Games Journalism 2018: We're taking it back!

Ugh, you make it sound whiny and self-referential. Not a selling point.

I am delighted there is so much discussion about what is or is not historically appropriate. Movies and movie goers often simply brush it under the rug. At least with games the discussion is open and intense. I like that. The world of the past is not nice, or fair, or anywhere near as joyous as it is today (I mean that), I like the fact games critics , players and developers are arguing so heatedly about this important topic. It feels like the kind of dialogue and criticism we should be having about our art.

Waypoint’s approach isn’t for everyone but there are few gaming sites or podcasts (QT3 excepted) that bring a rigorous intellectual curiosity to the culture of gaming and are willing to directly wrestle with the politics of our hobby.

Right - if they come off as “whiny” then they’re kind of undermining the entire reason why they exist. They do a great job talking through all of this.

If there are any other contemporary historians around here, the discussion about Kingdom Come: Deliverance could be an interesting topic for this workshop: https://networks.h-net.org/node/73374/announcements/1125810/cfp-videoludic-history-alternative-mode-knowing-past-14th-ahc

I like it when academics search and replace “game” with “ludic”. It makes the paper feel much more high brow.

I find it immensely ironic that out of all games made to date, one that is actually probably the most historically accurate ever made gets the most flak, and for the most idiotic reason imaginable.

Sure, academic language can be needlessly complex. Erasmus Montanus is a classic in that regard.

However, considering the principle of charity, it is not (always) merely a strategy for making things seem more high brow. Disciplinary terms can also serve to increase precision in discussions.

When your goal is historical accuracy, a goal I am amiable towards, then fielding questions about historical decisions is to be expected.

And this is where I take issue. Asking why was group A, B or C not represented in game is not idiotic, the opposite in fact. Especially since in so many other venues the breadth of European history has a long tradition of whitewashing. Other histories too, I’m sure, but most of us were likely brought up being taught Eurocentric, or Americancentric (which is mostly a parallel history with a different focus) histories. So I speak to what I know, and I know that many of the representations of history are, to be blunt, wrong. Too much Great Man theory, too little women, too little cultural exchange. Which, from an English speaking point of view, I place a large amount of blame for that on the Victorians.

I personally have no truck, or interest, in the specifics of this game. I know nothing about it, and I don’t really care. Where I get irriatated is when people treat ‘why don’t we see X’ as a fundamentally invalid line of questioning. Which in this game is why is the game not showing people of African ancestry. Now

That? that’s cool. Like I said, my interest in this topic is less than the specific game, but more broadly how hour histories are represented, and often misrepresented, to not show things like this. So props to them for that. And if the answer to the question ‘why are there no African peoples in this game’ is that ‘15th century Bavaria was unlikely to have a meaningful population due to X,Y,Z’? That is a valid answer. I certainly have no problem with it, since in that specific case it may be valid. But tell me that in Italy, or France, or Spain, or Greece, or England of that time the same answer? I would legitimately have issue with that because it is documented historically wrong. For example Ezio’s traversing Italy. The presence of embassies, churches, and populations from the Christian kingdoms of Ethiopia and other African kingdoms isn’t even controversial, it is fact. I still enjoyed those games, but it was a missed opportunity, and one they could have done interesting things with.

History was much more diverse than people have commonly treated it. So I ask because I think it would be more interesting to show the breadth of that. I ask because games can be better, and shouldn’t we all want them to be better?

Don’t know if this goes here, or maybe in the Xbox thread, but I liked the article so here you go:

Not only did Kingdom Come drop the ball on accurate ethnicity representation they also goofed on armor design.

Sad. Low energy.

Anyone who claims historical accuracy deserves to be challenged on that. Unfortunately, twitter or social media are not conducive to anything more complex than name calling and rallying people with similar opinions.

It also doesn’t help that videogames and history don’t really overlap in the same way that e.g. wargames do.

For a second there I thought the whole “historical accuracy” debate would be more interesting if it was centered around military hardware rather than identity politics. Boy was I wrong.

So according to some anonymous Internet amateur historian (that hasn’t played the game, I might add), one model of breastplate was from 1410 and the game is set in 1403? It’s very slightly the wrong shape? The eyeslits are too big in one helmet? Robes were usually worn above armor?

Boring. What a misleading article title too. If that’s the worst they could find, I guess it is pretty accurate after all.

NINJA GAIDEN II BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY NOW, BITCH!

That feeling when you’ve been out-pedantried.

Prague Castle has the best collection of medieval armour and weapons (real and reproductions) that I have ever seen. You’d have hoped Warhorse would have used such a local resource…

Seriously though, if you’re ever in Prague, visit the Castle and walk through the Armoury on Golden Lane.

Admittedly, my post was snark. Let me elaborate. You are right that asking about various choices made in development, including which ethnicities are in and why, is fine. If someone did that - researched the time period and geographical location in detail, spoke with the development team and their historians, asked about their choices…that would be good. I am sure Kingdom Come does not get everything 100% accurate, for various production, knowledge or budgetary reasons, and no doubt there are things to scrutinize. But this obsession with inserting nonwhite people inside a game that takes place in 16km2 of rural area around Rataje nad Sázavou, in a place that you would have a difficult time finding nonwhite people even today?
Sure, they could have included some nonwhite, but what purpose would it serve? Then there would be criticism of tokenism. These guys made a game about our country’s history. About our ancestors. They are not obligated to portray africans or asians in it to satisfy white-guilted americans or brits.
Saw one of the reactions to the eurogamer review:

“Eastern Europeans. Repressed for centuries, no colonialism, no black slavery, suffered under Nazism, Communism, and were underrepresented in all media. Never bitched. They make games influenced by their culture/history. Uneducated ignorants call them racist. Thx regressive left!”

Yep.

From what I read of that reddit post, it seems he was mostly criticising screenshots taken from 3 years old trailer. Not sure how up to date armors were there, but I would be interested to read critique like that about the actual game.

That’s a great quote. It’s already a miracle that such a big-budget game wasn’t sidetracked to be about anglo-saxons (cough, cough, Battlefield 1). It could only be made by people from that culture too. I think we should applaud that. It’s always funny how much people want “diversity”, but what they mean by that is pretty narrow and specific.

I saw this yesterday too. I am hopeful.

The voices don’t sound very historically accurate. I guess you can change the language in-game?