13 ms·

Lovely article. The conflict between making a videogame (or any bit of popculture really) enjoyable and inclusive vs. historically accurate often comes up and

Lovely article. The conflict between making a videogame (or any bit of popculture really) enjoyable and inclusive vs. historically accurate often comes up and both sides have a fair point. My personal solution is to both enjoy the content and then try to educate myself through articles like this one.

bsanr2 6y ago
The fact that foreign traders are present in a game that, produced a decade or so ago, would very much not have had them means that the tension is less between "inclusivity" and "historical accuracy", and more between "contemporary, preconceived notions" and "historical accuracy". It turns out that "inclusivity" is more historically-accurate when compared to what we would have gotten in the past. In the end, it really is about healthy skepticism, especially of long-held beliefs and "knowledge".
- spoopyskelly 6y ago
  Slave traders, but woke, because they are diverse!
himinlomax 6y ago
Why do they need to be inclusive? Do samurai games need to include red-haired Celts and curly-haired Bantus, you know, for diversity? What's the point of this? Lying about history to make some people feel better?
- hackerbabz 6y ago
  Because games are supposed to be fun and it’s more fun if the player feels included.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    I never once played a violent game and felt the need to have my own character included.
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    Do you feel excluded by samurai games?
    - hackerbabz 6y ago
      No because I’m white and I can play a million games with white protagonists. I don’t need to be included in every game. If I were nonwhite I think I’d want to be included in some games, yes.
      - mansion7 6y ago
        Are nonwhites incapable of making games to represent themselves?
        hackerbabz 6y ago
        Yeah lets just racially segregate game development.
        poisonarena 6y ago
        That is not at all an answer to the question. But if you have an answer, I would like to read it.
        hackerbabz 6y ago
        No thanks.
        himinlomax 6y ago
        That's really not the point; Ghost of Tsushima is based in Japan with Japanese and Mongolian characters but was made by a US developer.
        cptnapalm 6y ago
        Some of the stuff outside the game was amusing. There were all these white progressives complaining about cultural appropriation, on one hand, and on the other a bunch of Japanese people celebrating how awesome the game was.
  - Lev1a 6y ago
    > Because games are supposed to be fun [...] I'm gonna have to disagree with you here and reiterate a point from a "Co-optional Podcast" episode from years ago: Games don't _have to be_ "FUN", they have to be "compelling" / "engaging". The thought that games can only be fun is a relic from video games's infancy stage much the same as once upon a time when films/movies were new and there were only short slapstick flicks. The medium film matured to where a film can be about utterly horrible things/ideas but it's still seen as a good piece of media because it was "engaging" on some level.
    - tdsamardzhiev 6y ago
      Fun-centrism certainly helps if you're making something that (1) targets mainstream audience and (2) takes 50+ hours to finish.
    - chongli 6y ago
      That’s a great point. If someone panned Schindler’s List because it doesn’t include Larry, Moe, or Curly, we’d rightfully tell the person to revisit their ground-level assumptions about what makes for good cinema. The fact that we still have this problem in video games really points to their immaturity as a medium.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        I think the problem is the term 'game.' If you made 'The Schindler's List VR Experience' that would be reasonable, but if the same software was called 'The Schindler's List Video Game', that would sound crass and disrespectful. Games, computerized or not, are generally understood to be for amusement (maybe unless you're talking to mathematicians.)
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      I wish the games that aren't meant to be fun would state this plainly in their promotional material. "Buy our new awkward conversation asset flip; it's NOT FUN!!"
  - konjin 6y ago
    >Because games are supposed to be fun and it’s more fun if the player feels included. Yes, playing CKIII I feel the need to be included when I setup an African cannibal tribe that invades Europe and commits genocide.
- emptyfile 6y ago
  >Lying about history to make some people feel better? Yup. The point is that almost no one cares about history, so even a few people whining about "inclusion" is enough make a nonsense historical game. Forget about ancient norse and greeks, they can't even make a halfway accurate WW1 game.
- dagw 6y ago
  That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate. The 'problem' (if you believe it is a problem) is once game companies are happy to "lie" about one aspect of history without any concern while at the same time refusing to "lie" about another part of history because it would 'ruin the historical accuracy'. If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate. You have to use a better excuse, like you felt it would be dumb or that you didn't feel like it.
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    > That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate See, that makes some sense if you're doing high fantasy and shit that's set in a wholly fictional world. But just because some parts of a game are not realistic does not mean you should just forget about even trying. It makes no sense. > If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate You're treating this as if it was an excuse for some sin. If I want to make a werewolf story in Belle Époque Paris, there could be some historically accurate black African representation, but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy -- UNLESS there is some effort to bring some lore into it. And that's the main problem I have here. Suspension of disbelief and all that. Just adding $tokenblack012 and $eastasian499 to a setting where they don't implicitly belong is just lazy pandering.
