• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bioware GM: Anthem will be Science Fantasy instead of Science Fiction

VlaudTheImpaler

VlaudTheImpaler

tl;dr
This pleases me greatly.

Opens up so many opportunities for interesting environments, enemies, scenarios, weapons, gear, situations, anomalies and so on.

I want to see some weird sci-fi stuff.

BTW. When I think of science fantasy, I think of stuff like,

futuristic-wallpaper.jpg

I9XvADx.jpg

3kpNC6F.jpg

pres_kuldar4.jpg

117660_AMXh6McIwa_iron_twins_by_kuldarleement_d7bk.jpg

06_-_Cinder_Glade.jpg

4d2451c300469a96f773b43408e4f89d.jpg


Just sci-fi stuff that is generally more flashy, mysterious and grand for no given reason. Stuff that doesn't make me go, yeah, that looks like something I think I'd see... Stuff that leaves lots of holes for my imagination to fill.

Theoretically, pretty much anything could potentially be explained. I don't think we need to get rid of science fantasy as a genre all together because of that though.

To me, fantasy is where I can go and be immersed in wonder and mystery without having everyone and their brother try to explain to me or others why x does/doesn't work because of y reason.

To me, Science Fantasy is just a way of conveying the sub genre. It lets me know that it's fantasy with a sci-fi setting.

Choosing to go with Science Fantasy doesn't just let the writers and designers off the hook, it lets me as a player and my imagination off the hook of reality as well allowing me to immerse myself even further without so many stumbling blocks because x thing doesn't make sense and I, for one, can appreciate that.
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
Jackstin said:
Thing is, take the original Star Wars trilogy and Star Trek original series. Other than the most superficial fact that they're both set in space, they share nothing in common. They're nothing like each other.
Click to expand...

They're definitely nothing like each other in execution, but why does that make Star Wars a "Fantasy" unlike Star Trek? The original Star Wars movie features technobabble (although only a little bit) and is awash with technology. The driving force for the film is the technical schematics to a superweapon, carried with a pair of sentient androids. The failure of a hyperdrive and the need to repair it is a plot point; a tractor beam and the disabling thereof is a plot point; the final attack on the death star involves exploiting a known weak point to cause a chain reaction to blow up the whole thing.

The force is the only part of the film that is in any way mystical, but Obi Wan describes it as a fundamental force of the universe that binds the galaxy together. It's mystical, but it's not supernatural - it is a part of nature. In that sense it is really no different than anything you'd find in TOS where you'd have godlike aliens, mind-powers all over the place and such. They're not depicted as actually being god, but their powers are clearly depicted as being similar to the supernatural.

What's the difference? Is it just that Star Trek tends to spend more itme on the specifics of their technobabble while Star Wars briefly touches on it? That's only sometimes true in TOS. I cannot see any core difference that would make me classify one as fantasy and the other as not. They're very different in practice... but that's mostly due to one being serialized as a TV show with stories of the week, low production values, and generous helpings of bad acting.
 
D

darkinstinct

...lacks reading comprehension.
I think the distiction between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy is annoying. They are an integral part of each other whenever alien races are involved. The human side is almost exclusively Science Fiction, alien side Science Fantasy.
 
L

LukasTaves

Member
duckroll said:
Mass Effect was totally Science Fantasy. Elven alien races with psionic magic powers, demonic ancient evil that corrupts and possesses weak minded people, prophecies, gods, overtechnology that is never explained because they are so ancient no one can ever understand or replicate them, but hey let's use them gates anyway!
Click to expand...
You don't have to ground on actual physics to be Sci-fi. You are free to create your own rules, as long as they are clear and the universe adheres to those rules. For example they explaining Mass Relays, or how the same principle is implanted to biotics so they can create the mass effect...
 
J

jimboton

Member
Renekton said:
  • Science Fiction: Takes great pains to make sure the wonders and technobabble you see in the fictional world are given plausible explanations based on real-world science. Can be tedious for non-geeks. Examples: Star Trek, Mass Effect 1, Prey
  • Science Fantasy: Space magic. Does not bog down the player too much with explaining how things work so they can concentrate on the drama and wonder. Examples: Halo, Star Wars, Mass Effect Andromeda, Destiny
Click to expand...

Back in my day this was the difference between Hard Science Fiction and plain old Science Fiction. Shouldn't Science Fantasy also explicitly include fantasy elements? Like Shadowrun for example..
 
R

Rymuth

Member
ThoseDeafMutes said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, Luke does fly between solar systems using nothing but his X-wing and I'm not sure that thing comes with a hypderdrive.

