The Sunday Papers

Sundays are for playing Planetside 2 all day, of course. But there’s also some time for peaceful activities, such as reading and screaming. Let’s try some of that.

  • Does it matter that games like Asssassin’s Creed are historically inaccurate? “Ms. Dolmage appends a final thought as the afternoon winds down: “It’s interesting to think about what games like this, that claim to be historically accurate, mean for the authority of historians,” she says. “Mark and I both work … on groups that are typically not written about. As soon as you change the perspective of what you’re writing about, and whose perspective you’re writing from, history is going to change.””
  • PC Gamer interviews Chris “Starcraft II” Metzen.
  • This Ouya thing is interesting, but if you were a first-time dev, why would you bet on it for your first release? “You might think these developers would want to try their hand at developing for the established PC or mobile platforms. After all, it’s a risk to develop for an unreleased console being made by an Internet startup with no track record and no proven market share. But when talking to a few first-time developers who are supporting the Ouya in a big way, the same message is heard again and again. This tiny, unproven box represents a way to fulfill their dream of getting a game on their TV set. It can turn indie gaming into something bigger than it is now.”
  • Why dev studios should do internal game jams: “Deceptively simple, the game jam’s deadline is arguably more powerful than a sprint deadline or build milestone. If you don’t think you’ll have something to present at the end of the jam, the prospect of a public shaming by your peers can be a purer motivation to finish strong than a soul-draining months-long crunch cycle.”
  • What’s the deal with this interactive fiction renaissance?
  • “Christopher Nolan Has Ruined Videogames.”: “Video games seem to have Nolan’s films pinned down as more gritty and more human, and while they’re certainly the former, I’m not so sure about the latter part of the equation – it’s a cold cinema that Nolan peddles, and there’s never much room between the male posturing and twisting rules for much in the way of humanity. Regardless, there’s much more to him than being the master of the gritty reboot.”
  • Tracy Lien on the genesis of FTL: “In many ways the Kickstarter campaign should have failed. Its developers were unknown. The game had no existing fanbase. It didn’t have fancy graphics or promise a product so enormous that players would need to hook car engines to their computers to make it work. The developers didn’t set out to make a commercial product backed by tens of thousands of people. The Kickstarter campaign did the opposite of fail.”
  • Someone is still playing Curiosity. With an interesting conclusion.
  • SimCity as a textbook for modernist architecture: “There’s been a clear shift in how city planning is conceptualized in SimCity since the first iteration of the game in 1989. Will Wright, creator of the first version, acknowledged his debt to urban systems theory. His game focused on feedback loops, using models that sought to reduce city activity into algorithms and formulas. But in the new SimCity, the individualization of the Sims and the introduction of multi-player can only serve to shake up the game’s algorithmic heritage. Globalization is now built in: the success of your town’s industry is linked to the world market and stock exchange, which in turn impacts the cost of raw materials. A failing coal plant in one town can raise energy prices in others, but synergistic collaborations can be mutually beneficial to players.”
  • Command & Conquer, a non-preview.
  • My friend Mark Wallace is compiling an atlas of imaginary maps. Please help him out by sending him imaginary maps.
  • Have a listen to the Brainy Gamer podcast.

Music this week is some Nils Frahm.


  1. Darth Fez says:

    I never expect games or movies to be historically accurate. For example, I was completely baffled to hear that there were people who were upset that “A Knight’s Tale” was not historically accurate. Did they not realize that historical accuracy was out the window when the crowd at the very start of the movie rocked out to Queen? Had it not sunk in by the time they were dancing to David Bowie?

    That’s not to say there won’t be people believing that some of the events as portrayed in the game are What Really Happened, alas, but I don’t view it as a problem the entertainment industry should be tasked with solving.

    • WrenBoy says:

      A Knights Tale is a pretty extreme example though.

      There are plenty of films that dress themselves up to be historically accurate but are brazenly inaccurate. I can still remember how offended I was when the Turing character in Enigma was the main heterosexual love interest in the film for instance.

      Zero Dark Thirty’s attempt to rewrite recent history was fairly straightforwardly immoral.

      • RedViv says:

        It’s worst when a film tries to, but is not, accurate. Aye.
        King Arthur comes to mind…

      • Lacessit says:

        I think Enigma’s main (straight) character is not Turing. I’m quite sure that at least the book makes it clear that he is working alongside Turing at the Park.

        • WrenBoy says:

          I never read the book but wikipedia certainly agrees with you.

          From the films wikipedia page though:

          The film has also been criticized for substituting the character of Jericho for Alan Turing. Jericho, who is clearly a stand-in for Turing, drops references to the Entscheidungsproblem and Turing machines, but is heterosexual and provides the love interest to the film (Turing was homosexual and prosecuted as such under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885; he was chemically castrated via estrogen hormone injections and suffered further ostracism until his death in 1954)

          • Lacessit says:

            I don’t recall the film as vividly as the (quite enjoyable) book, but that sounds quite bad indeed :-)

          • SuperNashwanPower says:

            At christmas the London Science Museum had an exhibit on Turing. I realised how paltry my understanding of the many incredible things he did is, and it was made all the more sad and poignant to eventually read, in the same exhibit, of his ostracism and early death as the result of his “treatment” for homosexuality. I was amazed to read how his contributions to multiple sciences (Mechanical Engineering, Aviation, Robotics, Chaos Theory as a starter for ten) go way beyond his work at Bletchley and the invention of the computer, and that some of his ideas were so far ahead of their time that they are only recently being shown to be accurate. Quite an incredible man.

          • JabbleWok says:

            There was an interesting story that his death was accidental, as he seemed to be in good spirits despite his ordeal. It does sound quite plausible.

            His story and that of the other codebreakers is quite remarkable and has likely still not fully come to light, as official secrets continue to be declassified. Certainly the revelations over the last few years have changed the accepted history of computing, such as the story of Tommy Flowers and Colossus.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            I’ve always wanted to believe that accident interpretation more, it’s far too depressing to think of a man capable of so much ultimately deciding to shuffle meekly off of existence instead of just getting carried away in experiments and making a mistake.

      • Darth Fez says:

        Yes, to you and I – and presumably most people – A Knight’s Tale was clearly not about being a historically accurate period piece. For others, that was evidently not so clear.

        I have to admit that any time I see anything claiming to be historically accurate, it makes me even more suspicious. Given how marketing goes about its business, what such claims usually mean is, “This one very specific aspect of the movie/game/book is historically accurate.” And sometimes even that is up for debate.