    - pas 6y ago
      It's lazy, but maybe it just makes more money than not adding them. I mean people won't boycott it (not that they ever really work) for having $tokenDiverseFeature, but maybe the game sells better for that. Obviously, ideally people would not identify with a game character (and with other humans) based on color/sex/gender but on a moral/ideological level. But apparently we're not there yet.
    - dagw 6y ago
      but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy And here is the crux of our disagreement. I see it simply as an aesthetic choice. An art director got bored and thought adding some different looking knights might be fun. Personally I'm far more 'offended' by overly unrealistic weapons and combat in my 'historical' games than I am by an unrealistic number of women soldiers.
- watwut 6y ago
  It is fascinating argument give that the article has much bigger complains about much bigger historical inaccuracies in the game. And giving those much bigger inaccuracies, the gender thing is completely moot. In any case, game developers are trying to break the cycle where games primary cater to one demographic, where all inaccuracies put in are so that one demographic feels better about themselves. And then lesser engagement of demographic that is not catered to (instead the games sometimes insert inaccuracies that makes them feel even worst) is then chalked on "they naturally cant be interested, lets cater to other demographic even more".
- MatekCopatek 6y ago
  No, not at all, IMHO it's purely about empathizing with the character, feeling more immersed and consequently improving your overall experience of the game. For some people, it's about how well the character is written, for some it's about being able to affect moral decisions, for some it's about deciding how they look and sound. I think playing the historical accuracy card here is pointless as games (and popculture in general) always sacrifice accurracy to increase fun - no point in getting upset over this one specific thing.
- 7952 6y ago
  The point could be to make a political point, which is perfectly normal for a work of art. And why shouldn't they?
- SamuelAdams 6y ago
  They need to be more inclusive to get more sales, which is the entire point of making video games. To make money. Gamers in particular are notorious for "cancelling" (ie, refusing to buy / play a game) due to one or two small issues. For example, see loot boxes in recent games.[1] How much these small vocal groups impact sales is still up for debate, but gaming publishers would probably try to avoid bad press if they can help it. So, rather than spending months of time and resources trying to explain to 12 year olds' parents why there's slaves in a game, it's easier to simply omit that part of history, or rewrite it to be modern-day-friendly. It's a "work of fiction" after all. [1]: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-21-call-of-duty-black-ops-4s-loot-box-controversy-highlights-the-tension-between-developer-and-publisher https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-21-call-of-duty-b...
- kerng 6y ago
  It's about appealing to as many buyers as somehow possible I guess.
- charlesu 6y ago
  To be fair, a video game could include a curly haired Bantu and be historically accurate. One of Nobunaga's retainers was an African.
- danbolt 6y ago
  Don't use Assassin's Creed as a history lesson!
notahacker 6y ago
It's also one in which the side Ubisoft picked is pretty clear. We're talking about a game series whose central conceit is that an obscure Islamist sect noted mainly for murdering religious figures they disagreed with is actually a secret society acting to preserve an Enlightenment-style libertarian ethos for centuries before the Enlightenment (yet staying curiously neutral during the French Revolution!) Every design decision made in other periods shoehorns in the assumption whichever faction these ahistorically-inserted Assassins are allied to are 'good guys' who believe in freedom fighting an evil conspiracy very loosely associated with a historical Christian order, as well as assumptions like the opportunity to roleplay Vikings will sell more games than protecting Saxon homesteads (commercial pressures the author is well aware of when discussing other design decisions). I'm more surprised by the historically inaccurate weapon choices tbh. It's clearly an article written by someone with plenty of knowledge about the actual history to share, but still reminds me of an old flatmate criticising the physics of the Simpson's Movie!
- throwanem 6y ago
  No one takes the Simpsons Movie as representative of real history, though. You absolutely do find people doing that with games in the Assassin's Creed series. Whether the developer intends that or not - and I'm sure they don't; whatever the intentions of anyone working there, Ubisoft collectively cares only for money - that it happens still makes it worthwhile for someone to criticize the work from a perspective knowledgeable of history.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    > No one takes the Simpsons Movie as representative of real history, though True, Assassin's Creed is certainly marketed as having more attention to realism than the Simpsons Movie. It's more like a Dan Brown book though: people might find the stock goodies and baddies narrative, historic/mythologic references and attention to detail with symbols and places all too believable but it's certainly possible to overanalyse design decisions which amount to stereotypical heroes in stereotyped historical settings sell better. If one actually wanted to produce a nuanced representation of that historical timeline, it would be difficult to do so as a game based on killing large numbers of NPCs

bsanr2 6y ago

The fact that foreign traders are present in a game that, produced a decade or so ago, would very much not have had them means that the tension is less between "inclusivity" and "historical accuracy", and more between "contemporary, preconceived notions" and "historical accuracy". It turns out that "inclusivity" is more historically-accurate when compared to what we would have gotten in the past. In the end, it really is about healthy skepticism, especially of long-held beliefs and "knowledge".