Space fantasy usually handwaves the specifics in order to get the plot moving forward, without adhering to limitations. That's not a bad thing by itself, mind.
 
B

Bold One

Member
Good, this is where The Division fell on its face. They went for the grounded and realistic setting and route and ended up writing themselves into a corner. No matter how 'legendary' or 'exotic' you claimed your gear to be you still ended up looking like you just came out of the Gap.
 
Haunted

Haunted

Member
wait wait wait

I always thought the science part of science fiction stood for plausible and detailed technology while the fiction part was the bit about space/future
 
N

Not Drake

Member
Laiza said:
But let's not forget that Warframe existed before either of those two.
Click to expand...

And it's still unmatched in my opinion.

Anyway I really liked the setting and lore or Destiny. Here's hoping Anthem can deliver on that front too. It really makes for a big part of the game for me. I was able to forgive Destiny's shortcoming because I got really invested in the world.
 
D

Despera

Banned
Wait I thought science fantasy was a combination of both fantasy stuff (usually magic) with science fiction.

You're telling me science fantasy is nothing more than science fiction without the explanation? Seems like a redundant term in that case.
 
C

Camp Freddie

Member
jimboton said:
Back in my day this was the difference between Hard Science Fiction and plain old Science Fiction. Shouldn't Science Fantasy also explicitly include fantasy elements? Like Shadowrun for example..
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's mostly just a rebranding of the old "hard" and "soft" sci-fi terms.
It doesn't always work that well because it's a binary divide compared to the spectrum of hard-to-soft.
It seems odd that ME1 can be classed as sci-fiction while ME:A is sci-fantasy, since they are ostensibly set in the same universe.
It makes more sense to say that as the series progressed from ME1 to ME:A, the science was softened, with less emphasis on extensive codex entries explaining how space travel and biotics worked and more emphasis on unexplained space magic.
When you have a binary divide, you can't classify a lot of sci-fi that has fantasy elements while still trying to ground them where possible. Stuff like Peter F. Hamilton which has a literal hell dimension but has a lot of world building to explain the technological limitations and differences in its societies.

Even so, it's clear that Anthem is a fantasy game that happens to have mech-suits and guns instead of plate-mail and magic swords - so calling it science-fantasy is apt. It's pretty much Destiny and I don't expect any serious attempts to explain anything.


Fuck it TL;DR - Nerds like to argue over which binary classification should be applied to a varied population of complex discrete entities (c.f. "Is it an RPG?")
 
S

Steve.1981

Unconfirmed Member
Science fiction. Science fantasy. I'm not bothered either way. As long as the world-building is good, I'll happily lose myself in it.

The more important bit of information from that interview (for me at least) was the confirmation that Anthem is definitely being built around multi-player. He specifically pointed out that they're deliberately building this game to play together, and to play together with their kids!

My son will be a teenager by the time Anthem releases. He loves Splatoon, it was his introduction to online multi-player... Maybe he's about ready to try something new...

Can't wait to see more of this game in the months ahead.
 
tkscz

tkscz

Member
SatoAilDarko said:
So Xenoblade (Science Fantasy) to Xenoblade X (Science Fiction).

In the former there's still advanced technology used but it takes place on the backs of dead Gods. While the latter takes place only a few decades in the future and takes care to explain their waste and food production facilities.
Click to expand...

Best side quest in the game is the water filtration facility one. That went into some unexpected places. Still, Anthem is a lot in common with XCX, if it has the same type of side quest, I'm all in.
 
StereoVsn

StereoVsn

Member
Meh, I really wish we could get Science Fiction type game at some point. Post ME1 it all went downhill. Hell, a game based on David Weber's Honor Harrington universe would be kind of amazing.
 
M

Moonstone

Member
ThoseDeafMutes said:
They're definitely nothing like each other in execution, but why does that make Star Wars a "Fantasy" unlike Star Trek?
Click to expand...

Well one of the core concepts of fantasy is good vs evil, while science fiction is about the "What if" question (while both bend the rules of reality). From that standpoint it is clear what is what.

If you look just a the structural elements of SW it is pretty clear: Magic, Good vs Evil, princess to be saved, a black knight, Farmer boy becomes the hero and so on. Star Trek is pretty much about "What if".

However if you walk into a book store, people will look for Star Wars in the Scifi section.
And that's ok - as it works and they will find it there.
A genre can't be really defined - because there are always exception to the rule. It is more how it "feels" like. Star Wars has lasers and spaceships - scifi and this works for most people - even if SW should be put in the fantasy section if you analyze it.
So at least the SciFi term for SW serves its purpose here.

