Historic Authenticy in Video Games

[vanguard333]

So, I have never played an Assassin's Creed game in my life. But, recently, I watched a review of Assassin's Creed: Origins, and its historic accuracy. The reviewer absolutely loved all the attention to detail and said it was clear that the game animators at least had worked closely with historians.

Here's the actual review, if you're interested:

That got me thinking about another video game that's in development, called Kingdom Come: Deliverance and set in 15th Century Bohemia, and how the people making that game have said that they want it to be authentic, and, for the most part, it seems to be.

This got me thinking, when it comes to movies and TV shows set in historical settings, they pretty much never are historically accurate. Almost all of them fall into cinema clichés like weird leather armour that didn't exist, everyone wearing brown and being covered in mud, and many of them don't even portray the historic events the way they most likely actually happened. 

Video Games enable a lot more immersion, and thus can get a lot more right, but also can get a lot more wrong. Now, a lot of games market themselves as fantasy. But for some, part of the marketing and advertising is that they take place during a certain historic setting or event. Should the latter games do everything they can to be authentic, while still making a good game? 

What do you think? 

Edited January 26, 2018 by vanguard333

[MacLovin]

nah

 

I mean have you ever played a Fate game or VN. I'm pretty sure Nero didn't have tits.

[Refa]

17 minutes ago, Skurge said:

I mean have you ever played a Fate game or VN. I'm pretty sure Nero didn't have tits.

It's this kind of next level ignorance that leads me to believe that you should leave understanding history up to the masters of the craft, Type Moon.

Seriously though, making a game more authentic to the time period it takes place can improve things like character design, worldbuilding, and providing a better context to the overall narrative, but it's not necessary by any means.  I think games would benefit from striving to be as authentic as possible as long as it doesn't conflict with their vision, though.  Seeing fanservicey outfits in Fire Emblem games (moreso in the newer ones, but it's not like the old ones were entirely innocent either) bugs the hell out of me.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Refa

[Zapp Branniglenn]

If the average gamer does not know what's historically accurate, then they have no issues with historical inaccuracies. Publishers want to sell to broad audiences - the sort of people unaware that Ninjas were noteworthy for blending in with other people, rather than blending in with shadows. Or believing that every adult male in the wild west carried a loaded gun to the local bar when in fact many 19th century towns had stricter gun laws than anything feasible in twenty first century America

I only want games to make an effort if they're explicitly basing a game off of true historical events. And since games are so rooted in fiction, this is an incredibly rare case. Assassin's Creed makes that effort, even though it's story is fiction. Concerning a templar order that existed past the crusades, and magical artifacts left behind by primordial deities. But I very much appreciate the abundance of codex-like information the player can peruse regarding buildings, historical figures, and art history. No doubt a lot of it is information the designers were studying as references for their game world, so they probably didn't have to do too much extra research in order to edit those notes into something more palatable that the player could read. It's a neat bonus at almost no extra cost for the development team.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

This is pretty much a case by case basis. if the game specifically want to potray a certain period of time, within a certain kind of potrayal, historical accuracy is important. Some simply doesn't

Dynasty Warriors is in a unique place in that its not historically accurate by any means just because of being based off Romance of Three Kingdoms(no, Lu Bu isn't the strongest in the era, its his fucking underling. No Guan Yu and ZGL death is not the starting point of Shu's downfall, their death was the turning point for the Shu's golden age. And the most glaring for me back then is probably when i realized Dong Zhuo is actually a competent as hell commander) but funny enough it did some things right

[Interdimensional Observer]

14 hours ago, JSND Alter Dragon Boner said:

And the most glaring for me back then is probably when i realized Dong Zhuo is actually a competent as hell commander) but funny enough it did some things right

Well that is interesting. I already heard Lu Bu was all bark and little bite, (and Xiahou Dun wasn't most notable as a fighter, and Guan Yu was blunderbuss and egotism, and Zhang Fe was a slavedriver, and Liu Bei wasn't so sweet) but Dong Zhuo being competent is new to me. Not hard to see why they would change this though, moral corruption equaling wretchedness elsewhere is from a literary perspective not unusual at all.

