Games Journalism 2018: We're taking it back!

And again, it is wrong to argue that evidence of something in place X is evidence of something in place Y.

Also, to be more detailed:

Palomides the Saracen was a character added to Arthurian Legend in the 1200s, not long after Richard the Lionheart famously fought the Saracens in the Holy Lands.

Scandinavian traders trading by sea with other European countries is irrelevant.

Rome did not have outposts in South East India (or India at all), traders from Rome sailed to South West India and traded there as did Indian traders in reverse to modern day Yemen and Oman. Does that mean Romans lived or were seen thousands of kilometers inland? Nope!

Rome, which had African provinces, had three Berber Popes. Again, how is that in any way relevant to outside Rome?

You then posted four ‘proofs’ from the 18th and 19th century as if that’s somehow relevant to the 13th and 14th?

I guess England must have had nuclear weapons in the 1600s because it has them in the 2000s then, because somehow time flows backwards and evidence from deep in the future somehow applies to the past.

I never argued that it would have been unreasonable to have PoC in Kingdom Come, I stated that there is no evidence to prove that there were or were not PoC at that time, hence it’s a stupid thing for people to have get caught up on in the first place particularly when its treatment of female characters is a more valid topic. However, if they have a loose grip on history and logic, I guess it makes sense.

Trade in Bohemia at the time was very limited, largely exports of Silver with limited imports. Trade collapsed in the late 1300s as a result of the emigration of wealthy German merchants from Bohemia severely limiting silver production, which was exacerbated by the Hussite rebellions that followed.

The main East-West trade routes originated in the southern Netherlands, passing through Frankfurt or Nuremberg, to Wroclaw, on to Krakow and from there to Lviv and onwards to Caffa by the Black Sea. Trade routes from western Europe travelled through Frankfurt and onward through Bavaria to Venice. Bohemia was largely bypassed, and accessed trade through external cities (Nuremberg, Wroclaw, Regensburg, Gorlitz or Lausitz). Brno in Moravia had a minor amount of trade from Buda and onward.

Prague was not a trading hub. It was not any of the above cities I listed. There are several accounts of PoC appearing in London in the middle ages and the novelty of such events, that does not mean PoC were also in Lincoln, or Chester, or Exeter.

it’s 15th century. Not sure where 13th or 14th came from.

This is a joke that I could not resist making.

I meant 14th and 15th, i.e. tail end of 1300s and beginning of 1400s since the story is decribed as starting in “the first years of the 15th century”!

The thing about that Waypoint podcast where they discussed the developer of Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which was excellent so I’m linking it here again:

This isn’t Waypoint “bloviating” or discussing hypotheticals. They’re not trying to stir up controversy for clicks, or trying to come up with excuses for why someone should be put on a blacklist.

Nor do they exclusively discuss things like “historical accuracy” as a main point of contention.

No, the point is that many of Waypoint’s staff were direct victims of GamerGate and its harassment campaign back in 2014, and they’re personally speaking through their feelings of what it means to talk about a game created by a major proponent of GamerGate.

Small details like his comments on “historical accuracy” are not the main focal point of their discussion. It’s just a footnote among many other examples they go over which underscore the guy’s philosophy and why his apologies for supporting GamerGate seem pretty flaccid or non-genuine.

There are more than enough sites out there talking about the game itself. I look to Waypoint to find other ways to talk about games and the developers who create them by pulling from their personal experience.

Because that’s what many modern “twitter activists” think of “diversity”. You won’t see Asian people in Wakanda, for instance, and all is OK apparently.

Media is deepening the issue (even when it means well) and it is also increasingly oblivious to that. But that discussion probably belongs in P&R.

Aren’t you about 300 years off? A hell of a lot of stuff can fit in that span of time.

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!