Fantasy has also a lot of subgenres - and there is also sword and sorcery and the pulp era stuff which is not classical fantasy, there is sword & planet and so on.

The discussion where hard scifi starts is also very old and there is actually no exact answer to it.

I think it to understand what Bioware wants to tell us here: It won't be "hard" SciFi. And that's all.
 
H

HKA6A7

Member
Renekton said:
  • Science Fiction: Takes great pains to make sure the wonders and technobabble you see in the fictional world are given plausible explanations based on real-world science. Can be tedious for non-geeks.
    Examples: Prey.
  • Science Fantasy: Space magic. Does not bog down the player too much with explaining how things work so they can concentrate on the drama and wonder.
    Examples: Prey.
Click to expand...

Couldn't resist, after all, the OG Prey is a Science Fantasy game ^.^
 
E

Experien

Member
"We are making Science Fantasy so we don't have to make things make sense. And we like Destiny."

That's how it reads to me. More and more I am seeing through this and thinking it will be more like Destiny which is a huge turnoff.


Vyrance said:
Can you solo in Destiny or do you have to be in a group for content?
Click to expand...

You can solo what they claim is the "campaign" which was a pitiful excuse for levels. But if you are only doing it solo, it is pointless since Strikes will be really hard and you literally can't do Raids by yourself (no matchmaking on Raids too).
 
S

Steve.1981

Unconfirmed Member
Vyrance said:
Can you solo in Destiny or do you have to be in a group for content?
Click to expand...

There was single-player stuff in Destiny. Mainly the story missions and patrol. Trying to play the game solo is not really a worthwhile endeavour though.

I know.

I tried.
 
D

Doffen

Member
Moon wizards!

Trup1aya said:
Halo was science fiction up until Reach. Ever since the Forerunners were introduced it's been Fantasy.
Click to expand...

Huh? I thought Forerunners was just more advanced species with cool tech and stuff.
I don't remember seeing or hearing about magic in Halo 4-5.
 
T

The Albatross

Member
I'm cool with that.
With games that plan to have an expanded universe, and especially multiplayer/MMO type reward systems, 'science fiction' really limits both the imagination and repetoir of abilities/guns/characters/motivations/etc.

Star Wars is a very compelling universe, but 'The Force' is probably the element that gives people the most imagination and is a lingering mystery throughout the Star Wars cannon (kinda discounting the whole medichlorian diversion, or whatever it was from the 2000s Episodes).

For videogames that want to have expanded player capabilities in an online world, I think this makes sense. It unleashes more abilities to be added with loot or DLC down the line, without really breaking the universe.

For another comparison in the videogame medium, Dishonored is Science Fantasy while Bioshock is (closer to) Science Fiction. Bioshock basically tries to ground everything in twisted science... You get powers by drinking scientific plasmids that alter your DNA. Of course the powers are fantastical, but they try to be grounded with some scientific explanation. In Dishonored, you get powers by being visited by a super-natural demi-god who navigates alternative planes of existence and you add new powers through black magic. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other and clearly both can produce good, compelling games.
 
D

DealWithIt

Member
Seems like this thread needs a hard/soft distinction too. A lot of what people are debating about is soft science fiction. There's not many hard science fiction games though.
 
Ivory Samoan

Ivory Samoan

Gold Member
Sounds good to me.

I'm still salty by proxy due to Mr Flynn saying they wouldn't release ME:A prematurely (then did so anyways), but hopefully this can win back my broken Mass Effect ridden heart.

Edit: OP Wait, how is ME1 grounded science fiction, but MEA space magic? Does not compute to me...
 
Lister

Lister

Banned
I always thought that what separates sci-fi form fantasy is the exploratory nature of the narrative. It's about positing a technology or future (or past different in some way to our own) and telling a story that explores how humans would react to it. How would it change us.

It just so happens that sprinkling in plausible science helps in grounding that story and conencting us more to its conlusions.

Fantasy on the other hand is purely about telling a more traditional story. Faith, hope, coming of age, war, loss, etc, and seeing how the characters deal with these situations.

It could be set anywhere and it wouldn't matter. Star Wars could be set in a fantasy land of orcs and goblins and Knights, and it would still work. I don't think Star Trek would work quite the same way.

I have heard people refer to Star Wars as a "Space Opera" which many describe as Fatasy with Sci-Fi elements.

Even movies need their Steam tags apparently.
 
L

Laiza

Member
Eusis said:
[...] while really hard science fiction would be the sort of stuff that goes "FTL is a pipe dream and laser guns aren't a practical weapon, nevermind light sabers."
Click to expand...
Gotta nitpick here.

