Poll: Historical Inaccuracies in Games

[Brixton6]

There's a naval mission in Assassin's Creed 3 where you have to shoot some mines so your buddies don't get themselves blown up. My roommate got all butthurt over the fact that the navigator said "Look out for those mines!" because apparently they were called torpedoes back then. I tried to explain to him that AC was not, in fact, a historically accurate series, what with the vault underneath the Vatican and the magical artifacts left behind by the previous civilization that can control people's minds and all. Apparently minor details really bother him, but not details that are important to the plot, which seems a bit backwards to me.

So, do historical inaccuracies in games that have the pretense of being otherwise accurate bother you? What are some other examples you've come across?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Rome Total War. Egypt should be a hellenistic society under the rule of the ptolemy dynasty. Instead, we've got Ramses level egyptians two thousand years out of place to fight Romans.

 

[Hazzard]

I tried to explain to him that AC was not, in fact, a historically accurate series, what with the vault underneath the Vatican and the magical artifacts left behind by the previous civilization that can control people's minds and all.

You mean they don't have secret chambers beneath the Vatican where magical artifacts are hidden?

I was joking there, but I believe they do have some secret chambers down there, but this is off-topic.

If it is something major (at least major in my mind) something like a member of the Ulster Unionist member announcing that he is glad Northen Ireland is separate from the Republic of Ireland really gets me. That was the first example I thought of. If it is something minor then I am less likely to care.
I don't mind much if it is a minor thing, or something we don't have a definite answer on, but if they want to change something for the plot I don't mind at all.

 

[Brixton6]

I tried to explain to him that AC was not, in fact, a historically accurate series, what with the vault underneath the Vatican and the magical artifacts left behind by the previous civilization that can control people's minds and all.

You mean they don't have secret chambers beneath the Vatican where magical artifacts are hidden?

I was joking there, but I believe they do have some secret chambers down there, but this is off-topic.

Hmm...after reconsidering, you may be right. However, I doubt Minerva is hanging out down there...and it's probably not opened with the Papal Staff...probably.

 

[Aris Khandr]

I am of the opinion that games based on history should be historically accurate, except where the plot dictates otherwise. If you're making a game about the middle ages, but with the assumption that magic and rituals are real things that had an effect on the world, then the changes to history should flow logically from that. On the other hand, just because you have an element of historical inaccuracy, doesn't mean you should get other things wrong. The mines/torpedoes example serves here. Basically, if it is a conscious change with a reason behind it to tell the story you want to tell, fine. But if you're wrong just because you couldn't be bothered to look it up, that's bad.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Trying to fix the combat inaccuracies in Company of Heroes. Oh God. Granted if LoS wasn't a meter in range, the game would be stupid hard to control from that camera angle.

 

[RagTagBand]

Where's the option for "No, because I'm playing a fictional game, not watching a documentary"?

 

[The Madman]

Depends on the game. If it's a game that holds itself up as historically accurate than yes, it annoys me when they get it wrong.

If it's just a fun game that happens to be set in a historic period, then so long as it's not too ridiculous I'll let inaccuracies slide for the sake of entertainment.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

If the inaccuracies are required to make the story or gameplay work, then I'm fine with them. I do, however, think that developers should try to be historically accurate when possible.

 

[Iwata]

It depends on the game. If I'm playing a simulator and suddenly I'm flying planes 50 years out of place, or a prop plane with Sidewinder missiles, then yes, I get pissed off.

But if it's an action game set in a certain time period, I don't mind sacrificing historical accuracy for fun gameplay.

 

[BlazeRaider]

I am of the opinion that games based on history should be historically accurate, except where the plot dictates otherwise. If you're making a game about the middle ages, but with the assumption that magic and rituals are real things that had an effect on the world, then the changes to history should flow logically from that. On the other hand, just because you have an element of historical inaccuracy, doesn't mean you should get other things wrong. The mines/torpedoes example serves here. Basically, if it is a conscious change with a reason behind it to tell the story you want to tell, fine. But if you're wrong just because you couldn't be bothered to look it up, that's bad.

