Why no Constructed Worlds in Sci-Fi?

Or more accurately, why aren't there more sci-fi/science fantasy series/games/etc. taking place in constructed worlds or a long time ago, in galaxies far far away? Given how monstrously successful Star Wars was, one would think there would be a lot of people trying to emulate/copy that. But the only ones that do this other than Star Wars that I can think of are arguably some of the later Final Fantasy games, and (possibly, but unlikely) Gears of War. Nearly every sci-fi series ever made seems to go the "Milky Way in the Future" route, even those who thematically emulate Star Wars (like Mass Effect, for example).

Is it some desire (whether subconscious or deliberate) from sci-fi creators to keep the fantasy and sci-fi genres separated? A belief that it's easier to make the audience care if it involves "real" humans and Earth in some way? Lucas Arts cracking down hard on potential imitators? Or something else/combination of factors?

Because, personally, it seems like sci-fi creators are kind of restricting themselves a little by only going with "Milky Way in da FUTUREZ!!". Sure, I guess it's "more realistic" to do the "real world - only a little different", but on the other hand, if you set a series in a constructed galaxy, people can't really call bullshit if the laws of physics are slightly different from reality, so long as it's internally consistent, because, hey - a different universe! That, and you can pretty much do whatever you want with "human" society and such (assuming there even are humans in it, but let's face it, usually there is, even in constructed worlds where there technically is no need for them to exist). Or is that the conclusion to draw from this - that sci-fi authors aren't creative enough to construct entire worlds?

Just kidding.

So, what do you guys think? Am I right in thinking this is a bit odd, or am I just stupid? :)

In a way, you could say that the setting is still "constructed", as there are a lot of space stories set in the future, which involve many other fictional planets outside our solar system.

Well, thing is, when you think of science fiction you think "Its us in the future". That is the main thing, imagining where we are gonna be in a couple centuries from now. While it still happens often, making up the whole setting where the history we know and love never happened kinda takes that appeal away.

Often, stuff that has its own seperate contruct and rules approaches Space Opera , although a space opera that happens following our timeline is not undeard of.

TL;DR. Science Fiction is usually about imagining our future.

There is rarely a reason to construct a world.

Fantasy requires it because the fantasy elements can't just be retcon'd into our world without raising a shit ton of questions.

Why throw away a good backstory? Sci Fi does it when it's just fantasy playing dress up.

The boundaries of fantasy and sci-fi would then be fuzzy.

If you write a story about people riding solid light dragons in the real world, it will be considered fantasy even if your solid light physics is plausible.

Sci-Fi kind of has "in the future" as part of the genre description. Setting it in a constructed world makes it fantasy

@AHI: Sure, but it's still (usually) set in the Milky Way, so it's not a "new" world per se.

@El Rigo: First off, love your avatar! Funniest thing I've seen all week. Second, good point about appeal. It probably doesn't apply to me that much, but that may just be because I'm a massive fan of both fantasy and sci-fi. Third, isn't Space Opera just a sub-genre of sci-fi? Otherwise, maybe I should have typed "Space Opera" in the title instead... Fourth, the thing is, it feels like even space operas almost exclusively takes the future route like other sci-fi. Which as I said, seems strange, considering Star Wars.

@Retro, NASA & Hyl: Good points, thanks.

Keep in mind that it's not just science fiction that uses Earth as a setting. Urban fantasy is a sub-genre of fantasy explicitly set in our modern world.

edited 13th May '15 8:00:26 AM by AHI-3000

I'm aware. Come to think of it, why is it that a story can be considered fantasy whether it's set in the real world or not, but sci-fi somehow has to be set in the "real world"? Sci-fi is full of made-up concepts just like fantasy is, isn't it?

That's all in your head. The best selling fantasy series of the last three decades has been about wizards in england while the best selling science fiction series has been about magic knights in a galaxy far far away and some time ago.

Fantasy constructs worlds more often because it applies concepts and ideas that don't mesh well with reality. In reality there is no evidence for any religion. In fantasy a god's sword can still be found impaled in a hill pinning down some old evil. Being a good person can actually protect you from evil in fantasy. A species of creature that can turn someone to stone by looking at them. Almost every fantasy element you can introduce would change the world completely from the dawn of humanity. Might as well create a new world at that point.

Sci fi, for the most part, is about examing life or what life could be like. Fantasy is about telling a story.

Fantasy doesn't have to explain it's self. It exists because it exists. No fantasy story, no matter how hard or soft, has to explain why things are the way they are. Fantasy is there to tell a story. Nothing more nothing less.

Sci Fi uses concepts to hold a mirror to humanity and trying to examine ourselves. Aliens are there to contrast our values. Robots exist to contrast our morality. Longetivity pills are to examine our purpose. It's in the name. It's about fiction using science. To try to see around the curve before we get there. When Shelley heard about making dead things move again by using electricity, she took what she new to be true about the world and this new development to create a story about what might happen. Even low brow pulp sci fi still used scientific concepts to tell tales of caution. The attack of giant ants or aliens from mars were all fears based on where science was taking us. Laser weapons, life on other planets, shrink rays, weather machines, flying to the moon, a ship that moves under the sea, cloning, teleportation, faster than light travel, pocket computers, AI, and many others devices and concepts were just were it seemed science was taking us.

You didn't need to make a world because it is inherently about our world.

Low brow sci fi takes all those things and tries to tell a story with them as props. The plot of gears of war, when it's boiled down, has literally nothing to do with sci fi. But space lasers and chainsaw guns are cool and sell better than magic and swords. That's why there has always been such a push to separate space opera, which is just fantasy dressed up as sci fi, from sci fi. It waters down the name.

Tl;Dr Fantasy is for story telling and doesn't apply to the real world, Sci Fi is about looking at science and is about the real world.

I was responding to Hylarn's comment about "constructed world = fantasy" - I should have indicated that better, sorry.

Anyway, you make a very insightful comment. Much appreciated, good sir.

Most Milky Way in the Future stories are effectively constructed. I doubt too many authors take the time to go beyond Alpha Centauri for establishing a realistic starmap or anything, and the galaxy is friggin' huge such that fancy can wander freely.

Contemporary fantasy do have a narrow definition, though. The world must not deviate from reality by a large degree, must not use alternate history (excluding The Great Politics Mess Up and sudden events that no one can predict), and must interact in this reality. A wizard interacting with the Parliament is completely plausible, but a wizard getting elected to it while expressing an entirely alien set of ideals is not. A band of spellcasters with their headquarters in Jerusalem after Israel and Palestine made peace maybe five years from now will be considered contemporary fantasy, while dragon tamers helping out a NASA rebellion against the US government twenty years from now will be considered alternate historical fantasy, even if Israel and Palestine relationships worsen after the publication.

@Ogodei: That's what I was trying to say. Most of the planets in science fiction, even if set in the Milky Way, are made up and constructed.

Now that's something I'd like to see!

Fair enough. I guess I'm just kind of partial to Star Wars' used future, science fantasy style. (Not to say I don't like other sci-fi - I'm a big fan of both Halo and Mass Effect, and have begun watching Star Trek TNG).

There is one that I can find: Demons on Agripas Street. While not spellcasters, it is set in Jerusalem when Palestinian and Israeli relationships are lot better than they are now. The IDF bust demons. But the book is only in Hebrew as of right now. For some reason fantasy isn't a big genre in Israel.