What do you prefer, soft or hard science fiction?
I prefer both in the classical sense of their definitions.
If you're using "hard" to mean autistic shit like "FTL is imaginary space magic and therefore can't exist in hard SF" then please fuck off and kill yourself.
I like a bit of hard fiction. I like space ships that can kill the occupants if not piloted properly. I like high stakes ship-to-ship combat. Weapons based on our physics with technology that, with time, can actually perform the way they do in the future.
Beyond that, I love interesting and well written alien races. Other humanoids with their own cultures and survival techniques. I never get into ferocious aliens who are evil for the sake of being an easy antagonist.
>>44896608
Soft. Hard is autistic and dull.
I love hard scifi as much as everyone else, but if it doesn't have a proper story attached to it it is worth nothing.
>>44896608
Soft, but not too soft. Space westerns and modern space opera are my favorites.
Hard can be great but too often the writers get up their own ass about the technology and forget they're meant to be telling a story.
>>44896608
A little of Column 'A' 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101100 01101001 01110100 01110100 01101100 01100101 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101100 01110101 01101101 01101110 00100000 00100111 01000010 00100111 00001010.
>>44896608
Does 2001: Space odyssey count as hard?
If it does, I suppose I like both.
>>44897042
I disagree. It can be just as engaging as any space opera. It is more difficult for the author though since he has less leeway, less tools available to him to magic the plot his way and any factual mistake he makes leaves him open to attack by nitpickers.
>>44896608
I like them hard and firm.
Worldbuilding Hard Sci-Fi is quite a challenge tho if you have 'pick everything apart' players to dealt with.
You know the 'Steve goes to his laptop and checks on evernet what's the Zimbwabwe's political situation in 2095' type.
>>44897367
>Steve goes to his laptop and checks on evernet what's the Zimbwabwe's political situation in 2095
Everybody knows a Steve. Also, I hear that Zimbabwe is doing pretty good even with the cybernetic rhino issues
I like mine more soft, but hard can be interesting.
I want my battles to have the space torpedoes, space lasers, and using the fact that there is three dimensions to work with, no limits, so I can just go under your ship where you don't have guns to hammer at me (at least until you rotate so this isn't the case.)
>>44896608
I prefer to stick my hard scifi deep into your soft scifi and churn ir into a thick sloppy space fantasy mess!
>>44896608
Soft.
Hard sci-fi seems to only be enjoyed by bona fide autists who see something in it that I do not, and those with STEM backgrounds.
Pillow soft for me, thank you.
>>44897439
>Missiletubes for weaponized Oxpeckers.
Man, fuck me, slap me and call me Sussy i seen everything now. You made my day anon.
Here's some customary mammaries.
Was joking of course, what i meant by that was the Hard Sci-Fi needs more polish.
Never had this problem with "Its space magic, ain't 'spleinin antyhing to you!" soft Space Operas.
I don't mean going full sperg but its nice to have solid core if you want good story telling and not just technology porn.
>>44897469
>so I can just go under your ship where you don't have guns to hammer at me
But then why hasn't everyone just developed battlespheres?
>>44897469
>implying there wouldn't be bellyguns to deal with three dimensions of warfare
Come on son, even Star Wars had bellyguns on everything bigger than a personal fighter.
>Hard sci-fi
>"shields"
ishigdig
Soft sci-fi is just another way of saying fantasy. The general implication of "science fiction" is that it is based on at least some degree of scientific realism. Fudging the numbers is acceptable to a degree; after all, those spaceships have to get power from somewhere.
But psychic powers? Space dragons? Really?
I don't demand equations or blueprints, but put some reasoning behind it. And no, "Minovsky particles" won't cut it.
We can't even begin to speculate on what technology will look like fifty years from now, let alone a couple hundred. If aliens are involved, I don't see how we can begin to speculate on what they'll be like. I don't see the point of hard scifi.
>>44897637
>"Hard" sci-fi
>FTL
Ahahaha
>>44896672
^ ^
l l
this,
I second this.
>>44897747
On one hand, fuck you I want to explore the universe.
On the other hand, you're probably right.
>>44897546
>No problem
It still acts like a typical rhino; the oxpeckers are UAVs IIRC.
>>44896672
this
>>44897699
B...but Minovsky particles brah!
>>44897830
What about Omega particles?
Hard, but not so hard that you never get to explore the solar system let alone the galaxy.
>>44897888
So, a sort of "pleasantly firm"?
>>44897907
Basically. I'm fine with altering a few laws of physics(like hyperspace) and exploring the implications, but not with handwaving everything with no coherent explanation.
>>44897699
>But psychic powers? Space dragons? Really?
It doesn't belong in every setting but fuck you that shit is great.
I really love the lore behind Destiny where space magic is just the ability to skullfuck reality on the fly. The Books of Sorrow and all anything related to the Vex are great fucking reads.
I enjoy both
What's the different between soft and hard science fiction?
>>44896608
i preffer internally consistent Fiction
>>44897991
Essentially hard sci-fi is for people with autism.
>>44897991
Soft scifi is basically fantasy in a different setting for people who still don't understand why Earth orbits the Sun instead of the other way around, hard science fiction has actual science in it.
