I read my history textbook last night to get an idea of what Spartan life was like and the battle of Thermopylae. The movie 300 is very close to the actual events that happened in Sparta. I know they use those saying in the movie. But I saw the same saying in my textbook. Minnis “We’ll put that knowledge to the test.” And thank you for the advice.
Like I said I plan on filling in the blanks.
You don’t die, your god powers save you from dieing.

I will be coming up with a more in depth response. However, let me just say this:

@FairyGodfeather Probably not the best example, since frankly Highlander sucked. Not because it was inaccurate (not in the least), but because it was poorly handled. That’s shown by how the expanded universe has never been able to get its’ eggs in a row to resurrect itself.

The problem with Highlander was that in the end, it didn’t pay enough attention to playing by the rules- even the many, many itinerations of its’ own that have come and gone- or have enough unified vision to weather through. That’s why we have the one major popular movie and afterwards a jumbled wreck of a franchise. That wasn’t caused because it was ahistorical (if anything, I’d argue that it’s far less ahistorical than some allegedly “historical” works), but because it didn’t pay due diligence.

Compare and contrast one of my old favorites, Xena. One of the great historical jumbles amongst historical jumbles, as well as one of my favorite things to ever pop up on TV. Why? Because it was *good* for what it was, and on top of the entertainment value and artistic merits it was legitimately educational in what it tried to do.

There are more ways to do due diligence than being historical or doing the research, but at least having a good idea of what the history is *if only so you can know where to bend it* can at least be *one* such way.

Case in point: our mutual working with Julia Caesar and the Fire of Rome. I’m not sure how much I’m clear to divulge here, but it’s very clear that there’s absolutely nothing int he game that’s meant to be ultrarealisticphenomenaldocumentarystuff. It’s a damned parody, and a good one. But then does that mean that we can’t take inspiration from the historical background and toss it in when it’s funny, or base humor off of it? Heck no.

In fact, that’s how we got Egotistical Straight Man Nero and Crassus the Crass, no?

@Apillis Now THAT is rude and uncalled for, and not something I will stand for. It’s ok to have diverging opinions, but it’s NOT ok to paint anybody who has any issues with this synopsis as being unreasonable or insatiable if they dare to take issue or voice trouble with it. Forgive me if some of us actually think we can

If you’re not going to be polite and play fair, than please refrain from commenting on these forums. That is all I can say. Believe it or not, feedback can improve matters greatly, and that is a large part of what some of us want to do. It’s important to write for oneself, but I think we can all agree that-say- The Turner Diaries aren’t the same as Harry Potter, A Christmas Carol, The Seven Winds, or even Julia Caesar and the Fire of Rome, no?

Again, I apologize for the lengthy divergence. I still have other commitments, and am still writing up my overall thoughts on this concept so far. Overall, I am *deeply* suspicious and wholeheartedly suggest you do more research, but I believe the concept itself is fascinating and could be good. I especially think the Demigod approach could work very well.

It doesn’t matter if it’s innacurate, if it’s reimagined well, but this is a blatant blend of three recent PC games, peppered with 300 quotes, and not done for the sake of parody.

Read the plots of:
God of War
Assassin’s Creed 2.

If the critics comment was directed at me, I like plenty of things here. Fairygodfeather’s game (before she took it down), anything by Allengies, Sabres of Infinity, Unnatural, Life of a Wizard and CotV are all good. Vampires are hardly original, but it was well-written.

Certainly take opinions under advisement, but ultimately FairyGodfeather and Apillis have the right idea. Write for yourself and your own personal enjoyment first. And write it how you want to.

Some people are going to like it, some aren’t. It isn’t the end of the world if you aren’t liked by everyone.

1 Like


For a jumbled wreck of a franchise it still got 3 movies, two tv movies, 1 cartoon movie, 1 anime movie, two live action tv series, (one lasting for 6 seasons, the other lasting for 1) and a cartoon series. And apparantly some books and a comic too. And of course a remake which is in development hell.

So not bad for a jumbled wreck of a franchise. I liked the first film, and I will frequently rant “there is no highlander 2” although really if they’d stopped at the first film I’d have been fine.

I used Highlander as the example though because it had the whole crazy concept going on and seemed similar, not because I’m a huge fan.

I loved Xena. I did actually almost reference Xena and Hercules, but decided against it.

Sure talk about Julia Caesar, I do. One day I may get it polished. And thank you. I love working with historical inspiration as a starting point. I actually found the more I researched, the more interesting things got, the more material I could use, the less work I needed to do it in making stuff up. Crassus was a brilliant, much needed addition.

