GR00T: The question is rather skewed. Medieval Fantasy is just one subgenre of the fantasy genre in general, while sci-fi includes all genres of speculative fiction. The question should really be "Fantasy or Sci-fi?" A subtle, but imporatant, distinction, IMO. With that in mind...
I've read both since I first really got into reading. I love both, so it's really not something I can choose as an either/or. It's interesting that bookstores tend to group the two genres together (sometimes as one big category), and it's the area I gravitate to first when going to a bookstore or library.
I don't really care one way or the other. The important thing is the wirter: if the writer's good, then it doesn't matter to me if it's fantasy or sci-fi. If the writer is bad... the genre and setting isn't going to save it.
nightcraw1er.488: I would agree, medieval is a spefic time period, you could have Nordic fantasy, Jurassic fantasy. Same with Sci-fi, could be with dinosaurs and teleporters. Bit hard to compartmentalise everything. Me I like what I like, be that Discworld or Star Trek its all fantasy.
What about the game Secret of Evermore, which contains areas based off of prehistory (with dinosaurs), ancient Greece/Rome, Renaissance-era Europe, and of course, one futuristic space station?
dtgreene: SaGa 2 fixed the battle system (mostly) and is a much longer game, but I think the setting isn't as interesting.
Firebrand9: Well, Final Fantasy Legend 2 (aka Saga 2) was a more varied game in terms of the environments. You had more environments but they were all smaller in scale, makign some really interesting and some less so. I really liked the underwater portions personally.
Incidentally, as it relates to this thread, the FFL2 in particular was a great example of
Science-Fantasy, an interesting mix that I don't see done enough. You could have robot characters and things like lasers. The first one had some elements of this (especially with the chainsaw & using it on Creator; killing god!) in the form of machine guns and various other modern weapons and the last stretch was in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the the second really carried it to the next logical step.
Thing is, I think the environments in the first SaGa are more interesting, especially since there was more time to develop each world than in the sequel. Also, SaGa 1 had more vehicles; there are 3 vehicles that I can think of. SaGa 2 has only one vehicle which is restricted to a specific area unless you do something the developers clearly did not intend (and which is prevented in the DS version).
Also, SaGa 1 has many little optional side worlds which are quite interesting. There's one, in particular, that is quite disturbing. (One quote from that area: "This child looks dead...".) SaGa 2 doesn't have anything like this. (SaGa 2 does have a big mostly optional dungeon, but it has no dialogue and is focused solely on fighting enemies and opening treasure chests, or, in the DS version, one area where you need to do a lost woods type maze.)