That's a good stance to hold IMO, I think some of the people here in this thread don't get that it's not historical inaccuracies per se that annoy people like the OP's friend (and me), but inaccuracies that are caused by negligence or incompetence. Suspension of disbelief can be used for things like magic or underground vaults in the Vatican, things that for the sake of story must be changed, but it won't save you from things that are wrong with no justification whatsoever.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I'm more bothered by the people who are bothered by it. It's a work of fiction. Not cinematic detailed retelling of events. Shut up and enjoy the game.

And I apply this to everything other than a documentary. Yesterday, I guy in chat was telling us about an anime that had highschool girls fighting each other in tanks. Then someone pointed out the show likely wouldn't have accurate japanese tanks. All I could think in my head was "Fuck you. Highschool girls in tanks."

 

[Lightning Delight]

Eh. It doesn't really bother me at all, as long as it isn't too outlandish. Or if the game is trying to be completely historically accurate, which Assassin's Creed clearly is not. On a side not, my older brother refuses to play the Assassin's Creed series because "The Borgia most definitely did not do that."

 

[distortedreality]

I think the inaccuracy described in the OP is more down to changes in language rather than laziness.

I voted for the "history is lame" option, was surprised that I was the first. I don't really think history is lame, but the options weren't exactly exhaustive.

Captcha - bat bear. Wtf.

 

[Vausch]

I like games to be historically and geographically accurate, but it's not a make or break deal for me. It's mostly a "Wow, that's a nice touch and I love that these guys showed the amazing effort!"

 

[RyQ_TMC]

All of fiction is strewn with historical innacuracy (though most of it doesn't get noticed because popular perception of specific time periods is shaped by these works of fiction already), so if I let every little thing bother me, I wouldn't have much fun.

But games (or books/films) which claim historical accuracy going all crazy with artistic license tends to get on my tits. The portrayal of some historical figures in the entire AC2 arc bothered me. Leonardo Da Vinci building his machine designs is sort of a staple of fiction, so I let it pass, but Copernicus?

You see, I understand that setting your game in the Renaissance raises some expectations. There is a popular imagination of that time period and putting in the heliocentrism debate is a nice way to get the players into historical themes, but did you have to use the guy who was never oppressed nor censored(*) as your staple "oppressed scientist" character?

And they gave him an Italian accent. That's infuriating on so many levels.

At least AC has the "Templars have rewritten history books" as its standard handwave.


(*) Yes, De revolutionibus was on the Index, but that didn't happen until several decades after Copernicus's death.

 

[Eldrig]

I am of the opinion that games based on history should be historically accurate, except where the plot dictates otherwise. If you're making a game about the middle ages, but with the assumption that magic and rituals are real things that had an effect on the world, then the changes to history should flow logically from that. On the other hand, just because you have an element of historical inaccuracy, doesn't mean you should get other things wrong. The mines/torpedoes example serves here. Basically, if it is a conscious change with a reason behind it to tell the story you want to tell, fine. But if you're wrong just because you couldn't be bothered to look it up, that's bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZUynhkal1I
This video has some good points about the suspension of disbelief and how people can accept some changes and not others. Syncs up fairly well with what you have said there.
In my opinion, games should strive to be accurate, but people need to understand that they will NEVER be able to be completely accurate. No matter what, there is no way for us to know everything about a given time period and make a work of fiction accurate in that regard. So within reasonable limits, much like everything should be.

 

[elvor0]

Depends on what it is really. If you've got a massive anachronism going on then yeah, it does annoy me, like the Mauser Pistol in Red Dead Redemption; a fully automatic pistol that didn't enter production until 1927, a full 16/13 years after the year the game was set in, and only then as a modification of the C96 by the Spanish, it wasn't until 1932 that Mauser began making their own. Obviously magic or alternate history like Assassins Creed is fine, because it doesn't pertain to be completely accurate, what with the whole Assassin plot going on.

Plus I think the Torpedo/mine thing may have been more for not confusing players. If you were to say "Torpedo" to me, I think underwater missile, not mine, as I'm sure do most people (right?) So it may have just been changed to mine for the sake of getting people to think of a mine, rather than a torpedo

 

[F'Angus]

My housemate (studying Politics) got annoyed with Black ops Zombies because "Kennedy and Castro wouldn't fight together in real life.".

Of course we pointed out that they were fighting Zombies.