What you are offering as the definition of Science Fiction...is just a variation of these. Much as you want to suggest you can break down other stories to change the various elements - at the end of the day, you can do the same with Science Fiction.
Somebody on here offered The Forever War as a great work of Science Fiction... which is funny, because it is a Vietnam War allegory... which can further be broken down into the various dramatic situations that comrpise a story.
There are only so many core stories - the rest is condiments.
Don't take my argument and make it your own, thanks .
The Forever War is an allegory for the Vietnam War, but it's the scientific principles in the story that make it such. Without relativity playing a role, the themes would be totally different. Ergo, the pivotal role that science plays in the novel makes it a good example of science fiction. I imagine you also glossed over the other points as well. A lot of science fiction deals with the present, which is why it changes so quickly. The Forever War was given as an example that was contemporary during the period following the Vietnam War, while Starship Troopers dealt with the ideological conflict of the Cold War. District 9 was about apartheid. Neuromancer was about the internet and its effect on society. Frankenstein was about the idea that science could allow man to play God. These are/were all contemporary issues, told in such a way that the science underlying the fiction makes the theme more accessible. Otherwise, what's the point?
Like it or not, Sovrath is right about this. Take it from someone who has studied science fiction literature at a university level; Star Wars is fantasy, and Sovrath is correct in his definition. You might not like it; you might disagree with it; you are still wrong on the matter. If you don't see it, that's fine, but maybe you shouldn't dismiss others when the definition they are providing is deeper and better thought out than your own? Just saying. Sometimes things are more in-depth than "lolstarships". The fact that fiction has a finite number of elements is irrelevant to the wider argument being made.
And if fantasy is so popular, why are there no fantasy cable channels? There are sci-fi channels though....
What you are offering as the definition of Science Fiction...is just a variation of these. Much as you want to suggest you can break down other stories to change the various elements - at the end of the day, you can do the same with Science Fiction.
Somebody on here offered The Forever War as a great work of Science Fiction... which is funny, because it is a Vietnam War allegory... which can further be broken down into the various dramatic situations that comrpise a story.
There are only so many core stories - the rest is condiments.
Don't take my argument and make it your own, thanks .
The Forever War is an allegory for the Vietnam War, but it's the scientific principles in the story that make it such. Without relativity playing a role, the themes would be totally different. Ergo, the pivotal role that science plays in the novel makes it a good example of science fiction. I imagine you also glossed over the other points as well. A lot of science fiction deals with the present, which is why it changes so quickly. The Forever War was given as an example that was contemporary during the period following the Vietnam War, while Starship Troopers dealt with the ideological conflict of the Cold War. District 9 was about apartheid. Neuromancer was about the internet and its effect on society. Frankenstein was about the idea that science could allow man to play God. These are/were all contemporary issues, told in such a way that the science underlying the fiction makes the theme more accessible. Otherwise, what's the point?
Like it or not, Sovrath is right about this. Take it from someone who has studied science fiction literature at a university level; Star Wars is fantasy, and Sovrath is correct in his definition. You might not like it; you might disagree with it; you are still wrong on the matter. If you don't see it, that's fine, but maybe you shouldn't dismiss others when the definition they are providing is deeper and better thought out than your own? Just saying. Sometimes things are more in-depth than "lolstarships". The fact that fiction has a finite number of elements is irrelevant to the wider argument being made.
And if fantasy is so popular, why are there no fantasy cable channels? There are sci-fi channels though....
lol
Whatever, buddy. Your university level of science fiction education sure is impressive. Just because you say something is true, doesn't mean that it is. Perhaps the following links to widely accepted definitions of science fiction will help you gain further understanding in the matter since your university seemed to have failed at educating you about this subject.
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[7]
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)[8]
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
Science fiction is a form of speculative fiction principally dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology, or both, uponsociety and persons as individuals. There are exceptions (or, at least, some unusual examples) to this general definition.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
Star Wars falls into all of these definitions and is always found in science fiction departments in book stores. I can list a hundred more if you like, but you will fail to see the truth in front of you even if I do.
Apparently your university forgot to actually mention any sort of definition of science fiction when they taught you all you know about the genre. That is the only explanation for your opinion.
What you are offering as the definition of Science Fiction...is just a variation of these. Much as you want to suggest you can break down other stories to change the various elements - at the end of the day, you can do the same with Science Fiction.
Somebody on here offered The Forever War as a great work of Science Fiction... which is funny, because it is a Vietnam War allegory... which can further be broken down into the various dramatic situations that comrpise a story.
There are only so many core stories - the rest is condiments.
Don't take my argument and make it your own, thanks .
The Forever War is an allegory for the Vietnam War, but it's the scientific principles in the story that make it such. Without relativity playing a role, the themes would be totally different. Ergo, the pivotal role that science plays in the novel makes it a good example of science fiction. I imagine you also glossed over the other points as well. A lot of science fiction deals with the present, which is why it changes so quickly. The Forever War was given as an example that was contemporary during the period following the Vietnam War, while Starship Troopers dealt with the ideological conflict of the Cold War. District 9 was about apartheid. Neuromancer was about the internet and its effect on society. Frankenstein was about the idea that science could allow man to play God. These are/were all contemporary issues, told in such a way that the science underlying the fiction makes the theme more accessible. Otherwise, what's the point?
