Poll: Historical Inaccuracies in Games

[Whiskey7]

Maybe they believed that many of the players would be looking for torpedoes streaking by instead of them just sitting there. Though it would be historically accurate, it might confuse those that think of what torpedoes are thought of in modern times. Just a thought.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I am fairly certan that the Minoans did not have photon men. I can't be too sure though.

 

[luckshot]

while historical inaccuracies bother me, i generally treat games as if they were in there own universe and anything that is inaccurate is just the cannon story for the universe, most of the time

 

[Judgment90]

As someone who studies history as a hobby, it does irk me when things aren't historically accurate, but it's a game, so for all I know, Hitler is actually a Lovecraftian demon... wait...

 

[Hectix777]

I chose other, mainly because if I chose any other answer beside that one an A I'd come across as a prick. History is important, and I care that a game makes attempts to hold up to the era. I appreciate if a game maintains a certain level of accuracy in their depiction of a historic event, but I do realize some things are lost in the process or changed for entertainment's sake. So yeah it can bother me, and it does effect my immersion at times, but not enough to keep me from playing. Just enough for me to wrinkle my nose and go,"...wait."

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

They bother me the one out of several hundred times I notice. I'm more annoyed by stupid characters or dialogue.

What really does bother me though is deliberate historical inaccuracy in order to seem on the right side of modern issues. But let's not make that a thing, I'm just saying it is all.

 

[SmegInThePants]

Historic inaccuracies don't bother me. Usually. Because often the inaccuracy is deliberate, x is replaced w/z to make a story a better story. Usually its about the plot, or a gameplay mechanic, and the 'history' in the game is meant to be nothing more than a setting for the game/plot/action/scenes to take place in.

When they *do* bother me is:

when i suspect the developer didn't realize what they've done is inaccurate (then its just embarrassing).

when its so conspicuous that it causes me to lose immersion.

when its for the purpose of converting me to some viewpoint, i.e. moralistic preaching.

When its logically inconsistent w/something else in the game.

When the goal of the game is to not only be entertaining, but also to be educational. If one of your goals is to educate, then take some effort to get your facts correct. If ya just want to entertain, however, then have at it!

When its not obvious that its inaccurate, but it would bad if people walked away thinking it *was* accurate, i.e. spreading misinformation on some serious subject or other.

When its a genre-shift. Example - game starts out in early 1900's england, and you just start to become immersed, when suddenly halfway through now there are aliens (shift from historic to sci-fi). -> I started playing the game because I was in the mood for X, and i started off getting X, but suddenly i'm getting Z, something I wasn't in the mood for. If I was in the mood for Z, I would have played a game that was Z through and through. If I know about the genre shift before hand, that's fine, or if its really well pulled off, but it rarely is. (not just games, look at the latest indiana jones movie. Not that these movies have a history of accuracy or anything. But the latest movie had this genre shift type thing I mention here. Not a bad movie, but I didn't go to the theatre and pick the indiana jones movie because i was in the mood for sci-fi. Felt like i ordered oranges and got apples. Doesn't matter how good the apples are, I wanted oranges).

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

Yes historical inaccuracies bother me but no I don't believe everything should be correct. I do however believe if you're going to use a historical setting you should do the research to avoid silly mistakes and obvious anachronisms (unless of course the style you're going for is anachronistic fantasy or whatever). And if you couldn't be bothered to do the research then don't bullshit and say you did (Call of Duty: Black Ops).

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?

Yes (to the first question).

Most egregious example I can think of Call of Duty: Black Ops, mostly in the weapons. Guns from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s appearing in the 60s. Doubly annoying when I recognized some of them as being lifted from Modern Warfare 2.

I get that Black Ops is partially alternate-history and I accept that, but in interviews the developers and producers alluded to their "research" and how in real life the special forces depicted in the game would have had access to those anachronistic weapons (not true).

A real shame too, because there were real, interesting experimental weapons used by special forces in the 60s, I have a book that mentions some of them.

 

[omega 616]

Is he 100% sure they are called torpedoes? 'cos they looked like early sea mines to me.

(why would somebody animate that?)

ANYWAY ... not really, mainly 'cos I don't know enough history to know differently. Secondly, I'm not the kind of person to get butt hurt over a tiny detail as to calling a katana a "samurai sword" for example, as long as I get the idea of what they are talking about.

 

[duchaked]

oh that explains...I spent hours trying to research the origins and history of Abstergo only to realize it is a fictionalized Templar company
just thought they were really good at covering their tracks is all

but in all seriousness haha I think I can look back historical accuracies in a video game once I see an assassin jumping off tall heights into a bale of hay or pile of sticks and leaves

 

[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.

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.

I wish he would ome back from his hiatus. Wonder what happened to the guy. He was quickly becoming one of my favourite youtube personalities before he dropped off the face of the earth.

 

[Jandau]

Depends on the game really. In principle, yes, historical accuracy is generally a nice touch. However, how important it is exactly isn't set in stone. For instance, the AC3 example, even if the devs were aware that they were supposed to say torpedoes instead of mines, they still shouldn't have been accurate since it would confuse most people needlessly. Just as everyone in the game speaks contemporary english instead of the dialect in use at the time. In fact, if we assume that, say, everyone in AC2 actually spoke Italian and it was just translated for our benefit, we can also safely assume that AC3's "mines" were in fact correctly reffered to as "torpedoes", but that it was just translated for our convenience.