I’ll admit Sparta’s a subject that I’m intensely interested in. Not so much that I’ve delved into more than reading articles when I find them and watching documentaries on it. I find Spartan society fascinating and just rolled my eyes at 300 and decided I wasn’t going to see it.

If I was doing Sparta I’d at least read the first paragraph of the wiki page which states that the ruler’s son and heir wouldn’t have been subjected to the agoge.

I’d have also made some mention that it wasn’t just 300 spartans, but they’d a bunch of others with them, including helots.

It’s not really the uber-machisimo of Sparta that appeals to me. It’s the contrasts, and how different they were in regards to a lot of things. You have a society that practices eugenics, who’s brutal to their sons, who keep slaves, at the same time offering greater freedom to their free-women. Ugh I won’t go into depth though. I find Sparta fascinating and I think actually researching the subject would turn up far more interesting fodder than the movie 300 does.

Actually Frank Miller says it best I think “The best result I can hope for is that if the movie excites someone, they’ll go explore the histories themselves. Because the histories are endlessly fascinating.”

But that’s how I’d do it. I’m lazy, stealing from history is so much easier than making it up myself.

@Adnox Aww you did? Thank you. :slight_smile:

Sounds a little like God Of War, I’m really interested in seeing how much power you’re going to have and how much historical events will be in it. Thats really a lot to cover, I guess you can twist history a little, I don’t see the point in staying 100% true just as long as you have the battles and date right. The 300 Spartan story is a huge battle all by itself to cover, I wouldn’t base it all on the movie but the movie did stay true to most of the battle. Good Luck!

@Turtler I’ll continue to be candid, when I see people giving someone hell before they’ve even written anything, I’ll show them the equal amount of due “politeness” that they’ve shown the individual, who again–has yet to write anything.

There’s a fine line between giving a critique, and being nonsensically anally critical. If someone is ripping into a person who just uttered a concept, when said ripper has yet to actually see a written word by the individual and all they have to go on is just a single paragraph outline. Yeah, the ripper is being out of line themselves. Also, read what I wrote one more time, I never said such individuals are never satisfied, I said they seldom are, and seeing some of the repeat “critics” here who more often than not come off as nitpicking, I standby that statement.

That’s why I’m saying, if they’re going to rip into someone, who again, has yet to write anything, and give them guff over “historical accuracy” or how terrible the idea is before anything is written. There’s no sense in ever trying to please such people, no one should ever try to write for such people. A person should write purely for the fact they enjoy it themselves, and for no other reason. And therefore that is why the advice I’m giving to respond to such critics is simply this:

Say someone wrote a story ostensibly set in our world, but the world is flat, black people aren’t sapient and everyone is straight, no exceptions. Would you still defend that synopsis, or would you, as you said, “rip into someone who… has yet to write anything”?
History is what makes us who we are. Without it, there is no human legacy. To dismiss a demand for treating it with a bit of respect as “nonsensically anal” is denying a critical part of what makes the human species what we are.

That being said, I like the Highlander series (more for its absurdity than anything else, and Highlander 2 never happened). I like Xena and Hercules, I enjoyed reading Julia Caesar a great deal.

However, I DESPISE Braveheart.

There’s one reason for this and one reason only: because it claims to be history. It straight-up tells he viewer that if history and the film disagree, then the film is right and history is wrong. If a film about Wallace’s Rebellion claims to be accurate, I want to see schiltrons and Stirling Bridge and proper characterization for both sides. I don’t want to see 18th century highland garb on lowland fighters who paint themselves like picts and fight like barbarians.

@Grimreaper21 can write what he wants. He can ignore my opinion entirely, but what he’d be writing wouldn’t be history in the proper sense, any more than God of War or Xena or Sinbad. It might still be entertaining, but claiming that it is a “true story” would make me and people like me avoid his story at a glance.

Since there appears to be some dissent on this matter, allow me to make my stance here readily apparent: I find criticism productive. I find that no work can be improved unless its errors and vomitings can be highlighted, and highlighted in no uncertain terms. Now, you may think me to have been harsh on this matter in particular - I accept that. I do not deny it, nor do I consider it problematic. By being harsh in my critique, I hoped to make it readily apparent to @GrimReaper21 that she is intending to bite into a large array of topics, and she really needs to put some work into it. She may not be putting the focus onto the history, but she still needs, I think, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (possibly quite literally, here) and keep an eye on her accuracy. It doesn’t need to be thesis level, but at least as reflective as is appropriate.