Like it or not, Sovrath is right about this. Take it from someone who has studied science fiction literature at a university level; Star Wars is fantasy, and Sovrath is correct in his definition. You might not like it; you might disagree with it; you are still wrong on the matter. If you don't see it, that's fine, but maybe you shouldn't dismiss others when the definition they are providing is deeper and better thought out than your own? Just saying. Sometimes things are more in-depth than "lolstarships". The fact that fiction has a finite number of elements is irrelevant to the wider argument being made.
And if fantasy is so popular, why are there no fantasy cable channels? There are sci-fi channels though....
lol
Whatever, buddy. Your university level of science fiction education sure is impressive. Just because you say something is true, doesn't mean that it is. Perhaps the following links to widely accepted definitions of science fiction will help you gain further understanding in the matter since your university seemed to have failed at educating you about this subject.
Star Wars falls into all of these definitions and is always found in science fiction departments in book stores. I can list a hundred more if you like, but you will fail to see the truth in front of you even if I do.
Apparently your university forgot to actually mention any sort of definition of science fiction when they taught you all you know about the genre. That is the only explanation for your opinion.
Brakedancer is fairly accurate here. Your internet sourcing is hardly convincing as anyone can write those definitions -- they have zero credibility. Which is why they're not widely accepted for any serious research.
Lucas himself has said that Star Wars is Science Fantasy, never meant to be Science Fiction. His space opera was a direct reaction and counterpoint to Star Trek which was most certainly in the genre of Science Fiction. Lucas was looking to emulate the pulp movies of the 50's. And no, I can't link you this because Lucas himself related this to my university class at USC.
Wow even this "discussion" is dominated by myopic views that belittle and dismiss any view not their own and present every opinion as undeniable and final fact.
Brakedancer is fairly accurate here. Your internet sourcing is hardly convincing as anyone can write those definitions -- they have zero credibility. Which is why they're not widely accepted for any serious research.
Lucas himself has said that Star Wars is Science Fantasy, never meant to be Science Fiction. His space opera was a direct reaction and counterpoint to Star Trek which was most certainly in the genre of Science Fiction. Lucas was looking to emulate the pulp movies of the 50's. And no, I can't link you this because Lucas himself related this to my university class at USC.
Instead, lets accept your personal definition. That makes more sense.
LOL. I just... can't believe you just said that. You expect me to believe George Lucas went to USC to tell you that Star Wars is Science Fantasy in an apparently unnamed university class. And you can't link to any quote anywhere that Lucas has said this outside of said university class.
Not only that, but you and Brake are both using your "university experience" to back up your ridiculous claims with zero proof except a personal definition that you can't provide any examples of.
Yeah... this is laughable. Both Star Trek and Star Wars are considered science fiction. Get over it.
Edit: I also need to add: Even if George Lucas came in to your classroom and proclaimed that Star Wars was Science Fantasy, it would still place it in the widely accepted genre that is called science fiction. It would not be considered and placed in a genre that was invented by one man to describe what he thought his own piece of work should be labeled under. Everyone recognizes it as science fiction and it obeys all of the rules that the genre requires of it. This makes it science fiction whether George Lucas wants it to be or not.
Brakedancer is fairly accurate here. Your internet sourcing is hardly convincing as anyone can write those definitions -- they have zero credibility. Which is why they're not widely accepted for any serious research.
Lucas himself has said that Star Wars is Science Fantasy, never meant to be Science Fiction. His space opera was a direct reaction and counterpoint to Star Trek which was most certainly in the genre of Science Fiction. Lucas was looking to emulate the pulp movies of the 50's. And no, I can't link you this because Lucas himself related this to my university class at USC.
Instead, lets accept your personal definition. That makes more sense.
LOL. I just... can't believe you just said that. You expect me to believe George Lucas went to USC to tell you that Star Wars is Science Fantasy in an apparently unnamed university class. And you can't link to any quote anywhere that Lucas has said this outside of said university class.
Not only that, but you and Brake are both using your "university experience" to back up your ridiculous claims with zero proof except a personal definition that you can't provide any examples of.
Yeah... this is laughable. Both Star Trek and Star Wars are considered science fiction. Get over it.
Let's see. George Lucas just built a 250 million dollar facility at USC. He went there for his film training. He has close ties to the Dean of the Cinema School. Is it surprising that the school also has a bi-annual film studies class devoted specifally to its greatest patron and student? I know you're envious, but Lucas did speak in our class and answered many questions. I know it's hard to believe in teh internets age, but there is a verifiable reality outside of it, and an objective one at that. Do you demand your teachers give you links to everything in school? lol. The only thing laughable here is that in the face of Lucas' own statement, you still feel you have superior insight to his intention.
Let's see. George Lucus just built a 250 million dollar facility at USC. He went there for his film training. He has close ties to the Dean of the Cinema School. Is it surprising that the school also has a bi-annual film studies class devoted specifally to its greatest patron and student? I know you're envious, but Lucus did speak in our class and answered many questions. I know it's hard to believe in teh internets age, but there is a verifiable reality outside of it, and an objective one at that. Do you demand your teachers give you links to everything in school? lol. The only thing laughable here is that in the face of Lucus' own statement, you still feel you have superior insight to his intention.
I demand that when people in forums claim to have facts that they use evidence to help support those facts. You have none at all. At least I have widely accepted definitions. All you have is a ridiculous claim to help support your previously already held notions.
George Lucas does not get to invent genres for himself (Science Fantasy). Star Wars falls under science fiction whether he wants it to be in that genre or not.
