Most imaginative non-fantasy/sci-fi setting in a game?

[MetalCraze]

Does Alpha Protocol count?

A setting with arab terrorists(c), russian mafia(r) and Conspiracy In The Government(tm) - sure why not?

 

[SuicideBunny]

"fantasy" (this includes sci-fi)

:codexrage:

 

[Gragt]

If you can hear sound in space, you are clearly in a fantasy setting.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Sci-fi = Science Fiction

Way of the Samurai

was interested in the 3rd one for 360, read reviews about the previous two, apparently they have a weird pacing system where the story branches depending on where you go, kind of unpredictable.

 

[DraQ]

"fantasy" (this includes sci-fi)

:codexrage:

Technically, sci-fi can be defined as a subset of all fantasy...


...and both documentary and "realistic" fiction as subsets of sci-fi.

 

[Wyrmlord]

1960s based spy game No One Lives Forever 2, of a time when a female British spy could remain inconspicuous among Soviet soldiers, Indian pedestrians, and Japanese samurai.

Quite imaginative for the caricature-ish representation of people.

 

[Mattresses]

it's all spec-fic, dudes.

 

[Trojan_generic]

Fill in the missing word:

________ Tycoon (think Railroad)

Sim________

Civs get pretty close, but they have future tech as well.

 

[MetalCraze]

"fantasy" (this includes sci-fi)

:codexrage:

Technically, sci-fi can be defined as a subset of all fantasy...


...and both documentary and "realistic" fiction as subsets of sci-fi.

No it can't. Fantasy is magic fireballs unicorns flying elves while sci-fi is based around real world things and is basically a prediction of how things will be (and it often turns out to be true - of course with many sci-fi writers having degrees in various science fields it doesn't seem to be too surprising)

 

[Shannow]

Wait, you basically want us to provide examples of imaginative settings that don't have to be imagined?
Wat.
Are you an andharia, or something?

I will avoid the nitpicking and not provide examples of settings that have neither fantasy elements nor are set in the future (alternative history, prehistory, etc. hard fiction), but somehow, I feel, are probably not what you meant.

Also, do notice that I don't object to the possibility of an unaltered historical setting being interesting, merely the possibility of it being imaginative by its very definition.

This. (In principle)

Of course it depends how broad one choses to take "fantasy". I'd even put alternative realities in "fantasy". Any fiction not set in reality. So even JA, M&B, Total War and the like don't fit.
Leaves us with *Tycoon and *Sim games (which "setting-wise" could take place in the real world). But they have un-imaginative settings ---> What Draq said.

 

[Angthoron]

How about Pathologic? It does have some mysticism to it but certainly not a whole lot of it.

 

[Shannow]

No it can't. Fantasy is magic fireballs unicorns flying elves while sci-fi is based around real world things and is basically a prediction of how things will be (and it often turns out to be true - of course with many sci-fi writers having degrees in various science fields it doesn't seem to be too surprising)

No. Especially the successful stuff is rarely scientific. For the most part technology = magic. And some fantasy fiction could turn out to be true, too. After all, some scientific theories say there could be infinite alternative realities with different laws of nature. Why not one with magic

EDIT: Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you mention some of those scientific computergame sci-fi settings?

 

[JarlFrank]

Of course it depends how broad one choses to take "fantasy". I'd even put alternative realities in "fantasy". Any fiction not set in reality. So even JA, M&B, Total War and the like don't fit.

Really, Total War? Total War is set in the real world, and just has alternate history because the player and AI shape a history that is different from our own. But I would consider alternate history the most inventive/creative kind of realistic fiction.

 

[MetalCraze]

Especially the successful stuff is rarely scientific.

Duh, science is always scientific. Or did 'sci' start to mean something else?
Of course there always can be fantasy mixed with bits of sci-fi like Mass Effect but this "successful" stuff is pretty crappy.

For the most part technology = magic.

No sorry - technology abides by laws of physics. Magic doesn't and it doesn't exist.

And some fantasy fiction could turn out to be true, too.

So far none did.

After all, some scientific theories say there could be infinite alternative realities with different laws of nature. Why not one with magic

Because science at its core is anti-magic and tries to explain everything by using laws of physics and so far it works.

EDIT: Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you mention some of those scientific computergame sci-fi settings?

Blade Runner, Deus Ex, System Shock immediately come to mind and are pretty obvious.
With cybernetic implants now controlling how bugs act with japs making fuck-robots even the most creepiest stuff in those doesn't seem bizarre.