>>44898005
>>44898098
Both of these statements are equally true.
>>44897469
>under your ship where you don't have guns
>implying the bottom of my ship needs to be clean
>implying every planet worth going to doesn't have orbiting docks with shuttles to reach ground and return
>implying I would put my entire ship through atmospheric entry and gravity-induced structural stress—I have a landing pod for that, my main ship stays in orbit
>implying my ship even lands on its "bottom" and not thrusters-down if for some reason I do need to set it down somewhere
Step up senpai.
>>44896608
I prefer scifi to be pretty soft, I suppose.
>>44897042
Most of the SF that inflamed my brain is fairly hard. Not hard as in "this shit can't exist", but hard as in "I'll research all the literature so that thing makes sense". Soft SF can be cool too. Unless it's time travel. Fuck that. Unless it's "All You Zombies".
>>44898807
>Unless it's time travel.
This is so true. If with most stories 90% of them are crap, with time travel the percentage must be closer to 99.
>>44898876
Time travel can only ever work in settings built from the ground up to support it, even then it usually fails. And worse, time travel is usually introduced into longer running continuities where it proceeds to ruin everything.
No touchscreens, rainbow lights, lasers, holograms, chrome, or sleek designs. Mass effect has the worst aesthetic I've ever seen, however most of Star Wars is really good.
Everything must be bulky and detailed.
>>44897982
Be honest anon destiny is fun and everything but it is fantasy not sci-fi
Hard sci-fi. Then again i'm not a philosophy or history major like most of /tg/ is apparently.
>>44897238
I giggled like an idiot
>>44899624
It's fantasy posing as silly putty soft scifi that gave up all pretenses of being solely scientific.
Not long ago scifi and fantasy weren't discrete genres and you could have magic swords and laser guns in the same setting without anyone batting an eye. Destiny is similar to that and that's why I love it, despite the game being a mediocre mess that killed Bungie.
That, and it let's me be a Robot Space Wizard with Emperor Palpatine powers. Very few games let me be a proper space wizard, much less a robotic one.
I'm not a fan of science fiction whose sole function is to fap about a particular piece of imaginary technology. To scratch that itch I can read technical manuals of extant technology and actually learn something.
More to the topic of the thread, I think that hard and soft science fiction can be employed to brilliant effect to tell different kinds of stories, but ultimately every story needs a compelling human element to be worth reading. I don't mean that in the hollywood sense of "throw in a romance subplot to trick women into watching." I mean that any story which speculates about a reality different from our present needs to somehow address what that means to the people (or other sentient beings, whatever) who live that reality.
Hard science fiction is where the technology and or science is the story. The most common variety is that which explores how new discoveries or technology affects society. Soft sci-fi is where the science or tech only exists to serve the story. Basically this is star trek.
>>44896608
I like it as hard as my cock
Hard sci-fi is more interesting than handwaving shit with space magics and warp drives.
Both, if they're done well.
Is Primer (the time travel film) Hard or Soft sci-fi?
>>44901951
>Time travel
>Hard sci-fi
>>44901986
You can have hard scifi with time travel. It's just really hard because of the implications of said time travel which any hard scifi will have to explore. Soft scifi just ignores all that and has you fighting cavemen.
>>44901986
Are we defining hard in terms of reality, or simply how it's presented?
Any time travel is essentially soft sci-fi by its nature, but Primer, (im not shilling this movie) attempts to detail the specifics with such a plot and tries hard to make it make sense in terms of a science fiction story, which to me makes it Hard sci-fi.
I like my Sci-fi like I like my peanut butter, generally soft but with hard but liberally mixed in.
>>44896672
>FTL travel being possible
>hard sci fi
Get fucked. there's nothing "autistic" about having the most basic laws of physics apply in your setting. There's no reason you really need it either the solar system's plenty big for most types of stories, inter-stellar travel just creates the need for more and more fantastical technology to explain away all the logistical problems produced by having people scattered light years away. Once you cross that line it's not hard sci fi anymore, how could it be? You're not even trying to be realistic.
>>44896608
What's the difference?
>>44906363
Some of the best hard science fiction out there has ftl. Being hard science fiction is more about being internally self consistent and exploring the implications of new science/technology than following today's current technological trends religiously. Otherwise you just have a techno thriller and no true scifi.
>>44899668
Can you blame them for wanting to roleplay as other, more useful, people?
>>44906444
This. I'm all for mcguffin, so long as it's well and consistently explained.
Best sort of scifi, for me, is when interesting, well thought out applications and consequences of existing, well known properties of the setting crop up again and again, and drive the plot.
>>44896608
Soft science fiction. Being able to throw in implausible-to-impossible technology without worrying about it is cool and useful, plus you can throw in psychic powers because why not. Hard sci fi is still cool though.
>>44906647
>>44906444
Internal consistency is the most important thing to me in any setting. When an author pulls some super-tech out of his ass for a very specific story point, and never goes into how it affects society or why it only appears once--it's horrible.
I'm starting to realize most writers can't keep track of all the shit they introduce and how it interacts with each other. At least, not as well as any rabid fanbase.