Let's see. George Lucus just built a 250 million dollar facility at USC. He went there for his film training. He has close ties to the Dean of the Cinema School. Is it surprising that the school also has a bi-annual film studies class devoted specifally to its greatest patron and student? I know you're envious, but Lucus did speak in our class and answered many questions. I know it's hard to believe in teh internets age, but there is a verifiable reality outside of it, and an objective one at that. Do you demand your teachers give you links to everything in school? lol. The only thing laughable here is that in the face of Lucus' own statement, you still feel you have superior insight to his intention.
I demand that when people in forums claim to have facts that they use evidence to help support those facts. You have none at all. At least I have widely accepted definitions. All you have is a ridiculous claim to help support your previously already held notions.
George Lucas does not get to invent genres for himself (Science Fantasy). Star Wars falls under science fiction whether he wants it to be in that genre or not.
I'm glad you've decided to concede that Lucas spoke in our class (USC also has a Spielberg class, one in which Spielberg visits. Sadly, I wasn't able to take that class. Here's a link to that: http://cinema.usc.edu/about/news/spielberg-on-spielberg.htm ). Whether you choose to believe what Lucas said is something you'll have to live with I guess.
But Lucas didn't invent the term for the genre of Science Fantasy. I believe I have a Saberhagen book around here with Science Fantasy stamped on its spine: "East of Eden" if I recall. Science Fantasy is a widely accepted sub-genre used by publishers and authors alike. It represents a deviation from science as the predominant underpinning of the fiction. Thus Star Wars becomes Science Fantasy and Star Trek (pre-reboot) is decidedly Science Fiction.
Let's see. George Lucus just built a 250 million dollar facility at USC. He went there for his film training. He has close ties to the Dean of the Cinema School. Is it surprising that the school also has a bi-annual film studies class devoted specifally to its greatest patron and student? I know you're envious, but Lucus did speak in our class and answered many questions. I know it's hard to believe in teh internets age, but there is a verifiable reality outside of it, and an objective one at that. Do you demand your teachers give you links to everything in school? lol. The only thing laughable here is that in the face of Lucus' own statement, you still feel you have superior insight to his intention.
I demand that when people in forums claim to have facts that they use evidence to help support those facts. You have none at all. At least I have widely accepted definitions. All you have is a ridiculous claim to help support your previously already held notions.
George Lucas does not get to invent genres for himself (Science Fantasy). Star Wars falls under science fiction whether he wants it to be in that genre or not.
I'm glad you've decided to concede that Lucas spoke in our class (USC also has a Spielberg class, one in which Spielberg visits. Sadly, I wasn't able to take that class). Whether you choose to believe what he said is something you'll have to live with I guess.
But Lucas didn't invent the term for the genre of Science Fantasy. I believe I have a Saberhagen book around here with Science Fantasy stamped on its spine: "East of Eden" if I recall. Science Fantasy is a widely accepted sub-genre used by publishers and authors alike. It represents a deviation from science as the predominant underpinning of the fiction. Thus Star Wars becomes Science Fantasy and Star Trek (pre-reboot) is decidedly Science Fiction.
You're right. People use Science Fantasy to describe a lot of things. And Star Wars might fall into that definition for a lot of people. I was wrong about it not being considered a genre. It is.
However, I still find the more general term, science fiction, to be a completely acceptable term to describe the genre that Star Wars is a part of. And on the flip side, I don't consider "Fantasy" to accurately describe the more general genre. Science fiction is where this puppy lies. Even if you want to get more specific and call it science fantasy.
What you are offering as the definition of Science Fiction...is just a variation of these. Much as you want to suggest you can break down other stories to change the various elements - at the end of the day, you can do the same with Science Fiction.
Somebody on here offered The Forever War as a great work of Science Fiction... which is funny, because it is a Vietnam War allegory... which can further be broken down into the various dramatic situations that comrpise a story.
There are only so many core stories - the rest is condiments.
Don't take my argument and make it your own, thanks .
I am not arguing your point. I am arguing against your point. You offered it up. Deal with the problems it offers.
The Forever War is an allegory for the Vietnam War, but it's the scientific principles in the story that make it such. Without relativity playing a role, the themes would be totally different. Ergo, the pivotal role that science plays in the novel makes it a good example of science fiction. I imagine you also glossed over the other points as well. A lot of science fiction deals with the present, which is why it changes so quickly. The Forever War was given as an example that was contemporary during the period following the Vietnam War, while Starship Troopers dealt with the ideological conflict of the Cold War. District 9 was about apartheid. Neuromancer was about the internet and its effect on society. Frankenstein was about the idea that science could allow man to play God. These are/were all contemporary issues, told in such a way that the science underlying the fiction makes the theme more accessible. Otherwise, what's the point?
Relativity in the book is a simple allegory of the time that passed for Vietnam vets...for most vets of any conflict. The US changed a Hell of a lot during their tour of duty. It was a time of change. A soldier could ship out, go through training, travel, etc, and around six months on the ground, return, etc... and come back to a very different country in a short period fo time. While the relativity may be cute, it is not really needed and is only used as hyperbole to express the difference in the subjective nature of time.
Like it or not, Sovrath is right about this. Take it from someone who has studied science fiction literature at a university level; Star Wars is fantasy, and Sovrath is correct in his definition. You might not like it; you might disagree with it; you are still wrong on the matter. If you don't see it, that's fine, but maybe you shouldn't dismiss others when the definition they are providing is deeper and better thought out than your own? Just saying. Sometimes things are more in-depth than "lolstarships". The fact that fiction has a finite number of elements is irrelevant to the wider argument being made.
