Well, honestly, this has been covered slightly in some of the LGBT thread from yesteryear, but LGBT people have been around forever. Some Native American tribes had/have a third gender. Men in the Wild West did the do, often heterosexually (sure, buddy), with other men. As long as you were willing to get married and procreate and just not really publicly speak about what you do in the bedroom, for the most part, it was kinda just an open secret.
As for women and minorities, thinks have bounced back and forth with equality for as long as humans have been around. People of all races experienced xenophobia and racism when world travel was first going on, as most locales were very heterogeneous. Women were often more equal in tribal circumstances or in positions of high power/nobility. Some societies revered women and were matriarchal, others were not.
So, tl;dr : historical inaccuracy is generally just an excuse. I used KC:D as an example earlier of a good game with realistic elements, but it’s actually inaccurate in a lot of ways, especially considering women did a lot more than just sew, heal, and cook, even then.
Well it’s kinda the same as people romancing the idea of Medieval Britain - grand castles, banquets in firey halls, elaborated dresses and suits, knights and jousts etc. When the reality is that you have an immensely divided society between rich and poor, your barber is also your dentist and doctor, your house might not have any natural light and the Black Death will kill just about everything you know.
People don’t really romance the idea of Medieval Britain, I think. They like the idea of chivalry and codes of honor, as well as the pretty clothes. Edit: which I guess is romancing it, lol. Sorry, I’m sick with the flu and on some heavy medications atm
They want modern tales painted in a pretty, “Renaissance-esque” light. Pay no mind to many women living to the ripe old age of “died in childbirth at 14”
I mean, side note, but Koreans traditionally celebrate the 100 day anniversary of various things due to an ancient tradition of celebrating your baby living 100 days. Like, that’s some dark ish, y’all.
I get the impression some people think Medieval Britain was Game of Thrones but with less Dragons and Ice Zombies. Though to be fair there’s probably some heavy influences from the Lancaster-York conflicts…
I also think that most people don’t really know the differences between Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Most people like Renaissance Europe, with the music, and the colors, and the art, and the novels…up through Victorian Europe, particularly with the rise of Steampunk, recently.
But medieval was kind of dark, involved a lot of feudalism, and most people were serfs. There’s a lot of room for fun stuff there, but the really fun stuff is during the Renaissance
(edit: yes, I am biased. Yes, I have gone to the Maryland Renn Faire more times than I can count, starting at a ridiculously young age, because my parents are nerds, and yes I dress up each time)
To get back on topic: I really want to see a Renaissance IF set in Italy during that period, oh that would be amaaaazing
I think you might have misunderstood me. Yeah LGBT people, women, and ethnic minorities have been around forever, my issue is when its status as an open secret or its perception as being “lesser” is ignored. When characters act like there is such thing as societal discrimination. It feels frustrating to me because it sort of sugarcoats the era. I WANT representation in historic fiction, I just want it done with an acknowledgement of how things have and haven’t changed today, if that makes sense.
Oh heck yeah. If you stuck a person from 1066 and 1485 together (the general time and concept of what people call the High Medieval period or simply the Middle Ages) they would be radically different and likely not recognise each other. Norman Britain is different from 13th Century Britain which in turn is different from late 15th Century/Early Tudor Britain.
Also super jealous you got to visit a faire like that. I visited Colonial America areas when I was on holiday in Michigan and that was fun with the colonial styles and people sticking on British accents like me…
I actually agree with you, in a lot of ways, but a lot of people on this forum have been vocal about not wanting to play games like that, because they play games to escape that kind of vitriol.
I like those touches of realism, as long as my character has a voice and can overcome, and the game isn’t overbearing about it.
Others don’t like that and would prefer we just suspend disbelief. Everyone’s different
whispers Tudor England has a special place in my heart, because I’m a descendant of the Tudors through a direct line that can be traced to Mary, Queen of Scots. Fun fact! Her genes are hella strong, and I share a lot of facial features with my many-times-great-grandmother (as do all of my female cousins and my sisters! it’s wild), as evidenced by her plaster death mask.
Anyway getting hella sidetracked, there.
The Renn Faire in Maryland is the best on the east coast. Not certain about the country. Highly recommend it, though it has gotten more family-friendly and less sexually explicit (“Pickles? Pickles? Come try my big pickle!” shouts the hot pickle peddler, whilst gyrating his hips suggestively) in recent years.
Renaissance is a great period to play with for IF, and I take from it a lot in my own High Fantasy writing c:
Agreed. I recently watched the Doctor Who episode Rosa and it really made me realise as someone who is white, straight and male (plus also shorter than average) how I would have an easier time in the past if I had a time machine than a lot of other people. That story doesn’t hide the fact that 50’s America could be immensely phobic of a lot of areas in terrible ways, for all the ways as a Brit I romanticise the time with the diners and the dresses and Elvis and black and white monster flicks. And if I was gay or black or Asian I wouldn’t enjoy a game set in the past that tells me I’m not welcome - or worst. So I can respect tweaking storylines as needed.
