Science Vs Mystic

>>91138059
Mysticism. Though when you get further down the robot hole in fiction science can seem like magic too and vice versa. kinda pointless.

>>91138059
Mystic as long as they do not go full RPG with it.

>>91138122
*rabbit hole

>>91138059
Superman is science?

>>91138059
Same thing, really. Technology, Magic, both require an underlying system of rules to function, and both have institutions dedicated to studying them through empirical testing and documentation. The only real difference is in aesthetic. Which is why magitek is the best.

File: Doom.jpg (149KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1024x768px

>>91138059
Mysticism is just insufficiently understood physics. My preference is less about which is involved and more about stories being populated by characters whose actions make sense given the scenario presented. For example, Star Wars is nominally a science fiction universe, with a scientific understanding of how the Force works, but no one is undertaking eugenics or bioengineering programs to take advantage of it. Meanwhile, The Lord of the Rings is nominally fantasy with all sorts of magic, but magic-using characters and species have a technical engineering understanding of it (they effectively regard it as technology not at all different in principle from things like mundane smithing). And they do get up to major magical civil and military projects, including bioengineering several new species in methodical, multi-stage processes.

>>91138196
suns are science lol

Mystical science

>>91138059
depends on what kind of story I want to read. If I want to read something intellectual I prefer sci fi. But if I want something that is just about the art or passions and relating to that I like a fantasy setting. And both are great ways to do world building

>>91138479
*dibs bedora* :--DDDD

>>91138059

I choose both. Technomancy.

>>91140723
t. Adeptus Mechanicus

>>91140806

I just think they can be the most interesting, say you start off with a meta/mutant/mutate etc that stumbles upon the fact they have a power, and then they use it to figure out new abilities or use it to steal tech to gain new abilities.

They end up being the best stories. Deadpool getting a teleporter etc.

File: 1458663777523.jpg (8KB, 241x228px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 241x228px

the problem with magic users is that few characters have limitations that are very clear to the readers...why Zatanna cant just turn Darkseid into a insect and be done with him?

File: kaine other.jpg (990KB, 1807x1223px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1807x1223px

I've always been a science guy.

Magic always just felt like there's no rules because it's magic. And then every magic has different rules. I can at least wrap my head around super science (though a lot of the time it's basically magic anyway)

I will say that I kind of loved all the totem stuff with the other, despite not usually liking magic stuff.

>>91141886
>Magic always just felt like there's no rules because it's magic.

Well, that's up to the work in question, lot of magic settings work with rules, the same way is possible to have no rules with science because its science, Most inventions in comics are no different to magic spells, there is a dimensional breach? Well, they just make a device that closes it or use an spell to close it, there is no difference.

Science.
Even if it's so far in advance as to be indistinguishable from magic.

>>91138059
Science as long as it isn't in a capeshit book. Too many comics keep going back to how evil science is in general. It doesn't help that most writers in comics don't know shit about tech.

>>91138196
He's an alien, so he's science fiction.

Magic. Either way, superpowers are impossible.

Science-based heroes must explain how they got their power, and so all too often spout meaningless technobabble that makes it apparent the writers watched far too much Star Trek as children.

Magic, however, diesn't really have to be explained. An artifact found in a tomb, or deep study in a nonexistant branch of Buddhist Philosophy, or even a simple incantation from an old book. There's not any pretext of reality in that, and this, in my opinion, is what makes them more enjoyable.

>>91145288
>Science-based heroes must explain how they got their power
you read too much capeshit.

Guess I'm in the minority when I say science. I like heroes that feel like they are 'working' their way to a solution. Even if that means the the science might technically be complete bullshit like everything Reed Richards ever makes. With magic, you can't relate at all to the struggle it takes to cast magic. You don't know if it's hard, what restrictions there were, etc. Even when you take science and do completely unbelievable things with it (Cyborg somehow going above 100% in the Teen Titans cartoon), you really feel like the character is going all out. Doctor Strange casts some grand universe breaking incantation? Well... alright then, guess he can do that.

>>91145288
blasphemy. there's no such thing as too much Star Trek.

File: witchdoctor01_p5.jpg (275KB, 585x900px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 585x900px

Scientific Mysticism.

Magic with reasonable rules.

Magic/mysticism is way more fun and interesting to me. I'd rather be Dr. Strange then Iron Man. Magic is the strength of will while science is limited to reality, even if in fiction that science can be pushed to basically do anything. I only find tech fun when it is pushed that far. In the end magic would probably always trump tech because can cam turn your fancy tech into a fish before you can fire it.