No one really gave examples, but hard sci fi works within our understanding of physics. It’s realistic, e.g. when people go to space they put on a space suit, climb into a rocket, and launch like how they would in real life.
Soft sci fi can ignore physics. Think of star trek or star wars, where the ship gently lifts off the ground and flies up into space, no gforce issues and no trouble just chilling in the sky without falling to earth. Their ship has gravity in space, they can turn sharply and no one feels it, and if they want go go somewhere far away they just warp there. Ships often run on magic crystals. None of that is realistic based on our current physics knowledge, so it’s soft sci fi not hard sci fi.
I dunno. Most things billed as “hard sci-if” (including Three Body) end up having fantastical tech loosely based on, but not actually explained by, scientific theory, to the point of may as well be magic. Hard sci-fi is more a marketing bullet point than a reality, like when they say a new movie has no CGI.
Oh for sure. There’s a massive grey area in the middle.
I guess Three Body builds on our physics knowledge, with assumptions about new things being discovered, where as Star Wars ignores it.
Some stuff that happens later in the series (the books) does seem to be pretty much fantasy, but it doesn’t have people warp across the galaxy with no time relativity issues so it’s probably closer to hard sci fi than soft.
Between Star Trek and Star Wars, I’d classify Wars as feather pillow level soft. Star Trek at least makes an attempt to explain things with make-believe science.
Star Wars has princesses, heroes, evil empires, and forgotten magical powers; it’s heroic fantasy but in space instead of a pseudo-mediaeval setting. I guess that’s why people call it “Space Opera” rather than sci-fi!
No one really gave examples, but hard sci fi works within our understanding of physics. It’s realistic, e.g. when people go to space they put on a space suit, climb into a rocket, and launch like how they would in real life.
Soft sci fi can ignore physics. Think of star trek or star wars, where the ship gently lifts off the ground and flies up into space, no gforce issues and no trouble just chilling in the sky without falling to earth. Their ship has gravity in space, they can turn sharply and no one feels it, and if they want go go somewhere far away they just warp there. Ships often run on magic crystals. None of that is realistic based on our current physics knowledge, so it’s soft sci fi not hard sci fi.
I dunno. Most things billed as “hard sci-if” (including Three Body) end up having fantastical tech loosely based on, but not actually explained by, scientific theory, to the point of may as well be magic. Hard sci-fi is more a marketing bullet point than a reality, like when they say a new movie has no CGI.
Oh for sure. There’s a massive grey area in the middle.
I guess Three Body builds on our physics knowledge, with assumptions about new things being discovered, where as Star Wars ignores it.
Some stuff that happens later in the series (the books) does seem to be pretty much fantasy, but it doesn’t have people warp across the galaxy with no time relativity issues so it’s probably closer to hard sci fi than soft.
Between Star Trek and Star Wars, I’d classify Wars as feather pillow level soft. Star Trek at least makes an attempt to explain things with make-believe science.
Star Wars has princesses, heroes, evil empires, and forgotten magical powers; it’s heroic fantasy but in space instead of a pseudo-mediaeval setting. I guess that’s why people call it “Space Opera” rather than sci-fi!
Star Wars is a space opera fantasy western.
It is decidedly and deliberately NOT sci-fi