I think it really does depend on where you went to school in the US. I distinctly remember studying Native American, colonial, and Revolutionary years the most, jumping to pre-and during Civil War, then the Gilded Age, then WWII, and then a brief look at the Cold War and the 80s.
I agree – just look at Game of Thrones (even though that’s not historical fiction). What makes characters like Brienne or Dany so great is that it starts with them facing societal discrimination. And because they’re facing it, so are we, and through that connection we empathize with those characters. That empathy not only can effect real life, but it makes for a better story, in my opinion – because who doesn’t love an underdog story?
I also find that, regarding historical fiction, removing the negative also diminishes the complexity of people and the good that was there.
Although, having said all that, I loved A Knight’s Tale and that was improved by its historical inaccuracies.
I think there’s always the need to balance the realism of it while bringing out the gameplay. For example, if the player is discriminated against, I feel like it should still drive the narrative forward, perhaps that’s a reason why the MC starts their own gang, or resistance etc. Even with the realism, there can still be peaks and troughs in the emotions, which keeps players and readers engaged
I think many people actually would like to see that in games. I know I would.
That said, I doubt you will see it show up much in official Choice of Games. The reason is one of the mission statements was to make games fairly accessible for a wide range of audience.
However, if a prevailing unpleasant attitude for that time was included based on gender, race, orientation, etc. I can guarantee that many people would also be upset by this. For them, they like to play these games to escape; they can face it enough in real life but don’t want to in their games. That is a valid point!
On the other hand, I’ve also felt that such distinctions, if handled properly can make a game more interesting. I know I’ve talked about it before but if I was to make the Civil War game, the female ‘hidden soldier’ option would actually have more content than the male one because I would like to include some scenes where they do have to hide their gender.
As for American history classes…well, there are many reasons why Americans may not know as much history as say their European counterparts.
The first reason is just where emphasis is put on classrooms; right now there is a big push for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). This naturally means other areas (History, Literature, etc.) will get less funding, focus, etc. And depending on the school, athletics programs might also get more funding than other classes as well. There are small towns where the local highschool football team is their pride and joy.
The second reason is that most history classes tend to focus on surface level facts, but often don’t dig any deeper into things. Once again, there are many reasons for this. One is time; history can be such a broad area of study, but many schools only require a class or two for graduation. Another more problematic one is that as society has become more polarized, there will be people who see history teachers as ‘pushing an agenda’ and this can cause a political fight. I mean, I’ve seen people get mad about evolution being taught because they feel it undermines the validity of their faith.
The third reason is presentation…most students tend to find school rather boring, and history especially. If you only regurgitate dates and facts, this can be a problem. Hell, if I’m being honest, I found most classes boring as well. I know it was telling that when I was in high school, in my class of 450 students, I was the only one to take the Advanced Placement European History and World History tests. I found history fascinating and fun…but when I studied it on my own terms, and not for class.
It’s also difficult to say what “historical accuracy” even means. Do we mean accuracy to external details, social codes and norms, the spirit and personality of the people, etc.? In many cases, these things are unknowable, so what do you look to do?
As a writer, I feel like there is an ethical responsibility to represent the past on its own terms if possible, by which I mean, show what is unique about the people, time, and place, but without alienating the reader. For example, the middle ages is really important right now for white supremacists, who (wrongly) believe that it was a time where white, straight men were in charge in a homogeneous culture. Part of the reason why they believe this is because of how often the middle ages is portrayed as just that.
Not that Knight’s Tale isn’t kinda a perfect movie…
I agree, though in a different way. My friend was a history major at UMW, and about 2 months before she graduated, there was a huge forum (edit: which she helped run) in Fredericksburg, VA, about this tiny plaque that shows where a slave auction used to be held. It specifically says it is there as a reminder of the evils that will never be repeated again, but there are some people who want the plaque completely removed, for various reasons. Some, because they don’t want a reminder of such a terrible past for their people, others, because they don’t think it was a bad, reprehensible thing.
This begs the question: how much of history do we cover up and hide to maintain sensibilities, before we are being dishonest about the past? Where do we draw the line on being sensitive and non-triggering, before it becomes historical no longer?
@ashestoashes018 I think that’s a great question, and one that does not have an easy answer, especially as things like slavery and the confederacy remain controversial topics. No one wants to be uncomfortable in their daily life, and if we thought about all the evil that we did do (and are doing) constantly, we’d be unable to do anything at all.
“Preserving our history” is one of the arguments that pro-confederate voices use to argue to keep confederate statues up, regardless of what harm it might do to people. With plaques, statutes, etc., I think we should look at who put them up, why, and what they represent, but generally, I think that there is a difference between preserving the past and obscuring the past.
Preserving history is different than honoring history. One of the most well-used roads in Virginia is Lee Highway, named for Robert E. Lee. The famous Arlington Cemetary was built on his home (to be fair, it is famously said that Lee joined the Confederacy for his family/friends, not for any real love of slavery).