Encouragement has its place, true enough. But never at the expense of criticism. If people remain reluctant to criticise, then despite the warm, fuzzy feeling they may get, they will have contributed little, if anything, to bettering the work. I might be a pedantic bastard, but I have highlighted areas where I think the author needs to improve her plan, and I have no regrets regarding my endeavour.

What I have no respect for, however, are those that criticise the critics for no reason other than that they are being critical. This is simply done for the sake of self-aggrandisement, and to slander their opponent unduly. Such people need to moderate their perfidy more closely.

@Cataphrak I’d say I don’t know anything about it from that single sentence. On top of which I’m not defending anything, I’m stating ignore the critics and just write. I don’t know anything about it, all I know is a rough concept, because I haven’t even read anything from the actual story.

But also going along with your strawman example, there was a story about a society, where everything was made the same, homosexuality was “corrected”, people who were simply born different via the accident of birth were maladjusted and “fixed” to be the same, and the hero of the tale who rebels against this is killed in the end and nothing changes. The story I just described there is Harrison Bergeron, one of the most well-know works of fictional literature and one of my favorite stories.

When we’re talking about a blatant work of FICTION here, where there is no claim to being perfectly “historically accurate”, then why should I care if it’s not when there was no claim to be? I mean, surprise a fictional story does things that aren’t in reality! OH MY! Even more shocking a work of fiction isn’t historically accurate! I AM IN AWE AT THIS REVELATION!

Seriously, there’s just no incentive to please such “criticisms”, nor should an attempt ever be made, especially based singularly on a single paragraph concept. Yeah, I still standby such “critics” are jumping the gun and being fairly out of line.

Thank you to the people who are standing up for me. I m a girl, just don’t want people calling me “HIM”

@GrimReaper21 I stand corrected on my choice of pronouns, then.

Edit: And I would like to correct you on whether this is a matter where one side is standing up for another - it isn’t. Criticism ought not to be considered as an assault.

But when said “criticisms” are going after someone about “historical inaccuracies” when there isn’t any actual written word yet to be shown, and the concept is a blatant work of fiction… Those “criticisms” are jumping the gun… by several leagues.

Seriously, keep it in your pants until you actually have something to read and sink your teeth into, i.e. something to actually critique.

I do want peoples full opinion on this. It will help me in the long run.

Meh, I perceived the possibility for error, and made an effort to counter them before they had a chance to arise in the game proper. That it is a work of fiction is, I think, irrelevant.

I think it is very relevant. Where it would be irrelevant would be non-fiction, but fiction:

Prose literature, esp. short stories and novels, about imaginary events and people.
Invention or fabrication as opposed to fact.
figment - invention - fabrication

By it’s very definition makes it quite relevant when describing a story how beholden it will be to “history”. Fiction is whatever the writer wants it to be limited only by the author’s imagination.


Knowing that Braveheart was most certainly not my sort of movie I’ve never seen it. I just assumed it was similiar to Mel Gibson’s other ‘historical’ films. But some people do watch these movies and assume that there’s at least something historically accurate about them.

I could rant on about Braveheart, but I won’t since it’s been said many a time by many better people than me.

The thing that amuses me most about Braveheart is the Wallace Monument. “The statue was subject to regular vandalism: its face was gouged out, it had paint thrown over it, it was struck with a hammer, and someone chipped off the decapitated head of the Governor of York which had formerly graced the statue’s base. As a result it was enclosed in a security fence.” There’s just something about a statue with Freedom on its base that was enclosed in a security fence that amuses me.

Right up until Braveheart went about changing public perceptions all of the statues of William Wallace I’ve seen show him wearing armour without a piece of tartan in sight.

So I guess if someone said they were going to create a game, set in Scotland, with people running around wearing woad and kilts and shouting “ye cannae tak oor freedom!!!” I’d be rolling my eyes.

I also dislike those sorts of films which claim to be history and then aren’t. I’d much rather just watch fantasy which doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t. I do dislike movies like Troy and that King Arthur one that try to pretend to be more realistic by stripping away magic and gods and the like and then still being horribly inaccurate. Give me Xena and Hercules and Monty Python and the Holy Grail over those any day.

Hmmm. Interesting point. If @Grimreaper21 had stated she was creating a game where all of the Spartans were straight I’d likely be also criticising. If she stated she was creating a game where you couldn’t play a female character I’d likely grumble a bit. Of course I’d also be grumbling if she stated she was creating a game that had as one of its core themes the role of pederasty in Spartan society. So I acknowledge there’s little that’ll keep me happy.

