Firstly, I don’t rate Choice Games unless I’m intending to give them 5 stars, due to the way the app store ratings work.
I don’t consider overly elaborate, embellished, writing good writing. It can be good writing, but just because it is filled with adjectives and adverbs doesn’t make it good writing.
With the example above
"I will not be spoken to that way!!" she said.
"I will not be spoken to that way!!" she vivaciously exclaimed.
The first sentence is a better example of good writing. It allows the spoken statement to speak for itself. It doesn’t detract from the words. If you have an exclamation mark you don’t then need to say “she exclaimed” and using both vivacious and exclaim is redundant.
Sometimes less is more. Sometimes it’s good writing to use just one sentence instead of an entire paragraph.
That’s not to say there’s not some descriptive writers that I enjoy. I love how evocative Looshi’s writing is, for instance.
I just wouldn’t want to put anyone off with overly-complicated wordplay. I think that’s better reserved for poetry. Individual words can paint a beautiful picture, but so can paragraphs composed of much simpler words.
When you’re dealing with interactive fiction, the reader/player isn’t as focused on the atmosphere and their surroundings as they are the choices offered for their character’s actions, and the results thereof. Atmosphere is important in most forms of literature, but this is a different creature, altogether. It needs to be fluid, more like a movie than a book.
A snippet from Baldur’s Gate springs to mind, on this matter: “Maybe your grandiose vocabulary is a pathetic compensation for an insufficiency in the nether regions of your anatomy”
Elaborate writing has it’s uses, but it depends on the mood and tone of the story.
Terry Pratchett goes on lengthy tangent and complex metaphors for very simple things, and the effect is both amusing and clear.
Carl Hiaasen writers in simple, deadpan tone, which suits the irony and black humor in his books, and easily engage the reader.
Both are good writing, to me, because they serve their purpose of being fun to read. I re-read book very often, just for the delight of a smooth prose. But if the writing is elaborate just for the sake of high diction, then it’s often to stiff to be enjoyable.
You know, I never understood people who only read a book once because ‘I know the how it goes’. What does that have to do with anything? Do you only listen to a song once because you ‘know how it goes’? Or watch a movie once? This always puzzled me. I don’t usually read to find out what is going to happen - I read because I enjoy it. Maybe that’s why I was never a fan of mystery novels.
I revisit weekly the good works of Terry Goodkind. I love all his books because its got sword fighting intrigue a villain(s) you love to hate, all that and more.
One thing about books is that you can take your time reading them and so get a lot more of what it has to offer the first time around. Movies you tend to miss stuff.
There’s a wonderful summary of the words of Terry Goodkind here. As someone who couldn’t finish his second book, it was nice to have the cliff’s notes. And the parodies.
On the question of over-elaborate writing: one of the advantages of simple writing is that it gives your embellishments more power. If people aren’t “exclaiming” or “gasping” every other page, it actually means something when you do use that word.
That said, one of my favorite books, An Unexpected Light, is full of rich, descriptive prose that isn’t afraid to go over the top. Once or twice, this fails spectacularly – like when he’s on a hellish bus ride through the Afghan mountains and starts hallucinating about flying around the country on a giant bird. But much more often, he really nails it – his passion for Afghanistan is infectious and makes the elaborate language seem appropriate, not overwritten.
I just played the demo. You definitely nailed the feel of the time period. Just seems it needs a bit more brutality thrown at the PC. Can’t wait to see more. Oh, and I liked the idea of female gladiators.
I’d say the brutality could afford to be toned down a bit if you really want to go for the feel of the time period. Gladiatorial combat was Ancient Rome’s football. Even ignoring historical evidence it just doesn’t make any financial sense to constantly kill off your star players you’ve spent months training, housing and feeding. Neitherdoes it make much sense to just give a bunch of totally untrained malnourished slaves weapons and send them out to try to kill each other. Not much of a show in that. Well, I supposed that argument would have been stronger before reality television, but you have to consider that reality television didn’t always exist as it does today. My point is, you don’t generally buy a Formula One car just so that you can intentionally crash it on TV.
Edit: Actually, the best allegory I can think of is Pokemon.
True. True. Just a bit too bloodthirsty I guess . Either way, I do think in the intro, when the slaver is explaining your exploits, should be prompted to pick a backstory and such.
Yeah 90% of colloseum combats don’t end in gladiators death many of them retired and die in old years. There was nobles like gladiators too. their deaths was reserved to determined data or if one of them show a really bad combat or cowardice.
The idea of all combats lead to death come from the XVIII illustrations. they want add drama so put always death scenes in their pictures.
The deaths were prisoners who are dressed like gladiator and fight with real gladiator or animals. But the gladiator slaves where so expensives than they have their own medics and prostitutes. In pompeia the ludus Magnus the gladiator academy had asecret underground passage to some brothels . And gladiator nobles and emperor they never die in the arena. Comodo die in the palace in a fight intercourse with a slave not in the arena.
I really feel this game need a naumacia when colloseum is filled with water and they put ships and recreate naval fights. And thousands of slaves die in the fight.
the naumacias existed but if they were or not in the colloseum is debated. but all recognized that could it be and some period authors talk about naumacias in the open of Colloseum.
I’ll be updating Gods of Rome pretty soon (over the next 48 hours or so) and making the end of Chapter 1 as the end of the demo. I don’t know what the word count will be at this point, but I may have an estimate later on.
There will be moments in the game where your character can die, but I’ll put a save point before each one. Gladiators with high celebrity do avoid death, for the most part. That fate is reserved more for criminals and slaves of much lesser stature. Having said that, you won’t start really building up your fame until the end of Chapter 1.
Oh, and one more note, it hasn’t been very brutal yet because your character hasn’t seen combat in the arena. It’s going to get pretty ugly, though. Glad you all seem to enjoy the premise of the game and that only gives me more confidence that it’s a winner.
EDIT: And slaves probably were never spoken to in the way that your Dominus and trainers speak to you in this game. They were probably pretty nasty to them, if slavery in the USA is any reference. However, it wouldn’t provide much room for dialogue and intrigue if most the people in your life didn’t talk to you and saw you as less than a cow.
