Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Does Records mode receive the same update attention as Romance?

Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
Or is the balance preset so fixes work across both modes?

Also any chance they'll add general abilities like inspire and rally?
«1

Comments

  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,731
    Or is the balance preset so fixes work across both modes?


    Well there's really not much difference on the balancing side of things to be frank. (Overall it's the hero vs general bodyguard + speed at which units fatigue that's different and that's all)

    In the end I regard new units addition and balancing changes more relevant in Records (because that's where all units really matter after all) but I know some people disagree with me.

    Also any chance they'll add general abilities like inspire and rally?


    CA said they had no plan in doing that, which is a shame. But maybe if we keep asking for it they will change their mind. If anything I'm guessing that they are pretty conservative on balance changes and abilities could switch and swap the meta in a way it would be hard to balance for them.
    ... but ranked battles being a Romance only thing I don't see why it would bother them that much.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,040
    edited October 2020
    Records Mode doesn't receive any attention.

    Records Mode hasn't received any updates since Patch 1.3.0, which was over a full year ago. Aside from the occasional minor bug fix here or there, CA have pretty much abandoned the mode, and the last two DLCs don't appear to have been developed with any consideration at all for it.

    CA seem to have dropped all mention of Records mode entirely and appear to be pretending it doesn't even exist, presumably in the hope that everybody else will simply forget it exists and stop asking them to fix or improve it.
    Post edited by Whiskeyjack_5691 on
  • stilesdinersstilesdiners Registered Users Posts: 92
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Rewan said:

    Or is the balance preset so fixes work across both modes?


    Well there's really not much difference on the balancing side of things to be frank. (Overall it's the hero vs general bodyguard + speed at which units fatigue that's different and that's all)

    In the end I regard new units addition and balancing changes more relevant in Records (because that's where all units really matter after all) but I know some people disagree with me.

    Also any chance they'll add general abilities like inspire and rally?


    CA said they had no plan in doing that, which is a shame. But maybe if we keep asking for it they will change their mind. If anything I'm guessing that they are pretty conservative on balance changes and abilities could switch and swap the meta in a way it would be hard to balance for them.
    ... but ranked battles being a Romance only thing I don't see why it would bother them that much.
    It's not a balance thing. There is no doubt in my mind it's that they don't want to. Records in its current form isn't balanced as is. Allowing Generals to have their own unique character/class based skills would not be hard.

  • Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
    That's a real shame. I personally can't find the tactics interesting in the Romance mode so its a shame Records is 'dead'.

    Romance just doesn't have a nice balance to me with the OP generals, forgetting the stupid duel system. Warhammer 2 feels more balanced with its generals and heroes, and its got monsters and flying units on the same field.

    It doesn't make sense to me why people prefer being OP as opposed to being challenged by what is supposed to be a strategy game.

    Is there strategy in the battles of the Romance mode? I just can't get a feel for it.
  • LaindeshLaindesh Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,445

    That's a real shame. I personally can't find the tactics interesting in the Romance mode so its a shame Records is 'dead'.

    Romance just doesn't have a nice balance to me with the OP generals, forgetting the stupid duel system. Warhammer 2 feels more balanced with its generals and heroes, and its got monsters and flying units on the same field.

    It doesn't make sense to me why people prefer being OP as opposed to being challenged by what is supposed to be a strategy game.

    Is there strategy in the battles of the Romance mode? I just can't get a feel for it.

    If generals is an issue, there's a mod which makes them much weaker.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,040

    That's a real shame. I personally can't find the tactics interesting in the Romance mode so its a shame Records is 'dead'.

    Romance just doesn't have a nice balance to me with the OP generals, forgetting the stupid duel system. Warhammer 2 feels more balanced with its generals and heroes, and its got monsters and flying units on the same field.

    It doesn't make sense to me why people prefer being OP as opposed to being challenged by what is supposed to be a strategy game.

    Is there strategy in the battles of the Romance mode? I just can't get a feel for it.

    Same. I much prefer Records mode myself, as I prefer the more grounded and "realistic" approach to battles where careful use of tactics are meant to be the deciding factor, as opposed to the fantasy-esque heroes of Romance mode who can take on enemy regiments by themselves. I don't find much enjoyment in an RTS/RTT game when often the best tactic is to basically throw a tanky hero into the midst of the enemy formation and just spam debuff or AOE abilities until you win.

