I have recently got myself into hard sci-fi and I am having a blast. My last books were The Hot Zone, Jurassic Park and Lost World. I have now started The Martian. There are so many science facts you can learn from these while being wonderfully entertained along the way. So in conclusion I am more into the sci part where the fi part is just a careful extrapolation of an actual scientific basis.

My preference is for when the sci-fi setting is so fundamental to the story that the same story could not be retold in another setting. Like the basic story of star wars could be reframed as a cowboy epic with a few wizards or a scientist instead of jedi and it’d still work. Those kind of sci-fi books tend to not get filmed tho.

I wish Star Wars had leaned more heavily into the fantasy side of things for the prequels and sequels. I never really noticed as a kid, but you could honestly replace most of the science stuff in the originals with fantasy aspects very easily.

Giant floating sphere that destroys kingdoms, dragons the rebellions rides, hell even the lightsabers are just magic swords.

Part of the reason the prequels feel so goofy is that they feel like they should be grounded in reality, but the writing is still using fantasy logic. Tell me the Anakin/Padmè romance wouldn’t have felt better if they were in a fantasy movie. You don’t feel the pull of “The Dark side” like you do in the originals for the same reason, you’re just like “dude you just genocided a native tribe, chill the fuck out.”

I like a good story, with interesting characters, multiple coherent worldviews, and interesting conflicts. The sci-to-fi spectrum certainly grabs my attention and holds it while I learn about the characters and world, but ultimately, it’s about compelling people, from James Holden and Jean-Luc Picard through Cassian Andor to Taylor Hebert.

I do enjoy when the science is accurate, but it feels more like an impressive artistic flourish to me. I realized a while back that if I insist on accuracy in my media, I’ll miss out on a lot of good, fun, even classic entertainment. It irks me when something isn’t internally consistent, but a miss on scientific accuracy is more like spotting the boom mike in a shot - mildly annoying, but usually worth focusing on what they’re trying to say.

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.