        As they said in the article, in most cases historical accuracy is going to play second fiddle to making the game engaging and entertaining. Personally, I prefer it that way.

      • pmcp says:

        While I found Zero Dark Thirty pretty troubling I actually think Argo was way worse. The way it lead with news footage and made every attempt to give the impression of being factual the way it mushed shit about to fit into a very simple narrative was pretty shameless and the scene with the guys chasing down the runway waving their AK47s – I think it totally reverted to dumb hollywood stereotypes.

        • Baines says:

          The danger with Zero Dark Thirty that caused people like John McCain to speak out about it is that in its rewriting of history, it presents torture as a valid and successful way to accurate information.

        • WrenBoy says:

          Its a matter of opinion, I guess. Bigelow said she was taking an almost journalistic approach to film when promoting her movie. I felt her movie was more nakedly wicked but its true that you can make a similar case for an oscar winning movie that largely paints Iranians as crazy extremists.

          For my money, a story on the Iran hostage crisis would be both more accurate and more interesting if it told the story of the October Surprise, link to

      • rockman29 says:

        Zero Dark Thirty is not the only US example of revisionist history.

        U-571 and Argo are both mostly fabrication. Those submarines that were captured were taken by the UK mostly.

        And in Argo, it was the Canadian diplomats that did 90% of the work in the incidents described in the movie. The sitting president at the time Jimmy Carter repeated this several times even.

        Hollywood has an unwritten revisionist policy to appeal to the lowest common denominator of American patriots (imo, an oxymoron).

        Hell, just ask any American who won the War of 1812 (basically, no one, least of all the US), or the Vietnam War.

        • mouton says:

          I really don’t think Americans think they won the Vietnam war. If anything, they go to other extreme and consider Vietnam a military defeat, something it wasn’t.

        • Nick says:

          Vietnam wasn’t a war anyway.


    • tossrStu says:

      The film Braveheart is notoriously inaccurate, as demonstrated by Stewart Lee: link to

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      I prefer my science fiction games to be historically accurate.

      • Pockets says:

        I have a weird problem with this, too.

        Oddly not in cases of ones like Fallout’s ’50s influence, but in things where they’re based a few years into the future and haven’t altered history but have completely failed to predict the present – ’80s licences featuring the Soviet Union in the future, etc.

    • The Registrar says:

      In an ideal world you’d be totally spot on, but, alas, we are yet to be in one of those. This idea that the Entertainment Industry has no responsibility to present an objective image of the past has the potential to be immensely damaging in an era where so few people read history books. Part of the reason for this is that people don’t tend to feel the need to read a proper book when a film like Braveheart or Lincoln purports to beam history directly into their retinas in vibrant technicolor. The problem is heightened by the fact that we absorb so much of popular culture passively and uncritically. This is why the Entertainment Industry has been portioned a share of the blame for the abundant misconceptions and the huge level of ignorance about our own past that exists in society. One obvious way to help turn this around is to demand that the Entertainment Industry treats their historical subjects with a degree more respect.

      • iridescence says:

        I pretty much agree with this. If entertainment strove more for historical accuracy it would make it less “fun” and while I might be willing to make that sacrifice, a lot of people wouldn’t. What is really bad is when entertainment distorts history in a harmful and prejudiced way such as old movies showing Native Americans as savages and white settlers as unmitigated heroes. That is the type of thing that should absolutely be avoided.

        I am however interested in games like the recently kickstarted Meriweather, which has a historian on its writing team and specifically strives for historical accuracy. A few games and movies like that would certainly be a good thing.

        • Manco says:

          Why would accuracy be less fun?
          Take Kingdom of Heaven: costumes, sets and so on show a semblance of accuracy; but the plot is complete fantasy, a generic lovestory confounded by out of place liberal notions and wrongful demonisation and glorification. Supposedly to tell a film-worthy story, but the actual history of Baldwin, De Lusignan, the Ibelins, Raymond of Tripoli and so on; their scheming for power while Salah Al-Din was looming on the horizon would’ve made for an excellent political and military drama.

          • iridescence says:

            Yeah, you’re right, I probably should have said “there’s a perception that historical accuracy is less fun.” I do agree that, depending on both the facts and the way it’s told, real history can be more entertaining than fiction.

      • Darth Fez says:

        If I understand you correctly, your argument is that because there are people who fail to understand that there is a difference between games (fiction) and reality we must demand that the entertainment industry become educators?

        The main problem with this approach is that it fights a symptom, not the problem. You said it yourself: people, especially young people and children, accept what they see on TV uncritically. The first step to a real solution would be to begin teaching children critical thinking skills.

        Demanding that games and movies become more historically accurate would make the problem more insidious, because then it becomes even more difficult to tell fact from fiction. You’d have to demand all history, all the time. Or we could demand that they put warnings in their games. See a dog? Popup: “May not be a completely accurate representation of a canine.” See a cowboy? Popup: “May not be a historically accurate representation of a cowboy.” See two guys fencing? Popup: “May not be a historically accurate representation of 17th century problem solving skills.”

        Getting rid of violence or historical inaccuracies in video games won’t banish violence, ignorance, or poor education any more than getting rid of social media will mean the end of bullying.

        • Binho says:

          Well, a good start might be the inclusion of something like a bibliography. One of the much touted benefits of games is the whole idea of ‘Tangential Learning’, where after seeing/reading/hearing something in a game you go look it up to find out more about it.

          Why not aid this proccess and just include links and citations of all your sources in a clearly visible section of the game menu? Text doesn’t take up a lot of space, and it would help make the designers more credible when they do say ‘based on historical events’. It would be much easier for any interested parties to expand their learning, or check the facts and interpretations of the designers.

          Older games used to sometimes do something simlair. AOE2 had a whole history section. Sadly, it was quite light and there was no bibliography or ‘further reading’ section.

          • TillEulenspiegel says:

            The Darklands manual had a thorough, annotated bibliography. Very impressive.

            Alpha Centauri had some pretty good scientific explanations, but not many citations as I recall.

          • Darth Fez says:

            That’s an idea I can get behind. Give those who are interested a bit more to go on than Wikipedia or a Google search. If I’d put as much work into a product as it sounds like they did with Assassin’s Creed III, I’d want to show off as much of that research as I could.