Like it or not, Sovrath is not right about this. You have studied sci-fi lit at the university level...good for you. What kind of degree do you have? What do you do for a living? Etc, etc. Know what? Would not matter, because the definition that Sovrath gives is only for the subgenre of Hard Sci-Fi. Nobody is arguing that. You cannot define the genre by a subgenre though.
Here are the submission guidelines for Asimov's and Analog:
Personally, I find it funny that they consider Frankenstein to be Sci-Fi; since you can remove the science and still tell the story. It was very soft science at that.
Just an example of how there really is no solid definition of it...if you separate all the fat generated from subgenres, you are left with the distinguishing element that contrasts Science Fiction and Fantasy to be the "technology" - is it science or is it magic.
And if fantasy is so popular, why are there no fantasy cable channels? There are sci-fi channels though....
Guess with Wrestling being so popular, that is why they show it on SyFy, eh?
It is interesting to note though, what the majority of the Science Fiction Channel's original programming consisted of...eh? Was not Sci-Fi....
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Let's see. George Lucus just built a 250 million dollar facility at USC. He went there for his film training. He has close ties to the Dean of the Cinema School. Is it surprising that the school also has a bi-annual film studies class devoted specifally to its greatest patron and student? I know you're envious, but Lucus did speak in our class and answered many questions. I know it's hard to believe in teh internets age, but there is a verifiable reality outside of it, and an objective one at that. Do you demand your teachers give you links to everything in school? lol. The only thing laughable here is that in the face of Lucus' own statement, you still feel you have superior insight to his intention.
I demand that when people in forums claim to have facts that they use evidence to help support those facts. You have none at all. At least I have widely accepted definitions. All you have is a ridiculous claim to help support your previously already held notions.
George Lucas does not get to invent genres for himself (Science Fantasy). Star Wars falls under science fiction whether he wants it to be in that genre or not.
I'm glad you've decided to concede that Lucas spoke in our class (USC also has a Spielberg class, one in which Spielberg visits. Sadly, I wasn't able to take that class). Whether you choose to believe what he said is something you'll have to live with I guess.
But Lucas didn't invent the term for the genre of Science Fantasy. I believe I have a Saberhagen book around here with Science Fantasy stamped on its spine: "East of Eden" if I recall. Science Fantasy is a widely accepted sub-genre used by publishers and authors alike. It represents a deviation from science as the predominant underpinning of the fiction. Thus Star Wars becomes Science Fantasy and Star Trek (pre-reboot) is decidedly Science Fiction.
You're right. People use Science Fantasy to describe a lot of things. And Star Wars might fall into that definition for a lot of people. I was wrong about it not being considered a genre. It is.
However, I still find the more general term, science fiction, to be a completely acceptable term to describe the genre that Star Wars is a part of. And on the flip side, I don't consider "Fantasy" to accurately describe the more general genre. Science fiction is where this puppy lies. Even if you want to get more specific and call it science fantasy.
Let's see. George Lucus just built a 250 million dollar facility at USC. He went there for his film training. He has close ties to the Dean of the Cinema School. Is it surprising that the school also has a bi-annual film studies class devoted specifally to its greatest patron and student? I know you're envious, but Lucus did speak in our class and answered many questions. I know it's hard to believe in teh internets age, but there is a verifiable reality outside of it, and an objective one at that. Do you demand your teachers give you links to everything in school? lol. The only thing laughable here is that in the face of Lucus' own statement, you still feel you have superior insight to his intention.
I demand that when people in forums claim to have facts that they use evidence to help support those facts. You have none at all. At least I have widely accepted definitions. All you have is a ridiculous claim to help support your previously already held notions.
George Lucas does not get to invent genres for himself (Science Fantasy). Star Wars falls under science fiction whether he wants it to be in that genre or not.
I'm glad you've decided to concede that Lucas spoke in our class (USC also has a Spielberg class, one in which Spielberg visits. Sadly, I wasn't able to take that class). Whether you choose to believe what he said is something you'll have to live with I guess.
But Lucas didn't invent the term for the genre of Science Fantasy. I believe I have a Saberhagen book around here with Science Fantasy stamped on its spine: "East of Eden" if I recall. Science Fantasy is a widely accepted sub-genre used by publishers and authors alike. It represents a deviation from science as the predominant underpinning of the fiction. Thus Star Wars becomes Science Fantasy and Star Trek (pre-reboot) is decidedly Science Fiction.
You're right. People use Science Fantasy to describe a lot of things. And Star Wars might fall into that definition for a lot of people. I was wrong about it not being considered a genre. It is.
However, I still find the more general term, science fiction, to be a completely acceptable term to describe the genre that Star Wars is a part of. And on the flip side, I don't consider "Fantasy" to accurately describe the more general genre. Science fiction is where this puppy lies. Even if you want to get more specific and call it science fantasy.
Then, sir, I believe we've come to a meeting of the minds. Science Fiction is a catch all in that regard as you say. That is why bookstores have a 'Science Fiction' section after all.
Some might think this an academic exercise, but if you happen to be a writer of Science Fiction, you'd better know the difference between science fiction and science fantasy. Submitting your science fantasy work to a publisher looking for science fiction (note small case letters) will get you soundly rejected.
Edit: I should clarify that when I say 'science fiction' lower case, I'm refering to what publishers typically call hard science fiction.
