49
Mini, spoiler free review of Dungeon Crawler Carl, by Matt Dinniman (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/sciencefiction@lemmy.world
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Carl is outside in his boxers trying to get his girlfriend's cat out of a tree when everything with a roof on the planet is destroyed and the smaller number of survivors are made to compete in an intergalactic dungeon game similar to D&D. If this sounds kind of dumb, I described it correctly; it's kind of dumb. It’s also fairly entertaining and has a good amount of heart. People who have played any sort of role playing game, like World Of Warcraft, will probably be extra amused.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 5 days ago* (1 child)

What are the differences than?

These are the differences according to multiple veterans (literary the OG inventors of them…) of Sci fi and Fantasy writing. As well as definitions available on every library as well as Wikipedia and other available sources. We are just supposed to take your word over the proven professionals?

What are your qualifications other than self pronounced author? Usually when someone just interjects that they are lawyer, or a doctor, or other professional, without providing a detailed response, is just making stuff up.

Because the difference surely isn’t “it has spaceships”, that’s a gross oversimplification.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    I think rather we need to go back and have you explain where you got these definitions because I've read a great many books of both genres and your definitions don't fit most of them.

    Fantasy doesn’t explain the “magic” or the “tech” it’s all handwaved and is just there as part of the story.

    Lots of fantasy magic systems have explanations. They just tend to be fantastical explanations.

    Scifi on the other hand, the technology is the foundation of the story, and the rest is built off of that.

    You count Star Trek as fantasy despite it fitting this description to a tee. Everything about the setting and the stories they tell are predicated on their living in a technologically advanced society. Replicators, transporters, warp drives, holodecks, self-aware AI, all technologies that make Star Trek possible.

    Both can use parts of each other, but how the story is built is which dictates which is the primary category it should be in.

    Who says it needs to be put in a single primary category? Why can't we have a sci-fi/fantasy genre in and of itself?

    Basically, before you ask for my qualifications, I'm gonna need you to start making a single lick of sense in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago* (1 child)

    Magic, no how wonderfully explained, is not an extension of our universe.

    I told you my sources?

    You’re given the oversimplified modern version for mass appeal. That’s not how libraries and other places categorize the books.

    We do have that genre? Science fantasy, that was covered already… you really aren’t given your ale dmucj merit here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    You’re given the oversimplified modern version for mass appeal. That’s not how libraries and other places categorize the books.

    Then they should get with the times, which do change.

    We do have that genre? Science fantasy, that was covered already…

    No, that's science fantasy, not sci-fi/fantasy. The image you posted is just sci-fi. You're not making whatever point you think you're making.

    you really aren’t given your ale dmucj merit here.

    Well thank goodness for that!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

    And insult the creators of the genres by making their craft out to be “pew pew lasers and spaceships?”, there’s a reason why the genres were created, if we just want to make things as simple as easy as possible, just call everything fiction, no need to describe it more. I’m sure you can understand how that’s a terrible idea…? Why even have the genres, if you’re just gonna ignore them anyways?

    Sure, let’s let everything be meaningless so nothing matters, that’s what you want with the world?

    There’s also reasons why there is standards and they don’t just let anyone publish stories in magazines and other established prints. Editors exist so they can separate the chaff from the wheat. If you’re just gonna ignore these standards. It shouldn’t be a shock when you’re rejected.

    You provided nothing to show you have any merit to decide what is and isn’t right, the fact that you’re parading around you’re an author means nothing. Especially if you don’t respect the established covenants of writing particular genres.

    If you self publish, of course you can just incorrectly refer to your stuff as whatever you want, especially so it just sells.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago* (1 child)

    In Star Trek, nothing is explained, it’s all handwaved and is just there as backround to the stories. You said it with your own words “the setting” that’s not the story or the backround of the universe now is it? You contradict yourself in your own point. Just because there is spaceships doesn’t mean it’s scifi, please provide an actual source that supports this exact statement. No one should take you for your word, especially when there is now a posted source that contradicts your statements.