        • The Registrar says:

          Nope. My argument, badly phrased as it was, was that because the entertainment industry has purveyed myth, it shares the blame for the widespread ignorance our culture has of its past. My suggestion was that entertainers show a degree more respect for their historical subject matter, not that they have a duty to be educators. Although an educational approach might suit some genres very well, I happen to think that it would generally make for poor entertainment and even worse education. I actually agree with you that teaching critical thinking skills would be central for any solution, but it couldn’t hurt to hold the industry to higher standards too. After all, there is a great deal of scope for improvement.

          • Darth Fez says:

            Because the entertainment industry has purveyed myth.

            Has the entertainment industry ever purported to do anything else? Suggesting that the entertainment industry, and the video game industry in particular, has a responsibility to portray anything but fiction is a rather bold premise. These people make games. How does it make any kind of sense to argue that it is their responsibility to make games more factually and historically accurate because their audience is too lazy to learn about history or to do some research? They’re responsible, at least in part, for the general ignorance of history because they make games?

            Let’s consider the unlikely scenario that they stopped making games that incorporated any historical elements at all. Everything is pure fiction and obviously so. Would the video game industry suddenly be absolved of all blame regarding the generally poor state of people’s knowledge of history? Responsibility gone?

            You want greater historical accuracy in games. I can respect that. Argue that many a game would have been improved with greater historical accuracy. I’ll probably agree with you. But this talk of “blame for the widespread ignorance our culture has of its past” has all the hallmarks of sensationalism.

            Holding the industry to higher standards certainly cannot hurt. Sweeping statements that are tantamount to talk of how they’re ruining today’s youth, however, are not helpful.

    • Siamese Almeida says:

      Well, it all depends on the game in question, doesn’t it? Historical (hell, present day) inaccuracies in the Kosovo stage of Soldier of Fortune were hilarious because they only accentuated the B movie cheapness of the game. Alright, maybe it’s hilarious in retrospective, it was just plain stupid when it came out.

      But when games like Kawwa Doodies and Babbyfields that market themselves as serious, grim retellings of past events conveniently twist the truth to make the American protagonists appear as heroes — well, that’s a bit problematic. Bit sickening even. You could argue nobody really takes these games seriously, but you’re a grown person now. Kids really get into this shit. It would seem an anti-war sentiment among Americans themselves was a fad that ended when Green Day and System of a Down made that behavior appear “juvenile”. How convenient — to sit by and let your leaders do whatever they want because it became “uncool” and “juvenile” to raise your voice. For an absence of an anti-establishment mainstream, this generation of kids seems to have been reduced to two choices. Go with the flow or become a special snowlfake and open a tumblr account and browse a lot of fashion blog and pitchfork. Wouldn’t want your pals to grow up before you do, that would mark you as juvenile.

      Video games are the go-to source of entertainment for kids today. They’re a part of this issue, like it or not. I wouldn’t at all mind a bit of historical accuracy in AAA games, especially if it helps in shining light to some inconvenient truths.

      • Deadly Sinner says:

        Since Call of Duty 4, four out of six games in the series have taken place in the future. All of the Battlefield single player campaigns have taken place in the future. Additionally, the Bad Company games were comedic in tone and Black Ops was self-evidently not taking itself seriously, considering it dealt with conspiracy theories and such. So you’re going to have to explain how they all “market themselves as serious, grim retellings of past events,” when only one game could possibly have done that, and it came out five years ago.

        • shitflap says:

          So what you’re saying is that the majority of the CoD games were set in the past? All but four of them? That’ll probably be what was meant, I’d imagine.

        • Siamese Almeida says:

          They also take place in fictional countries, as I recall.

          See, I played all three Modern Warfare games and the fact that they take place in the future completely went over my head as I’m sure it did for Johnny Gamepad. We all know what’s at the core of these games: Yanks and Brits = Good. Muslims and Russians = Evil. Grim retellings or poorly veiled grim retellings, the point still stands, there’s no reason to nitpick my argument.

      • Koozer says:

        Psst, none of the ‘historical’ Battlefields have had a campaign, that only started with Bad Company on the tellyboxes.

    • Jason-Milardo says:

      like Billy implied I am shocked that anybody can profit $4289 in 4 weeks on the computer. have you read this site link… link to

  2. Advanced Assault Hippo says:

    That Chris Nolan article is bizarre. Making all sorts of leaps and weird judgements.

    Nonsensical stuff.

    • DarkLiberator says:

      Yeah, that article was extremely strange. I doubt Nolan has THAT much influence on video games and the author only listed a few games.

    • Post-Internet Syndrome says:

      The “dark and gritty” reaction seems to happen to most forms of media at some point anyway. Games had been starting to move in that direction long before the dark knight.

      • The Random One says:

        In fact, most of pop culture had its dark and gritty phase during the 90’s, especially comics.

    • Hazz-JB says:

      Having said that, the comments about Nolan were spot on, and I say that as someone who enjoys his films.

    • SuperNashwanPower says:

      I am waiting for Nolan’s reboot of Camberwick Green, in which Windy Miller grinds opium plants to make cocaine for the local town populace of corrupt firemen who blow things up to justify their existence, and the ubiquitous crack whores that ‘service’ the men who work in the factory who also beat their wives. I may have fused Camberwick Green with Trumpton there.

      • Gerbick says:

        That sounds quite the thing!

      • DrGonzo says:

        Time files by when you’re the driver of a train. Speeding down to Trumpton with a cargo of cocaine!

        Under bridges, over bridges to our destination! Watch out with that spliff Eugene it causes condensation!

      • Captain Joyless says:

        You can’t grind “opium plants” to make cocaine. The opium poppy can be processed to make heroin. The coca plant is processed to make cocaine.

        Or was that the joke?

  3. Jade Raven says:

    I’m surprised there are still apparently people out there that actually care about the story in Starcraft.

    • Trithne says:

      I care more about the story than I do the farcical ‘esports’ scene that grows on the game like a mold.

      • RakeShark says:

        Can’t say I follow the eSports side of StarCraft, but I enjoy players who break down strategy like a science than an art. People like Halby or Ketroc.

    • NathanH says:

      The stories of the Craft games are usually pretty fun. Rarely anything particularly deep or meaningful, but fun and exciting. They increase the entertainment value of the single-player campaigns a fair bit.

      • SuperNashwanPower says:

        They should add a mining element to StarCraft as an add on, and then they could call it MineCr …. ah. Hang on.