I hate fantasy. I like the concept of MMOs. I universally dislike every MMO released to date for one reason or another. Some games get a few things right. I really like the Tabula Rasa/Global Agenda combat engines. I enjoyed TR's unique skill advancement. I really dug (pre-NGE) SWG's forced character interdependence and it's still unmatched crafting system.
But why-oh-why are almost all sci-fi MMOs just fantasy games with some shitty LED lights poured over the top?
Why do they force denizens of the distant future to wander around everywhere on foot, fighting at ranges which are absolutely silly, and not letting players do something as simple as send text messages/call people from anywhere? I just finished some quest and I can't get on the walkie to let him know? I have to walk back?
Why does my super futuristic laser gun thingie have a range of 50 meters? For some perspective, 50 meters is the closest target to a soldier during a U.S. Army rifle qualification.
Why, instead of just using technology, do sci-fi games still force magic into the systems? In Tabula Rasa we had "The Logos", in Fallen Earth there are the mutations, in SWG there was the force (but at least that made contextual sense, I guess).
Why do these games toss in some "badass dude with a sword" class thing that always wtfbbqpwns all ranged players? Saw this in SWG, Tabula Rasa, Global Agenda (they finally nerfed DDs a few weeks ago), and Fallen Earth.
Why aren't there vehicles in the future?
Why can't I get my on my PDA-phone-thing and check out the game's equivalent to eBay from anywhere I have (virtual) reception?
Why am I still fighting elves and orcs and dragons and shit?
Why is every (ground based) sci-fi MMO just a shitty fantasy MMO with some futuristic meshes and textures sprinkled in?
I can look at all of the sci-fi MMOs I've ever played and say, with a straight face, that today's technology generally puts that fictional world to shame. None of these sci-fi MMOs even bothered to give players a device capable of what a modern smart phone can achieve.
So I have to ask, why the hell aren't science fiction MMOs actually... y'know, science ****ing fiction?
Because MMOs are limited by both technology and developer creativity / investor risk-aversion. The answer to all of your questions is basically "MMOs suck."
The people who write sci-fi have different views of what sci-fi is
if you take the time to read it John C. Wright summed it pretty good i think
He did well until the mention of Frankestein, in my opinion. You can replace the science with magic - whether something along the lines of necromancy, mysticism ala a form of golem, etc. The overall "horror" of the work is why it generally fits better into the gothic horror category.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I would absolutely LOVE to see a well done Dune MMO. To me that book was just perfect. You could perhaps somehow incorporate guilds/groups of players as small Houses, and have these guilds vying for control of spice. You could even move the game out across several worlds as I'm sure the deserts of Arrakis would grow dull after a while..Still, properly done, it could be so great!
Whatever, buddy. Your university level of science fiction education sure is impressive. Just because you say something is true, doesn't mean that it is. Perhaps the following links to widely accepted definitions of science fiction will help you gain further understanding in the matter since your university seemed to have failed at educating you about this subject.
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[7]
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)[8]
ok, but again, there is more to that definition.
Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting.[1][2][3] It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[4] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.[5] The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality, but the majority of science fiction relies on a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief provided by potential scientific explanations to various fictional elements.
These may include:
A setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in an historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[7]
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)[8]
Impact of imagined innovations in scinece or technology. Had Star Wars' story been more about the use of the Death Star as a war machine and the impact of using mass destruction devices (pro and con) on the characters then that would very much be the crux for a science ficiton story.
but though they have such a device, the story is about a hero from modest unpbringing, a war with a losing side of underdog good guys, A princess, Evil (though later redeemed) nemesis, a wise sage and the attempt to stop the Empire from destroying the rebels in a lost cause fight.
It's not "about" the Death Star. Therefore what we have to go on is what I listed above. A science ficiton story could definitely include any number of things that is listed in that, er "list" but it is always about some sort of technology or finding something that science can explain not to exist but there is an explanation of it existing, etc.
I would say that the movie "Moon" is more science fiction than star wars.
Star wars is a space fantasy or space opera (which is a term that I've heard used).
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'm glad you've decided to concede that Lucas spoke in our class (USC also has a Spielberg class, one in which Spielberg visits. Sadly, I wasn't able to take that class). Whether you choose to believe what he said is something you'll have to live with I guess.
But Lucas didn't invent the term for the genre of Science Fantasy. I believe I have a Saberhagen book around here with Science Fantasy stamped on its spine: "East of Eden" if I recall. Science Fantasy is a widely accepted sub-genre used by publishers and authors alike. It represents a deviation from science as the predominant underpinning of the fiction. Thus Star Wars becomes Science Fantasy and Star Trek (pre-reboot) is decidedly Science Fiction.
You're right. People use Science Fantasy to describe a lot of things. And Star Wars might fall into that definition for a lot of people. I was wrong about it not being considered a genre. It is.
However, I still find the more general term, science fiction, to be a completely acceptable term to describe the genre that Star Wars is a part of. And on the flip side, I don't consider "Fantasy" to accurately describe the more general genre. Science fiction is where this puppy lies. Even if you want to get more specific and call it science fantasy.
As this could also be in answer to my last post, duly noted.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The topic of this thread is that all MMOs, regardless of setting, use mechanics explicitly derived from fantasy (as in swords and elves and magic and shit) MMO predecessors and as consequence science fictions MMOs have failed hard (because they aren't truly derived from science fiction).
I politely reminded everyone in page 2 what the topic of this thread was. You ignored it.
Well, fair enough I suppose.
But maybe all this talk really does come back to the crux of the issue.