    I think the reason heroes feel better balanced in Warhammer than 3K is because Warhammer has a very healthy and active multiplayer community which requires constant balancing, whereas 3K's multiplayer scene pretty much died out within 2 - 3 months of release. In every Warhammer patch you'll see multiple pages solely about unit/hero balancing, often in minute scales of single digits. Because 3K has an almost non-existent multiplayer community, balancing in done purely from a single-player/campaign standpoint, where the emphasis is on the heroes of the setting and the grand feats they can accomplish.
    That being said, that doesn't excuse the way CA has totally neglected Records Mode, especially after they gave assurances before launch that both mode would be equally supported.
  • stilesdinersstilesdiners Registered Users Posts: 92

    That's a real shame. I personally can't find the tactics interesting in the Romance mode so its a shame Records is 'dead'.

    Romance just doesn't have a nice balance to me with the OP generals, forgetting the stupid duel system. Warhammer 2 feels more balanced with its generals and heroes, and its got monsters and flying units on the same field.

    It doesn't make sense to me why people prefer being OP as opposed to being challenged by what is supposed to be a strategy game.

    Is there strategy in the battles of the Romance mode? I just can't get a feel for it.

    Same. I much prefer Records mode myself, as I prefer the more grounded and "realistic" approach to battles where careful use of tactics are meant to be the deciding factor, as opposed to the fantasy-esque heroes of Romance mode who can take on enemy regiments by themselves. I don't find much enjoyment in an RTS/RTT game when often the best tactic is to basically throw a tanky hero into the midst of the enemy formation and just spam debuff or AOE abilities until you win.

    I think the reason heroes feel better balanced in Warhammer than 3K is because Warhammer has a very healthy and active multiplayer community which requires constant balancing, whereas 3K's multiplayer scene pretty much died out within 2 - 3 months of release. In every Warhammer patch you'll see multiple pages solely about unit/hero balancing, often in minute scales of single digits. Because 3K has an almost non-existent multiplayer community, balancing in done purely from a single-player/campaign standpoint, where the emphasis is on the heroes of the setting and the grand feats they can accomplish.
    That being said, that doesn't excuse the way CA has totally neglected Records Mode, especially after they gave assurances before launch that both mode would be equally supported.
    Could you link to where they said both modes would be equally supported?
  • DreadedFate7DreadedFate7 Registered Users Posts: 23

    That's a real shame. I personally can't find the tactics interesting in the Romance mode so its a shame Records is 'dead'.

    Romance just doesn't have a nice balance to me with the OP generals, forgetting the stupid duel system. Warhammer 2 feels more balanced with its generals and heroes, and its got monsters and flying units on the same field.

    It doesn't make sense to me why people prefer being OP as opposed to being challenged by what is supposed to be a strategy game.

    Is there strategy in the battles of the Romance mode? I just can't get a feel for it.

    Same. I much prefer Records mode myself, as I prefer the more grounded and "realistic" approach to battles where careful use of tactics are meant to be the deciding factor, as opposed to the fantasy-esque heroes of Romance mode who can take on enemy regiments by themselves. I don't find much enjoyment in an RTS/RTT game when often the best tactic is to basically throw a tanky hero into the midst of the enemy formation and just spam debuff or AOE abilities until you win.

    I think the reason heroes feel better balanced in Warhammer than 3K is because Warhammer has a very healthy and active multiplayer community which requires constant balancing, whereas 3K's multiplayer scene pretty much died out within 2 - 3 months of release. In every Warhammer patch you'll see multiple pages solely about unit/hero balancing, often in minute scales of single digits. Because 3K has an almost non-existent multiplayer community, balancing in done purely from a single-player/campaign standpoint, where the emphasis is on the heroes of the setting and the grand feats they can accomplish.
    That being said, that doesn't excuse the way CA has totally neglected Records Mode, especially after they gave assurances before launch that both mode would be equally supported.
    I think it's also slightly because a good segment of players want Heroes to be super OP, I remember when they nerfed Lu Bu's AOE ability really badly and people were really unhappy with the changes made so CA reverted it back.
  • Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
    edited October 2020
    Well may as well throw balance and strategy out the window and make a Lu Bu Simulator where you just win, and you keep the casual fans of the era over there, make a real TW game for actual fans.