      • MattM says:

        I was disappointed with the ancient artifact plot in WOL. It seems like every sci-fi war is ultimately decided by a magical artifact or a ridiculous universal weakness in the enemy. It allows the war to be won by the actions of a handful of people. I would like to see more stories where the war wasn’t just a sideshow to the activities of a few chosen heroes.

    • Tssha says:

      I facepalmed no less than five times during that interview, and headdesked hard when he went into prophecies and the “cycle of…whatever-the-fuck”.

      How does he write this garbage? Every time Zeratul shows up I brace myself for suck. And I’m rarely disappointed. I’d love to be pleasantly surprised, but I’m not.

      Also, am I the only one that senses a bit of boredom in Tricia Helfer’s voice when she gives her lines? Am I the only one who thinks Starcraft I’s story was better? Am I the only one who thinks these great new storytelling tools are wasted in Metzen’s hands?

      • Vorphalack says:

        No, you aren’t. I read the plot synopsis on the wikipedia page, and it does a damn fine job of impersonating a trashy soap opera in space. Cheese all the way to the edge of the universe and back.

        • Post-Internet Syndrome says:

          To be fair, the original SC and BW were absolute soap operas too. They just didn’t take themselves so goddamned seriously. They also had the good taste to spread the story across several different characters with a variety of personalities and motivations. If you detested one – or several – of them, there was always someone to latch onto. SC2 put all its eggs in one basket trying to push ALCOHOLIC RAYNOR as the main driving force behind everything. And it just so happens that he sucks.

          • MattM says:

            The incredibly fit, good looking, never puking or passing out, alcoholic bugs me. He suffers no negative consequences of his addiction and drops it in a single moment with no real risk of relapse.

          • Vorphalack says:

            Personally I was more unnerved by Kerrigan, Botox Queen of the Zerg. Writing an alcoholic who isn’t an alcoholic is simply bad writing. Turning the most notorious villain / anti-hero of the series into a 14 year olds female fantasy is entirely more disturbing.

      • Brigand says:

        BELIEVE! Yeah it’s fairly awful alright. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy it though and in fairness the writing in HOTS was slightly better than WOL.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        Tricia Helfer should really stick to posing nude for men’s magazines. It’s the only thing she’s good at. Well, that and having an amazingly pointy chin.

        • Lemming says:

          Wow, what a massive twat you sound. Helfer can act just fine. You only have to see her in BSG to know that.

          • Tssha says:


          • SkittleDiddler says:

            Helfer’s acting range in BSG vacillates between two modes: cooing and seething. A better actress could have brought a lot more depth to Number Six, but to be fair the writing is probably as much to blame for that as her skill.

            She doesn’t fare much better in anything else I’ve seen her in either.

      • mouton says:

        Starcraft I story was nothing to write home about, really. It was your typical space-opera-ish train of tropes and cliches. But it was executed better than Wings of Liberty and, ultimately, made much more sense.

        Then again, it can always be the fact that back then I was teenage and now I am not.

        • El_Emmental says:

          Sure it was full of tropes, but I think it wasn’t trying too hard to be taken seriously – it helped players imagining such universe if they wanted to, but let other people just ignore the background story.

  4. CMaster says:

    The thing about the FTL kickstarter though, was it was a unique idea with a playable demo.
    A damn good playable demo.
    So the fact that the devs were unknown didn’t matter, you could already see that they WOULD deliver.

  5. coldvvvave says:

    > about FTL’s Kickstarter success

    Lemme guess. Notch tweeted about FTL, right?

    • Jorum says:

      I don’t think that mattered that much.
      As already mentioned they had a playable demo of the combat in place so people could see that
      a) the combat was fun
      b) they had competence to do what they wanted to do

      • LionsPhil says:

        Never underestimate the importance of a demo.

        • Lambchops says:

          Yup, I was on the fence until the demo. After the demo I knew it was going to:

          a) be completed
          b) be at the very least a good game with the potential to be brilliant

          So I pledged. If there hadn’t been the demo I almost certainly wouldn’t have.

        • InternetBatman says:

          Demos are a double-edged sword. A game has to be really good as a demo before I buy it, but a bad demo turns a game into a once and done.

          I think FTL was so successful because it filled a very empty niche, games that accurately and enjoyably simulate Star Trek.

          Having something to show is incredibly important for a Kickstarter. Compare Elite to Star Citizen. Elite had the franchise, Star Citizen had the video. Both had space sim rep, and neither had made them recently. The funding difference is telling.

  6. AlwaysRight says:

    My Album of the month is the analogue synth masterpiece:
    Space Dimension Controller – Welcome to Microsector 50
    A really clever, fun, intelligent and layered album dressed up as a ridiculous, camp sci-fi adventure.

    But if, like Jim you want to stick to elegiac modern classical: Olafur Arnalds – For now I am winter is great too

    • AlwaysRight says:

      However much more on topic. RPS contributor Porpentine wrote an excellent article on Nightmare Mode a while ago about the Interactive fiction renaissance:

      link to

      • SuperNashwanPower says:

        I was about to come to your defence for someone rudely ‘off-topicing’ your musical contribution, then realised that it was you replying to yourself. I had a strange moment of dissonance and possibly a mini-existential crisis. Then I finished my coffee.

        • AlwaysRight says:

          You should have jumped to my defence incase I had schizophrenia and my other personality was off-topicing myself. That way I would have been forced to address my dual identities and it may have cured me/us.

    • Casimir's Blake says:

      Personally I’m finding that SDC album too mired in half-formed electro pieces and undercomposed melodies.

      EOD – Volume 1, on the other hand, is a far more successful collection of electro/techno space melodics dripping in 80s Roland analog synth goodness.

      The new Ceephax Acid Crew record sounds like it’ll be equally brilliant. Oh and just to vaguely attempt to bring this back to relevant discussion: this stuff works brilliantly while playing FTL!

  7. Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

    Ah, ‘historically accurate’.

    Don’t bother. Contextualise it – it’s a video game set in a preconceived notion of a certain time/place which is undoubtedly going to owe more to existing fiction in our heads than anything else – possibly try and make some points with it, but for God’s sake don’t obsess over make it ‘historically accurate’. Enjoy it.