That "science fiction" in and of itself is not really what audiences are craving and what they are craving is fantasy, whether or not the setting is in space or not.
There seems to be a certain romanticism about fantasy and this romanticism might be what is exciting to audiences.
Science Fiction might have some romatncisism (exploration of space) but usually deals with issues that science or stories based on issues as a result of that science or something inexplicable within known parameters.
People are into the romance of their stories. Not necessarily "romantic love" romance but bigger than life stories and characters.
Fantasy is an easy pill to swallow as it immediately goes for that jugular wheras perhaps science fiction mmo's might have to go a longer way to convince people? To capture their imaginations.
Not sure, just shooting from the hip there.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Whatever, buddy. Your university level of science fiction education sure is impressive. Just because you say something is true, doesn't mean that it is. Perhaps the following links to widely accepted definitions of science fiction will help you gain further understanding in the matter since your university seemed to have failed at educating you about this subject.
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[7]
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)[8]
ok, but again, there is more to that definition.
Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting.[1][2][3] It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[4] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.[5] The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality, but the majority of science fiction relies on a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief provided by potential scientific explanations to various fictional elements.
These may include:
A setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in an historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[7]
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)[8]
Impact of imagined innovations in scinece or technology. Had Star Wars' story been more about the use of the Death Star as a war machine and the impact of using mass destruction devices (pro and con) on the characters then that would very much be the crux for a science ficiton story.
but though they have such a device, the story is about a hero from modest unpbringing, a war with a losing side of underdog good guys, A princess, Evil (though later redeemed) nemesis, a wise sage and the attempt to stop the Empire from destroying the rebels in a lost cause fight.
It's not "about" the Death Star. Therefore what we have to go on is what I listed above. A science ficiton story could definitely include any number of things that is listed in that, er "list" but it is always about some sort of technology or finding something that science can explain not to exist but there is an explanation of it existing, etc.
I would say that the movie "Moon" is more science fiction than star wars.
Star wars is a space fantasy or space opera (which is a term that I've heard used).
As your definition states, science fiction "includes"....that does not mean it excludes main characters, love stories, underdogs, or a nemesis. These are present in any genre, be it fantasy, wild west, martial arts, post-apoc. Only bad martial arts movies are solely about the kicks. Outside of definitions, for all practical purposes your definition is overly narrow. Go to any bookstore and that would eliminate the vast majority of books classed (and accurately searched for by cosumers) in sci-fi.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
As your definition states, science fiction "includes"....that does not mean it excludes main characters, love stories, underdogs, or a nemesis. These are present in any genre, be it fantasy, wild west, martial arts, post-apoc. Only bad martial arts movies are solely about the kicks. Outside of definitions, for all practical purposes your definition is overly narrow. Go to any bookstore and that would eliminate the vast majority of books classed (and accurately searched for by cosumers) in sci-fi.
Well that's a very good point and I also think it goes to the crux of the argument.
Any story of interest to us is going to include things like love stories, underdogs, nemeses etc.
that's why we are interested.
By "includes" it's just saying that any number of things can go into one of these stories.
and to the crux of the argument? You state that if one was to go to a bookstore one would find all sorts of "sci fi" books that couuld easily be eliminated if one were to follow that definition.
I think this is more than true and speaks to what readers are actually looking for. Same with mmo's.
The average person doesn't care about hte "mechanics" of mmo's. Or that sci-fi games have fantasy underpinnings.
Not at all. The people who care about those things, I hazzard a guess, are those people who pay attention to those thing. Might even be the very same people who know how the numbers work under the hood of these games.
but the average person is looking for story (a story they can relate to) and a setting.
They are not necessarily looking for a definitive "sci-fi" book and they probably don't care. They care about a "space opera" or "space romance' or insert any setting where the general story is going to be about the people and less about why they are set where they are set.
A good many "sci-fi" books feel like they are just wearing the trappings of sci-fi and there are a good many fantasy books that are quite frankly (in my opinion) trash.
Writers just using these settings so they can rehash some stories. I stopped reading most sci-fi/fantasy after college because I realized that what I was reading really felt like pulp and not good pulp.
so people/players are looking for story and setting and it seems that games with a more a setting that relies more on "science fiction" have farther to go.
And yes, we have a si-fi channel but unfortunately the owners or "whoever" felt that taking the "sci-fi" out of it would only help to bring in more people "SyFy" I think?
It's the average person that drives blockbuster sales and it's the average person who is being sold to.
Not to denigrate the average person.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
Don't take my argument and make it your own, thanks
.
The Forever War is an allegory for the Vietnam War, but it's the scientific principles in the story that make it such. Without relativity playing a role, the themes would be totally different. Ergo, the pivotal role that science plays in the novel makes it a good example of science fiction. I imagine you also glossed over the other points as well. A lot of science fiction deals with the present, which is why it changes so quickly. The Forever War was given as an example that was contemporary during the period following the Vietnam War, while Starship Troopers dealt with the ideological conflict of the Cold War. District 9 was about apartheid. Neuromancer was about the internet and its effect on society. Frankenstein was about the idea that science could allow man to play God. These are/were all contemporary issues, told in such a way that the science underlying the fiction makes the theme more accessible. Otherwise, what's the point?
Like it or not, Sovrath is right about this. Take it from someone who has studied science fiction literature at a university level; Star Wars is fantasy, and Sovrath is correct in his definition. You might not like it; you might disagree with it; you are still wrong on the matter. If you don't see it, that's fine, but maybe you shouldn't dismiss others when the definition they are providing is deeper and better thought out than your own? Just saying. Sometimes things are more in-depth than "lolstarships". The fact that fiction has a finite number of elements is irrelevant to the wider argument being made.