In addition, there are monuments to Stonewall Jackson. Most of these things, at least around my beautiful home state, are contemporary builds or things named after other good deeds done by those Confederate heroes, long after the war. The Chatham Manor has been preserved as well as possible, and there are entire fields walled off in remembrance of battles fought there during the Civil War. It’s hard to decide what is okay and what is not, particularly with contemporary monuments. Modern ones are easier - why are you erecting a statue of a Civil War Confederate hero in 2019, bro?
These contemporary statues, plaques, monuments, and honorary names could, for instance, be removed or changed, to bereplaced with a plaque, and placed in a museum, a la the Holocaust Museum.
For me, I feel that plaques remembering bad things that happened, but not honoring them, are important.
In the same way, I feel that games should touch on those negative things, to be accurate about who people may have been in the past, without saying those things are good or right.
I feel that games should touch on those negative things, to be accurate about who people may have been in the past, without saying those things are good or right.
Totally agree, to a point. One doesn’t want to make the experience unpleasant for the reader/player. 80 Days is probably the game that has shaped my approach to this, and I remember an interview where Meg Jayanth said something along the lines of a representation of history should show the barriers towards people succeeding and not be power fantasies. This isn’t always so realizable in every kind of game, but I think showing a bit of the opposition, or the complexities and darkness of social relations, makes a big difference in any representation of history (I would argue Mad Men was very good because it showed the limitations of its society).
Oh, I agree. I’m not a huge proponent of just writing gratuitous racism/sexism/homophobia/queerphobia/general bigotry. I think a light touch of it can make a historical piece feel more genuine, though. It’s one of those fine lines, though. You don’t want to add so little that it comes off as trivializing, but you don’t want so much that it’s unappealing.
I liked Tin Star’s approach. The racism and sexism were there, but the MC and other characters knew it was wrong and worked within the world to prove assumptions wrong.
These two quotes are highlighting the major problem I have with the following statement:
In the analysis of why a particular title sells well, the genre it is classified as is one of the most important “non-statistical” aspects to consider. The reason this is so crucial is that by classifying a title as a particular genre, the publisher/developer defines their target audience.
The flaw that both @Mary_Duffy and @MultipleChoice has in their analysis of genre is a blind-spot not unique to the industry as a whole but it is one that seems common in IF. They are applying the industry standards of traditional publishing and ignoring the standards of the gaming industry…
To analyze IF games more successfully and with applicable lessons learned that can increase sales, you must analyze these titles under the gaming standards in addition to literature standards because your market place store-fronts are gaming market-places and platforms in both name and in practice.
The flaw in @MultipleChoice’s “factual assertions” about genre (ie Tin Star is a ‘western’ ) is that he is not using the genre classification accepted industry-wide for games. Using the article cited here, you get an incomplete picture at best of “literary genre.”
If we were looking at just literary genre definitions, then classifying Tin Star as a “Western” is correct. The definitions of a historical genre in literature is: A story about a real person or event.
So, going back to @Mary_Duffy’s list, we can only truly classify Alexandria by @kgold as an historical title. Broadway by @r_davis as well as the new release may be titles classified as historical fiction; in literature defined as: A story that takes place in the real world, with real world people, but with several fictionalized or dramatized elements. An argument can even be made to shift Alexandria into the latter category.
These are not purely historical-fiction pieces because there is cross-over but from a marketing and publishing standpoint, this can be their “primary” classification as works of literature. and it seems to me by statements made, that is how these titles are viewed internally.
Applying these literary standards is not enough, especially when you are trying to sell to gamers. Marketing to your audience is essential to be successful in niche gaming markets. So, what does this mean to all of us making Choicescript games?
It means you must shift the way you view your product. To successfully reach your audience in the gaming world you must start speaking their vocabulary and you must start marketing and positioning your game in terms that a gamer can both relate to and understand.
With that in mind, let us actually start on classifying a game correctly.
Just what are the gameplay interaction elements we need to use? Here is the best devise I’ve found to help understand video-game genres:
As you can visually see in this image, the game genre is an entirely different beast than the literary genre.
At the core of every game classification is the question of: Is this an action or a strategy game. From there you ask if it is an exploration or a conflict based game. Once you figure out the broad category you can look for the target-specific genre to use.
Going back to Tin Star’s classification in addition to being a literary Western, I would posit that it is an Adventure/RPG mix, right on the white line between “SE” and “SCE” in the illustration above. A game that incorporates elements of conflict and exploration in a stategic RPG-adventure.
It is essential to realize the following:
I hope this wall-of-text explains why I think
and why before we can discuss “the reasons” a particular title such a Broadway or Alexandria sell or do not sell, we need to be able to identify their true genre in both the gaming and literary world.
By ignoring the game half of IF’s DNA, I feel any analysis done is faulty and any conclusions drawn from those analysis are therefore flawed.
Though to be fair there’s probably some heavy influences from the Lancaster-York conflicts…