    Historians don’t purport to represent an underlying reality of events any more, so for a game to genuinely think it’s being ‘historically accurate’ seems only possible if you’re unfamiliar with the Sisyphean task of ‘historical accuracy’. The dialogue, the ontologies, the mental maps of the time and place, the linguistics… It’s a bit like that TV show, Sharpe – they get the right number of buttons in the right place on the right coat, but Sharpe views the world in a fundamentally C20th fashion. It’s not being snobbish – it’s saying that nobody, nothing can ‘recreate’ the past as accurate, so if you’re making a historical computer game – and by all means do – don’t get hung up on a Rankean notion of displaying events “as they really were” because you won’t manage it. Historians have gotten this and moved on.

    Oh – and that’s not to say that the Sharpe-esque ‘right buttons, right place’ type of accuracy doesn’t have its place, either – I’m not saying that you can’t recreate the mechanics of a medieval battle to a reasonable degree of ‘accuracy’, but that you can’t do the same for the medieval world or mind.

    • GernauMorat says:

      Capt. Eduardo del Mango – I would tend to disagree: just because it is very difficult to accurately portray another period doesn’t mean we should just say ‘bugger that’ and ignore historical fact. An approximation is better than nothing.
      Completely agree with you on Sharpe though, very much a twentieth century mindset in the 1800’s. However, I would hold up Patrick O’Brian as a historical fiction writer that (by and large) had ‘right buttons right place’ as you put it alongside characters with mindsets of their period.

      • cpt_freakout says:

        However, the ‘facts’ almost always, in very wide terms, reflect those bits of information that are best known among a public. In AC3, for example ,this translates into your character being an actual part of events recognizable by everyone, but remaining passive all the way through because facts are to be respected, although everything else around them can and will be changed in some way. And they have to be respected because they’ve become ideological icons of sorts, and the line between the kind of fiction historians tell and more free-flowing literary fiction is many times seen as impenetrable, while in truth it’s very dynamic. Point is, Mango is right, and like another famous historian once said, history is a daughter of her times.

        Historical games can take other, better forms than those attempting to be truthful in a fact-checking sense, and we already have an example. Just look at the ‘historical novel’ equivalent in videogames: Red Dead Redemption. The only thing straightforwardly accurate about it is the period; everything else is made up, and yet I think it tells so much about American conceptions of the frontier, the way that narrative has grave consequences in the story of Native Americans, how Westerns are told and how they have modified the narrative of expansion, the relation of that narrative to Mexico and the way it turns ‘inward’ when crossing the border, all the way down to the simply well-told characters of modern policemen, the city, politicians, and revolutionary leaders. Like all good historical novels, it tells a LOT about our times just as much as it tells about past times. Without any pretence to historical accuracy, it tells a version of a foundation myth so well it… well, it deserves to be on PC :P.

        • Binho says:

          Yes! As an archaeologist, Red Dead Redemption is exactly the type of ‘historical novel’ type game we need more of!

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      You know, sitting here and thinking, Historical Accuracy is fiction’s equivalent of the “Gameplay vs Realism” argument.

      (I wrestle with this one a lot. not least that most of the things I’m currently writing are period pieces in one way or another.)

      • Kieron Gillen says:

        (I also occasionally read people who are being incredibly pro-historical accuracy and imagine their heads exploding when they watch – say – Blackadder.)

        • Ultra Superior says:

          My great Skaven god, please make your next textbox even bit redder. Pinker? Dwarf flesh-er.

          Slaves to history often fail to incorporate dramatic arcs into their work, I’d say, which is why many authors, like master KG above, are at their strongest writing warhamm…fiction.

          • Kieron Gillen says:

            Oddly, joking aside, that’s always one solution to the accuracy problem – just clearly base it on whatever you want to write about, but throw it through a fictional filter.

        • Phantoon says:


          Why do I know the entire theme.

        • Dr I am a Doctor says:

          link to

          Check this peep out, he’s hilarious.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            Holy shit.

          • The Random One says:

            “Ghosts do not exist”

            The guy is doing the real-life Awful Movie Database. And he’s better at it.

          • Lemming says:

            “Blackadder says that they have the preliminary sketches of a painting. The word “preliminary” was invented in the mid-17th century.”

            That’s it, I’m chucking my Blackadder DVDs in the fire right now!

      • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

        I’d go with that. No matter how ‘realistic’ you make a game it will never be any more ‘real’ than any other game. Pursue ‘realism’ – say, in the physics of a racing or flight simulator – because you are interested in the topics and wish to explore them, but Grand Prix Legends and Il-2 are still games every bit as much as Ridge Racer and HAWX. If you’re pursuing realism in those cases because you think it makes you more like a racing driver or fighter pilot than someone who plays the alternative games then you’re pursuing an unobtainable and illusory goal.

        Ditto historical accuracy. If one’s thinking that, through historical fiction, one is getting a sense of “what it was really like to be there” then one’s getting it wrong. Any ‘explanation’ of history is a theory, a human mental structure meant to artificially give shape to whatever milieu of historical data you have available, and it’s been a long time since historians en masse claimed to be describing some sort of underlying realities. Accepting that doesn’t mean that you can’t have historical fiction, or that in an academic sense ‘history is bunk’ – it means that you’re trying to use it to be useful rather than right as the past is inescapably gone and all you’re able to do is attempt to draw sketches of it. Blackadder provides sketches of the past and makes us think about the topic – if it gets individual things wrong, or if it more broadly misrepresents the way people of the time thought or acted, that doesn’t invalidate the things it’s made us feel or think about that period in history. Contextualised – accepting that it’s a C20th sitcom (in the same way that you accept Assassin’s Creed is a C21th video game) – you can allow it to raise questions about the past that force you to a more useful understanding of it without having to write the game off because things in it are ‘historically inaccurate’.

        So, yeah – such lofty beard-stroking in no way prohibits anyone from making Assassins Creed, Total War, or whatever else, nor from them trying to be as ‘realistic’ or ‘unrealistic’ as they want – it’s just to say that no ‘historical’ game, however realistic or unrealistic it is, ever actually recreates the past any more than any other such game – it remains an unverifiable experiment in ideas about the past, with no actual extant ‘past’ to check it against.

        ‘Cos it’s, y’know, passed.

        • iridescence says:

          Disagree. The accurate racing sim will get you closer to the feeling of being a real race car driver than the arcade racing game. The well researched historical novel will give a better representation of its time period than the schlocky blockbuster which uses its time period as a prop (and the rather dry history textbook will be far better than either).

          Obviously none of those can give you 100% of the genuine experience, but 30% or 60% is still better than 5%. Assuming that accuracy is even what you’re after of course.

          • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

            I didn’t say “closer to the feeling of being a real racing driver”, I said it wouldn’t “[make] you more like a racing driver”, two very different things.

            Yes, clearly it is possible to recreate something better or worse. If you say ‘this is C17th England’ and have people dressed up in clothes we know were worn in C17th England then it will be more ‘accurate’ than if they are wearing orange jumpsuits. The point is that everyone there has to act according to peoples’ best guesses of what C17th English people thought, said or did.

            The research for your historical novel – where does that come from? “Primary sources” sure, but you can’t just pick up an old book, read it and go “Oh, I know what the C17th was like.” Reading and processing that source are entirely matters of interpretation, discussion, and debate, and depend on your position on a whole number of pre-existing topics and issues. And it’s not like we come to an old book blind – the way in which an individual looks at that old information and processes it is dependent on what that individual already knows about the time period – so if we’re talking in an academic sense, what historians does the person reading that old book know? Who do they agree with, who do they disagree with? Even in this case, then – of going back and getting an old book, you’re still going through the discussions and opinions that’ve been had by humans after the event – you’re not going to a verifiable, “100% true” what-happened.

            You and I could do the same research from the same books about the same topics for the same historical novel and come to wildly different conclusions about “what it was like”. That’s what I was getting at – we can’t go back and check ‘what it was like’, so ‘what it was like’ is entirely a matter of interpretation and discussion, playing around with concepts. Your measure of 50%, 75%, 100% ‘historically accurate’ just doesn’t work because there isn’t a 100% benchmark to check it against.

            In one sense – the orange jumpsuits in C17th England – yeah it’s possible to be more or less historically accurate, but in another it becomes, in some ways, a slightly pointless question. Or at least less pointful than it may initially appear.

          • iridescence says:

            I actually agree with pretty much everything you said here but still disagree with your conclusion. Yes, history is very open to interpretation and often different sources will contradict each other and anyone tells you they are being 100% accurate (or even close to that) is lying. I don’t think that is a reason to give up at least trying to portray history as accurately as we can though.

            As I said before, I do feel getting it mostly right is better than not even trying. Of course there is a place also for escapist fun where historical accuracy is irrelevant. I’m not arguing against that existing too along side the more serious stuff that strives for accuracy..

          • mouton says:

            Exactly, iridescence-

            We can at least try to provide a reasonably plausible portrayal. Even a flawed image will be better than a blatantly lazy one.

    • Lanfranc says:

      “Historians don’t purport to represent an underlying reality of events any more, so for a game to genuinely think it’s being ‘historically accurate’ seems only possible if you’re unfamiliar with the Sisyphean task of ‘historical accuracy’.”

      Except for the more extreme parts of the postmodernist outfield, I would say that most mainstream historians still do work with an assumption that we’re dealing with an historical reality.

      It would be more accurate to say that the reality is there, but that our understanding and presentation of it is necessarily imperfect and unavoidably coloured by subjective interpretation.

      • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

        Really? Wow. I’d say that except for the most extreme parts of the traditionalist infield, most academic historians work very much within a post-Foucault world. Maybe it’s the areas I specialised in, but take the intellectual history of the Enlightenment and you’re having to go back to when somebody like Robert Darnton was a big player in the field in the ’70s and ’80s. Hell, even twenty years back stuff as matter-of-fact as Nazi foreign policy had the Masons and the Overies throwing structures at each other.

        Really, Foucault’s the key figure – the guy’s a giant. I don’t understand how you could possibly look at the field of history forty-five years after ‘Les Mots et les choses’ and declare that such positions are still held by an ‘outfield’. Post-modernism, whatever one’s position on it, runs through all the current, contemporary historical research I’ve ever come across. I mean, hell, Les Annales and the Frankfurt School did happen, right? Febvre, Bloch, Braudel, Adorno, Habermas – I didn’t dream it, did I?

        • Binho says:

          I think it might be field dependent.

          In archaeology, post-modernist ideas and theories (called post-processual in our world) hold much less sway in areas where there is more archaeological and historical evidence to go on. Prehistorians tend to be heavily ‘postprocessual’ and are considered almost crazy by archaeologists of ‘historical’ periods. Like Christopher Tilley and his ‘The Power of Rocks’. :P

        • Lanfranc says:

          I would say that most historians in their everyday work take a stance along the lines of Richard Evans’s Defence of History: That history is still very much reality-based, but that postmodernism has been beneficial in pointing out e.g. the role of subjectivity and interpretation.

          By the way, many of those you mention are not postmodernists. Even Foucault himself rejected the label, for what that’s worth. The Annales school with its fascination with social science and la longue durée are in many ways the opposite of post-modernism. And Habermas in particular is one of the most prominent critics of postmodernism, so I’m a little baffled that you’re even bringing him up in this context.

          Obviously we’re not working in a Rankean framework anymore, but on the other hand, not everyone who ever wrote about structures or language is a postmodernist.

        • InternetBatman says:

          I was a history major in the US at a very small, very liberal, very pomo school and we definitely didn’t view history through that lens, and we still don’t at the much larger, more mainstream university I’m doing my grad work at. Those kinds of philosophies have been stronger in other departments, but generally historians in the US require too much proof for them to make more serious in-roads than “people in other periods of time did not have the same world-view that we do, but they contributed to ours.” At least I think. That could just be a product of my education, which focused far less on Historiography and Historicism, and far more on individual events.

          I believe those schools of thought went to other majors in the US (and now we have a lot of amateur cooks playing in the kitchen).

          Hell, I didn’t even read Foucalt in History, I read him in Sociology and English.

          • Lanfranc says:

            When I did my BA some twelve years ago (Danish university), the professor who taught our Historiographical Methods class was considered a bit of an eccentric in the department for insisting that we should actually read Foucault. And I think we were only the first or second year to have a proper theories class. Back then, you could really talk about a Rankean paradigm, although things have improved somewhat since.

          • InternetBatman says:

            This is probably an extremely American viewpoint, but I don’t think focusing on the theory of History is a valuable use of time. Life is too short to waste on esoteric navel-gazing.

          • Lanfranc says:

            I wouldn’t say it’s an extremely American – there’s a great deal of interesting theory coming out of the US – as much as an extremely old-fashioned viewpoint.

            History is an eminently intellectual field. We read stuff, we think about it, and then we write some more stuff down about it. So thinking is our toolbox. And learning about how other historians, or indeed experts from neighbouring fields, have thought about the things we ourselves are thinking about simply gives us more tools in that toolbox.