 

[Sceptic]

Especially the successful stuff is rarely scientific.

Duh, science is always scientific. Or did 'sci' start to mean something else?
Of course there always can be fantasy mixed with bits of sci-fi like Mass Effect but this "successful" stuff is pretty crappy.

For the most part technology = magic.

No sorry - technology abides by laws of physics. Magic doesn't and it doesn't exist.

Skyway, did you read and understand what he was saying? He says "For the most part technology = magic", you reply "there always can be fantasy mixed with bits of sci-fi" which is exactly the point he was making. This is when sci-fi, aka science fiction, is no longer scientific (I know, science is always scientific hurr). Technology abides by the laws of physics in OUR world. Go read some mainstream successful scifi then try to argue that technology THERE abides by the laws of physics. Since we're on Mass Effect - the entire premise of the game, the NAME of the fucking franchise, relies on something called "element zero". Element. ZERO.

Every single scifi book/movie/show is full of this crap. Travel at the speed of light? Teleportation? Fucking FASTER than light travel? Every show's full of it. Good scifi manages to at least explain their scifi in ways that don't blatantly contradict elementary school science (see Herbert, Asimov and a handful of others) but to claim that they were all "scientific" is beyond ludicrous.

 

[DraQ]

"fantasy" (this includes sci-fi)

:codexrage:

Technically, sci-fi can be defined as a subset of all fantasy...


...and both documentary and "realistic" fiction as subsets of sci-fi.

No it can't. Fantasy is magic fireballs unicorns flying elves while sci-fi is based around real world things and is basically a prediction of how things will be (and it often turns out to be true - of course with many sci-fi writers having degrees in various science fields it doesn't seem to be too surprising)

Let me help you wrap your itty-bitty head around what I'm saying:

Fantasy - any internally consistent work of fiction.

Sci-Fi - any fantasy that is also consistent with results produced by the body of known general rules describing our reality, derived from our observations - physics, chemistry, more generally applicable parts of biology, etc.

"Realistic" fiction - any sci-fi that is also consistent with the body of currently known factography.

Documentary - any realistic "fiction" that is also explicitly part of the body of currently known factography.

Of course, individual works can be decomposed into their component parts, so they are more of finite subsets of the described setting-space, rather than individual points in it, so it's more practical to define them based on some sort of majority rule - except for the ones having non-negligible part protruding beyond fantasy - those can be readily classed as crap.

 

[MetalCraze]

Go read some mainstream successful scifi then try to argue that technology THERE abides by the laws of physics

I'm sure the makers of mainstream successful RPGs like Bethesda make true RPGs and not just shooters with RPG elements slapped onto them

Since we're on Mass Effect - the entire premise of the game, the NAME of the fucking franchise, relies on something called "element zero". Element. ZERO.

Mass Effect is fantasy for the most part, did I say otherwise?

Sci-Fi - any fantasy that is also consistent with results produced by the body of known general rules describing our reality, derived from our observations - physics, chemistry, more generally applicable parts of biology, etc.

That's exactly what I wrote. But it isn't fantasy. It's fiction. Because of all that it's called Science Fiction.
Fantasy is based around non-existent stuff backed up by little from the real world.

 

[SuicideBunny]

mass effect is not in the slightest sci-fi, so nobody cares about it.

the important distinction between fantasy and sci-fi is the amount of bullshit in and general attitude of the explanations as to how and why things work in the setting.
the distinction between fantasy and sci-fi therefore is heavily subjective as it depends on the education of the audience.

Technically, sci-fi can be defined as a subset of all fantasy...

technically, you can also easily define fantasy as a subset of soft sci-fi, which in turn is a subset of sci-fi that shares no elements with hard sci-fi, which in turn would mean that fantasy equals sci-fi, soft sci-fi equals sci-fi,as both soft and hard sci-fi can be defined as sci-fi without the respective other set, thus meaning that hard sci-fi is an empty set and conclusively all distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy being entirely and absolutely moot.
:rolleyesinaverycondescendingmanner:

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Only diamond-hard Sci-fi is really scientific.

 

[DraQ]

:rolleyesinaveryconfusedmanner:

Repair process complete!

Also, my definition is very concise, simple and natural, while you muddle shit up heavily relying on equivocation, therefore:

Only diamond-hard Sci-fi is really sci-fi.

