And why again isn't Star Wars an example of "yet another fantasy element in otherwise sci-fi work"?

It just seems that you almost arbitrarily pick what you consider to be sci-fi and what isn't, what's "based on reality" and what isn't. As I've said before there is a subgenre of sci-fi called "hard sci-fi", but just because a work doesn't fall into that genre, does not mean that its not sci-fi at all. Hard sci-fi is deeply rooted in the science understood at time of writing. Soft sci-fi not so much, and may rely on Star Trek style technobabble or no explanations at all. That doesn't make it fantasy with sci-fi elements.

You say its a thin line, but you seem to have very clear black & white idea of where that line lies.

It's not very arbitrary, I just want science fiction to be ... You know ... Fiction actually based around one of the sciences as opposed to being a complete figment of imagination. It says it right there in the name of the genre. Star Wars is quite simply not such a work, not by a long shot. There's ... Midi-chlorians, that's the single attempt of Star Wars to include sci-fi elements and everyone hates it, apparently. So what does, in your opinion, make Star Wars a sci-fi? Space ships? Aliens? Is that really all you need for something to be considered as having basis in scientific discovery? The reason why I am talking about thin line is that these genres are similar, with a single difference that I have repeated quite a few times now. Without this distinction, they are the same genre, there's absolutely nothing to set them apart. What is the point in having a genre which does exactly the same thing as the other one with the only difference of calling the same thing different names?

I think the main thing is, Star Wars isn't just about Jedi and Sith, it's about the whole Galaxy in which everyone lives there. There's at least one major Star Wars Series where the Jedi don't play a part. Droids, Space Fortresses and Ships, tech that you can actually see us evolving into, even if it's not very accurate when it comes to actual quantitative science. It would count as either a Space Opera or Soft Sci-Fi (Hard Sci-Fi calls for a lot more attention to accurate detail in quantitative sciences.)

The defining element of the setting are the Jedi. Hence fantasy. The Jedi have too much of an influence. Kreia was right.

I'm so glad I started this thread. If I slip into a coma for ten years and come back, people are still going to be in here trying to figure out what exactly the hell Star Wars is. It reminds me of the classic "What the hell is Goofy" debate. Rock on!

The big issue with Star Wars being fantasy is the general lack of the supernatural. It's not just the Force there, or the Jedi, it's the mysticism, which is more present in the Original Trilogy then it is in the Prequels, and even then, it's blown off by numerous characters. And even at that point it's held to that regard by a handful of characters who feel like they are building it up (Obi-Wan and Vader). Yoda and the Emperor give it a passing reference but they clearly don't seem to hold it in the same regard. I can't speak for a lot of the Expanded Universe, but I see a lot more elements of science fiction then I do fantasy.

Fantasy is differing then Sci-Fi in that there are highly fantastical elements. Magic, swords and sorcery, fairies and vampires, witches and warlocks. There's a degree of living in a world seeped with elements we would never fully explain, and even in low fantasy (The Witcher for instance) you can see fantastical elements and creatures. It's something that Star Wars, which is far more grounded, doesn't fit in with.

Utter false. During the middle ages there was a great deal of advancement especially in metallurgy and construction (fun fact, the main thing that was lost during the dark ages was not technology but the logistical ability of a centralised government to organise large groups of people), it is only through the romanticism of later periods that the complete misconception that the middle ages was static came about. They actually developed more than during most earlier periods in history.

Oh, and while Europe made great strides in technology, it was actually a backwater compared to the rest of the world, with even more advances being made in places like China and the middle east, whose progress filtered down to Europe despite its status. Most of what people think happened is utterly false when you actually take the time to look into it and actually learn what really happened. Let me put it this way: most of what you see in RPGs about anything is false. Plate was not heavier to wear nor did it slow you down, it was actually better to move in than mail or leather (and they don't clank like they do on TV, ironically they actually add the sound effect of armour clanking because people expect it to clank, feeding it's own myth).

Well, the main thing is, again, when you talk fantasy, everyone knows the basics. Everyone knows what an Elf is (Pointy-eared bastards who live a very long time, tending to be attempting to live in harmony with nature.), what a Dwarf is (Usually drunk on ale, long beards, short stout people, live in mountains, mine and work with metals...), what Orcs and Goblins are (And maybe even Gnomes, Kender too if they're unlucky). I don't have to make someone new to the setting, I can simply start you off with 'Hey, our village is being raided by a bunch of Orcs, go kill!', and from there I can move the story forward and introduce extra stuff without worrying about overloading you with details. And even when I throw something odd at you, you can handwave a lack of knowledge from being from a village that doesn't see a race or a certain thing a lot.

Sci-Fi on the other hand, doesn't have traditional races that I've seen. I mean, you can completely stick with humans only, but that's limiting. You also have to handle introducing technology that's different, how things work in the setting (at least to a degree). It's a lot more work considering there aren't that many common elements that you don't have to explain, at least compared to Fantasy.

Zidane, the monkey boy.
As I recall they kind of used 'out of place' for him.

Yeah....I never really finished FFIX....never really got that far either to be completely honest so I can't say what's what there. Something I gotta fix but it definitely makes it hard for me to comment.

True on this one, but the youth was used first and primarily, since they were in a school. Amnesia was a plot point for later on.

You say 'plot point', I say Shymalan-esque twist ...

but then, I detested 8. The only redeeming quality was gunblades.

Yes I know, many things were accomplished in those thousand years... but, I still think going to the early or late middle ages would give you a pretty similar experience, RPG scenario wise. And as you say things changed even less before, which adds to my original point (I just took the middle ages as an easier reference to the topic).

Yea. Moreover they actually look like battle worn ships, dents and all. It makes things more believable because the artifacts allude to having a history like in real life. Conversely, it is all blitz in the pre-quels -everything is a lil too shiny making it akin to a walt disney animation rather than a futuristic space opera.

On topic.I reckon that this has to do with genre staple. There are very games that deviate from the norm and few that I can think of that do not include something that is reminiscent of a medieval setting.These are the only games that I can think of other than fallout that are not archetypical wrpgs.

1)Alpha protocol
2) Deus Ex
3) Jade Empire
4)System Shock 2
5)Mass Effect
6)Freedom Force
7)X-men legends 2
8)VTM:Bloodlines
9)KOTOR (okay it has sword)
10)Stalker:SOC -FRPS
11)Silent Storm

Those are all that I could think of. You shall notice that there are very few of these that follow the isometric perspective; if at all.