Lasers are a practical weapon, just only on large vehicles capable of holding nuclear generators and sinking the massive amounts of heat generated. You're never going to see handheld laser rifles or anything, but lasers are useful IRL for very specific applications (mainly anti-missile-and-aircraft systems with pinpoint accuracy). On extremely large space vessels with massive power generation capacity they'd probably be the only weapon you'd use thanks to their extreme range and accuracy (especially in the vacuum of space where scattering due to atmosphere is not an issue), though they'd look and function pretty much nothing like what you see in Star Wars or Star Trek.

FTL is not a pipe dream - we just have to change the way we bend space by using an Alcubierre drive, a design that seems implausible but could possibly exist in some form given the right exotic matter. (Amusingly, Futarama had it right in this regard, though obviously the "exotic matter" they used was quite handwavey out of necessity).

That being said, amusingly a lot of things about our current hard sci-fi will slide in to "soft" territory over time as we uncover more of our physical laws and fully understand things that were previously thought to be immutable (for example, the idea that aging is a constant that can't be "solved" is probably going to be a big one). Just one of those things that happens with forward-facing fiction as we constantly move forward in technological progress.

I actually want to make a thread specifically about that, too...

LongMuckDong said:
Edit: OP Wait, how is ME1 grounded science fiction, but MEA space magic? Does not compute to me...
Click to expand...
This is a mystery to me as well.

Sure, the explanation of QE communication and the AI's functionality are somewhat handwavey, but then again, so was the explanation of biotics as "neurons infused with dark energy" from the first game. There are some things that just won't be adequately explained even in hard science fiction, and that's just something you have to accept.
 
F

Floody

Member
Kinda surprised by this, seemed they were just using machines, with no space magic in the demo.
Hopefully they use it better than Destiny has, which kinda stopped after the player classes, enemy ability (mostly just the Taken) and names. Hopefully they go crazy with it.
 
E

Eusis

Member
Laiza said:
Gotta nitpick here.

Lasers are a practical weapon, just only on large vehicles capable of holding nuclear generators and sinking the massive amounts of heat generated. You're never going to see handheld laser rifles or anything, but lasers are useful IRL for very specific applications (mainly anti-missile-and-aircraft systems with pinpoint accuracy). On extremely large space vessels with massive power generation capacity they'd probably be the only weapon you'd use thanks to their extreme range and accuracy (especially in the vacuum of space where scattering due to atmosphere is not an issue), though they'd look and function pretty much nothing like what you see in Star Wars or Star Trek.

FTL is not a pipe dream - we just have to change the way we bend space by using an Alcubierre drive, a design that seems implausible but could possibly exist in some form given the right exotic matter. (Amusingly, Futarama had it right in this regard, though obviously the "exotic matter" they used was quite handwavey out of necessity).

That being said, amusingly a lot of things about our current hard sci-fi will slide in to "soft" territory over time as we uncover more of our physical laws and fully understand things that were previously thought to be immutable (for example, the idea that aging is a constant that can't be "solved" is probably going to be a big one). Just one of those things that happens with forward-facing fiction as we constantly move forward in technological progress.

I actually want to make a thread specifically about that, too...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can't deny my knowledge will have gaps in it, though that's more for the FTL while the lasers is... yeah, thinking about it more it makes sense given what we're doing today with lasers, but like said it pretty much can't happen far as we can tell for handheld laser guns.

And I kind of figure hard science fiction can get softer simply because it's still imagining and guessing based on what we know, rather than something based on actual application (or is but on a much smaller scale.) Kinda has to be that by default, or why don't we have it yet? They'd have to have some blanks that may or may not get filled in as time goes in, I can't imagine Kubrick or Clark knew the specifics for LCDs to use in 2001, just the idea that a flat panel would make sense in he future and that the rudimentary ones may have been in use then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BioWares run in the 360 era was nuts. Modern game industry is kind of a bummer.
2
57
3K
The Tourmaline Gorilla replied
Bioware is laying off part of the development team
Game Dev 2 3
113
6K
ResurrectedContrarian replied
Persona, Star Ocean, And Final Fantasy Developers Discuss The Trend Of Remaking Classic RPGs
Game Dev 2
77
3K
MagiusNecros replied
Edge #390 Reviews (Starfield, Cocoon, Phantom Liberty, Mortal Kombat)
News Business Analysis 2
97
6K
Mibu no ookami replied
The future of EA’s Bioware
Opinion
24
2K
NoLootBoxDev replied
Top Bottom