Three Kingdoms is not just fiction or fantasy.

[猿神擁躉]

It’s basically a common knowledge for Chinese, and Koreans, and Japanese, but I know quite a few Westerners still don’t realize it (it’s understandable of course) and have never read ROTK novel before, so I decide to post a simple explanation.

According to CA’s information so far, TW3K might follows ROTK as basis more than anything. Now the English abbreviation “ROTK” can represent two different things: 1.“Romance of Three Kingdoms”; 2.“Record of Three Kingdoms”. The former one is the renowned classical novel, the later one is the actual historical record of 3K. No matter which one CA uses, it’s all not merely fantasy. Because “ROTK novel” is largely based on “ROTK record” plus with some Chinese folklores, not totally made up; it’s a “historical fiction”, not pure fantasy.

The comparison between ROTK novel and historical truth is a very common subject of Chinese literature, and it’s been done countless times by both Chinese scholars and common enthusiasts till nowadays. To the point that Chinese scholar once claimed ROTK novel is “70% truth, 30% fiction”(章學誠：唯三國演義則七分實事，三分虛構，以致觀者，往往為之惑亂。), of course the "truth/fiction ratio" can be varied depends on how deep your research is, but the point is ROTK is not just made up or fantasy. No matter which version of ROTK CA likes to use, it’s very safe to say TW3K is not a fantasy game but still a “historical fiction” like most historical TW games CA made before, so relax, don't worry about it.


Here are some more resources for further reading if anyone wants to know the history comparison, but they’re in Chinese though. (I'm sure you can find English ones on internet.)

Seeing the Truth from History：The Virtuality and Reality of Romance of the Three Kingdoms
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnwyMDE2d2VicXVlc3RjaGluZXNlfGd4OjI2YWU3ZTI3NTFiZmFjNA

"Zhang Xue Cheng: “Only ROTK is seven parts(7/10) of truth, three parts(3/10) of fiction, therefore readers are often confused by it.”章學誠《丙辰劄記》：「唯《三國演義》則七分實事，三分虛構，以致觀者，往往為之惑亂。」
https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E5%B0%8F%E8%AA%AA%E5%8F%B2%E7%95%A5/%E7%AC%AC%E5%8D%81%E5%9B%9B%E7%AF%87
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Xuecheng

The defination of fantasy and historical ficiton.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fantasy/
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E/fantasy
https://www.goodreads.com/genres/historical-fiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fiction#History

[THEDOSSBOSS]

Coolio

[Haddon]

Originally posted by HeyMan85:

It’s basically a common knowledge for Chinese, and Koreans, and Japanese, but I know quite a few Westerners still don’t realize it (it’s understandable of course) and have never read ROTK novel before, so I decide to post a simple explanation.

According to CA’s information so far, TW3K might follows ROTK as basis more than anything. Now the English abbreviation “ROTK” can represent two different things: 1.“Romance of Three Kingdoms”; 2.“Record of Three Kingdoms”. The former one is the renowned classical novel, the later one is the actual historical record of 3K. No matter which one CA uses, it’s all not merely fantasy. Because “ROTK novel” is largely based on “ROTK record” plus with some Chinese folklores, not totally made up; it’s a “historical fiction”, not pure fantasy.

The comparison between ROTK novel and historical truth is a very common subject of Chinese literature, and it’s been done countless times by both Chinese scholars and common enthusiasts or researchers, even nowadays. To the point that Chinese scholar once claimed ROTK novel is “70% truth, 30% fiction”(章學誠：唯三國演義則七分實事，三分虛構，以致觀者，往往為之惑亂。), of course the "truth/fiction ratio" can be varied depends on how deep your research is, but the point is ROTK is not just made up or fantasy. No matter which version of ROTK CA likes to use, it’s very safe to say TW3K is not a fantasy game but still a “historical fiction” like most historical TW games CA made before, so relax.



Here are some more resources for further reading if anyone wants to know the history comparison, but they’re in Chinese though.

Seeing the Truth from History：The Virtuality and Reality of Romance of the Three Kingdoms
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnwyMDE2d2VicXVlc3RjaGluZXNlfGd4OjI2YWU3ZTI3NTFiZmFjNA

章學誠《丙長劄記》：「唯《三國演義》則七分實事，三分虛構，以致觀者，往往為之惑亂。」
https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E5%B0%8F%E8%AA%AA%E5%8F%B2%E7%95%A5/%E7%AC%AC%E5%8D%81%E5%9B%9B%E7%AF%87

As I said in the other thread, that "scholar" is a laughingstock within academia for saying such a ridiculous statement. 3K isn't fictional at all, RoTK is more fiction (by FAR) than it is history.

