Do you prefer a game to be historically accurate?

[Kane99]

If the source material the game is based on, or is in a time of history, do you want that game to be 100% accurate to the time and story? Or do you like how, say Assassin's Creed does it, where it mixes real characters and their history, with made up characters and ideas? I think there's a place for historical accuracy in certain games, but I don't think every game needs to be accurate to the truth. 

What is your preference? Do you want your historical games to be true to the times? Or do you want to play around with the times and do whatever you want? 

 

[PGen98]

No, I don't mind liberties being taken in games.  Bioshock, Wolfenstein, Fallout, Civilization etc. are all great games to play, but they're nowhere near historically accurate.  It's nice when they are historically accurate, but it's not necessary to enjoy the game.

[Family sedan]

I like how GT does it.  You can buy a historic car as if it were brand new in GT6.  In older GT games you had used car lots.  Either way the info on a car will be historically accurate other than if there's typos.  I'm also fascinated by sports what ifs presented by basketball games and their decade all star teams.  These teams could say pair up Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain even though they were never NBA teammates.  It really depends on what game as to what my answer will be.

[Boblee]

8 hours ago, Kane99 said:

 

What is your preference? Do you want your historical games to be true to the times? Or do you want to play around with the times and do whatever you want? 

 

I would want to play around with the times and do whatever you want because it's what allowing the gamers freedom to play in games means. If the historical games to be true to the times, I still want to be able to do what I want 😋. 

[Withywarlock]

More often than not this will be one of those "I think I do but I don't" questions. Like, I'd love to play the Napoleonic-era multiplayer shooter Holdfast, but I'd want to play it as one of Richard Sharpe's lot. What makes a good soldier? The ability to fire three rounds a minute, sir!

Historical accuracy - and authenticity, a word that oftentimes gets forgotten in discussions such as these - is one of those things where you should either do it properly or not at all. One cannot pick and choose when to invoke historical accuracy in defence of a game; it is either accurate or it is not. Authenticity is what I care for, where elements of history are 100% true to life such as clothing, vehicles, buildings, warfare, and so on. Have as many or as few authentic things as you like, but accuracy has to be total.

[m76]

If they claim to be historically accurate, or depict real world historical events, then I expect them to be faithful to those events.

If they want to deviate from the past just say the game is set in an alternate history.

 

 

[Boblee]

2 hours ago, m76 said:

If they claim to be historically accurate, or depict real world historical events, then I expect them to be faithful to those events.

If they want to deviate from the past just say the game is set in an alternate history.

 

 

In most cases, such games can be very predictable in my opinion based on it working with a historical perspective. 

[m76]

1 hour ago, Boblee said:

In most cases, such games can be very predictable in my opinion based on it working with a historical perspective. 

They can still tell fictional stories in a historical setting. But if they want to depict a recorded story, they should be accurate.

[Boblee]

58 minutes ago, m76 said:

They can still tell fictional stories in a historical setting. But if they want to depict a recorded story, they should be accurate.

It's why I find it off when you point at history, it's supposed to be exact and accurate, there is nothing fictitious about. It's either real or not real. 

[Kane99]

9 hours ago, m76 said:

If they claim to be historically accurate, or depict real world historical events, then I expect them to be faithful to those events.

If they want to deviate from the past just say the game is set in an alternate history.

 

 

That's what Assassin's Creed does a lot. They usually throw a little message before each of their games, saying something about how their team is a diverse one with many different religions. And I think they mention about the game being inspired by true events or something. I forget, haven't played an AC game since Syndicate lol. 

13 hours ago, Withywarlock said:

More often than not this will be one of those "I think I do but I don't" questions. Like, I'd love to play the Napoleonic-era multiplayer shooter Holdfast, but I'd want to play it as one of Richard Sharpe's lot. What makes a good soldier? The ability to fire three rounds a minute, sir!

Historical accuracy - and authenticity, a word that oftentimes gets forgotten in discussions such as these - is one of those things where you should either do it properly or not at all. One cannot pick and choose when to invoke historical accuracy in defence of a game; it is either accurate or it is not. Authenticity is what I care for, where elements of history are 100% true to life such as clothing, vehicles, buildings, warfare, and so on. Have as many or as few authentic things as you like, but accuracy has to be total.

True, you either go full force and tell the true story, or you go in a different direction and create upon the real story. For me, I think it depends on the story of the game, the idea and the characters. Sometimes I like 100% accuracy, but then I also don't mind when some games go a little overboard with the creativity and change the story up. I suppose you could say it's pretty much about preference. 

[Boblee]

14 hours ago, Kane99 said:

That's what Assassin's Creed does a lot. They usually throw a little message before each of their games, saying something about how their team is a diverse one with many different religions. And I think they mention about the game being inspired by true events or something. I forget, haven't played an AC game since Syndicate lol. 

True, you either go full force and tell the true story, or you go in a different direction and create upon the real story. For me, I think it depends on the story of the game, the idea and the characters. Sometimes I like 100% accuracy, but then I also don't mind when some games go a little overboard with the creativity and change the story up. I suppose you could say it's pretty much about preference. 

The creativity that's in the game is what should stand out irrespective of how they feel the story should be aligned with history or fiction. 

[Justin11]

On 12/7/2021 at 5:38 PM, m76 said:

If they claim to be historically accurate, or depict real world historical events, then I expect them to be faithful to those events.

If they want to deviate from the past just say the game is set in an alternate history.

 

 

It's video game, it will really be hard for the video game companies to get it accurately citing back from the origin of the events they copied from while creating the game. But they should try to replicate those historical events, even if it's not 100%, but they should try. 

[Reality vs Adventure]

I like all of them, whether it being 100% accurate, alternate history, or having an accurate historical setting and throw in some fantasy. I'm leaning more towards the games that have a historical setting, but with added fantasy. Or is it fantasy? If we think about all the things mankind has believed in, and we show that lore in games, then it's a real portrayal of history. All the game is doing is putting an image there of the lore they believed in and immersing you in that setting to help you believe what they believed. It doesn't make the lore real, but it makes the cultural history real regardless of events. And the Assassin's Creed games does a good job of that. 

[Boblee]

On 12/8/2021 at 8:51 PM, Reality vs Adventure said:

I like all of them, whether it being 100% accurate, alternate history, or having an accurate historical setting and throw in some fantasy. I'm leaning more towards the games that have a historical setting, but with added fantasy. Or is it fantasy? If we think about all the things mankind has believed in, and we show that lore in games, then it's a real portrayal of history. All the game is doing is putting an image there of the lore they believed in and immersing you in that setting to help you believe what they believed. It doesn't make the lore real, but it makes the cultural history real regardless of events. And the Assassin's Creed games does a good job of that. 

As long as which ever way they get to take the game's concept from gives me the full satisfaction I need from it, then there is nothing to be picky about. 

[Heatman]

Does it really matter if games are historically accurate? Or that they are well structured with good content in a way that you can't get enough of what you want to do in it?