That being said, if I were to fire up a fresh game of Crusader Kings 2 and found a new Kingdom of Fat Dave somewhere in North Germany, I'd be kinda pissed...

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

I would've liked to have voted for this option.

Depends on the game really. In principle, yes, historical accuracy is generally a nice touch. However, how important it is exactly isn't set in stone. For instance, the AC3 example, even if the devs were aware that they were supposed to say torpedoes instead of mines, they still shouldn't have been accurate since it would confuse most people needlessly. Just as everyone in the game speaks contemporary english instead of the dialect in use at the time. In fact, if we assume that, say, everyone in AC2 actually spoke Italian and it was just translated for our benefit, we can also safely assume that AC3's "mines" were in fact correctly reffered to as "torpedoes", but that it was just translated for our convenience.

That being said, if I were to fire up a fresh game of Crusader Kings 2 and found a new Kingdom of Fat Dave somewhere in North Germany, I'd be kinda pissed...

If a game is selling itself as realistic and historically accurate, that's fine but it shouldn't be applied to everything. If it did, that would mean you wouldn't have a boss fight with mecha Hitler in Wolfenstein 3D and the world would be a lesser place for it.

 

[SckizoBoy]

1.) Aircraft Carriers don't launch planes while motionless(they have to turn into the wind to do so) and certaintly wouldn't be doing it that close to land where there's no room to move around.

Wait, what... really? I thought they only did that for form these days and that you can still launch craft irrespective of sailing direction as catapults/engines are powerful enough for it.

If I heard about an anime like that, my first thought wouldn't be whether the tanks are accurate or not. My first thought is if they would wear school uniforms, complete with mini-skirts, while in the tanks.

The answer is yes... to both! XD Mechanical design is spot on, though they're a bit off with the tank v tank capabilities and yes, school uniforms while in combat.

Is he 100% sure they are called torpedoes? 'cos they looked like early sea mines to me.

Look up David Farragut on Wikiquotes...

They were named for the torpedo fish which gives off electric shocks when it's touched. They just changed the terminology around 1900 when some engineer thought up of 'oh hey, how's about a torpedo that can move toward where you point it?'

 

[Kyber]

Sometimes history just isn't as amazing as fiction.

 

[Pharsalus]

Your 4 options are really only two, and they kinda make anyone who care' about history seem like prick, it's not that black and white. As a History BA I love to see accuracy, but it isn't everything, gameplay is. Sometimes historical inspiration is enough, not every game is Total War, or has to be.

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.

May be the vodka but I'm not quite following you here, you seem to indicate that everyone should sound "British" in that first paragraph, and then that no-one should.

The studies I've done of the Revolution focused more on how much Daniel Morgan's Rangers kicked ass than on dialog, but following either of your arguments; class and birth would be a far more significant factor in how a person sounded during the Revolution.

 

[Brixton6]

Is he 100% sure they are called torpedoes? 'cos they looked like early sea mines to me.

They were, in fact. I Googled it after I talked to him: http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/keyport/History_of_the_Torpedo_and_the_Relevance_to_Todays_Navy.pdf. So, he's right, but I just don't find it to be something to get upset about.

Depends on the game really. In principle, yes, historical accuracy is generally a nice touch. However, how important it is exactly isn't set in stone. For instance, the AC3 example, even if the devs were aware that they were supposed to say torpedoes instead of mines, they still shouldn't have been accurate since it would confuse most people needlessly. Just as everyone in the game speaks contemporary english instead of the dialect in use at the time. In fact, if we assume that, say, everyone in AC2 actually spoke Italian and it was just translated for our benefit, we can also safely assume that AC3's "mines" were in fact correctly reffered to as "torpedoes", but that it was just translated for our convenience.

Unfortunately I hadn't thought of that argument until a few hours later and it seemed irrelevant at that point. I think this idea has the most credibility. I know that if the Navigator had said "Look out for those torpedoes!" I would be frantically searching the water around me looking for an underwater propelled explosive.

 

[Iron_Man_977]

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.

The thing with that is the pieces of eden, 2012, ancient hologram chicks, etc. are trying to be wrong. It was what they were going for, where as with the torpedoes, that was a part where they were trying to be accurate. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Reaper195]

Ugh...tell your mate to man the fuck up. I fail to see why people get so butthurt over 'inaccuracies' stuff in friggin' video games.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Oh, that one's totally true.

OT: It only bothers me when the media in question (and this goes beyond just games) is supposed to be accurate. Assassin's Creed? You go around stabbing stuff in a white cloak that can make you unnoticable if you stand next to a bunch of other people. Why do I care if they're called Torpedos, mines, or ponies?

Also, a quick look tells me the origins of the word "torpedo" are 19th century. So quite unlikely that a Revolutionary War game would call them that.

Just saying. If people are going to get pissy over inaccuracies, they might want to make sure they're...Inaccurate.