|
Re: Why does fantasy have to be medieval?
Fantasy doesn't have to be medieval. Fantasy can be any setting but I suspect the reason most MUDs go with "medieval" fantasy is because of one of several reasons:
1. Lack of technical ability. A lot of "medieval" fantasy MU*s exist because of the nature of what's available codewise. A lot of your codebases feature "medieval" fantasy themes. To go with a different theme, one needs to rework the code to fit a different technological era. Without the coding ability to do so, one is limited in what they can create in their world. The "low-tech" and "medieval" approach allows the incorporation of this deficiency on the developers' part to be explained away in the game.
2. Lack of creativity. It's not a stretch to say that the MU* community is lacking in creativity. One need only look at the vast number of MU*s based on Dragonball or Star Wars. Lots of people want to start MU*s. Only a percentage of them have the coding ability to do it well. An even smaller percentage of them have the creativity to design something original. It's like everything else in society. Someone creates something and the next thing you know, other people are copying it because coming up with something on their own would be beyond their capabiliites. 99% of MU*s are crap, but then again 99% of everything is crap (apologies to Theodore Sturgeon for the bastardization) because 99% of the population doesn't have the creativity to make anything different than that which they've already seen. This leads into the next reason....
3. Lack of knowledge. This goes along with lack of creativity because it's the same story in a way. For some, "medieval" fantasy is their choice because they're ignorant of pretty much everything, save their pet interest, and what they aren't ignorant of is probably not useful in designing a MU* theme. Most MU*s are created by coders. While they may know code, they probably don't know anything else. History, politics, economics, sociology, anthropology, geology, biology, chemistry, literature, music, art, and so much more are merely flat, undetailed topics of which they have little accurate data. A lack of knowledge sufficient to create a well-rounded world is another major contributor to the "99% of MUs are crap" syndrome. Sure there are exceptions; that's where the 1% comes in.
On the subject of science fiction, SF and fantasy aren't the same thing. KaVir's post summarized the difference quite well. Can the difference be blurry? Yes, and that's usually around the neighborhood of the adjectives "poor" or "crap-filled".
As for Star Wars, it's fantasy because science isn't a component of it (and even Lucas has acknowledged it saying directly that it's fantasy, not SF). Science fiction doesn't have to be set in our world or even our galaxy. It does however have to be rooted in some basic scientific understanding. Lightsabers can't function because they weren't designed with any recognition of physics. Remember that line in SW:ANH about "parsecs", using them in reference to time when a parsec is a measure of distance? (Yes, I'm aware of attempts to rationalize that error but those arguments are just as flawed because they're once again not taking into account scientific principles).
And there's even a difference between science fiction and sci-fi. As Isaac Asimov pointed out, it's a matter of quality and respect for scientific knowledge and reasoning. In his words, "Star Trek is SF. Godzilla is sci-fi."
Take care,
Jason
|