            Just to take a couple of examples from my own previous work, the literature critic Mikhail Bakhtin has a lot to add to the study of late medieval inquisition records. Or the theories of Jürgen Habermas is invaluable for the study of legal history. And of course, if you want to study feudalism, there is no way around the Annales School. So if you just dismiss theory and forge ahead with your own thing, you’re going to miss out on a lot of useful material.

          • InternetBatman says:

            On the other hand, slavish adherence to theory leads people to apply it in inappropriate contexts like saying Shakespeare was gay or applying Marxist perspectives to hunter-gatherer societies. All we can do is read the research surrounding a time-period, find what evidence we can, and make reasonable arguments from those facts or use those facts to contextualize data to contemporary readers.

            I’m deeply suspicious of systematic theories of human behavior because they’re necessarily reductionist since no human being can completely understand another human being. All we can do is make a bunch of small points and reach consensus on small issues to help students further their own worldview.

      • InternetBatman says:

        That was a perfect description of what the philosophy my departments have operated under. If anything, I would say that the increasing influence of Economic History has lessened the importance of the subjectivity of viewpoint. You won’t hear Ransom and Sutch talking about the fallacy of objectivity when they analyse Reconstruction.

        Personally, I think it makes us stronger as a discipline.

    • colw00t says:

      P O’B is in the weird situation of being so accurate that his occasional missteps (the marthambles) stick out a whole lot more than an equivalent mistake in a less-accurate work would.

      As a bit of an amateur scholar of naval history, though, it does greatly amuse me how he pretty much activated cheat codes for dear old Surprise fairly early on in the series, though. Easily the most expensive sixth-rate ever.

  8. RakeShark says:

    I think the trick with “historical accuracy” is to make the presentation of the material interesting enough to encourage tangential learning, so the audience can review facts at a later date to decide if the depiction was either clever or subtle enough to warrant deviation.

  9. Sander Bos says:

    So Cara is sleeping around with other websites now?

    I really like the C&C preview (I don’t see why it can’t be called a preview), only realized it was from her after reading it, but then I thought that article could have appeared on RPS just as well.

    (Maybe it did not contain enough mentions of what an abomination Simcity is to appear on Rock Paper Simcity?)

    • Ultra Superior says:

      I fuckin hate fuckin simcity – GIMME MORE COMMAND&CONQUER ooooh I need to breathe now, breathe..

  10. Drake Sigar says:

    “… ruined videogames” articles ruined videogames.

  11. Grey Ganado says:

    Sundays are for rehydrating.

  12. Ultra Superior says:

    Oh Goddammit Cara, I’m so eager to know more about C&C and you write such an emotional tease up.

    My question to you, if you read this: Have you noticed any potential in that game, to create “crazy” tactics and strategies, like it was in the old Generals ?

    Like – playing GLA, sniping enemy dozer with Jarmen Kell, stealing it with bonus-spawned rebels, creating a “sneak attack” tunnel nearby, drive dozer there and drive out in the comfort your base, building with NOW YOUR DOZER, YOUR OWN AMERICAN ARMY?

    Was there any hint at this sort of gameplay?

    • Trithne says:

      Personally, I’m not a fan of ‘I stole a truck and now I can build the infrastructure of a far more developed nation’. And Generals had so many magic buttons that spawned units/attacks that it was ridiculous

      Fun game though, but felt a little schizophrenic. Wasn’t sure if it wanted to be Starcraft or Red Alert

      • Ultra Superior says:

        Yes, well that is the point, it’s what made the game so fun for so many players. It wasn’t balanced or fair, but it allowed for incredibly memorable moments, where one player with one stealth unit could destroy 100x stronger opponent / without any exaggeration. All those insane combinantions (Black lotus on motorbike/ invisible dozer / sneak attack + mass capture) were what made that game so different from the usual war.

        I remember insane battles, where one forgotten stealth unit destroyed an oponent who color-filled the radar with his armies – a little twist could overturn desperate defeat and turn it into victory.

        Also, you could pursue a seemingly desperate strategy and then surprise the enemy with the outcome – such as “suicidal attacks” that looked lame, but carefully pinpointed just key units (enemy command centre + dozers) thus crippling his chances no matter how much stronger the opponent was.

        With RTSs from Relic or Blizzard : their games try their hardest to prevent these kinds of outcomes. “Better micro wins” – “Better macro and micro wins”

        Whereas in ye olde Generals “Creativity + cunning” could trump military prowess.

  13. Zeewolf says:

    “This tiny, unproven box represents a way to fulfill their dream of getting a game on their TV set.” – I guess this is what made XBLIG so popular too, despite the fact that it is a horrible way to release your game (not least because large parts of the world aren’t allowed in). There are so many stupid indies.

    • Ultra Superior says:

      OUYA’s appeal goes deeper than that. Moddability, openness, piracy, pricepoint, android, etc.

  14. fractos says:

    Typo on “Asssassin’s Creed” link

  15. Guiscard says:

    The thing about AC3’s portrayal of history that somewhat grated me (as someone who’s spent several years studying the 18th Century, mind, so I’m faaaar more susceptible to screaming “This is all wrong!” at the screen that a regular person) was that Ubisoft had clearly done their research. The Animus Database Entries for the period were spot on, and I was impressed with how they related the actual reality with very few errors – the biggest I noticed being the labelling of Monmouth as an American victory when it was actually a draw. But then the actual portrayal of events in the game often differed massively from these entries. The Boston Massacre and the Tea Party in particular drew my ire.

    Why bother with doing the research if you’re not going to use it? Its all very well having a world that feels accurate with clothing and architecture, etc, but the big events – the actual important parts – they just didn’t seem to bother implementing what they’d clearly found out at some point in development. I’d be surprised if even a third of all players actually read those database entries, removed as they were from gameplay, leaving only the totally fictitious one-sided versions to take precedent in the minds of the players.

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      I’d assume that the people who did the research and wrote the entries didn’t work on the actual game portion. Does Ubisoft have a tech comm department? If so, they’re the ones who wrote that, not the game designers.

      Which is a big problem, frankly. It’s a classic case of “the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing.” I’m resigned to the fact that most developers will never invest in dedicated writers–I’m sure even Bioware’s writers (regardless of what you think of their output) are first-and-foremost tech people, though I’d like to be proven wrong–but forcing a little accountability would go a long way to satisfying the nitpicky video game fan. And video game fans, like sports fans and car fans and any other fan you’d like to name, are nothing if not nitpicky.

