Poll: Historical Inaccuracies in Games

[Yopaz]

None of it bothers me. If I could play the Roman war using plasma rifles I wouldn't care.

I don't know much history, nor do I have that much interest in it so a game with historical inaccuracies wouldn't bother me. I doubt I would even know if the inaccuracies were subtle such as the one mentioned in the first post nor would I be able to tell the difference between fake and real. I don't even know who won World War 2, but I think it was the Chinese that themed up with Napoleon or something.

 

[direkiller]

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.

I have a feeling in this case it was done out of clarity rather then any laziness.
As to a player mines have a diffident meaning then the word torpedoes



as for my opinion games should be fun/interesting/engaging above all. Historical accuracy is a nice thing to have but a game should not bend over backwards to have it.

 

[Darknacht]

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.

That one of the big benefits of Paradox's grand strategy games over the Total War games, Paradox at least tries to be historically accurate and if anyone finds something that is not 100% accurate then, because all of the data is in open text file and the maps are bmp, its very easy to find(or make) a mod to fix it.

 

[Muspelheim]

Depends on the game, really, and what tone it wants to set. I mean, Empire: Total War wasn't exactly a realistic experience, but it was less about that and more about the being a 18'th century ruler experience.

Historical accuracy is important in a game that relies on that realism, and that's an enjoyable experience in itself, but it's not the main quality I'm looking for, myself.

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

Eh, I'd be quite willing to forgive that, since it's a minor terminology amendment that would be more recognisable to modern viewers without the need to spend five minutes explaining it, even as a codex entry.

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.

This one, though, pissed me off... though the dev team said that it was ostensibly to have more variation in gameplay from faction to faction, though what did I do when I played as Egypt? I phalanxed up!

I actually had a bigger beef with the Roman starting position and the faction names.

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.

I propose an expedition... and bring a Dalek just in case... -_-

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.

I agree for the most part, except that accuracies should be kept regarding terminology if it is in keeping with the modern lexicon (or not a part of it entirely). If not, as in the above example, I'd be willing (if a tad reluctant) to accept it as a tolerable deviation.

That said, OP, I'm surprised your roommate didn't get butt-hurt over all the other AC games.

e.g. 1. Guillaume de Montferrat - age issue, twenty years dead at the time of the game's setting.
2. the Pazzi clan - Jacopo was Francesco's uncle
3. Niccolo Machiavelli - in reality a very tongue in cheek individual
4. Cesare Borgia & da Vinci - by all accounts, they got on very well together
5. Suleiman - in Crimea for most of the game's setting, returning to Istanbul for the first time in years when he's crowned Sultan

You get the idea. But you know what, I don't play games for a history lesson, if I wanted one of them, I'd read a book, attend a lecture or watch a documentary. There are better films than the AC series that are so much less historically accurate, so I honestly wouldn't sweat it. Games like these should pique our interest in history, and while we can act all uppity in knowing it's wrong, for the most part at least the devs are making an effort to make it all plausible, if not possible.

... eh...

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Well, I'm a history major, so I kind of have to care. That being said, if it's something that not really my area of expertise, I don't. However, if it's post 1900's, I tend to get highly annoyed when a game portrays something wrong.

For me though, I care more about inaccuracies in other parts of games, namely firearm inaccuracies in military games. Not the guns themselves being inaccurate, but rather the inaccurate portrayal of them. (First thing that comes to mind is Blops 2's usage of the XM8 as a future rifle.)

 

[TotallyNotABot]

It really depends. If a game's goal is to be historically accurate and it isn't, there's a problem. However, in any other case, I don't care that much. It still bothers me, but I don't care that much.

 

[ElPatron]

Games should be historically accurate, but in a sci-fi game where somehow your DNA passes on your life experience to your offspring so that one of your descendents can relive your actions I think all bets are off.

If most people wouldn't understand that torpedoes were mines, and not everyone has English as their mother tongue it's understandable that they used a modern expression.

Also, doesn't the plot explain that everything in the Animus is translated for modern expressions?

First thing that comes to mind is Blops 2's usage of the XM8 as a future rifle.

To me the use of the XM8 alone bothers me. The rifle was known to melt in US testing, and now it features a superburst system?

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

Just like film has a category for documentaries, gaming should be as legit as film when it comes to artistic value/mean of expression. Let's not forget the value that historical accuracy could have as a learning tool.

Or that your argument sounds painfully a lot like "I don't like subtitles because I'm watching a movie, not reading a book". Both things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[WashAran]

First thing that comes to mind is Blops 2's usage of the XM8 as a future rifle.

