>Fantasy
>it's magic, i aint gotta explain shit
>Sci-Fi
>there should be a logical explanation for everything
Do you agree?
>>341716625
>>341716625
whats with those hooker heels
this is why Fallout 4 didn't win GOTY and The Witcher 3 did.
>>341716691
judging by the furnishings and photo quality, this is from the early 00s or late 90s
she's probably just a fan of the matrix
or german
or both
>technology, I aint gotta explain shit
>>341716625
If a fantasy series has magic in, it has already failed.
>>341716625
no, the setting doesn't mean an RPG can or can not have internal consistency.
>>341716625
... more.
>>341716725
Fallout is not sci-fi. It's post-apocalyptic rpg. Mass effect is better example.
In general. I think people prefer fantasy because of dungeons and dragons. Can anyone name any sci-fi rpg from the 70s?
>>341716837
could you elaborate further on that? even in some fantasy RPGs there is even an explanation for where magic comes from.
For example alien races have such advanced technology that it may seem like magic.
Lordosis
that's why you play science fantasy games
>it's photons, i ain't gotta explain shit
>>341717480
>Fallout is not sci-fi
>>341717514
Magic as an identifiable entity, as a tool to be used, has become the norm, it's no longer fantastical. It's merely expected. It's argued that fantasy cannot be fantasy without magic, but if that's the case, then there can be no imagination, and fantasy is a redundant word.
>>341716625
Neither is real, doesn't matter to me, as long as neither is up its own ass with occult-this occult-that, or energy particles reaction something-something, or tries to shit itself conveying a messgage about racism with silly fictional races.
Generally, I only care for sci-fi and fantasy when they are used to support the plot or gameplay in some essential way. The rest of the time, I may or may not tolerate it.
>>341716625
Fantasy RPGs are better since they're more fun and interestingfor me
>>341717480
>Fallout is not sci-fi. It's post-apocalyptic rpg.
False dichotomy much?
>>341716625
>Tfw no thicc SysAdmin gf to fuck inna hot server room
It's as plausible as getting real 2D waifu. Fuck
I think both settings should have an in-universe explanation for how things work.
Games are more interesting, if magic is more than "Press X to receive spell" and actually has a well-defined source and limitations.
In the same vein, science-fiction doesn't necessarily have to be logical (Else you'd have no sound in space), but give an explanation for its workings that make sense in-universe.
I doubt anyone would want to listen to the indepth physical explanation as to why a spaceship can do X thing.
>>341718418
Some people, myself included, would like to hear that, so rather than no one wanting to, it's more that most people wouldn't, so it's better to leave it out/as an unnecessary side thing/outside the game (books, comics, etc.)
>>341716625
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
>Fantasy
>Actually explains what magic is doing in terms that make sense
I know a few books do this but have not seen a game do it
>>341718627
Well it would work in games, if instead of having an NPC info-dump the physics behind your spaceship on you, you'd have a user's manual you can pick up in the ship and read about its capabilities.
Would make sense, most people don't bother with the why, so while they'd be able to tell you how to use something, you'd have to confront manuals/books you find to understand the why.
>>341719126
That's what I'm getting at, that's the best way to do it.
Well, that's my favourite way for devs to do it.
Feels quite immersive reading up on things, rather than having some cunt blather on for ten minutes about something I'd be better off reading about.
>>341718981
It might sound strange considering how bad Skyrim's writing was but te TES series foes explain that.
>>341716625
Sci fi, you shoulda made a straw poll.
Fantasy>SciFi
Warcraft>Starcraft
Elder Scrolls>Fallout
Dragon Age>Mass Effect
>>341719898
who is this semen demon, post pics
>>341716791
judging by the furnishings, she's in a corporate IT office
>>341716625
>Sci-Fi
>it's technobabble i aint gotta explain shit
>>341716625
Not at all. Sci-fi uses pseudoscience and nonsense terms that just sound sientific. Might as well just call it magic.
