@steven
Uhm, you described a lot of activities that happened in the arenas, but that are not gladiatorial games.

The most outstanding thing in the is the music.... The graphics looks a little better than the horrible previous trailer. I don't dig the animation, and someone HVS should hire a competent art director. The gameplay seems rather dull, seems more like a hack and slash than a fighter. I agree with Matt from IGN, i'm not sold on this. The Grinder is way more interesting in my opinion.

The animations could use a little work, but other then that it looks interesting.

It would be nice if you could upgrade different stats between fights.

Graphics look really good. These guys know how to utilize the Wii's graphic capabilitites. Unlike almost every other third party out there.

However, gameplay looks very boring. It seems you cannot even move your character around. The gladiators just stand around and take a beating.

But then again, I think Punch-Out!! looks totally boring.

I'm not into fighting games. But the graphics really are awesome, and it will only get better.

In a  IGN interview they said the game will have light rpg elements so I guess your wish came true.

Like what?  Like I noted in my post, there were many similar events involving fighting; For the example I used, Bestiarius. Exactly what error are you trying to point out?

If you want to be really picky, you are absolutely wrong.  People who trained as gladiators did fight in venationes from time to time.

There were many more than four types of gladiators and battles... Catervarii fought in groups larger than two, Equites fought on horse back, Essedarii fought from chariots, Laqueatores fought using a noose...  I don't remember the rest of the names but there were even gladiators who fought with blinding helmets.  That would definitely make for an awkward video game...

Usually, the Gladiator shows were one on one.  That did not bar gladiator shows from including chariots, groups, boats, or lions.  They all happpened at one point or another, regardless if they were the norm.

In Alan Bakers the Gladiator on page 115 (which I site because you can find it on google books; he is probably citing The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster by Barton which is not available on Google Books but is probably available in your local university or central municipal library), he names and describes the Emperors who fought as gladiators, these include but are not limited to Nero, Titus, Hadrian, Caligula, and Commodus.

More importantly are the colloquialisms In ancient Rome, when people were going to the Coliseum for the events leading up to and including the gladiator shows would say that they were going to see the gladiators.  Today, we use gladiators and gladiatorial combat to describe all of those events in the layman's terms.

1:05 reminded me so much of Age of Conan I squeeled a little bit. I gotta say, it looks amazing in motion. Much better than the stills I was looking at yesterday.

Looks alright, but I am not interested. Then again I don't really like the whole fighter genre very much.

If you get free reign in an arena with a dozen or more others to fight then I may start being more interested.

Both of you are right.

Gladiators (with only few exceptions) just fought one on ones. Sometimes there where 10 or more pairs of gladiators fighting at the same time with very strict rules (as werekitten said with special type of gladiators fighting each other).

The large combats where a speciality within the time of the emperors and didn't involve gladiators, but war prisoners. The bestiarii where mainly convicted non-Romans. Martials "liber spectaculorum" is still disputed in science, because historians can't simply figure out, how they actually flood the colosseum, but the mass land combats have been proven as a historical fact.