To me the use of the XM8 alone bothers me. The rifle was known to melt in US testing, and now it features a superburst system?

Well thats developers knowing shit about military and weapons!

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Games should be historically accurate, but in a sci-fi game where somehow your DNA passes on your life experience to your offspring so that one of your descendents can relive your actions I think all bets are off.

If most people wouldn't understand that torpedoes were mines, and not everyone has English as their mother tongue it's understandable that they used a modern expression.

Also, doesn't the plot explain that everything in the Animus is translated for modern expressions?

First thing that comes to mind is Blops 2's usage of the XM8 as a future rifle.

To me the use of the XM8 alone bothers me. The rifle was known to melt in US testing, and now it features a superburst system?

Yeah, that annoys me too. But the thing is, it was canceled in, what, 2004? How does that in any way make it a weapon of the future? They also added the HAMR when the M27 IAR was chosen over it in testing, but then they label the HAMR as an LMG and the M27 as an assault rifle. They're both meant to do the same job. That's like taking the Rec7 and saying that's a LMG and the 416 is an assault rifle.

Another thing, what the fuck is an SMR?!?!
EDIT: Sorry if I seem a bit angry, but this is just something that pisses me off to no end. Especially considering how I have a couple friends that say whatever CoD puts in their newest game is automatically the best thing in our current military. I'm frankly surprised they haven't put dragonskin into the game as a perk unlock or something.

 

[UndeadDollface]

It doesn't bother me any more than it does to see a dragon in Skyrim flying.

 

[chadachada123]

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?

I've got another Ass Creed 3 example, at least from what I can tell. During the 1700s, there would have been no difference in dialect between the British colonists and the British soldiers or British citizens. It was only after the Revolutionary War that the aristocratic tone became the norm for British citizens while the now-Americans continued to speak what is now called American-English (specifically, most likely Midwestern American English), which at the time was just the "normal" speaking voice.

Basically, giving British accents to any colonial-era people, be they Colonists or Loyalist, is inaccurate, and gameplay footage I've seen of AC3 seems to do this. This bothers me a good deal.

OT: The vast majority of the time, historical inaccuracies don't bother me much. I usually just point them out whenever they occur, but they don't *bother* me. The things that bother me the most are usually related to language and culture, and not to just getting facts wrong.

 

[Grumpy Ginger]

Even as an ancient history major it varies. If your claiming that you did the research when you obviously didn't and claim its the true story like that stupid king Arthur movie made last decade then fuck you. If you admit your doing it for a funner setting then fine.One thing that ticks me off now in hindsight was the fact that in age of empires 2 swordsmen were the basic unit and not the spearmen they showed how much research they did in the extra text how hard was it to change that.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

I seriously never tire of watching Mr B Toungue's videos. He could seriously fit in here at the Escapist, with his dry but intelligent humor and his ludicrously huge insight. It's a shame that he stopped making videos, or at least has taken a leave of absence.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No. Why? Because I play games to have fun, not to learn history. Besides, most of the time I don't even know about the historical inaccuracies because I'm not a big study on history.

 

[Frission]

It depends. If there are errors in more contemporary games like the Vietnam war, WWI, WWII or all the cold war I will get VERY angry.

Particularly if it's the variety of "AMERICA FUCK YEAH". Other things bother me, but the further in the past it is the less I care. I do get bothered if I have the feeling that it's being deliberately tampered with to advance a specific ideology.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. I think being upset because its not totally historically accurate is being pedantic. I think its kind like someone pointing out that used 'than' instead of 'then' in a sentence and therefore you suck at life.

 

[thesilentman]

No fucks given. If the game is fun, my care goes out the window. AC was fun because of its gameplay, not precise historical accuracy.

 

[Cheesepower5]

I love history, but I'm willing to give a game the pass, even if it does make the odd error. When the errors are frequent or major, then it becomes a problem.

 

[Smiley Face]

Oh, it often bothers me - most of the time I either manage to overlook it or it doesn't really bother me as much. Assassin's Creed is an obvious topic of discussion, since it really does put a lot of effort into portraying how the history went, but of course they're not going to get everything right, and for story purposes, there are some things that they have to change. In AC2, one thing that particularly irked me was the portrayal of Lorenzo de Medici and Savonarola and whatnot - but I understood it, because even though their character wasn't accurately portrayed, it served the narration, and the VAST majority of people wouldn't know the difference.