Talk:Spartan: Total Warrior

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Sega task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

No did you know nominations

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

I have the game manuel for this right here in front of me, and nowhere in it or the game itself does it specify that the "King Leonidas" within it is actually Leonidas II. Since at least one person on this talk page is intently opposed to a Historical Innacuracies section, which I still believe should be present, I'm removing the "II" from it. If anyone can find a source, feel free to revert it back, but if that's the case, the reason for the addition of a Historical Innacuracies section has been otherwise justified. Furthermore, if said historical innacuracies of the game aren't worth bringing up, why should it even link to any historical individuals? I'll leave the links to the articles of Tiberius, Sejanus, Crassus, and Leonidas I (who is likely the ahistorical Leonidas portrayed in this game) for a month or so, but if nobody gives any logical reason for their inclusion, I'm gonna remove the links. It's gotta be one way or the other, folks, not both. Also, I'm adding Archimedes to the allies list because he's a pivotal character in the Athens level. And as for Persians being in the Roman camp level, I seriously doubt it, but I'll leave that until I or someone else finds out for sure.Spartan198 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the section about historical inaccuracies really necessary? Maybe if they'd been trying for a game that was supposed to be historically accurate, sure, it's a worthy addition to the article. But they obviously weren't, and this section just looks silly and pedantic, especially since it's longer than any other.--71.112.234.168 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to say, 4.225.97.52, then please do so instead of simply deleting the talk page.--71.112.234.168 04:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I will be deleting the section on historical inaccuracies until such time as someone wants to justify its inclusion.--71.112.234.168 04:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4.224.105.131, I will report this article for vandalism if you don't stop deleting this discussion page and reverting that inane historical inaccuracies section.--71.112.234.168 09:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.143.107.17, is there any particular reason why you can not argue for the historical inaccuracy section's inclusion instead of childishly reverting the article and deleting this discussion page over and over again? I'm only going to do this one more time, and then I'm going to have the article locked. I suggest you speak up if you want that section to be included in this article.--John 10:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) --Original glitch 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) After the creative assembly explanation for inaccuracy there is the sentence;" Although many people who have played the game have considered that too be a very poor excuse for the inaccuracy".I find this completely unnecessary since most negativity in critic and gamer reviews was about the gameplay itself,not the innacuracies.It has Beowulf,a hydra,medusa, and weapons with special powers.I doubt anybody walked in with the expectations of a historical drama and was extremely offended over the inaccuracies.[reply]

Agreed, no-one has argued for its inclusion and the oiece itself is largley a nonsense talking about hitler etc, deleted.

I deleted the fantastical characters part of the historical accuracies section as it ridiculous to have a section dealing with how fictitious things are historically inaccurate. Who writes this sort of crap?

My two cents

For all the effort and argument that's gone into this article, it really is terrible. I know that some people just get their kicks by documenting historical inaccuracies, but that really has no place in an article like this. And to make it worse, there's a section on 'Facts about the game'. What?? Isn't the whole article supposed to be facts about the game?

This isn't a forum to prove how smart you are. If anyone wants to check the historical accuracy of this game (and I would wager no one does), there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia with that information. I would remove the historical accuracy section myself, but it would just get reverted anyway.

Historical Accuracy

I've edited most parts of the article, especially the "Historical Accuracy" Section. Other than to point out inaccuracies, there is no need to go into great detail. If people will want to know about how Spartan and Roman history actually occurred, they can go to the articles related to those topics. Similarly, for the "Mythical creatures" section, I figured it was unnecessary to describe the creatures if there is a link to the detailed article about the creature immediately available. Also, while something like a priestess may be a part of Greco-Roman culture, it is obviously not a mythical creature. Finally, I changed the "Facts" section to "Trivia," and made some grammar and phrasing changes. Longstreet87 00:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The historical accuracy section needs to go

Judging from the this talk page there have been many attempts to clean up the ridiculously long-winded and unnecessary 'historical accuracy' bit. Things like Hitler's enthusiasm for Spartan customs are frankly comedic and the fact that the game never pretends to use history as anything other than a good framework for a hollywood story invalidates its' inclusion. A few lines about how the very scenario depicted in the story is historically implausable and a few links to the pages on Spartan customs etc. is more than sufficient. I'll try and delete all the crap and clean it up next week. Edders 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is a common thread in the history of this article, an anonymous poster (4.225.100.43) has reverted it back to its' horrendous original state. They also offered no explanation for doing so. This article needs to be locked. Edders 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our anonymous editor has done it again. One more time and he'll be reported for vandalism. Edders 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population Profiles

This section is particularly pointless: No where in the game were any of these facts on Spartan up-bringing contradicted. To say that the Spartans could not act heroically because Hitler admired them is absurd. Also, I seem to remember a line almost identical to “Come back with your shield, or come back on it” appearing in the game.

You'll find no argument here - nobody has yet offered any explanation for why the section should be retained except for continually reverting the article and deleting the talk page. Edders 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs screenshots

Needs screenshots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberRaptor (talk • contribs) 23:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Reason for historical accuracy section

I'm not college-educated on the topic,but as someone who knows a great deal of facts concerning ancient Sparta and classical / hellenistic Greek civilization in general, I personally think that the historical accuracy section should be present simply to put into words that the game is NOT intended to be historically accurate. We all know what kind of a fiasco that a certain movie recently caused... SpartanGlory1983 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983[reply]