    • The Random One says:

      “Why bother with doing the research if you’re not going to use it?”

      Because that is, literally, the best way to write a story.

      Historical accuracy is like formal grammar. If you’re going to be writing a story, you should be aware of how it goes. But if it ever gets in the way of an interesting or well-written passage, you chuck it out of the window.

      • Jeroen D Stout says:

        But for some audiences, historical accuracy is party of the enjoyment. Throwing it out of the window for frivolous entertainment is the old bathwater-baby situation.

        I say this because quite often I hear liberties taken with science or history defended with ‘this is to make it more fun!’ while those very same things did not make anything more engaging for me. I am not watching things for the sake of the escapism of cheap thrills, I want to enrich my life.

        (Not to the point of “Charlie Utter was a dandy, how could you lie, Deadwood,” of course. Because that is a lie agreed upon.)

  16. shitflap says:

    Sundays, crushingly, are not for any kind of mention of the story of Timesplitters Rewind, the mod that has received blessing and support from Crytek, in a frankly surprisingly cool way, hopefully to spark interest in a commercial revival.
    I suppose I’ll have to read the articles that have prompted Mr Gillen to stir from his cryo-sleep instead. Space vaginas and historical accuracy. Interesting combo.

  17. PopeRatzo says:

    “Historical accuracy”?

    Does it matter that Jason Brody goes for months on an island running around in jungles and swamps has sex twice and never once changes his underwear?

    Wait, was that a spoiler?

    • qrter says:

      Sadly, the island’s ecosystem can’t support animals that can be skinned for the purpose of undergarment fabrication.

  18. Tiguh says:

    I’ve loved Nils Frahm since he was last linked to on The Sunday Papers.

    Thanks Jim!

    • Aardvarkk says:

      Listening to the ‘top tracks’ from that link, good listening!

  19. Ny24 says:

    I would totally submit a map if you could do it without twitter. I don’t have twitter. That’s the problem. What’s with good old e-mail adresses? Are they gone?

  20. woodsey says:

    People getting pissy over Assassin’s Creed’s historical inaccuracies baffle me. They lay it out explicitly in the first game that “the history books are wrong” and whatnot. They haven’t tried to hide that.

    • Binho says:

      It’s not about the history being wrong, but their reconstruction and representations of past locations and societies. The two don’t necessarily have to go hand in hand.

      See Red Dead Redemption. It’s a good representation and reconstruction of a ‘generic’ area of the Far West towards the end of the ‘Old West’, without explicitly dealing with the actual historical timeline of the period or any real location.

      In the same way that GTA IV is New York in the early 90’s, without actually being New York in the early 90’s. There is no Bush Snr. or first Gulf War, but it’s an accurate reconstruction of society at the time.

      • Drinking with Skeletons says:

        Red Dead Redemption is a good example. Of course, there’s always the fact that modern sensibilities will often cause issues with accurate portrayals of the past.

        In RDR, for instance, remember the gay Mexican officer? Setting aside the issue of how open he is about it (which in certain areas of the modern US is still pretty dicey), Rockstar could have used him as an opportunity to critique their romanticized vision of the Old West; not a lot of opportunity available for a gay man in an extremely rural, deeply conservative region nowadays, let alone back then.

        Instead, they made him a paper-thin villain who gets savagely beaten by a circle of men, none of whom said anything regarding his sexuality. It was extraordinarily awkward and unbelievable to boot. I’m gay, and I’ve known the fear of being physically assaulted because of it. It wasn’t that it happened that bugged me, but that Rockstar seemed to have unwittingly backed into a corner and couldn’t figure out a way to make it effective in the setting, instead applying the modern notion of “if we don’t say anything about it, it’s not offensive!” The whole thing has stuck with me because of how badly it fit with their thematic ambitions.

      • The Random One says:

        Do you mean GTA III? GTA IV is very clearly set in the present day, what with the internet, the terrorist threats and the disappearance of Ammu-Nation in face of real-life NYC’s push for gun control.

  21. UpsilonCrux says:

    Nils Frahm, nice!
    Stay classy Jim

  22. Jason Moyer says:

    From that Assassin’s Creed article:

    “A 2008 Pew Internet and American Life survey revealed that 90 per cent of Americans 12 to 17 years old play video games – 99 per cent of boys and 94 per cent of girls.”

    Sounds plausible.

  23. rockman29 says:

    It matters more that countries don’t teach accurate history to their entire populations… (see: Japan, USA, Israel, Palestine, etc)

  24. Baines says:

    More SimCity news this Sunday:

    EA allegedly deactivates copies of SimCity bought through Amazon, even if the person didn’t request a refund through Amazon. From the sound of it, simply contacting Amazon support about the game was enough to get EA to treat it as a request for a chargeback/refund.
    link to
    link to
    link to

    Image of a forum post where a guy says his Origin account was banned after he complained about his cities being rolled back or lost. Response was that the rollbacks were happening because he was offline too much, which was a violation of the ToS.
    link to

    EDIT: Mods, if you want to treat it as a news tip instead of a Sunday Papers comment, feel free to delete this post.

  25. SuicideKing says:

    Music of Next Week:

  26. Premium User Badge

    gritz says:

    I would be interested to see what actual City Planners, City Managers and Urban Design Scholars have to say about the new SimCity.

    Anyone got any links?

    • Servizio says:

      link to

      Jordan Yin, urban planner PhD dude, says he’ll post his thoughts sometime next week. I’m only aware of him because of his involvement in the PCGamer article, Celebrity SimCity.

  27. nimzy says:

    That historically accurate thing makes me laugh. I happened to catch the 1998 Godzilla remake with Jean Reno on TV last night. Linking the monster to French nuclear testing was as puzzling then as it is now.

  28. Leonard H. Martin says:

    Chris Nolan ruining video games was fun. The article was crap, but the comments on YerpGonks were ace!

  29. mikmanner says:

    Such a shame about Rogue System – the idea of a hardcore flight simulator in space is so exciting to me. Even just taking off and landing looks fun.

  30. TWChristine says:

    In regards to historical accuracy, I kind of have to agree with Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s point of view: link to

    Just before the clip starts they were talking about accuracy in movies such as Armageddon. In response he said something along the lines of not caring if it’s being treated as just a fun experience to watch; however if you want to actually portray it as being historically accurate, that’s when you get held accountable.