    Of course they have the casual sim for 3K era and its called Dynasty Warriors.

    I don't mean to sound hostile if that's the case, I just think of the potential lost in the game and get annoyed, as the player base continues to dwindle to Rome 2 levels, the promise of further DLC and updates diminishes, from being the biggest TW at release down to the trickling levels of support and DLC it receives only a year and a half later is a pretty big fall.

    Maybe if they just picked a lane at the offset and balanced the game around it there wouldn't be an issue, and they wouldn't be bleeding players unsatisfied with the appeasing of the middle ground approach.

    I'd play a balanced Romance mode, but I guess I'll just keep voicing my opinion that they continue to work on Records, and maybe bring players to try it if they made a big enough deal about the updates for it. Make a half ***ed trailer, slap it on the blog and the reddit will go wild for trying something new, put it alongside some paid DLC and you've made some money and got a wider appeal at the same time, able to sell more DLC down to the line because you've kept the player base interested.

    But this is CA so if its mildly broken and people avoid it because it's lacking, the strategy isn't fix but abandon i.e. Navy

    edit: added a comma.
  • DreadedFate7DreadedFate7 Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited October 2020

    Well may as well throw balance and strategy out the window and make a Lu Bu Simulator where you just win, and you keep the casual fans of the era over there, make a real TW game for actual fans.

    Of course they have the casual sim for 3K era and its called Dynasty Warriors.

    I don't mean to sound hostile if that's the case, I just think of the potential lost in the game and get annoyed, as the player base continues to dwindle to Rome 2 levels, the promise of further DLC and updates diminishes, from being the biggest TW at release down to the trickling levels of support and DLC it receives only a year and a half later is a pretty big fall.

    Maybe if they just picked a lane at the offset and balanced the game around it there wouldn't be an issue, and they wouldn't be bleeding players unsatisfied with the appeasing of the middle ground approach.

    I'd play a balanced Romance mode, but I guess I'll just keep voicing my opinion that they continue to work on Records, and maybe bring players to try it if they made a big enough deal about the updates for it. Make a half ***ed trailer, slap it on the blog and the reddit will go wild for trying something new, put it alongside some paid DLC and you've made some money and got a wider appeal at the same time, able to sell more DLC down to the line because you've kept the player base interested.

    But this is CA so if its mildly broken and people avoid it because it's lacking, the strategy isn't fix but abandon i.e. Navy

    edit: added a comma.

    Yea, unfortunately Records Mode will simply be one where one man generals stop becoming hundred men killing machines, instead of having proper updates. The only "updates" to records that I can see in the future are from upcoming DLCs, CA at least made the effort to have the burning mace guys not have burning maces (tigers units still remain tho) realistically I can still see 3-4 DLCs being made, hopefully it adds something significant to records. Also on another note I don't they're trying to appease Historical or Fantasy fans anymore and are fully focused on the fantasy aspect in three kingdoms.
  • stilesdinersstilesdiners Registered Users Posts: 92

    That's a real shame. I personally can't find the tactics interesting in the Romance mode so its a shame Records is 'dead'.

    Romance just doesn't have a nice balance to me with the OP generals, forgetting the stupid duel system. Warhammer 2 feels more balanced with its generals and heroes, and its got monsters and flying units on the same field.

    It doesn't make sense to me why people prefer being OP as opposed to being challenged by what is supposed to be a strategy game.

    Is there strategy in the battles of the Romance mode? I just can't get a feel for it.

    Same. I much prefer Records mode myself, as I prefer the more grounded and "realistic" approach to battles where careful use of tactics are meant to be the deciding factor, as opposed to the fantasy-esque heroes of Romance mode who can take on enemy regiments by themselves. I don't find much enjoyment in an RTS/RTT game when often the best tactic is to basically throw a tanky hero into the midst of the enemy formation and just spam debuff or AOE abilities until you win.

    I think the reason heroes feel better balanced in Warhammer than 3K is because Warhammer has a very healthy and active multiplayer community which requires constant balancing, whereas 3K's multiplayer scene pretty much died out within 2 - 3 months of release. In every Warhammer patch you'll see multiple pages solely about unit/hero balancing, often in minute scales of single digits. Because 3K has an almost non-existent multiplayer community, balancing in done purely from a single-player/campaign standpoint, where the emphasis is on the heroes of the setting and the grand feats they can accomplish.
    That being said, that doesn't excuse the way CA has totally neglected Records Mode, especially after they gave assurances before launch that both mode would be equally supported.
    I think it's also slightly because a good segment of players want Heroes to be super OP, I remember when they nerfed Lu Bu's AOE ability really badly and people were really unhappy with the changes made so CA reverted it back.
    Lu Bu is a special case, though, since being the strongest warrior is his gimmick.
  • jazz90jazz90 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 32
    I've only played 3K in records mode. Would never try it in Romance mode. As said I find it very uinteresting with massively op heroes. If I want want that I play Warhammer. The annoying thing is I've never even thought about Records being so under supported. I just booted it up and expected it to be as good and "thought out" as any other historical title.
  • Ares101Ares101 Registered Users Posts: 181
    I played romance for less than 100 turns. It's just not my thing. In Warhammer it's okey, although i never play anyone else than legendary lords because the generics are worse than in 3k (imperial generals have 1 or 2 skins "urrghh"). Records is my thing. It's the same in movies, i never understand why every general or king is alone in the battlefield. Why don't they have at least some bodyguards that take care of their flanks?
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,040
    edited October 2020

    That's a real shame. I personally can't find the tactics interesting in the Romance mode so its a shame Records is 'dead'.

    Romance just doesn't have a nice balance to me with the OP generals, forgetting the stupid duel system. Warhammer 2 feels more balanced with its generals and heroes, and its got monsters and flying units on the same field.

    It doesn't make sense to me why people prefer being OP as opposed to being challenged by what is supposed to be a strategy game.

    Is there strategy in the battles of the Romance mode? I just can't get a feel for it.

    Same. I much prefer Records mode myself, as I prefer the more grounded and "realistic" approach to battles where careful use of tactics are meant to be the deciding factor, as opposed to the fantasy-esque heroes of Romance mode who can take on enemy regiments by themselves. I don't find much enjoyment in an RTS/RTT game when often the best tactic is to basically throw a tanky hero into the midst of the enemy formation and just spam debuff or AOE abilities until you win.

    I think the reason heroes feel better balanced in Warhammer than 3K is because Warhammer has a very healthy and active multiplayer community which requires constant balancing, whereas 3K's multiplayer scene pretty much died out within 2 - 3 months of release. In every Warhammer patch you'll see multiple pages solely about unit/hero balancing, often in minute scales of single digits. Because 3K has an almost non-existent multiplayer community, balancing in done purely from a single-player/campaign standpoint, where the emphasis is on the heroes of the setting and the grand feats they can accomplish.
    That being said, that doesn't excuse the way CA has totally neglected Records Mode, especially after they gave assurances before launch that both mode would be equally supported.
    Could you link to where they said both modes would be equally supported?
    The exact comment was from a either a Reddit or Facebook post way back before the game released. I spent an hour trying to find it last night, but I distinctly remember somebody asking which mode would be the "primary" mode for the game, and CA responded that "both modes would be equally supported".

    Regardless, they released a blog post detailing all the differences between both modes, and in it they said that Records Mode would not suffer compared to Romance Mode: Six Things You've Asked about Classic Mode
    Records mode was advertised as the mode that would cater to TW players who preferred the "classic" TW experience. But all we got was a stripped-down, barebones version of Romance Mode that they ditched after 6 months.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,040

    Well may as well throw balance and strategy out the window and make a Lu Bu Simulator where you just win, and you keep the casual fans of the era over there, make a real TW game for actual fans.

    Of course they have the casual sim for 3K era and its called Dynasty Warriors.

    I don't mean to sound hostile if that's the case, I just think of the potential lost in the game and get annoyed, as the player base continues to dwindle to Rome 2 levels, the promise of further DLC and updates diminishes, from being the biggest TW at release down to the trickling levels of support and DLC it receives only a year and a half later is a pretty big fall.

    Maybe if they just picked a lane at the offset and balanced the game around it there wouldn't be an issue, and they wouldn't be bleeding players unsatisfied with the appeasing of the middle ground approach.

    I'd play a balanced Romance mode, but I guess I'll just keep voicing my opinion that they continue to work on Records, and maybe bring players to try it if they made a big enough deal about the updates for it. Make a half ***ed trailer, slap it on the blog and the reddit will go wild for trying something new, put it alongside some paid DLC and you've made some money and got a wider appeal at the same time, able to sell more DLC down to the line because you've kept the player base interested.

    But this is CA so if its mildly broken and people avoid it because it's lacking, the strategy isn't fix but abandon i.e. Navy

    edit: added a comma.

    Yea, unfortunately Records Mode will simply be one where one man generals stop becoming hundred men killing machines, instead of having proper updates. The only "updates" to records that I can see in the future are from upcoming DLCs, CA at least made the effort to have the burning mace guys not have burning maces (tigers units still remain tho) realistically I can still see 3-4 DLCs being made, hopefully it adds something significant to records. Also on another note I don't they're trying to appease Historical or Fantasy fans anymore and are fully focused on the fantasy aspect in three kingdoms.
    I doubt we'll see any updates to Records mode in any future DLC. I think "The Furious Wild" was the last nail in the coffin for Records Mode, because the entire DLC was developed purely for Romance Mode; the fantasy elements like flaming maces, war tigers, fire goddesses, talking to animals, etc., are one thing, but the DLC isn't even balanced for Records Mode. The Nanman are designed to have a major weakness in their lack of cavalry for instance, but in Records mode all their generals have a cavalry bodyguard. And they never bothered to replace the single-entity elephant-mounted heroes with bodyguards in Records mode.
  • Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
    I don't care about fantasy based units, flaming maces, tigers, whatever, bring em at me, but balance them well so there is still a strategy in there.

    It's not like 3K is a historical period anyway, its all based on a fictitious work written a thousand years after the events. I don't mind it being non historical because the setting isn't exactly factual.

    I just don't want to play a cheese fest that's built as mechanic into the game.

    Course I think abandoning the mode is stupid, its a entire game mode inside CA's game, if enough people aren't playing it, its CA's fault.

    They should be responsible for finding the audience and creating the audience. If it's left behind by the players that are left playing the game, then you've lost the part of the audience that that particular game mode would have appealed to. They've moved on to new games, or old ones. We are 2 months out from the biggest expansion in the game, and its sitting just above Rome 2 in total players.

    The should reinvigorate the game. Minimal effort, in exchange for a bigger maintained player count.

    Here's a new DLC. Pretty looking, factions, mechanics (OOH, AHHH) and we took the minimal effort to rework the Records mode. Here's an exciting trailer for the DLC and the Records rework, of which the the free new mechanics in the updated Records mode are tied into the new DLC somehow. People come back to try the game out again, knowing that it has the focus on fleshing out the half of the game they paid for but was left abandoned and to play the DLC, which of course add whatever factions and mechanics it adds to the Romance mode as well, the players you've catered to that are left (funny how it works). And then securing that other side of the audiences attention, you pump the DLC train on them and maintain a larger player base for which to sell content to.
  • Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
    Next FLC should be a Records balance. You want money? Serve the current player base and bring the old player base back in a big way.
  • shattishatti Registered Users Posts: 584
    edited October 2020
    i think this is the last bit of historical settings by CA, (the records mod in 3k)
    i think the future will be filled with OP characters and magical strikes, they will not abandoned their cool dueling scenes & their magic.
    i believe they will focus on fictional settings games, and there are an infinite amount of these
    -Warhammer
    -lord of the rings
    -any fictional world that they create and add what they like to it

    maybe i'm wrong, but why make an Attila or shogun while u have all the new resources & mechanics
    (the magic, the dueling scenes, the RPG design) and most important the majority of players
    they will improve these mechanics to a new level while historical settings will get stuck at what it is right now, and it will be a shameful display to even considering putting it in the game.





  • Qin_FengQin_Feng Registered Users Posts: 314
    edited October 2020

    It's not like 3K is a historical period anyway, its all based on a fictitious work written a thousand years after the events. I don't mind it being non historical because the setting isn't exactly factual.

    The setting IS factual, there's nothing fictional about the three kingdoms. Where else do you think the Romance of the Three Kingdoms comes from? What you say doesn't even make sense, since you say it's fictional yet the novel was written 1000 years after fictional events? How does that even work?
  • Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
    Qin_Feng said:

    It's not like 3K is a historical period anyway, its all based on a fictitious work written a thousand years after the events. I don't mind it being non historical because the setting isn't exactly factual.

    The setting IS factual, there's nothing fictional about the three kingdoms. Where else do you think the Romance of the Three Kingdoms comes from? What you say doesn't even make sense, since you say it's fictional yet the novel was written 1000 years after fictional events? How does that even work?
    Were you there? At the end of history known as the present we are left with either the winners or the romanticists, propaganda filtered through the passing of word of mouth. I'm sure whoever got rid of Dong Zhou wrote down he was an *** somewhere, that doesn't make his motivations displayed in the book an absolute truth when your hearing it from the winning side, or at least the side left standing, and worse your hearing it through 1000 years of humans passing the information along. Going to someone who sources his facts and then lays in his own drama in between.

    The book needed villains, it needed hero's, it needed noble ideals, it needed drama. Otherwise people wouldn't read the book. It was likely the result of various authors telling a story that had been passed down and filtered through a 1000 years, then arranged and collected, and dramatized into an epic tale. Born in some level of reality but drenched in an artist filtering the real and the romance. I mean the title of the series of books is "ROMANCE of the Three Kingdoms", and you're telling me they took no liberties? No exaggerations? You're going to claim that as fact? It's very much a mythology. Like reading the Iliad and going damn, glad they killed those cyclops.

    What you say doesn't make sense. I'm being very clear.
  • UnconcernedUnconcerned Registered Users Posts: 98
    edited October 2020
    @Danklord127

    You are confused. Qin_Feng is talking about the Records of Three Kingdoms (Sanguozhi) - a contemporary work by Chen Shou (served Shu and Jin) that chronicled the historical events of the end of the Later Han to Jin unifications. It is the recorded history of the era, using eyewitness accounts, to compile the historical record.

    The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguoyanyi) was written 1000 years after the TK era. It is significantly a fictional work, but uses the historical backdrop of Sanguozhi as it’s foundation.

    They are two separate things. So, as Qin_Feng said, what you are saying is both wrong and doesn’t make any sense: The Three Kingdoms was most definitely a historical period, based simply on the fact that a history of it was written and compiled during the time the events happened. You can’t get any more historical than that.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,040
    @Danklord127 the Three Kingdoms period was actually a thing that happened, you know... The author didn't just pull it all out his ass and make it up.

    Your logic here is that: "History is written by the victors, therefore none of their accounts of anything can be trusted, ergo nothing they talk about actually happened".
    Which is utterly bizarre.
  • Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
    Right I was confused, now I'm seeing what his saying. And @Qin_Feng No I said the setting isn't exactly factual. And the game whose forum we are in is what I am referring to when I say "its all based on a fictitious work written a thousand years after the events". The game is not based on factual history. Its another interpretation written from an interpretation. Things happen to the extent to the proof of which they happen. I'm saying there are exaggerations of a factual reality in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms of which this game was based on. Much like Troy is based on the Iliad.
    My logic @Whiskeyjack_5691 isn't bizarre if we are all on the same page. I don;t think it's illogical to dispute Romance of the Three Kingdoms as a non fiction work. The events, I agree, happened, the characterization is what is written by the victors.
  • Qin_FengQin_Feng Registered Users Posts: 314

    Qin_Feng said:

    It's not like 3K is a historical period anyway, its all based on a fictitious work written a thousand years after the events. I don't mind it being non historical because the setting isn't exactly factual.

    The setting IS factual, there's nothing fictional about the three kingdoms. Where else do you think the Romance of the Three Kingdoms comes from? What you say doesn't even make sense, since you say it's fictional yet the novel was written 1000 years after fictional events? How does that even work?
    Were you there? At the end of history known as the present we are left with either the winners or the romanticists, propaganda filtered through the passing of word of mouth. I'm sure whoever got rid of Dong Zhou wrote down he was an *** somewhere, that doesn't make his motivations displayed in the book an absolute truth when your hearing it from the winning side, or at least the side left standing, and worse your hearing it through 1000 years of humans passing the information along. Going to someone who sources his facts and then lays in his own drama in between.