And if fantasy is so popular, why are there no fantasy cable channels? There are sci-fi channels though....
lol
Whatever, buddy. Your university level of science fiction education sure is impressive. Just because you say something is true, doesn't mean that it is. Perhaps the following links to widely accepted definitions of science fiction will help you gain further understanding in the matter since your university seemed to have failed at educating you about this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction
A setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in an historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record
A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens[6]
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[7]
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)[8]
http://www.answers.com/topic/science-fiction
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Science_fiction
Science fiction is a form of speculative fiction principally dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology, or both, uponsociety and persons as individuals. There are exceptions (or, at least, some unusual examples) to this general definition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science+fiction
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science+fiction
a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledgeand speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/science-fiction
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
This one is particularly descriptive:
http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson927/SciFiDefinition.pdf
Star Wars falls into all of these definitions and is always found in science fiction departments in book stores. I can list a hundred more if you like, but you will fail to see the truth in front of you even if I do.
Apparently your university forgot to actually mention any sort of definition of science fiction when they taught you all you know about the genre. That is the only explanation for your opinion.
Brakedancer is fairly accurate here. Your internet sourcing is hardly convincing as anyone can write those definitions -- they have zero credibility. Which is why they're not widely accepted for any serious research.
Lucas himself has said that Star Wars is Science Fantasy, never meant to be Science Fiction. His space opera was a direct reaction and counterpoint to Star Trek which was most certainly in the genre of Science Fiction. Lucas was looking to emulate the pulp movies of the 50's. And no, I can't link you this because Lucas himself related this to my university class at USC.
Wow even this "discussion" is dominated by myopic views that belittle and dismiss any view not their own and present every opinion as undeniable and final fact.
Instead, lets accept your personal definition. That makes more sense.
LOL. I just... can't believe you just said that. You expect me to believe George Lucas went to USC to tell you that Star Wars is Science Fantasy in an apparently unnamed university class. And you can't link to any quote anywhere that Lucas has said this outside of said university class.
Not only that, but you and Brake are both using your "university experience" to back up your ridiculous claims with zero proof except a personal definition that you can't provide any examples of.
Yeah... this is laughable. Both Star Trek and Star Wars are considered science fiction. Get over it.
Edit: I also need to add: Even if George Lucas came in to your classroom and proclaimed that Star Wars was Science Fantasy, it would still place it in the widely accepted genre that is called science fiction. It would not be considered and placed in a genre that was invented by one man to describe what he thought his own piece of work should be labeled under. Everyone recognizes it as science fiction and it obeys all of the rules that the genre requires of it. This makes it science fiction whether George Lucas wants it to be or not.
Let's see. George Lucas just built a 250 million dollar facility at USC. He went there for his film training. He has close ties to the Dean of the Cinema School. Is it surprising that the school also has a bi-annual film studies class devoted specifally to its greatest patron and student? I know you're envious, but Lucas did speak in our class and answered many questions. I know it's hard to believe in teh internets age, but there is a verifiable reality outside of it, and an objective one at that. Do you demand your teachers give you links to everything in school? lol. The only thing laughable here is that in the face of Lucas' own statement, you still feel you have superior insight to his intention.
I demand that when people in forums claim to have facts that they use evidence to help support those facts. You have none at all. At least I have widely accepted definitions. All you have is a ridiculous claim to help support your previously already held notions.
George Lucas does not get to invent genres for himself (Science Fantasy). Star Wars falls under science fiction whether he wants it to be in that genre or not.
i am in utter aw at this debate.
I'm glad you've decided to concede that Lucas spoke in our class (USC also has a Spielberg class, one in which Spielberg visits. Sadly, I wasn't able to take that class. Here's a link to that: http://cinema.usc.edu/about/news/spielberg-on-spielberg.htm ). Whether you choose to believe what Lucas said is something you'll have to live with I guess.
But Lucas didn't invent the term for the genre of Science Fantasy. I believe I have a Saberhagen book around here with Science Fantasy stamped on its spine: "East of Eden" if I recall. Science Fantasy is a widely accepted sub-genre used by publishers and authors alike. It represents a deviation from science as the predominant underpinning of the fiction. Thus Star Wars becomes Science Fantasy and Star Trek (pre-reboot) is decidedly Science Fiction.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=science%20fiction
Noun
S: (n) science fiction (literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society)
You're right. People use Science Fantasy to describe a lot of things. And Star Wars might fall into that definition for a lot of people. I was wrong about it not being considered a genre. It is.
However, I still find the more general term, science fiction, to be a completely acceptable term to describe the genre that Star Wars is a part of. And on the flip side, I don't consider "Fantasy" to accurately describe the more general genre. Science fiction is where this puppy lies. Even if you want to get more specific and call it science fantasy.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Google provides an interesting list of definitions with links to the sources:
http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&q=science+fiction&hl=en
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
It is funny, because you will have a site such as this: http://www.worldswithoutend.com/resources_sub-genres.asp
They have Science Fantasy as a subgenre of Science Fiction. If you look at Wikipedia, they have it as a pseudo subgenre/separate genre of Fantasy.
We have so many loose labels that are applied at whim, eh?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Then, sir, I believe we've come to a meeting of the minds. Science Fiction is a catch all in that regard as you say. That is why bookstores have a 'Science Fiction' section after all.