Fix'd.

:smugcodex:

Though if you adopt majority rule for component elements some leeway can be introduced.

 

[random_encounter]

Sci-fi = Science Fiction

Way of the Samurai

was interested in the 3rd one for 360, read reviews about the previous two, apparently they have a weird pacing system where the story branches depending on where you go, kind of unpredictable.

To some extent. I played through the first one several times and the system comes off as an elaborate "choose your own adventure" type deal. Combat system isn't the greatest and weapon wear was incredibly annoying, but it makes up for it by providing several different ways to end the game depending on your actions. Much of it depends on how violent you want to be and who you help out.

 

[SuicideBunny]

Also, my definition is very concise, simple and natural

your definition relies solely on redefining the fantasy genre in a way that suits the rest of that fallacy but has no similarities or relation to actually accepted definitions of fantasy, and considering how you chose to redefine it can in fact be considered to be solely based on polysemy of fantasy as a word vs fantasy as a genre. more importantly it has nothing to do with your claim that sci-fi can technically be defined as a subset of fantasy, which is what i was replying to. nice try though.

 

[Shannow]

For the most part technology = magic.

No sorry - technology abides by laws of physics. Magic doesn't and it doesn't exist.

Damn, I thought that was clear enough: Most writers treat science as if it were magic (=do not follow our known or hypothised upon laws of physics but make up their own). I'm not even saying that this is bad. It can be as good as any other well done consistent fantasy-setting

Really, Total War? Total War is set in the real world, and just has alternate history because the player and AI shape a history that is different from our own.

Nope, it also has fantasy units that never existed. And has wrong starting names/region boundaries for some factions. Knit-picking, I know.

 

[DraQ]

Stop the lies, start the truths:

How would you class self-consistent narratives that are inconsistent with general physics then?

 

[SuicideBunny]

How would you class self-consistent narratives that are inconsistent with general physics then?

that is one of the accepted definitions of fantasy, yes. right up the alley with "it has dragons or elves or some other shit like that". note however that the inconsistent with general physics part is the actually important one in that definition, one that you chose to absolutely ignore in yours.
however, i would not classify that in any way in relation to the distinction between fantasy and sci-fi, because from my subjective perspective those points are irrelevant and even misleading.

for me, as i already explained, the distinction lies in the rationale behind the setting functionality, not in the functionality as such. a single book can be easily moved between genres by adding or subtracting as much as a single sentence, not necessarily even in the work in question. let me give you a nice example with dragons, since you like them so much:
a book about a society of intelligent dragons having adventures in an alien but otherwise mundane world. there are no other intelligent races, the wildlife is exclusively alien, the dragons can fly and breathe fire and don't cast spells, but have a limited line of sight and sometimes proximity telepathy ability that can be more or less solely be used to warn others of some kind of general danger, and their society is rather primitive in terms of technology (let's say middle ages with some shocker social twists to drive the point of omgyouain'tincansasanymore home).
there is no explanation given as to how or why the setting looks like that, and as a result you are likely to categorize it as fantasy, since it contains familiar fantasy elements like dragons or middle-age levels of technology, while your friend argues that it's a pretty cool sci-fi deconstruction of fantasy as a genre. you argue about it on the author's blog and bang, suddenly the author replies that

• the dragons fly and breathe fire using magic, of course, and he didn't mention it because he found it to be self-explanatory, especially with the telepathy stuff in the book. the book clearly is fantasy, and your friend is a pretentious dickwad.
• the dragons live on a world with a rather high atmospheric density, unlike earth, which results in much higher mass allowance for wing based flight (or even goes as far as to say that the world has very earthlike atmosphere but the dragons are just really small, and points out the fact that there isn't a single thing usable to determine the size of anything in their world relative to our own, adding a at the end), and their fire breathing ability was inspired by actual earth wildlife that tends to mix compound chemicals in order to produce rather explosive sprays as a defense mechanism, and that the telepathic ability is not telepathy but rather communication by light polarization as used by our own cuttlefish, though he couldn't hunt down any real expert on that matter, and as such tried to keep it rather simple and not make it into an important plot device.
  all of a sudden the book actually is sci-fi and not fantasy, even though not a single line the book has changed.

the only thing that has changed is a rather minor part of the overall context, or more precisely the authors rationale for how his world works.

Stop the lies, start the truths:

ok: you either have no clue what an equivocation is, or didn't understand my argument.[/truths]