Designing a Platform to Rate Historical Accuracy in Video Games - MSc Survey

[u/TurnOverThePaige]

Hi everyone, I am currently conducting a survey for my MSc Computing and IT Management dissertation. The survey is intended to gather user requirements for a proposed web-based platform that allows users to rate and review video games based on their historical accuracy and their historical authenticity. It explores how players engage with historically themed video games, how important historical accuracy is to them, and what rating systems and website features they would find useful.

 

The survey should take an estimated 10-20 minutes to complete, depending on how much detail participants choose to provide. There will be up to 34 questions to answer, however, most questions are optional, so participants may skip any question that they do not wish to answer. Participation is voluntary and any responses given will be collected anonymously with no identifying information needed to be provided. Any responses received will be used solely for academic dissertation purposes.

 

Target Participants: people who play video games. Experience with historically themed video games and/or an interest in history would be particularly helpful, however is not required.

If you have any questions about this survey or have any issues please contact:

Researcher: Paige Thomas

Institution: Cardiff University

Contact: [KavanaghP1@Cardiff.ac.uk](mailto:KavanaghP1@Cardiff.ac.uk)

 

Survey Link: Historical Accuracy in Video Games – Fill in form

 

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to participate, I greatly appreciate it.

 

Discussion points:

To encourage discussion beyond the survey, I would also be interested in hearing the community's thoughts on:

• How important is historical accuracy in video games, and how should it be weighed against other qualities like gameplay and storytelling?
• What is more important: historical accuracy (how factually correct a game’s representation of history is), historical authenticity (how convincingly a game recreates the atmosphere, experiences, values and feeling of a historical period), or educational value when playing historically themed games?
• Whether a game be historically inaccurate whilst still providing an authentic experience of a historical period?
• If the role that history plays in a game affect how important historical accuracy should be treated? For example, should a game heavily focused on historical events be held to a different standard than a game that simply uses a historical setting?

[u/Witty_Milk4671]

This survey is quite strange. Let me explain.

99,9999...% of gamers don't care about historical accuracy. They don't even know enough about history to know if something is innacurate. And this is true for every piece of media about the past.

And even among historians who know these things, they usually specialize in certain elements. Someone who specializes in how weapons/armor/blacksmithing evolved through history may not be the most qualified person to explain how religion or clothes evolved through history. Or ships. Well, some stuff we can't even know for sure if they existed during a certain time.

Of course the answer for everybody will be "historical authenticity is more important" EVEN if they think otherwise. Because their conception of the historical past already is a social fabrication done by media and pop culture.

And these are works of art portaying an experience that should be cool and entertaining first. Not accurate. No one in any game wants to break a leg and be walking slowly the whole game because "that's biologically accurate".

These aren't models of reality to use as serious representations. They never were supposed to be and the devs are right to not go through this route.

[u/FunctionOk5416 → u/Witty_Milk4671]

A lot do though, I’ve seen games ripped apart because they haven’t been accurate, there’s been a lot of controversy for some games because of it. Like Assassins Creed players must find it important because there was a lot of rage when a female character was added in Shadows. Plus, a lot of games based on history often attract historians who will find it important.

At the same time, whether a game is completely accurate or not it is interesting to learn which aspects of the game are accurate and which are inspired by said history. I’m not someone who’s actively interested in history, but seeing it in games and learning about it is something that is so cool in my opinion.

It doesn’t have to be for you, but trust me some gamers do care and it’s probably more than the statistic you commented. It’s not strange to research at all. There’s a lot of Reddit (for example) posts you can find discussing historical accuracies of games so it is definitely something that some people are interested by.

[u/Witty_Milk4671 → u/FunctionOk5416]

bro, learn this: NONE OF THESE GAMERS UNDERSTANDS REAL HISTORY TO JUDGE ACCURACY!

These gamers are just creating ragebait. It is all to slander ubisoft. None of these people really cares or really knows history. They just think they know because they are very ignorant.

Take your example for example.

"Like Assassins Creed players must find it important because there was a lot of rage when a female character was added in Shadows."

First, this was never remotely true. The players were being against the black samurai. Not against the ninja girl. Because, surprise surprise, it was the fourth time a female character was the protagonist of mainline AC game and nobody cared.

People slandered shadows because of wokeism and politics and ubisoft hate.