Dynasty Warriors does seem to try to maintain some measure of historical authenticity though, since DW9 is trying to give the outfits a semblance of accuracy. But fanservice, epic coolness, the Romance flair, and just some crazy/simplified exaggeration all undercut it.

 

I'll agree it partly depends on the audience being targeted, and also the direction the developer wants to take the game in. I'd prefer at least the trappings of historicism, but more is better, particularly for world building. 

[Etrurian emperor]

I think its silly to be a stickler to the most minor of details. A game about ancient Rome is going to use the Roman armor we are familiar  with regardless of whether the Romans did or didn't use it at that point in time. And that's fine. I also heard people get petty about Roman emperors eating potato's which is just being nitpicky. 

But I do think there should be a certain authenticity and blatantly moving away from the historical setting of your game is going to hurt the product. Alterations for the sake of story telling is fine but the trick is using the strength of the era to ensure you don't have to make bad alterations. I recall Rise being about barbarian Brits suddenly being powerful enough to overthrow the Roman empire which is just nonsense. They got actual threats like Hanibal, the Persians or the huns that would have made far better enemies. 

From what I heard Caesar was a bit of a puppet in Assassins creed which is kind of a shame. He's probably the most interesting and capable figure of anyone set in that period so they could have used that to craft an excellent antagonist(Or just copy Ceasar from Asterix, that works too)

I think the series of HBO Rome handles its setting very well in the sense that they could twist the setting around to switch their needs without losing authenticity. Augustus mom for example was never the lover of Marc Anthony but by combining his actual wife with her they managed to make a great character who drew out the best of Anthony. That works way better then if they had dragged out some random barbarian to be his manipulative wife. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Etrurian emperor

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

9 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Well that is interesting. I already heard Lu Bu was all bark and little bite, (and Xiahou Dun wasn't most notable as a fighter, and Guan Yu was blunderbuss and egotism, and Zhang Fe was a slavedriver, and Liu Bei wasn't so sweet) but Dong Zhuo being competent is new to me. Not hard to see why they would change this though, moral corruption equaling wretchedness elsewhere is from a literary perspective not unusual at all.

Dynasty Warriors does seem to try to maintain some measure of historical authenticity though, since DW9 is trying to give the outfits a semblance of accuracy. But fanservice, epic coolness, the Romance flair, and just some crazy/simplified exaggeration all undercut it.

 

I'll agree it partly depends on the audience being targeted, and also the direction the developer wants to take the game in. I'd prefer at least the trappings of historicism, but more is better, particularly for world building. 

I dont think Lu Bu is really all bark little bite, since he is a big enough problem for Cao Cao. The closest with him is hes a strong guy who is also a bad commander. Whats really funny is that hes actually irrelevant during Dong Zhuo era. He was a bit famous for his strength and got hired as Dong Zhuo's bodyguard, but he really got his name and relevance from killing Dong Zhuo. Xu Rong was the real undefeated general under Dong Zhuo since he defeated Cao Cao and Sun Jian at the first time. Its kinda funny to remember the most accurate description of Lu Bu is that he is Sun Jian's punching bag, so much that his action following his escape from Chang An he went to Yuan Shu probbaly becauae Yuan Shu did the best against Dong Zhuo - through Sun Jian

What makes Dong Zhuo notable is that he manage to suceed where Zhuge Liang utterly failed at. He had a hugely succesful military campaign, he did beat the Alliance against him until Sun Jian arrives, and even then Sun Jian lose to Xu Rong and only started winning after he regroups past his first loss against Xu Rong, and unlike Zhuge Liang he only recruited competent guys instead of his cronies

[peener weener]

very ambiguous answer for a very ambiguous question: depends on the type of game. peiod-inaccurate anachronisms can really really break your immersion in some games that have otherwise an apparently sincere attempt at a historical setting. it is, however, by no means necessary. as is usually the case with art, execution depends on intent.

[vanguard333]

7 hours ago, fartboi said:

very ambiguous answer for a very ambiguous question: depends on the type of game. peiod-inaccurate anachronisms can really really break your immersion in some games that have otherwise an apparently sincere attempt at a historical setting. it is, however, by no means necessary. as is usually the case with art, execution depends on intent.

