for credits - even when I am.

[smilodon]

I think SC is firmly Sci Fi and hope it stays such. CIG is spending a huge amount of time and resource models zero G flight dynamics, thrust/weight ratios, cargo capacity, ballistic modelling etc etc. They even make the ship designers account for where every duct and cable run will go on a ship even though they may never be modeled or how an increase in plate armour will affect mass and flight dynamics. From all that I have read, everything has to work with real physics. There's no fantasy at all and in agreement with Oldie, I hope there never is.

The two caveats that we need to give to all Sci Fi games, books and movies is faster than light travel and gravity on ships. We can zip from one side of a galaxy to another in an instant merely by engaging the hyper quantum tachyon flux drive. Then we mutter something about how amazing the folding of spacetime is and hey presto we've arrived. We happily wander about our Freelancer in zero G, sip coffee from open top mugs and take a dump in a traditional looking head. Somehow the ship has magical gravity under the floor! Oddly when we go down stairs on a multi deck ship we don't find ourselves stuck to the ceiling but enjoy a new under floor gravity system on the deck below. Amazing.

Both these ideas are nonsense but we happily forgive them in even the most serious Sci Fi environments, so that we can actually have a story, travel around the galaxy and filmmakers/game designers don't  have to create endless zero and low G effects on ships and smaller planets. For Star Citizen they are both issues I'm happy to let CIG take a pass on and do the underfloor artificial gravity thing and faster than light drives.

As Oldie says "Rule of Cool"

[Tutonic]

'Hard' Sci-Fi is interesting to read, but I can't imagine it would be much fun to play so I'm willing to suspend my disbelief just as long as the universe they present is consistent