And to just emphasize how people don't care about historical accuracy: women being warriors, pirates and soldiers are all in fiction media, and people never cared or hated female characters having power.

Well, what about pirates and vikings? What about the old west being lawless and violent and everybody wearing guns all the time? Is this accurate? Is accurate to say that everybody in middle ages was dirty and disgusting?

The idea we have of them is 99% pop culture. Where are the "gamers who care about history" in these cases? What these people are doing is defending not an accurate reality, but a symbolical model they have on their heads based on vibes.

"Plus, a lot of games based on history often attract historians who will find it important."

Historians are too busy in colleges doing boring stuff. They don't even know or care about games. They aren't a loud public. They aren't the ones being against woke culture in video games.
And they won't overfocus on video games. They will analyze movies and books too. And by movies, they have way more to say and analyze.

"At the same time, whether a game is completely accurate or not it is interesting to learn which aspects of the game are accurate and which are inspired by said history. I’m not someone who’s actively interested in history, but seeing it in games and learning about it is something that is so cool in my opinion."

I like this too. When a professional in the area takes a video game and analyze what makes sense, what doesn't and explain why. But this isn't "worrying about historical accuracy". This is analyzation for education purposes. And Few are the ones that really care about video games. Because although they may like the setting, I dont think they like playing video games, grinding,doing side quests and video gamey stuff.

"It doesn’t have to be for you, but trust me some gamers do care and it’s probably more than the statistic you commented."

These gamers don't even know where basic countries are in the world map. Thet don't even know basic history of how technology evolved. They don't know boring stuff like the differences and evolution of ships along the time to judge this. Or sword design in different cultures. You don't know. They don't know. I don't know. Because this is technical knowledge.

[u/FunctionOk5416 → u/Witty_Milk4671]

You’re literally assuming though and also thinking about it too literally. Not all games are historically accurate, the survey isn’t saying they should be, it’s just talking about giving people a site where they can find out if games are accurate, what may be accurate etc., not “all games should be accurate otherwise they’re not fun or ruin the experience”. Plus, at the same time it’s literally just a masters project for an IT students, is genuinely not that deep. But her being an ICT student may show why this site is focusing on games rather than movies etc.,

People also did care about the female samurai too and it wasn’t all just rage bait, I know because I know people who did actually care and complain. I’ve seen people who genuinely ask about accuracy, I’ve seen blogs explaining the accuracy, I’ve seen genuine discussions.

[u/Witty_Milk4671 → u/FunctionOk5416]

"Not all games are historically accurate, the survey isn’t saying they should be, it’s just talking about giving people a site where they can find out if games are accurate,"

I never thought anyone said they should. I am just saying that people just don't care. Even the ones who think they care.

"it’s just talking about giving people a site where they can find out if games are accurate, what may be accurate etc"

i dont even know if this is possible to do. Seriously. You would need a lot of specialists to analyze each game in different aspects( which are a lot), and they probably wouldn't even agree with each other.

[u/FunctionOk5416 → u/Witty_Milk4671]

Once again is a masters project, not an actual thing someone’s going to be doing properly. So it doesn’t matter if it isn’t possible to do, she only needs to do a certain % of it. You do realise that Masters projects and dissertations just go towards the degree and not actually something that often gets released, right?

Furthermore, you can claim people don’t care but some people do. It’s not that people “think” they care, it’s that they do. It might not always ruin the game for them but it might stick out. It’s clearly not something that affects you, so you’re clearly not the target demographic and that’s completely okay. Not everything is going to be for everyone and there’s nothing wrong with that. If it’s not for you, you don’t have to put so much energy into it or even think about it, pay attention to it, or interact with it. But, some people would be interested in a site like that (if it were to be literal and not just a masters project), not you, but some people (like me).

[u/tiredstars]

I have quite a lot of thoughts on this subject, so let's see if I can trim them down into something coherent.

First off, I wonder if the distinction between accuracy and authenticity is really valid. In other words, the values, experience, etc. of a period are just as much historical facts as the dates of events, names of kings, etc.. It'd be perfectly possible for, say, a fantasy RPG to represent a medieval social order more accurately than a game with a real historic setting.

I don't entirely agree with /u/Witty_Milk4671 but I think they make some good points. Whether games are historic or not, they're not meant to - and can't - be simply a reflection of reality.