I’ll admit that dogpiling makes me feel uncomfortable which is what I saw was going on in the thread. But rereading people aren’t being too harsh and they were actually asked for feedback on it. I say be careful what you wish for.

It’s one of the reasons I don’t ask for feedback on my game concepts. I think that there’s just not enough to go on. Besides my concepts are insane. “So Julius Caesar is now female, and a lesbian (only actually bisexual), and she’s going to save the world, starting with rescuing Rome from the Great Fire using the power of love and song and friendship, possibly murdering Nero and getting elected Empress! At some point in the future she’ll travel to France, meet up with Joan of Arc, help her build the Ark to store the ten commandments in and save all of the animals from the flood god’s sending to put out all the fires so no one can burn anymore witches anymore. Eventually she’ll help Joan become elected Pope Joan, the first female Pope and together they’ll transform the Ark into the Arc de Triomphe as a monument to their success and the power of friendship.” The concept just goes on and on, the ideas crazier and crazier and I don’t ask for feedback because pppphbbbttt! I know it’s crazy and I’m only providing things to be picked at.

I’ll admit I don’t quite get the asking for approval of concepts. I know that some people are looking for support though, or cheerleaders, so hey I’ll do my best. I know most games that are started won’t ever be finished (including my own) so well I don’t see the harm in being encouraging where I can. I figure encouragement means a game is more likely to be finished than pointing out the flaws. Besides flaws can be polished once things are over. You can’t polish a whole pile of nothing though.

And my belief that historical accuracy strengthens fiction, and ought not to be disregarded therein without warrant, has been made readily apparent.

Edit: @FairyGodfeather Ah, yes, Mel “If I saw an English Jew I might explode” Gibson’s “historical” works ought to be shown to film students worldwide, to show them what NOT to do.

Fiction doesn’t have links to reality. Historical fiction still needs to treat the topic with a fair amount of respect. If you’re going to write a story about Persians and Greeks and Romans, then flat characterizations based off of stereotypes won’t do. There are millions of people who consider themselves proud Persians. There are millions of Greeks equally proud of their past, not to mention the millions of Italians who are just as fiercely proud of their Roman legacy. Unless you qualify it the way Snyder and Miller did (by saying that the historical inaccuracy is perceptual due to an unreliable narrator or something to that effect), you can’t characterize an entire nation as a barbarian horde of monsters without insulting their descendants now. Classical Persia gave the world a great deal of progress in government administration, religious freedom and the wearing of pants.

Characterizing them the way say, “300” did and saying “this is history” or “this is based on a true story” is like creating a world (Harrison Bergeron’s world is a dystopia. Vonnegut all but broadcasts his use of absurdity to get his point across. He has declared that makes no claim to realism) where, once again, as mentioned, the world is flat, black people are incapable of intelligence and homosexuals don’t exist (I tried to go for particularly galling examples here) and then saying “This is our world”.

Sorry about the gender confusion then.

So, just three things I’d like to mention:
1: There’s nothing wrong with mythological fiction so long as you declare it to be such.

2: Don’t let stereotypes like “all Spartans are unbeatable” in combat turn a people into a one-note culture. The Spartans got their asses handed to them by the Sacred Band of Thebes at Leuctra, for example.

3: Even if you aren’t going for full accuracy, historical research can help you out with characterization. For example: Spartans were masters of the action hero one-liner. The whole concept of “laconic” wit (Laconia is the region of Greece Sparta is in) comes from them. “Then we will fight in the shade”?, probably actually said at Thermopylae.

@GrimReaper21 My suggestion are two things:

  1. Again. Just write it. Don’t worry about us. Just have fun and write, enjoy doing your thing.

  2. Don’t concern yourself with genuine mythos and history. Use them only as a short-hand reference when doing a work of fiction to fill in the gaps when needed. Their only place is to make an aspect (or aspects) relatable within fiction, and even then only need to be semi-relatable. It should be secondary at best in comparison to the ideas wrought from your own imagination. Your narrative first, everything second or less. Don’t be afraid to toss aside “historical facts” if they collide with what you want to do with your own narrative. It’s your story, not anyone else’s.

Edit: @Cataphrak So… even after I mention that Harrison Bergeron is one of my favorite fictional stories, you still felt the need to tell me it was a dystopia setting. Wow. Thank you for that. I had no idea. I am amazed. All this time… here I thought it was based off of the real life future yet to come…

It’s kind of things like this that I feel there’s just no point in trying to satisfy such “critics”, because regardless what you do, they’re either going to tell you something you already know and (or) give you guff over how inaccurate it is. So why try to satisfy such criticisms? Why behold yourself to them?