Duck and Cover

Saint_Proverbius wrote:I don't think I'd use "Star Wars" as an example of "Sci-Fi", considering Jedi are basically wizard-knights and they rarely get any of the science right.

OK, bad example.

I was refering to the basis of technology, it's not my fault Lucas is a drug addict.

Change it to Star-Trek.

Star wars was Science fiction, as it can also be interprestated as "fictional science"

may not be the best example of sci fi in its purest sense, but its still valid.

Hey, it could be worse. It could be about "Fallout = fantasy".

Star Wars was pretty much fantasy, with a futuristic setting. Asimov and Clarke is science fiction.

Star Wars is at best "Science Fantasy". We could have a long, long, long discussion about all of the holes in it that would really be nothing more than a waste of server space. Basically it boils down to this: the SW milieu isn't based on any scientific principle, but rather Lucas' idea of how to make a space opera like the ones he enjoyed while growing up.

Science Fiction isn't just about space ships and laser/blaster pistols. Science Fiction is taking a scientific principle/theory/advance and speculating the impact on how humans would act in a situation like that. Blade Runner is a much better example of Sci-Fi, since it's basically about the impact of genetic engineering on society. (Yes, there are some far-fetched things that will probably not be achieved for a long time if ever, such as memory implants.) SW and its ilk - e.g. Battlestar Galactica - are space operas or Science Fantasy since they have little or no basis in science.

I don't know what it is, but some people actually seem to take offense - I'm not referring to anyone here specifically - at the notion that the SW movies are not Sci-Fi. I don't know why, since commenting on a misclassification doesn't seem to denigrate a film's entertainment value one iota.

Spazmo: How dare you forget to mention the Dean o' Science Fiction Himself?!

OTB

VasikkA wrote:I think there's an obvious difference between hi-tech weapons and magic.

This is a topic for a separate discussion. It may sound weird for you, but ehm.. nope, there's not . Hi-tech is not a magic, but MAGIC is actually a very hi-tech. Let me give you an example: While the English invaded America, the continent was settled by Indians. What do you think they thought about riffles? - magic. Now we consider some of unknown tech as a magic, simply because we don't understand it.

As for the fiction, i want Fallout3 to be rather based on science anyway. If something is proven impossible from obvious reasons, it just shouldn't be.

Don't pay too much attention to things that are not important, such as everything you're talking about right now. Doing those calculations, i just wanted to find myself some serious argument to base the topic on. I hate these weapons and don't want them in Fo3, and according to the poll results most of you share this opinion, so what's the problem?

Yeah, well, Fallout definitely is sci-fi, because as OTB said, sci-fi is fiction based on the chages brought by some kind of technology. In the case of Fallout, it would be nuclear tech and FEV.

And OTB, I presume the "Dean of sci-fi" would be Bradbury, but I'm not sure, as my knowledge of the old school of science fiction writers is limited at best.

Spazmo wrote:And OTB, I presume the "Dean of sci-fi" would be Bradbury, but I'm not sure, as my knowledge of the old school of science fiction writers is limited at best.

Ack! Bad Spazmo! No! No!

The so-called "Dean of Science Fiction" was Robert A. Heinlein. This guy really, really pushed the envelope on what could be talked about in a Sci-Fi novel. Some of it is - of course - a bit dated, but I still highly recommend him.

Cheers,

OTB

PS Don't forget the "retro-" element of FO.

Spazmo: How dare you forget to mention the Dean o' Science Fiction Himself?!

Would that happen to Be Robert Heinlin. By the way OTB Likethe avatar of Stranger in a Strange Land. Sorry had to answer as I loved that book.

Edit: Damn you beat me to the post OTB!

*Smacks forehead*

Heinlein! Of course. I've read some of his stuff. The Starship Troopers book is a lot better than the movie, by the way. Which isn't very hard, but it's just a good book.

Aside from that... Well, I tried to read The Number of the Beast once, but my Dad's 30-year old paperback copy practically desintegrated in my hands.

Another great author/series: Frank Herbert, Dune. The first one is the best, and it's quite a good book. It isn't quite pure sci-fi (Bene Gesserit and all that), but still quite good.

One of the best seriers I read was:

Orson Scott Card - Ender's game series.

Dan wrote:One of the best seriers I read was:

Orson Scott Card - Ender's game series.

You mean the Speaker for the Dead series. Yes, a very good series that has the interactions between people in their environment and among others down quite well..

Rosh wrote:

Dan wrote:One of the best seriers I read was:

Orson Scott Card - Ender's game series.

You mean the Speaker for the Dead series. Yes, a very good series that has the interactions between people in their environment and among others down quite well..

If by that you mean to split the series into the two logical series, then I agree.

The Speaker for the dead series it is.