Both of theme are shit if they don't follow an already established structure as how magic or science works. I hate it when a convenient plot device is explained with "it's magic", it's even worse if it's "nanomachines"
>>341720762
I didnt say stop, keep going please
open world RPGs ruin any amount of internal inconsistency
>>341721135
but I don't have any sfw ones left
>>341721393
Dropbox it, please.
>>341719898
>>341720762
>>341721393
What a qt
>>341721470
Kayla Laurie
>>341720443
KaylaLaurie
I found some podcast a while ago that basically broke it down into a problem
fantasy can basically handwave a shit tonne, because we know what medieval europe was like, we know what swords/bows can do, we have mythology for what elves/goblins are. The only sticking point is how magic works (pick your myth on what magic can actually "do")
Sci-fi has a whole problem just introducing players to the world. If you've got planetary exploration, how do people even travel between the stars. If you've got cybernetics, how do they interface. Can you hack a passing car. Is power-armor clunky mechanics or sleek nanobots.
Some problems, like cybernetics are becoming current technology though, so it becomes easier for players to know what that's about (but not what future fictional development might allow)
>>341716625
no since Scifi relies on super science and nanomachines.
>>341716625
she actually looks kinda cute, I would give her 6, she has that cute mousey face.
>>341716625
I wonder if most want scifi to have proper explanations because today's scifi is tomorrow's reality.
>>341721470
http://m.imgur.com/a/GlcWL
not that anon
>>341721932
but at the same time i feel like if they try to force future tech into what we have today then it's actually detrimental to the whole thing.
now we have smartphones in every game that do literally everything because of "hacking". but how does any of it actually work? no one knows.
this is what i call "lazy" technology. it only seems highly advanced towards normies or people who can't into computers or even VCRs.
>>341716625
http://www.girlscv.com/Gallery/2056190743/fun_day_at_the_officd_with_veronica
Her vagina seems very red I dont think thats normal
>>341719126
>>341719398
yeah but it's such a shame that people don't want to read anymore. i really dislike this generation for this reason.
>>341723540
reading on screens is still a bit of a pain in the ass compared to actual paper books.
and there's problems in computer games with translation support, and screen resolution/view distance (especially between consoles and PC)
>>341723540
>le wrong generation maymay
Fuck off back to reddt
>>341724603
it's true. they can't stand reading. they want to have everything as soon as possible.
>>341716625
>it's magic, i aint gotta explain shit
I know it's a revered an ancient meme, but this is a terrible way to approach fantasy
Internal consistency is still important in a fantasy world. There is a reason that Lord of the Rings keeps getting pastiched by hack writers. If you put limits on magic and try to explain why they are there you end up with a much more interesting system. Gandalf was an angel who wasn't supposed to get involved, but most hacks seem to gloss over that
>>341724796
>generalising this broadly
wew
you are one ignorant old man
Fantasy and scifi are aesthetical distinctions.
>>341722850
>http://www.girlscv.com/Gallery/2056190743/fun_day_at_the_officd_with_veronica
EW
>>341717480
>Can anyone name any sci-fi rpg from the 70s?
Traveller. Do you even /tg/?
>>341722052
Thanks, had a good time.
>>341716625
Space magic.
>>341716625
No.
There is room for stupid bullshit in Sci-Fi. It all depends on the tone. Look at Star Wars. It's stupid bullshit and wouldn't be any fun if people tried to explain it. (like EU poofs do)
>>341727076
Star Wars is arguably more of a fantasy universe that happens to be in space.
Regardless, I don't really feel the need to have detailed explanations for how things work, whether it's magic or FTL drives.
>>341727387
>Regardless, I don't really feel the need to have detailed explanations for how things work
At least you're focusing on the important things, unlike 'hard' scifi.
>>341717850
I was going to argue but I find I agree
>Fantasy
>it's magic, i aint gotta explain shit
>Sci-Fi
>it's science, i aint gotta explain shit
>>341716625
yes, and this is why Mass Effect is not Sci-Fi - it's simply trash.
