My Changing Thoughts on Science Fantasy Games

[Micah Sweet]

The midichlorians thing just about spoiled the whole franchise for me. I just try to pretend it wasn't there.

Interesting that "overtly mystical" spoils it for you while "forgotten tech" does not. But I get it, because I've got my own similar prejudices, where one thing is awesome and the other is a buzz-kill, and while I can try to offer rational explanations, it's just how I feel about it.

It doesn't spoil anything. I like science fantasy. I just see it as a different thing with similar trappings.

 

[Staffan]

The midichlorians thing just about spoiled the whole franchise for me. I just try to pretend it wasn't there.

I like to think that midichlorians are an indicator, but not a source. If you have strong force sensitivity, the midichlorians like hanging out in your blood.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

My point is that in-universe, none of that is considered magical. It's science. To me, that makes it science fiction.

Characters in a horror novel don’t know they are in a horror.

Characters in a sci-fantasy may think their magi-tech is science but that doesn’t necessarily make it actual science-fiction.

As a classification of literature, if I can remember from University Lit classes, was sci-fi strives to explain how things work while science fantasy doesn’t. It leaves things a mystery.

So, as an example, Star Trek traditionally had technology that was ‘theoretically’ possible and went through great detail to explain how the tech worked.

Star Wars had had no such thing. Tech worked because it did. The closest Star Wars ever ventured into sci-fi is when they tried to explain The Jedi’s Force Use as Metaclorions (sp?) instead of just an unexplainable force that controlled all things. But those are a made up thing anyways so probably it doesn’t truly cross over.

So if you ask, “how does that even work?”

And you can use the words “because magic” and “ because tech” interchangeably, it’s probably sci- fantasy.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think there's a distinction between "soft science fiction" and "science fantasy". Soft SF still has the trappings of science fiction, with the conceit that we have figured out how to do things we don't know how to do today, while science fantasy is overtly supernatural. I mean, any definition of science fiction that doesn't include Asimov's Robot books or Foundation books needs some work.

And it's not uncommon for settings to have their feet in both soft SF and science fantasy. Star Wars, for example, has hyperdrives and actual AI, as well as magic.

I'm very much in agreement with this.

I'll expand even further to point out that there are a myriad of elements people want to lump into "fantasy" when they're just tropes. For example: a detective in a crime show doesn't reload his revolver and shoots more than 6 bullets. It's just a trope that we don't see folks reload. Maybe it was done off screen. Maybe it's a continuity error. But it doesn't mean that we should assume the gun is magic or that the show is now a detective fantasy instead of a normal crime show. It's just a detail that isn't part of the story. It doesn't change the genre.

We should treat sci-fi the same way. The fact that an FTL drive conspicuously moves at the speed of the plot rather than any quantifiable rate doesn't make it magic. The fact that some technobabble isn't consistent doesn't make something fantasy. And when the sci-fi isn't explained, that's just because it's not part of the story. It doesn't change the genre.

I'd also make a strong argument that science fantasy isn't any less sci-fi than hard sci-fi, it's just a different genre within sci-fi. But that's a different rant.