The Miscellaneous PC & vidya Games Thread

[grumbler]

Yeah, I think the Devereaux article is more a case of "if the only tool you have is historical analysis, all your problems look like historical inaccuracies."    He's really criticizing the game for something it doesn't attempt. I can understand, though, why he might be concerned as a historian that the game "teaches" players false things about Roman history and politics while appearing (through things like using foreign words when common English words exist) to be accurate overall.

[Syt]

I think it comes down to setting expectations. Recent Assassins Creed games make it pretty clear that their story campaigns are fictionalized (if quantum-leaping into past characters wasn't a clue) - they tried to get the setting quite right, and add their "history tour" modes (though it seems Valhalla slipped from Odyssey and Origins in quality/accuracy from what I've read). Obviously a much smaller indie studio can't get anywhere near that level of having it both ways.

I have no issue with games being less than historically accurate if they don't pretend they are. Total War games have pretty much always focused on Hollywood style battles and stories with a reasonable historical paintjob. That's fine. I would be annoyed if a game like Graviteam Tactics or Command: Modern Operations took that approach.

[Berkut]

I don't get the critique of the critique.

I thought the article as damn interesting - I learned a lot of stuff I did not know.

He is basically saying that the game has historical trappings, and tries very hard to *appear* historical, while in reality not being very historical at all.

That seems pretty accurate. If you care about that, then the article has some relevance to you. If you do not, then you are certainly no worse off for having it pointed out.

A lot more thought and care went into writing that then 99% of the crap out there about games. I say well done.

[Josquius]

Well if you were one of those who didn't think HBO Rome was historically inspired, then no game that uses Rome as a back drop is going to please you.

Rome was the best accurate representation of ancient Rome ever seen on the screen.

[crazy canuck]

I don't get the critique of the critique.

I thought the article as damn interesting - I learned a lot of stuff I did not know.

He is basically saying that the game has historical trappings, and tries very hard to *appear* historical, while in reality not being very historical at all.

That seems pretty accurate. If you care about that, then the article has some relevance to you. If you do not, then you are certainly no worse off for having it pointed out.

A lot more thought and care went into writing that then 99% of the crap out there about games. I say well done.

It would be an good article if it stuck to making general comments about how history is woven into games these days.  And for that it does a good job.

But he went further to make a claim the developers do not make - "Thus it is important to begin with this: Expeditions: Rome is making a clear claim to historical realism, on which much of its marketing and presentation rely."

That is false.  The game never does make a "clear" or any claim to historical realism.  If he had actually played the the game, as he said he did, he would have realized there was absolutely no pretense at historical realism since a well known personage from history dies at the beginning of the game, decades before they did so historically.  You then take up their legacy in the game - fairly literally actually. 

Saying the game is not historically accurate is fine.  But they never claimed to be historically accurate.

[Syt]

I've yet to read the article; I did find his series of articles on EU4 and Vic2 quite interesting in looking at how the model history, the games' assumptions and what is and isn't covered, though. So I do trust him to some degree.

[Berkut]

I don't get the critique of the critique.

I thought the article as damn interesting - I learned a lot of stuff I did not know.

He is basically saying that the game has historical trappings, and tries very hard to *appear* historical, while in reality not being very historical at all.

That seems pretty accurate. If you care about that, then the article has some relevance to you. If you do not, then you are certainly no worse off for having it pointed out.

A lot more thought and care went into writing that then 99% of the crap out there about games. I say well done.

It would be an good article if it stuck to making general comments about how history is woven into games these days.  And for that it does a good job.

But he went further to make a claim the developers do not make - "Thus it is important to begin with this: Expeditions: Rome is making a clear claim to historical realism, on which much of its marketing and presentation rely."

That is false.  The game never does make a "clear" or any claim to historical realism.  If he had actually played the the game, as he said he did, he would have realized there was absolutely no pretense at historical realism since a well known personage from history dies at the beginning of the game, decades before they did so historically.  You then take up their legacy in the game - fairly literally actually. 

Saying the game is not historically accurate is fine.  But they never claimed to be historically accurate.

That is not the historical realism he is talking about - the existence of some particular human being which is in fact explained quite clearly in the context of the game. It is everything else.

Like how the formations are organized, etc., etc.

You could certainly make a very historically accurate game about WW2 for example, but have the story of the game start with "Patton died on his plane trip to North Africa! You have been selected to fill in for him! Go!" and then have the rest of the game be ultra historically accurate.

And I think his point is that they very much are making a claim to historical accuracy, due to the way they present the game, with using Latin language and such.

Really, whether or not they "claim" it in the manner you dispute or not is largely irrelevant to the utility of the article. At least to the utility I got from the article anyway, and I never even played the game!

[celedhring]

Yeah, the article was quite useful for me. I was attracted to the idea of inmersing myself in the Late Roman Republic era (one of my favorite historical eras), but reading the article made me realize I wouldn't enjoy the game. Others may not consider Deveraux's objections that important and enjoy it.

[crazy canuck]

I don't get the critique of the critique.

I thought the article as damn interesting - I learned a lot of stuff I did not know.

He is basically saying that the game has historical trappings, and tries very hard to *appear* historical, while in reality not being very historical at all.

That seems pretty accurate. If you care about that, then the article has some relevance to you. If you do not, then you are certainly no worse off for having it pointed out.

A lot more thought and care went into writing that then 99% of the crap out there about games. I say well done.

It would be an good article if it stuck to making general comments about how history is woven into games these days.  And for that it does a good job.

But he went further to make a claim the developers do not make - "Thus it is important to begin with this: Expeditions: Rome is making a clear claim to historical realism, on which much of its marketing and presentation rely."

That is false.  The game never does make a "clear" or any claim to historical realism.  If he had actually played the the game, as he said he did, he would have realized there was absolutely no pretense at historical realism since a well known personage from history dies at the beginning of the game, decades before they did so historically.  You then take up their legacy in the game - fairly literally actually. 

Saying the game is not historically accurate is fine.  But they never claimed to be historically accurate.

That is not the historical realism he is talking about - the existence of some particular human being which is in fact explained quite clearly in the context of the game. It is everything else.

Like how the formations are organized, etc., etc.

You could certainly make a very historically accurate game about WW2 for example, but have the story of the game start with "Patton died on his plane trip to North Africa! You have been selected to fill in for him! Go!" and then have the rest of the game be ultra historically accurate.

And I think his point is that they very much are making a claim to historical accuracy, due to the way they present the game, with using Latin language and such.

Really, whether or not they "claim" it in the manner you dispute or not is largely irrelevant to the utility of the article. At least to the utility I got from the article anyway, and I never even played the game!

OK, so it's perfectly fine for somebody to criticize a game for making a claim it never actually makes. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Syt]

A lovely ramble by Yahtzee about the state of adventure games past and present, prompted by the announcement of a new Monkey Island game:

It's only 6 minutes and a bit.

[celedhring]

A lovely ramble by Yahtzee about the state of adventure games past and present, prompted by the announcement of a new Monkey Island game:

It's only 6 minutes and a bit.

That's 15 minutes if he spoke at a normal speed 

[Syt]

It's actually a fair bit slower than his Zero Punctuation bits.

[Tamas]

I am: unable to purchase Galciv4 at Epic. Any and all payment methods are being declined.

[Syt]

I am: unable to purchase Galciv4 at Epic. Any and all payment methods are being declined.

That happened to me with the Origin store at some point and I've never been able to fix it. Credit cards, direct payment, PayPal, nothing. The workaround was to buy something on e.g. Amazon or HumbleBundle and then register on Origin.

[PDH]

I am: unable to purchase Galciv4 at Epic. Any and all payment methods are being declined.

It's 'cause of the beet taint.