I wasn't trying to make the question ambiguous; just open-ended, for lack of a better word (wording is not my strong point). 

As for the type of game, well, as I mentioned at the start of the thread, I'm mostly referring to games that advertise themselves as taking place during a historical setting or event. I even gave a couple of examples of games like this that have made an effort to be historically authentic.

[blah the Prussian]

On 1/21/2018 at 3:31 AM, Czarpy said:

nah

 

I mean have you ever played a Fate game or VN. I'm pretty sure Nero didn't have tits.

Those visual novels should not exist. Really that simple.

Anyway, it depends on the game. If it's something like Call of Duty, historical accuracy is to be preferred, but it's hardly a major issue if some details are incorrect. I'm not going to throw a hissy fit if they get the SS Totenkopf uniform wrong. If the game is supposed to simulate history, though, like most Paradox games and the Total War series, historical inaccuracy is a big issue. For example, in Rome: Total War, Ptolemaic Egypt uses units from Ancient Egypt; this is a real issue, as the game is supposed to simulate warfare in that period. Basically, historical accuracy is absolutely needed only when the game's goal is to simulate the period. If the era is a framing device, though, minor inaccuracies are acceptable so long as there isn't anything egregious.

[Moblin Major General]

Acceptable: Yellow nosed Bf-109s at Dunkirk

Not acceptable: Black Female Wehrmacht soldiers (at least this one is just a multiplayer cosmetic for CoD: WWII).

[Etrurian emperor]

15 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

For example, in Rome: Total War, Ptolemaic Egypt uses units from Ancient Egypt; this is a real issue, as the game is supposed to simulate warfare in that period.

I do kinda see what they were going for with that one. Not only is ancient Egypt more marketable but it would also ensure that Egypt wouldn't be yet another Greek Hoplite nation. I think the devs named this as their reason.

But that's kind of the usual problem. They make changes to try and make things more interesting but as a result it actually becomes more boring then if they just stuck with history. A Greek colonial regime having to balance their Greekness with their Egyptian population sounds like it would make for a much more interesting roster then just an ancient Egyptian army. And Egypt ended up with a hoplite army regardless of their looks anyway. 

[Tryhard]

Sometimes, but I'm not going to get hung up over the details.

Someone brought up Total War, in which the fanbase can be particularly touchy about it, but in other case in games they like such as Rome 1, with screeching women and roman assassin troops, give that a pass.

So I don't even know.

[Magical CC]

On 1/21/2018 at 10:53 AM, vanguard333 said:

So, I have never played an Assassin's Creed game in my life. But, recently, I watched a review of Assassin's Creed: Origins, and its historic accuracy. The reviewer absolutely loved all the attention to detail and said it was clear that the game animators at least had worked closely with historians.

Video Games enable a lot more immersion, and thus can get a lot more right, but also can get a lot more wrong. Now, a lot of games market themselves as fantasy. But for some, part of the marketing and advertising is that they take place during a certain historic setting or event. Should the latter games do everything they can to be authentic, while still making a good game? 

What do you think? 

What the hell do game animators having to do with something belongs to game concept and design!? And no, if you want to know, we dont need game animators to know Egyptians actually didnt side walk like a crab while moving their head back and forward as if they are Micheal Jackson back up dancers in "Remember the time". And the game itself is pretty unhistorical, even more than some other AC games. Or now do I have to remind you how they find these "experts" from the back alley?

And I dont get why making a game more historical accurate have anything to do with making it worse or better. If anything, the lack of historical accuracy can sometimes make a game worse. 

 

On 1/21/2018 at 12:42 PM, JSND Alter Dragon Boner said:

Dynasty Warriors is in a unique place in that its not historically accurate by any means just because of being based off Romance of Three Kingdoms(no, Lu Bu isn't the strongest in the era, its his fucking underling. No Guan Yu and ZGL death is not the starting point of Shu's downfall, their death was the turning point for the Shu's golden age. And the most glaring for me back then is probably when i realized Dong Zhuo is actually a competent as hell commander) but funny enough it did some things right

Actually wrong, Dong Zhou is a lame commander. His only victory when he directly commanded an army was against barbarians. He was more active in real history but his records were basically one defeat after another, being super incompetent at leading. He's only good on riding on Huangfu success. And no, none of Lu Bu underling would come close to even be considered as the "strongest". I dont know where you get your facts from, is it fanfiction dot com?