[Too Much Salt]

Actually I am glad CA chose the Romance version. More in-depth storyline than Historical. If one game abides too strictly to historical accuracy, too much constraints..curb creativity and affect gameplay.

Look at all that hype for Kingdom Come , most of those historical nerds praising how awesome the game is because how historically accurate it is...yada yada, I almost bought it too due to hype. After waiting a bit longer, 96,000 players peak and now is on average 6K players lel (steam stat). Numbers speak for itself especially for a game barely 6 months old...so, where are those hardcore supporters now ?

Gameplay is always my number one criteria when buying a game & also don't let people who uses historical authenticity to influence your judgment. For us who grew up watching & Role-Play ROTK materials, we know its an awesome setting.

Cheers.

[Fais]

Originally posted by Too Much Salt:

Actually I am glad CA chose the Romance version. More in-depth storyline than Historical. If one game abides too strictly to historical accuracy, too much constraints..curb creativity and affect gameplay.

Look at all that hype for Kingdom Come , most of those historical nerds praising how awesome the game is because how historically accurate it is...yada yada, I almost bought it too due to hype. After waiting a bit longer, 96,000 players peak and now is on average 6K players lel (steam stat). Numbers speak for itself especially for a game barely 6 months old...so, where are those hardcore supporters now ?

Gameplay is always my number one criteria when buying a game & also don't let people who uses historical authenticity to influence your judgment. For us who grew up watching & Role-Play ROTK materials, we know its an awesome setting.

Cheers.

i always wanted to play the romance of the three kingdoms and not the fully historical one, why? because it will turn into boring with no depth as you said, i mean, i dont want my Lu Bu to be a ♥♥♥♥♥ general who dies in a single charge, i want him to just destroy.

gameplay> historical accuracy


and that is coming from a history teacher who is doing his M.A.

[yezhanquan]

Originally posted by Haddon:

As I said in the other thread, that "scholar" is a laughingstock within academia for saying such a ridiculous statement. 3K isn't fictional at all, RoTK is more fiction (by FAR) than it is history.

RoTK: Are you talking about Romance of the Three Kingdoms, or Records of the Three Kingdoms?

The main issue with historical records from this era is that Chen Shou was very brief in his Records as he was very stringent with his sources. You can't go wrong if you didn't record it down, but at the same time, the picture is neither complete nor vibrant.

Pei Songzhi's Annotations greatly expanded the Records, and yes, the doubting of Pei's sources went on throughout the ages, but at least we got a fuller picture.

I like how the late Prof. Zhou Ruchang puts it: Novels and history have their own value and place in societies. It is up to readers to remember that they are reading a novel and not actual history, and not to mix up the two.

[AlwaystheMage]

Isn't the 70/3 quote something on the lines of. "if the novel Journey to the West was purely fictional and the Chronicles of the Kingdoms was purely factual, then the three kingdoms novel was seven parts of fact, and three parts of fiction.” Not it is 70% accurate, something rather more complex

The novel is historical fiction and a work of propaganda. I have no issue if they decide to go down that route or that they decide to go down historical or they decide to go down a mixture of both. I suspect it will be novel equipment but less duelling, no magic (though the histories had magic as it were, it was not involved in battle), a mix of novel and history personalities as far as they do them.

[Haddon]

Originally posted by Too Much Salt:

Actually I am glad CA chose the Romance version. More in-depth storyline than Historical. If one game abides too strictly to historical accuracy, too much constraints..curb creativity and affect gameplay.

Look at all that hype for Kingdom Come , most of those historical nerds praising how awesome the game is because how historically accurate it is...yada yada, I almost bought it too due to hype. After waiting a bit longer, 96,000 players peak and now is on average 6K players lel (steam stat). Numbers speak for itself especially for a game barely 6 months old...so, where are those hardcore supporters now ?

Gameplay is always my number one criteria when buying a game & also don't let people who uses historical authenticity to influence your judgment. For us who grew up watching & Role-Play ROTK materials, we know its an awesome setting.

Cheers.

Those "hardcore supporters" already beat the game, and are on to something else for now. That is how RPGs tend to be, especially such an incredibly niche one. It isn't a Skyrim kind of game, more sandbox than RPG, KCD is a very specific type of VERY "role-playing" RPG, nowhere near the open-endedness that keeps RPGs going for years. And an indie game with 500k-1M buyers having ~6k playing at a time is actually very good. You can't compare the numbers of this game to a massive AAA title. Warhorse is a large studio (in number of employees), but without the resources of something like Bethesda. You are comparing oranges to like...tangerines. 6K concurrent players for a tangerine is quite good.

[猿神擁躉]

Originally posted by Takerath:

Isn't the 70/3 quote something on the lines of. "if the novel Journey to the West was purely fictional and the Chronicles of the Kingdoms was purely factual, then the three kingdoms novel was seven parts of fact, and three parts of fiction.” Not it is 70% accurate, something rather more complex......