    That’s why it’s fantasy. Yes advanced technology exists, but how did they get there from where we are? If you need to suspend belief, it becomes fantasy instead of sci fi

    I like their description though, it is just space elves and Klingons.

    It just sounds like you self publish and call your stuff whatever you think will sell. Why should we listen to you? There’s sources and credible authors who support here views. What are your credentials, if it’s self published, you’re nothing more than a troll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    In Star Trek, nothing is explained

    Yes it is. It's not always explained well, and it doesn't always make sense, but the key technologies of the setting such as transporters, replicator, and warp drives all have very reasonable explanations for how they work. This argument makes no sense on its face.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child)

    How is that technology fundamental to the story? It’s not an either or thing like you’re treating it.

    It just existing is not enough, just like magic being explained (in your other comment) doesn’t suddenly make it scifi. It’s how it affects the story, it’s not scifi if it’s just the setting.

    This isn’t some weird take, it’s literally the cornerstones of what defines scifi. Scifi relys on its foundation of science and our understanding to tell stories about futuristic human concepts. Please provide anything to the contrary, the balls completely in your court. Why does this need to be asked twice? Is it something that you can’t do…? Because you’re making shit up…? From your other comments I know you’re capable of quoting comments in your reply. Why ignore this one?

    You ask for sources but can’t provide your own?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago* (3 children)

    How is that technology fundamental to the story?

    ....Have you seen Star Trek before? Like, ever? Any of it? They literally made an entire show out of the question of "how did they explore before they got this tech, and how did they get it?"

    This conversation is over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago*

    So… no…? You don’t have the decency to provide sources yet you just demand them from other people?

    You’re a real piece of work, you are self published aren’t you? And you’re presenting yourself as a professional? There’s a term for you people in real life, it’s called a hack. Can’t cut it in the real world where things matter and there’s standards, so you just do what you want and make everyone else look bad. Does that actually make you feel better about yourself?

    Enjoy being a troll and pretending you are the professional you aren’t!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

    I thought of a way to dumb it down. I’ll give you two excerpts, one is how fantasy would explain something, and the other scifi. I’m going out of my way to do this, so I would appreciate some sources okay?

    Fantasy.

    Alberto woke up, he turned the light on and started his coffee, the news came on the vidscreen.

    Scifi.

    Alberto woke up and stretched his arm, in doing so it activated the electromagnetism in his arm, his species has this unique trait. As he gets up and walks through the door, the coffee machine had already gotten the wake up from the lights being turned on and was pouring itself. As he stared out through the panoramic window, it suddenly shifted to a breaking news bulletin.

    Please tell me you can tell how one is hand waving, and the other isn’t. The first one, the technology isn’t there, maybe it might pop up later as an explanation. The second, the technology is being explained to build the story and flesh it out. Because that’s what the story is going to be mainly about.

    Scifi has a hard time, because they need to waste a lot of words describing how mundane things aren’t so mundane. Fantasy gets this pass.

    StarTrek literally has a term for its handwaving, technobabble. If you’re using technobabble, it’s not scifi, that’s textbook handwaving.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

    Yes I’ve watched Star Trek, that’s why I can discuss that what your saying isn’t true and you’re making it up.

    What are your sources…?

    For someone demanding them from someone, you’re surely are ignoring providing your own. Can’t discuss something in good faith? Just throw out you’re a professional and balk when asked to reciprocate? There’s a term for this, trolling.

    And retconning stuff is obviously horseshit, that shouldn’t need to be explained. How many stories and media came out before they thought of that topic? And it’s not even fundamental to the story, or it would have been at the start of the creation of the story. You can’t explain something in the last story… and go… tadaaaaaaa.

    So please, kindly provide some sources, or get lost, you’ve no credibility, and are losing it with each response.

    A few stories by a few authors that touch on being scifi, doesn’t make the whole series that, this seriously isn’t what you’re suggesting are you? So if they made a horror, Star Trek is wholly a horror series now? Because that’s the logic you are applying wholesale here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent