Poll: Historical Inaccuracies in Games

[Brixton6]

Is he 100% sure they are called torpedoes? 'cos they looked like early sea mines to me.

They were, in fact. I Googled it after I talked to him: http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/keyport/History_of_the_Torpedo_and_the_Relevance_to_Todays_Navy.pdf. So, he's right, but I just don't find it to be something to get upset about.

Depends on the game really. In principle, yes, historical accuracy is generally a nice touch. However, how important it is exactly isn't set in stone. For instance, the AC3 example, even if the devs were aware that they were supposed to say torpedoes instead of mines, they still shouldn't have been accurate since it would confuse most people needlessly. Just as everyone in the game speaks contemporary english instead of the dialect in use at the time. In fact, if we assume that, say, everyone in AC2 actually spoke Italian and it was just translated for our benefit, we can also safely assume that AC3's "mines" were in fact correctly reffered to as "torpedoes", but that it was just translated for our convenience.

Unfortunately I hadn't thought of that argument until a few hours later and it seemed irrelevant at that point. I think this idea has the most credibility. I know that if the Navigator had said "Look out for those torpedoes!" I would be frantically searching the water around me looking for an underwater propelled explosive.

 

[Iron_Man_977]

There's a naval mission in Assassin's Creed 3 where you have to shoot some mines so your buddies don't get themselves blown up. My roommate got all butthurt over the fact that the navigator said "Look out for those mines!" because apparently they were called torpedoes back then. I tried to explain to him that AC was not, in fact, a historically accurate series, what with the vault underneath the Vatican and the magical artifacts left behind by the previous civilization that can control people's minds and all. Apparently minor details really bother him, but not details that are important to the plot, which seems a bit backwards to me.

The thing with that is the pieces of eden, 2012, ancient hologram chicks, etc. are trying to be wrong. It was what they were going for, where as with the torpedoes, that was a part where they were trying to be accurate. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Reaper195]

Ugh...tell your mate to man the fuck up. I fail to see why people get so butthurt over 'inaccuracies' stuff in friggin' video games.

 

[Something Amyss]

You mean they don't have secret chambers beneath the Vatican where magical artifacts are hidden?

Oh, that one's totally true.

OT: It only bothers me when the media in question (and this goes beyond just games) is supposed to be accurate. Assassin's Creed? You go around stabbing stuff in a white cloak that can make you unnoticable if you stand next to a bunch of other people. Why do I care if they're called Torpedos, mines, or ponies?

Also, a quick look tells me the origins of the word "torpedo" are 19th century. So quite unlikely that a Revolutionary War game would call them that.

Just saying. If people are going to get pissy over inaccuracies, they might want to make sure they're...Inaccurate.

 

[Roman Monaghan]

As long as my suspension of disbelief is intact. One of the things that woulda pissed me off about AC3 was if they had omitted mention of slaves, and the founding fathers owning them, but I was actually satisfied that they were fairly true to details on that front. I especially love Shaun, who is constantly being like "the shit they teach you Americans in history class is rubbish." Which is true, it is x3

But yeah, it's the minor details that cause our disbelief to fall, not the big things. I was invested in Red Dead, but dude, you can just casually glance at Blazing Saddles and know they used the N word a fuckton back then, but at the same time you can understand. So the question is more historical accuracy vs marketability.

 

[Something Amyss]

I get that Black Ops is partially alternate-history and I accept that, but in interviews the developers and producers alluded to their "research" and how in real life the special forces depicted in the game would have had access to those anachronistic weapons (not true).

A real shame too, because there were real, interesting experimental weapons used by special forces in the 60s, I have a book that mentions some of them.

Am I remembering wrong, or was COD BLOPS the one where one of their "experts" was outed as a fraud, anyway?

"I'm not Spec Ops, but I play one when looking for employment!"

Is he 100% sure they are called torpedoes? 'cos they looked like early sea mines to me.

Mines, including land mines were sometimes called torpedoes, but did not replace the term.

 

[FalloutJack]

No, because if a game was built specifically to be educational, then there wouldn't be any inaccuracies. Being of an entertainment venue, it's not high on the list of priorities and I don't care.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

It depends on the game. If it's a sim or "crunchy" historical strategy game, I expect more than lip-service paid to realism. I recognize that certain concessions have to be made for playability (OP's case of mines vs. torpedoes, for instance) but what the game presents itself as or actually tries to accomplish plays a role as well. An arcade-y game gets to play fast and loose with "reality" for purposes of action-based fun. I hold a more realistic game to a different standard because the realism is part of the fun. For instance, in Arma2 I shouldn't be able to knock an M1A2 out with a single RPG-7 shot to the frontal armor, and lo and behold- I can't. That's okay. On the other hand I didn't mind that the various CoD games are rife with errors, because they're not really trying to tell a realistic story. Different standards for different items.

 

[chadachada123]

Your 4 options are really only two, and they kinda make anyone who care' about history seem like prick, it's not that black and white. As a History BA I love to see accuracy, but it isn't everything, gameplay is. Sometimes historical inspiration is enough, not every game is Total War, or has to be.

I've got another Ass Creed 3 example, at least from what I can tell. During the 1700s, there would have been no difference in dialect between the British colonists and the British soldiers or British citizens. It was only after the Revolutionary War that the aristocratic tone became the norm for British citizens while the now-Americans continued to speak what is now called American-English (specifically, most likely Midwestern American English), which at the time was just the "normal" speaking voice.

Basically, giving British accents to any colonial-era people, be they Colonists or Loyalist, is inaccurate, and gameplay footage I've seen of AC3 seems to do this. This bothers me a good deal.

May be the vodka but I'm not quite following you here, you seem to indicate that everyone should sound "British" in that first paragraph, and then that no-one should.

The studies I've done of the Revolution focused more on how much Daniel Morgan's Rangers kicked ass than on dialog, but following either of your arguments; class and birth would be a far more significant factor in how a person sounded during the Revolution.

During colonial times, the common English person spoke a dialect that sounded like modern American English, and the aristocracy spoke "fancy" sophisticated English. After the revolutionary war, "fancy" English became the norm in Britain (and went through more changes over the centuries, like the dropping of the H sound in most words) while regular English became the norm in the US.

So the majority of people in AC3 should sound like modern Midwesterners, since that is what British people sounded like in the 1700s. Even people using aristocratic dialects should sound sophisticated and not saying things like "AY WOT," which wasn't spoken until after the American/British English split.

According to the research I've looked at. I can look up the sources if you wish. I hope I'm making more sense now.

 

[Murderiser]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would people in England consciously drop their old accents while the colonials continued to sound like they always used to?

 

[Pharsalus]

snip

That is much more clear, thanks.

 

[Legion]

Other:

If the game is trying to be historically accurate, as in the game is designed to be as such. Then I'd say a certain level of research should be done to make it accurate.

Considering that Assassins Creed prefers a more ridiculous approach to historical events, I'd say that inaccuracies are not really an issue. Bearing in mind that the guns in Ezio's time were actually better than the ones in AC3, accuracy really should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Dalisclock]

For the most part, the only thing that bugs me is WWII shooters that make it seem like America turned up and saved the day with no help what so ever. The only game that ever acknowledged the part Britain and Russia played was Call of Duty: Finest Hour.

Or COD and COD 2 for that matter. Each of which allowed you to play a full-fledged campaign as the British, Americans and Russians.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

I get that Black Ops is partially alternate-history and I accept that, but in interviews the developers and producers alluded to their "research" and how in real life the special forces depicted in the game would have had access to those anachronistic weapons (not true).

A real shame too, because there were real, interesting experimental weapons used by special forces in the 60s, I have a book that mentions some of them.

Am I remembering wrong, or was COD BLOPS the one where one of their "experts" was outed as a fraud, anyway?

"I'm not Spec Ops, but I play one when looking for employment!"

I think you're thinking of Robert Daly and Deadliest Warrior [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113620-Studio-Head-Quits-Over-Exaggerated-Military-Claim].

Black Ops did use a few experts though (including a real Vietnam War veteran who was in MACV-SOG), which is why it's so frustrating to see the anachronisms in the game. Like they listened to them only when it was convenient (like programming enemy AI tactics) and then just fudged everything else.

 

[Dalisclock]

1.) Aircraft Carriers don't launch planes while motionless(they have to turn into the wind to do so) and certaintly wouldn't be doing it that close to land where there's no room to move around.

Wait, what... really? I thought they only did that for form these days and that you can still launch craft irrespective of sailing direction as catapults/engines are powerful enough for it.

Without sufficent wind to launch, the carrier has to make it's own, pretty much by increasing speed to achieve the same effect. So yeah, the carrier can speed up to 35+ knots to launch planes......but if there is any wind they are going to be sailing towards it to take advantage. Catapults help but can't generate sufficent power. Mostly they're used because modern jets are rather heavy and even if using the entire flight deck space, there's not enough room to pick up speed. Carriers are rather short compared to land-based military runways.

Which is why I complained about the carrier just sitting there in the hudson, which is a really bad place to launch from because no captain in his right mind is going to have the ship make high speed maneuvers in a crowded shipping channel such as the hudson river. Not to mention the possibly of running aground.

 

[Souplex]

Yet your roommate wasn't bothered by the fact that guns can be reloaded in less than two minutes?

 

[chadachada123]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would people in England consciously drop their old accents while the colonials continued to sound like they always used to?

It wasn't a conscious choice, and it's also a fairly common phenomenon.

Imagine a modern-day Southerner (large) family moving to another land. Once they no longer have constant contact with the Southern US, any changes in language that the Southern US has won't be reflected in this family. In fact, the family will tend to change very little compared to the parent dialect (the Southern US). Edit: This is change over decades/centuries. Split these two groups up, and over a hundred years the family will (generally) sound more like the original than the Southern US.

I'm a little drunk right now, so I hope this came out clearly.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Without sufficent wind to launch, the carrier has to make it's own, pretty much by increasing speed to achieve the same effect. So yeah, the carrier can speed up to 35+ knots to launch planes......but if there is any wind they are going to be sailing towards it to take advantage. Catapults help but can't generate sufficent power. Mostly they're used because modern jets are rather heavy and even if using the entire flight deck space, there's not enough room to pick up speed. Carriers are rather short compared to land-based military runways.

Which is why I complained about the carrier just sitting there in the hudson, which is a really bad place to launch from because no captain in his right mind is going to have the ship make high speed maneuvers in a crowded shipping channel such as the hudson river. Not to mention the possibly of running aground.

Ah, I see... I stand enlightened. I suppose the relative power output to weight ratio (wrt take-off speed) hasn't increased that much since the first days of the carrier then...

Still, regarding a carrier in the Hudson, reminded me of one of the first missions in CoD:MW3, oh yes, the bastion of accuracy in gaming, but the amount of naval traffic there from both sides, no less, was just all levels of dumb & 'uh-doi' on the part of IW (as if the rest of it wasn't, of course)... -_-

 

[Ljs1121]

It depends. If it's a game that claims to be 100% historically accurate but screws up, I'll probably be pretty unforgiving. On the other hand, historical inaccuracy doesn't really matter to me if the game never even tries to be correct.

It's all in the context.