Some might think this an academic exercise, but if you happen to be a writer of Science Fiction, you'd better know the difference between science fiction and science fantasy. Submitting your science fantasy work to a publisher looking for science fiction (note small case letters) will get you soundly rejected.
Edit: I should clarify that when I say 'science fiction' lower case, I'm refering to what publishers typically call hard science fiction.
The problem I have is when people claim that Star Wars is NOT science fiction. That it is in fact fantasy.
I find both of these sentences false.
It is science fiction. And apparently, it can also be considered science fantasy.
www.sfsignal.com/archives/2008/01/mind-meld-todays-sf-authors-define-science-fiction-part-2/
The people who write sci-fi have different views of what sci-fi is
if you take the time to read it John C. Wright summed it pretty good i think
Because MMOs are limited by both technology and developer creativity / investor risk-aversion. The answer to all of your questions is basically "MMOs suck."
He did well until the mention of Frankestein, in my opinion. You can replace the science with magic - whether something along the lines of necromancy, mysticism ala a form of golem, etc. The overall "horror" of the work is why it generally fits better into the gothic horror category.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I would absolutely LOVE to see a well done Dune MMO. To me that book was just perfect. You could perhaps somehow incorporate guilds/groups of players as small Houses, and have these guilds vying for control of spice. You could even move the game out across several worlds as I'm sure the deserts of Arrakis would grow dull after a while..Still, properly done, it could be so great!
ok, but again, there is more to that definition.
Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology, often in a futuristic setting.[1][2][3] It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[4] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possibilities.[5] The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality, but the majority of science fiction relies on a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief provided by potential scientific explanations to various fictional elements.
These may include:
A setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in an historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record
A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens[6]
Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[7]
Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g., a dystopia, or a situation where organized society has collapsed)[8]
Impact of imagined innovations in scinece or technology. Had Star Wars' story been more about the use of the Death Star as a war machine and the impact of using mass destruction devices (pro and con) on the characters then that would very much be the crux for a science ficiton story.
but though they have such a device, the story is about a hero from modest unpbringing, a war with a losing side of underdog good guys, A princess, Evil (though later redeemed) nemesis, a wise sage and the attempt to stop the Empire from destroying the rebels in a lost cause fight.
It's not "about" the Death Star. Therefore what we have to go on is what I listed above. A science ficiton story could definitely include any number of things that is listed in that, er "list" but it is always about some sort of technology or finding something that science can explain not to exist but there is an explanation of it existing, etc.
I would say that the movie "Moon" is more science fiction than star wars.
Star wars is a space fantasy or space opera (which is a term that I've heard used).
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
As this could also be in answer to my last post, duly noted.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Well, fair enough I suppose.
But maybe all this talk really does come back to the crux of the issue.
That "science fiction" in and of itself is not really what audiences are craving and what they are craving is fantasy, whether or not the setting is in space or not.
There seems to be a certain romanticism about fantasy and this romanticism might be what is exciting to audiences.
Science Fiction might have some romatncisism (exploration of space) but usually deals with issues that science or stories based on issues as a result of that science or something inexplicable within known parameters.
People are into the romance of their stories. Not necessarily "romantic love" romance but bigger than life stories and characters.
Fantasy is an easy pill to swallow as it immediately goes for that jugular wheras perhaps science fiction mmo's might have to go a longer way to convince people? To capture their imaginations.
Not sure, just shooting from the hip there.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
As your definition states, science fiction "includes"....that does not mean it excludes main characters, love stories, underdogs, or a nemesis. These are present in any genre, be it fantasy, wild west, martial arts, post-apoc. Only bad martial arts movies are solely about the kicks. Outside of definitions, for all practical purposes your definition is overly narrow. Go to any bookstore and that would eliminate the vast majority of books classed (and accurately searched for by cosumers) in sci-fi.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Well that's a very good point and I also think it goes to the crux of the argument.
Any story of interest to us is going to include things like love stories, underdogs, nemeses etc.
that's why we are interested.
By "includes" it's just saying that any number of things can go into one of these stories.
and to the crux of the argument? You state that if one was to go to a bookstore one would find all sorts of "sci fi" books that couuld easily be eliminated if one were to follow that definition.
I think this is more than true and speaks to what readers are actually looking for. Same with mmo's.
The average person doesn't care about hte "mechanics" of mmo's. Or that sci-fi games have fantasy underpinnings.
Not at all. The people who care about those things, I hazzard a guess, are those people who pay attention to those thing. Might even be the very same people who know how the numbers work under the hood of these games.
but the average person is looking for story (a story they can relate to) and a setting.
They are not necessarily looking for a definitive "sci-fi" book and they probably don't care. They care about a "space opera" or "space romance' or insert any setting where the general story is going to be about the people and less about why they are set where they are set.
A good many "sci-fi" books feel like they are just wearing the trappings of sci-fi and there are a good many fantasy books that are quite frankly (in my opinion) trash.
Writers just using these settings so they can rehash some stories. I stopped reading most sci-fi/fantasy after college because I realized that what I was reading really felt like pulp and not good pulp.
so people/players are looking for story and setting and it seems that games with a more a setting that relies more on "science fiction" have farther to go.
And yes, we have a si-fi channel but unfortunately the owners or "whoever" felt that taking the "sci-fi" out of it would only help to bring in more people "SyFy" I think?
It's the average person that drives blockbuster sales and it's the average person who is being sold to.
Not to denigrate the average person.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo