Yes… but it’s easier to just make it up. Literally the only point I’ve made, and you agree with me, but you think I’m wrong. Bizarre.
I think the point Josh is making, and one I would argue, is that fiction isn’t inherently easier, rather it has a different set of challenges to make well. Making a world, whole cloth, requires a different set of constraints to give it a feeling of verisimilitude. It’s also why so many are just rehashing of the concepts Tolkien and others laid out. Tolkien had already done the work of creating an alternate world with conflicts and relations. Cribbing the orc-elf animosity without understanding the meaning is easier, but also leaves a world feeling thin.
So to create a quality world requires more work. It’s hard. It is prone to making mistakes or things that aren’t well received in otherwise beloved worlds (see: Potter and Quiddich). Sure just filing the serial numbers off of another universe, or our own, is easier. It also lacks depth and meanings.
You’ll note, I never said it was easy. Going back to Tom’s original comparison - it is easier to write about something which is LIKE the Roman Empire, than it is to write something ABOUT the Roman Empire. They’re held up to different standards, and one is far more constraining. (Though I guess some people prefer the constraint.) And let’s remember my comment was in response to Tom’s original question, but seems to have taken on a life of its own.
(Third edit of this. So difficult to achieve clarity sometimes.)
Science fiction Japanese Empires or Mongol hordes are pretty much standard. There’s a reason for that, and for why people still get paid for it, because it gives you a backdrop that both the writer and the reader is familiar with. A shorthand. I’m not saying it’s always good, but it’s awfully convenient.
Well, you wrote “a hell of a lot easier”, which I don’t think is necessarily true, for reasons already discussed.
Not sure if I’d say they’re held up to different standards exactly – that might depend on the genre or even medium. Both, of course, can become problematic. Sometimes, fans of a particular work or genre become more savvy about that fictional world than the original creator(s), and they’ll notice immediately when something’s inconsistent. For example, Arthur Conan Doyle giving Watson the first name “James” (instead of John) in one his stories, or George Lucas writing that the Republic existed for a thousand generations in one movie and then a thousand years in another.
But indeed, creating something historical can be more constraining, for reasons we already discussed earlier.
Sure. Tropes are everywhere. I guess in those cases, it depends on the quality of the creator as regards to how those tropes are received. Whether the creator can do something original with them (and thereby elevate the material) or not (and in the latter case, the tropes devolve into clichés).
This has been a very fun discussion, by the way.
Put it like this, let’s say we were to put this into practice.
You can research “Anton Gully” and see what you can come up with that’s accurate, given that I tend to troll forums and comment threads while I’m drunk, so you can’t necessarily trust my position on anything. I’ve been using this avatar (actually previously I used a Karloff one, but I paid someone for this - see if you can turn that guy up, he’s really talented and I forget his name) for about six or seven years, so there are definitely some facts out there in the ether, but dammit you’re going to have to sift and use your judgement, but even then there’s no guarantee you’ll get it right.
Meanwhile I have to write a fantasy based on what I can find out about you based on ten minutes going though Google, searching for your avatar image and user name. I can see you’re into stripping paragraphs and leather Hellenic armour. My character, NoshoB is into stripping out of leather Hellenic armour, and I’ve already got a strong backstory going about why - to pay his way through his PhD research, obviously. He’s a dreamy academic with a bod to die for, but that enigmatic smile hides a deeper sorrow…
Which of us will have an easier, nay a MUCH easier time?
Also, what you dismiss as tropes are exactly my point. It’s easy for something to become a trope, because it’s easy. But don’t focus on the trope thing, focus on painting a picture of the “Anton Gully”.
Obviously, you don’t have to do anything, except agree with me that we agree.
I don’t think further discussion will lead anywhere, @Anton_Gully, but let me just briefly explain why I don’t agree with you. (Which replaces my earlier short reply about not wanting to engage any further.)
I think any (creative) endeavour relies on three different things: life experience, imagination, and research. I don’t think you can ever only focus on just one of those factors. If you’re creating a historical game, you’ll rely on research a lot (both historical and game design/mechanics), but you’ll also rely on experiences you’ve had (what worked in other games, what you’ve seen in the movies, what you’ve read in your spare time), and also your imagination. But if you’re working on a fantasy game, perhaps you’ll rely more on imagination than on research, but you can’t really go completely without research, and imagination is hard to quantify – some people have oodles of it, others almost nothing, and how do you gauge how much effort imagination requires over research anyway?
Likewise, if someone was to write an autobiography, it would rely to a larger extent on life experiences (memories), would require some research (what was the name of the high school principal again? how many people lived in the town again?), and perhaps the least amount of imagination. Is writing an autobiography harder than writing a historical novel or writing a fantasy novel? Since I’ve never written any of those, I honestly have no idea, I can’t make a good comparison, but my experience with writing so far – having written two nonfiction books and working on a third – I don’t think one if appreciably easier than the other, except if you deliberately set out to deliver shoddy work.
I would like to thank @joshob, @Anton_Gully , @CraigM , @Enidigm, @Left_Empty and of course @tomchick for this awesome whopper of a thread. Well done chaps, jolly good show.
Corrections:
“I used to [wonder] if Total War: Warhammer”
“it’s someone else’s city is [sic] in your way”
This thread made me roll back to Attila – what a great game, and great DLC.
Over the last week I have been trying to survive in the Last Roman DLC as a Separatist – building my own empire as belasarius. Instant war with my good friends over at the Eastern Roman Empire.
THAT is not easy. But very fun. I am now on Sardinia praying the Moors don’t roll over --and most of Italy is Eastern Empire with legions everywhere.
Great Campaign – Tight mechanics – I am playing vanilla with no mods. No need for mods in this one.
I have to admit I think overall that missile/javelin units probably do too much damage but that the battle mechanics are very refined after Rome 2.
Finally what makes Attila (and the dlc) more fun is that the Strategy part isn’t undercut by the Tactical part --in other words armies/military and bread/butter is well balanced.
I am glad this thread had me back!
Welcome back to another campaign in a very fine game, glad you’re enjoying it.
Myself, I mostly play Attila and Shogun 2 (with an occasional fond return to MTW2), but lately I’ve been taking a break from history and I’m playing Warhammer. This latest campaign was quite enjoyable, playing the wood elves had sufficiently different game mechanics to keep me engaged the entire campaign.
Regardless which TW we’re talking about, you know what I like most? That as a strategy game I’m not playing a puzzle game. There’s no perfect build order I can’t deviate from, there’s no grooming specific soldiers I have to keep alive to win (looking straight at you xcom), I have choices I get to make, each with a cost to be sure, but I’m not forced down a path. W/O choice there is no strategy and there’s no unique emergent campaign narrative.
That’s why I keep coming back to Total War.