spoopyskelly 6y ago
Slave traders, but woke, because they are diverse!

himinlomax 6y ago

Why do they need to be inclusive? Do samurai games need to include red-haired Celts and curly-haired Bantus, you know, for diversity? What's the point of this? Lying about history to make some people feel better?

hackerbabz 6y ago
Because games are supposed to be fun and it’s more fun if the player feels included.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  I never once played a violent game and felt the need to have my own character included.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  Do you feel excluded by samurai games?
  - hackerbabz 6y ago
    No because I’m white and I can play a million games with white protagonists. I don’t need to be included in every game. If I were nonwhite I think I’d want to be included in some games, yes.
    - mansion7 6y ago
      Are nonwhites incapable of making games to represent themselves?
      - hackerbabz 6y ago
        Yeah lets just racially segregate game development.
        poisonarena 6y ago
        That is not at all an answer to the question. But if you have an answer, I would like to read it.
        hackerbabz 6y ago
        No thanks.
      - himinlomax 6y ago
        That's really not the point; Ghost of Tsushima is based in Japan with Japanese and Mongolian characters but was made by a US developer.
        cptnapalm 6y ago
        Some of the stuff outside the game was amusing. There were all these white progressives complaining about cultural appropriation, on one hand, and on the other a bunch of Japanese people celebrating how awesome the game was.
- Lev1a 6y ago
  > Because games are supposed to be fun [...] I'm gonna have to disagree with you here and reiterate a point from a "Co-optional Podcast" episode from years ago: Games don't _have to be_ "FUN", they have to be "compelling" / "engaging". The thought that games can only be fun is a relic from video games's infancy stage much the same as once upon a time when films/movies were new and there were only short slapstick flicks. The medium film matured to where a film can be about utterly horrible things/ideas but it's still seen as a good piece of media because it was "engaging" on some level.
  - tdsamardzhiev 6y ago
    Fun-centrism certainly helps if you're making something that (1) targets mainstream audience and (2) takes 50+ hours to finish.
  - chongli 6y ago
    That’s a great point. If someone panned Schindler’s List because it doesn’t include Larry, Moe, or Curly, we’d rightfully tell the person to revisit their ground-level assumptions about what makes for good cinema. The fact that we still have this problem in video games really points to their immaturity as a medium.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      I think the problem is the term 'game.' If you made 'The Schindler's List VR Experience' that would be reasonable, but if the same software was called 'The Schindler's List Video Game', that would sound crass and disrespectful. Games, computerized or not, are generally understood to be for amusement (maybe unless you're talking to mathematicians.)
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    I wish the games that aren't meant to be fun would state this plainly in their promotional material. "Buy our new awkward conversation asset flip; it's NOT FUN!!"
- konjin 6y ago
  >Because games are supposed to be fun and it’s more fun if the player feels included. Yes, playing CKIII I feel the need to be included when I setup an African cannibal tribe that invades Europe and commits genocide.
emptyfile 6y ago
>Lying about history to make some people feel better? Yup. The point is that almost no one cares about history, so even a few people whining about "inclusion" is enough make a nonsense historical game. Forget about ancient norse and greeks, they can't even make a halfway accurate WW1 game.
dagw 6y ago
That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate. The 'problem' (if you believe it is a problem) is once game companies are happy to "lie" about one aspect of history without any concern while at the same time refusing to "lie" about another part of history because it would 'ruin the historical accuracy'. If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate. You have to use a better excuse, like you felt it would be dumb or that you didn't feel like it.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  > That is a fine argument as long as your game actually is historically accurate See, that makes some sense if you're doing high fantasy and shit that's set in a wholly fictional world. But just because some parts of a game are not realistic does not mean you should just forget about even trying. It makes no sense. > If your samurai game includes werewolves and machine guns you don't get to turn around say you didn't add something because it wouldn't be historically accurate You're treating this as if it was an excuse for some sin. If I want to make a werewolf story in Belle Époque Paris, there could be some historically accurate black African representation, but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy -- UNLESS there is some effort to bring some lore into it. And that's the main problem I have here. Suspension of disbelief and all that. Just adding $tokenblack012 and $eastasian499 to a setting where they don't implicitly belong is just lazy pandering.
  - pas 6y ago
    It's lazy, but maybe it just makes more money than not adding them. I mean people won't boycott it (not that they ever really work) for having $tokenDiverseFeature, but maybe the game sells better for that. Obviously, ideally people would not identify with a game character (and with other humans) based on color/sex/gender but on a moral/ideological level. But apparently we're not there yet.
  - dagw 6y ago
    but if the setting is the middle Ages it would be just stupid and lazy And here is the crux of our disagreement. I see it simply as an aesthetic choice. An art director got bored and thought adding some different looking knights might be fun. Personally I'm far more 'offended' by overly unrealistic weapons and combat in my 'historical' games than I am by an unrealistic number of women soldiers.
watwut 6y ago
It is fascinating argument give that the article has much bigger complains about much bigger historical inaccuracies in the game. And giving those much bigger inaccuracies, the gender thing is completely moot. In any case, game developers are trying to break the cycle where games primary cater to one demographic, where all inaccuracies put in are so that one demographic feels better about themselves. And then lesser engagement of demographic that is not catered to (instead the games sometimes insert inaccuracies that makes them feel even worst) is then chalked on "they naturally cant be interested, lets cater to other demographic even more".
MatekCopatek 6y ago
No, not at all, IMHO it's purely about empathizing with the character, feeling more immersed and consequently improving your overall experience of the game. For some people, it's about how well the character is written, for some it's about being able to affect moral decisions, for some it's about deciding how they look and sound. I think playing the historical accuracy card here is pointless as games (and popculture in general) always sacrifice accurracy to increase fun - no point in getting upset over this one specific thing.
7952 6y ago
The point could be to make a political point, which is perfectly normal for a work of art. And why shouldn't they?
SamuelAdams 6y ago
They need to be more inclusive to get more sales, which is the entire point of making video games. To make money. Gamers in particular are notorious for "cancelling" (ie, refusing to buy / play a game) due to one or two small issues. For example, see loot boxes in recent games.[1] How much these small vocal groups impact sales is still up for debate, but gaming publishers would probably try to avoid bad press if they can help it. So, rather than spending months of time and resources trying to explain to 12 year olds' parents why there's slaves in a game, it's easier to simply omit that part of history, or rewrite it to be modern-day-friendly. It's a "work of fiction" after all. [1]: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-21-call-of-duty-black-ops-4s-loot-box-controversy-highlights-the-tension-between-developer-and-publisher https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-21-call-of-duty-b...
kerng 6y ago
It's about appealing to as many buyers as somehow possible I guess.
charlesu 6y ago
To be fair, a video game could include a curly haired Bantu and be historically accurate. One of Nobunaga's retainers was an African.
danbolt 6y ago
Don't use Assassin's Creed as a history lesson!

notahacker 6y ago

It's also one in which the side Ubisoft picked is pretty clear. We're talking about a game series whose central conceit is that an obscure Islamist sect noted mainly for murdering religious figures they disagreed with is actually a secret society acting to preserve an Enlightenment-style libertarian ethos for centuries before the Enlightenment (yet staying curiously neutral during the French Revolution!) Every design decision made in other periods shoehorns in the assumption whichever faction these ahistorically-inserted Assassins are allied to are 'good guys' who believe in freedom fighting an evil conspiracy very loosely associated with a historical Christian order, as well as assumptions like the opportunity to roleplay Vikings will sell more games than protecting Saxon homesteads (commercial pressures the author is well aware of when discussing other design decisions). I'm more surprised by the historically inaccurate weapon choices tbh. It's clearly an article written by someone with plenty of knowledge about the actual history to share, but still reminds me of an old flatmate criticising the physics of the Simpson's Movie!

throwanem 6y ago
No one takes the Simpsons Movie as representative of real history, though. You absolutely do find people doing that with games in the Assassin's Creed series. Whether the developer intends that or not - and I'm sure they don't; whatever the intentions of anyone working there, Ubisoft collectively cares only for money - that it happens still makes it worthwhile for someone to criticize the work from a perspective knowledgeable of history.
- notahacker 6y ago
  > No one takes the Simpsons Movie as representative of real history, though True, Assassin's Creed is certainly marketed as having more attention to realism than the Simpsons Movie. It's more like a Dan Brown book though: people might find the stock goodies and baddies narrative, historic/mythologic references and attention to detail with symbols and places all too believable but it's certainly possible to overanalyse design decisions which amount to stereotypical heroes in stereotyped historical settings sell better. If one actually wanted to produce a nuanced representation of that historical timeline, it would be difficult to do so as a game based on killing large numbers of NPCs