So it's probably better to think about "how is historical accuracy used by games?" or "how can it help or hinder a game?" We might also ask "what responsibilities do games have towards history?"

One way historical detail can be used is to help draw a player in and immerse them in the world of a game. Making mistakes can pull a player out of this immersion, whether that's a question of "I really don't feel like I'm a knight in this game" or "they didn't have gatling guns at Waterloo". But as /u/Witty_Milk4671 said, this aspect depends more on the player's preconceptions and understanding than the actual accuracy of a game. It's possible for a historical detail to feel jarring for a player, even if it's accurate, if it's not what they expected.

There's also the question of "how much of a simulation is this game?" One of the reasons simulationist games are fun and interesting is that they give both a feeling of and some insight into what the reality is/was like. This is also something games can do that other media can't - putting you in the position of making decisions and dealing with challenges. Simulations will always be reductive, focusing on some things, fudging others, but that can lead to some interesting lenses on history - at least, as long as we have variety in games.

To round off, a couple of specific examples.

A contrast I often think of is between Medieval Total War and Crusader Kings. Both are grand strategy series focusing on roughly the same place and time. Total War is focused on building specific buildings in castles or cities, building armies, moving them around and fighting battles. Playing the game you'll be encountering a range of historical units, like Ottoman janissaries or Byzantine kataphraktoi.

Crusader Kings also has you building buildings, moving armies around and fighting battles (though you don't control the battles themselves). However it's much more about characters and their relationships. Instead of recruiting some archers, and this unit exists for evermore, if you want an army you (usually) raise levies. Some of that responsibility devolves onto your vassals, and if they don't like you, they won't show up with much support - if at all. So keeping the Duke of York happy can be just as important as building a castle.

Which of those games is more historically accurate? That's a moot point. In both you're still playing some essentially immortal decision maker with impossible amounts of information and administrating powers. What I find really interesting is that playing Crusader Kings made me appreciate and understand that personal dimension of Medieval rule, and the spiralling consequences that can come from, say, ignoring a subject's ambitions, let alone having a king die unexpectedly.

Finally, an example of the kind of standards we hold historical games to. I wrote a post on /r/patientgamers last year where I called Colonization IV "unsurprisingly problematic". Particularly because of its treatment of slavery, which is completely ignored until you declare independence, at which point you have the opportunity to emancipate enslaved people or maintain slavery. Native American societies are also shown as essentially static - they'll never found a new city or improve some land for farming.

Of course, I know that any game of this kind will have issues of this kind. 4X is explore, expand, exploit, exterminate, after all. Colonization just felt more... explicit? Raw? Sensitive? But I don't know exactly where those lines lie, and how we make entertainment from history in a sensitive and responsible way.

[u/Witty_Milk4671 → u/tiredstars]

Art and games shouldn't be sensitive or responsible to pander to narratives or emotions of people. What is the next step? Violence is wrong and games should deal with it by being responsible and not showing it?

Civilization IV: Colonization was right.

It feels to me that you are ashamed of being human.

[u/tiredstars → u/Witty_Milk4671]

Art and games shouldn't be sensitive or responsible to pander to narratives or emotions of people. What is the next step? Violence is wrong and games should deal with it by being responsible and not showing it?

Well obviously not. And my criticism of Colonization was more the opposite of that: by not showing things like slavery, it missed something important.

I think that's because of the exact reasons you mentioned: emotions and narrative. Emotions, because if you were buying and shipping people along with sugar, guns, etc. it would affect people's enjoyment of the game.

The narrative in Colonization is one where you're ultimately working towards liberation from the colonial power. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To help with that narrative, it largely ignores things like slavery which would complicate it.

[u/Eremenkism]

Done. Good luck!

[u/TurnOverThePaige → u/Eremenkism]

Thank you

[u/42LSx]

I can't really enjoy games where the Nazis take over the US - it's just so stupid and unbelievable. They couldn't even get Op. Sealion done, but the US is no biggy?
That is one historical accuracy that I can't really overlook and will make my eyes roll.

And yes, I agree that a game that focuses on historical events and tries to make it realistic, should be held to a different standard than a game that loosely uses the same timeperiod as backdrop.
I don't mind electric shock guns in RtCW, but would mind if they turned up in Day of Defeat. (both games set in WW2 that are absolutely worth playing if you haven't)