No, I have no idea who are you quoting from. I already posted the original texts(in Classical Chinese) and the name of scholar who said it, including a link of entire article. I’m a bit amazed people still managed to twist such short paragraph.

Do I really have to translate it words by words by myself? OK.
“章學誠：唯三國演義則七分實事，三分虛構，以致觀者，往往為之惑亂”
"Zhang Xue Cheng: “Only ROTK is seven parts(7/10) of truth, three parts(3/10) of fiction, therefore readers are often confused by it.”

See, it’s a very simple quote, not out of context, not complex at all. Zhang Xue Cheng is a Qing dynasty scholar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Xuecheng

[Haddon]

Originally posted by HeyMan85:

Originally posted by Takerath:

Isn't the 70/3 quote something on the lines of. "if the novel Journey to the West was purely fictional and the Chronicles of the Kingdoms was purely factual, then the three kingdoms novel was seven parts of fact, and three parts of fiction.” Not it is 70% accurate, something rather more complex......

No, I have no idea who are you quoting from. I already posted the original texts(in Classical Chinese) and the name of scholar who said it, including a link of entire article. I’m a bit amazed people still managed to twist such short paragraph.

Do I really have to translate it words by words by myself? OK.
“章學誠：唯三國演義則七分實事，三分虛構，以致觀者，往往為之惑亂”
"Zhang Xue Cheng: “Only ROTK is seven parts(7/10) of truth, three parts(3/10) of fiction, therefore readers are often confused by it.”

See, it’s a very simple quote, not out of context, not complex at all. Zhang Xue Cheng is a Qing dynasty scholar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Xuecheng

And like I said, he is completely discounted by any modern historian outside of China. One of his most famous quotes is "The six histories are history" or something like that, and that is just laughably wrong. Nothing he said should be taken as contemporarily scholarly; it was fine in 18th century China, when archeology didn't exist and historiography was barely a thing and before most historians actually started being skeptical of ancient claims (in China at least, historical skepticism is older in Europe). You keep mentioning Xuechang, but he was only a slightly better historian than Zachariah Sitchin or Georgio Tsoukalos. Outside of China, he is almost completely discounted as a historian, though what I know of him he was a decent philosopher.

[AlwaystheMage]

Originally posted by HeyMan85:

Originally posted by Takerath:

Isn't the 70/3 quote something on the lines of. "if the novel Journey to the West was purely fictional and the Chronicles of the Kingdoms was purely factual, then the three kingdoms novel was seven parts of fact, and three parts of fiction.” Not it is 70% accurate, something rather more complex......

No, I have no idea who are you quoting from. I already posted the original texts(in Classical Chinese) and the name of scholar who said it, including a link of entire article. I’m a bit amazed people still managed to twist such short paragraph.

Do I really have to translate it words by words by myself? OK.
“章學誠：唯三國演義則七分實事，三分虛構，以致觀者，往往為之惑亂”
"Zhang Xue Cheng: “Only ROTK is seven parts(7/10) of truth, three parts(3/10) of fiction, therefore readers are often confused by it.”

See, it’s a very simple quote, not out of context, not complex at all. Zhang Xue Cheng is a Qing dynasty scholar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Xuecheng

Give I can't read Chinese and I imagine a lot of people here can't then yes, that would be helpful path in future. Unless your suggesting google translate which I imagine would go bad

I got the quote from here [kongming.net]

[handsome leon]

that' cool

[FieserMoep]

The novel is mostly fantasy.
Everyone that believes otherwise is just daydraming and wants something to be more interesting than it actually was.
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice story I like, but its just that. A fantasy story.
Problem is, that there is a huge movement within China that wants to "upgrade" its own history by taking parts of it at face value and that is outright retarded.

[yezhanquan]

Chen Shoud did record at least one Dynasty-Warriors worthy moment. During the Battle of Leisure Ford (Xiaoyao Jin), Zhang Liao heard some of his men (who were surrounded) exclaim, "Has the General forsaken us?" He then charged into the fray, and got those men out.

The novel's Shu bias becomes irritating after you read the exploits of people who served Wei and Wu.

[猿神擁躉]

Originally posted by FieserMoep:

The novel is mostly fantasy.

Nope, read my first post :)

Originally posted by FieserMoep:

Everyone that believes otherwise is just daydraming

Nope, you sound more like daydreaming.

Originally posted by FieserMoep:

Problem is, that there is a huge movement within China that wants to "upgrade" its own history by taking parts of it at face value and that is outright ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Nope, that sounds more like your own ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or delusion.

[FieserMoep]

Found the fantasy fanboy.