Quote

What makes Dong Zhuo notable is that he manage to suceed where Zhuge Liang utterly failed at. He had a hugely succesful military campaign, he did beat the Alliance against him until Sun Jian arrives, and even then Sun Jian lose to Xu Rong and only started winning after he regroups past his first loss against Xu Rong, and unlike Zhuge Liang he only recruited competent guys instead of his cronies

What are you even talking about? What kind of of "hugely successful campaign"? What do you mean when Zhuge Liang didnt even have a single successful campaign? Only "competent guys"? Sorry but you know what unlike Wei Yan, many of Dong Zhou cronies were actually traitors. You know, like the guy who killed him?

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Magical CC

[vanguard333]

17 hours ago, Magical CC said:

What the hell do game animators having to do with something belongs to game concept and design!? And no, if you want to know, we dont need game animators to know Egyptians actually didnt side walk like a crab while moving their head back and forward as if they are Micheal Jackson back up dancers in "Remember the time". And the game itself is pretty unhistorical, even more than some other AC games. Or now do I have to remind you how they find these "experts" from the back alley?

Sorry; animators may have been a poor choice of words. A better quick summary of the person's review would probably be the following:

Accuracy in the worldbuilding: excellent. Accuracy in the narrative and historical figures: eh...

EDIT: I have also posted the review at the top of the thread.

17 hours ago, Magical CC said:

And I dont get why making a game more historical accurate have anything to do with making it worse or better. If anything, the lack of historical accuracy can sometimes make a game worse. 

Uh... what? First you say you don't understand how historical accuracy can make a game better or worse, then say inaccuracy can make a game worse. Correct me if I'm misunderstand what you're trying to say, but those statements sound contradictory.

Plus, the whole point of the thread is to discuss whether or not historical accuracy is necessary or beneficial for a video game, and whether or not it depends on the type of game.

Edited January 26, 2018 by vanguard333

[Sentacotus]

Depends I think some flex is allowed given that I know going into it it is a game.  Obviously games like Total War and Company of Heroes probably need more historical accuracy than others but even on some of the things they get wrong I kinda let pass.  Although there is a mod to Rome 1 called Rome Total Realism which is pretty amazing if you're a real historical nut.  

[Christactics]

Really depends on which game it is. The creator might want to mix in fantasy aspects into it, and that already makes the game historically incorrect. Sometimes certain games will preferably have correct historical facts. Which game are we talking about, really?

Lets not talk about Fate. Florence Nightingale the Berserker

[vanguard333]

54 minutes ago, Christactics said:

Which game are we talking about, really?

We're talking about any game with a historical setting really. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by vanguard333

[qwernst]

It depends. If it's to add fantasy elements, I would like it if it added from the folklore and mythology from that time frame. An example similar to what I mean the Viking Conquest mod for Mount & Blade Warband.

Accuracy is cool, but not everything can be as polished as Waterloo. So I take it more as Historical Fiction. 

[vanguard333]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎29 at 9:15 PM, qwernst said:

It depends. If it's to add fantasy elements, I would like it if it added from the folklore and mythology from that time frame. An example similar to what I mean the Viking Conquest mod for Mount & Blade Warband.

Accuracy is cool, but not everything can be as polished as Waterloo. So I take it more as Historical Fiction. 

Yeah; including stuff from actual folklore when the game wants to have fantasy elements, while still being in a historical setting, is definitely a good idea. I think there are some games that do that, but I think more often than not, most games just add stuff regardless of the setting.

While I would get past it, I probably would find it jarring to see Yokai in a game set in Medieval Scotland, a Frost Giant in a game set in Ancient Greece, or a Cyclops in a game set in Medieval Romania... But, on the other hand, a fairy in that Scotland game, a Cyclops in that Ancient Greece game would be more than welcome, so long as the fairy was a Celtic Fairy, and not one of those stupid little butterfly-winged creatures the Victorian English created.