I just don’t like a lame middle ground.

Hard science sci-fi can be great. Three Body Problem and Andy Wier’s work is wonderful. And I love me some sci-fi so loose on the sci, it’s bordering on fantasy. But pick a lane.

I think, personally, its less about how hard or soft the sci-fi is and more about how fleshed out the sci and the fi is. Im a big fan of science coming into contact with the unexplained, in an Event Horizon or Doom 3 type of way. The audio logs and background stories of Doom 3 are fantastic and really makes the world feel real and fleshed out.

Mostly depends on my mood. But generally I’d prefer fiction element, it’s more enjoyable.

Star wars is more sci- drama/fantasy, than scifi, DISNEY just ruined the franchise. sg1 and trek is more like sci-tech, adding elements of all the other stuff.

i prefer them leaning into the sci-tech side, with element of good writing story telling. instead of tropes like with nutrek.

sci-fantasy books might be different from film.

stargate trys to develop the stories behind certain tech, how they work.

Not really an answer to the question, but whatever The Expanse is. It’s right in the sweet spot.

sci. all the way. make it like a documentary.

Definitely the Sci side. If I want to read fantasy, there is always the Fantasy genre.

There is nothing worse that Grimms Fairy Tales put in space like Star Wars.

Fiction element, definitely.

Zero interest in stuff like The Expanse. I enjoy more speculative stuff with some room for weirdness and fun, saving a modest helping of gritty details for the characters and political developments over the actual science.

I like both, but if it doesn’t at least aim for realism, then I see it as very much futuristic fantasy. Star Trek and Star Wars are both very much fantasy.

I prefer the fi.

Fi with only a little sci is still entertaining.
Sci without only a little fi is just a fictional service manual.

I like harder sci-fi. Very often it will explore “what if it’s like now, but this one thing is different?” You get to explore the human condition a bit more that way.

Softer sci-fi tends to be just fantasy that refuses to say the word “magic” out of pure marketing, and they end up being either the same old hero’s journey told and retold in current generation’s slang, or sloppily handled allegory.

Science fiction should be based on science. Most of the things you list are fantasy, not science fiction.

If you want some great science fiction check out Neal Stephenson. Anathem and Seveneves are both fantastic.

You’re basically asking about “Hard” and “Soft” science fiction.

For me, at least, I lean a little bit more towards the “Soft” (what you call ‘Fi’) side of things. But I’ve also always found this a little bit of a false dichotomy; a story can go fully fantastic and explain nothing about its spaceflight, but lean heavily on actual psychology or other social sciences to drive its characters; so is it “Hard” or “Soft” sci-fi? Turns out it doesn’t matter; it’s Sci-fi and if it’s a good story, then it’s good.

I also have to somewhat push back on the idea that Star Wars “doesn’t even try to explain” its tech. A lot of people put a good bit of effort into laying out how the technology worked, up to and including calculating the energy involved in things like Turbolaser bolts (turns out, it’s a metric shitton of energy).

I prefer it not to be fantasy. The two genres are inexplicably merged in how books are classified. If your setting is modern or near modern, or at all in the past - it’s not fucking science fiction. Probably a hot take… zombies - not science fiction, plague - not science fiction, horror / mystery - not science fiction.

What I realized I like is the world building.