    The book needed villains, it needed hero's, it needed noble ideals, it needed drama. Otherwise people wouldn't read the book. It was likely the result of various authors telling a story that had been passed down and filtered through a 1000 years, then arranged and collected, and dramatized into an epic tale. Born in some level of reality but drenched in an artist filtering the real and the romance. I mean the title of the series of books is "ROMANCE of the Three Kingdoms", and you're telling me they took no liberties? No exaggerations? You're going to claim that as fact? It's very much a mythology. Like reading the Iliad and going damn, glad they killed those cyclops.

    What you say doesn't make sense. I'm being very clear.
    Except the accounts didn't go through and thousand years of changes, the records were written during the three kingdoms and later compiled during the Jin dynasty.
    The books are called romance of the three kingdoms because they are inspired by the fall of the Han and the three kingdoms historical periods. Luo Guanzhong did not make it up whatsoever, and even the events of the novel, while dramatized and exaggerated, follow those of history (for example, the dates and the events that happen in them are almost always historical if the characterization is not) so it's far from mythology.
  • Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
    I am not disputing the entire story, but even recent historic records are steeped in politics or incorrect accounts. I am happy to assume, as we are all making assumptions, that some of it happened. Particularly what can be checked against other sources, landmarks, physical evidence. Its both hard to prove and hard to dispute when your so far removed from it, and you guys obviously drank the cool aid of whatever representation taught you these "facts". But no one can assumes written word is indisputably factual. I don't look at the bible and go, yep, that all happened. But we can piece together the parts of the world that it relates to, we can assume there is some reality to some of the situations but just because it was a "written account" doesn't make me equate it to actually having happened the exact way it has been written. I'm not saying nothing can be trusted. I'm saying nothing should be assumed and that Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a fictional work. Based on a historic account, and the historic account cant be 100 percent accurate either.

    Read this, straight off the wiki

    "During the fifth century, the Liu Song dynasty historian Pei Songzhi (372–451) extensively annotated Chen Shou's Records of the Three Kingdoms using a variety of other sources, augmenting the text to twice the length of the original. This work, completed in 429, became one of the official histories of the Three Kingdoms period, under the title Sanguozhi zhu (三国志注 zhu meaning "notes").

    Pei collected other records to add information he felt should be added. He provided detailed explanations to some of the geography and other elements mentioned in the original. He also included multiple accounts of the same events. Sometimes, the accounts he added contradicted each other, but he included them anyways since he could not decide which version was the correct one. If Pei added something that sounded wrong, he would make a note or even offer a correction. In regard to historical events and figures, as well as Chen Shou's original text, he added his own commentary."

    See how this guy way back when is adding in multiple accounts from different sources? Because even he 200 years after the events couldn't factually decide on which version of the history presented history was true, and because he wasn't accepting either for 100 percent accuracy from two separate sources telling two separate accounts.

    Did Luo Guanzhong read that version of the accounts? Which version of events did he decide was historical?

    We can assume the overall picture of the history presented, we cant assume the overall accuracy of the history presented. I am not denying the era occurring.

    It becomes mythology when it was taken and turned into a story about heroes and villains and then became intertwined in the culture it was written for. Even recent history has modern mythology, heroes and villains compiled into a story to reflect on the nature of man.
  • Qin_FengQin_Feng Registered Users Posts: 314
    You said 3k was not a historical period. I offered evidence as to why it is a historical period. You insist on yours points and even bring up pei songzhi, a famous historian (known for working with historical periods, like the three kingdoms). Now you're shifting goal posts, saying that it's not 100% accurate, when that was not what you originally wrote.
  • Danklord127Danklord127 Registered Users Posts: 11
    You're reading my argument out of the context of me not caring about the historical accuracy of the game. Defining the goal posts as different to what they are. "Luo Guanzhong did not make it up whatsoever" is the context of your argument. If I take your argument out of the context of your original sentiment.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,040
    Well, this thread has gone right off the rails.
  • UnconcernedUnconcerned Registered Users Posts: 98
    @Danklord127

    I don’t think you’re really knowledgeable in what you’re trying to argue. You made a distinct point: “It's not like 3K is a historical period anyway, its all based on a fictitious work written a thousand years after the events. I don't mind it being non historical because the setting isn't exactly factual.” This was shown as being patently false. Now you’re resorting to Wikipedia, moving the goalposts, and desperately grasping at straws in an attempt to be “right.” Just take the loss and move on.
Sign In or Register to comment.