Perhaps a weird subject line, but let me put it like this.

Let's say you are planning to write a Sid Meierish Colonization/Civilization game, or a WW2 shooter, or a bacterial life simulator, or a realistic space game. As a game developer, you know how to get those 18th century ships moving, you know how to animate that old Sherman tank, and you even know how to make that little Spore-like bacteria swim around in goo. And even though you aren't a physical therapist or know anything about anatomy, you can really make that Lara Croft character move realistically.

But to what degree do you use knowledge - social-scientific, historical, linguistical, psychological - in your game? How do you obtain such information in your games? Google and Wikipedia? Or is the gameplay more important than the "world-view" that often is embedded in a game - whether it concerns laws of gravity, historical events och economic processes?

For instance: look at the Civilization games. They are very nice to play and feel sort of realistic, but they have apparently not consulted any historians, social scientists och development scholars when creating this game. And as games are a very integral part of popular culture, do we run the risk of actually reinterpreting history? Do people really believe there was such a thing as Wolfenstein castle? Can a stone age tribe really live side by side with a space age civilization?

Marshall McLuhan anyone?

I don't think there is much correlation between fun and scientific, historical, linguistical, psychological accuracy.

I prefer writing Fantasy based videogames with a world on their own... so I don't generally need that, however if I need references (mythological and stuff) I would probably check Google and Wikipedia and, if in doubt of my sources or lack of thereof, I would eventually visit my local library. Doing research is never boring, in my opinion, and you never finish to learn new and interesting things...

What?! You mean the fluffy text accompanying each tech in Civ isn't 100% true?! Oh No, my entire understanding of the world is flawed!!

But seriously, you've got a point.  A player that doesn't know any better might accept something as true if it is presented authoritatively enough.  This could be our younger, more impressionable players for starters.  As game designers I suppose we have a choice about what messages are presented in our games.  If you are feeling particularly socially reponsible: do the research.  If you don't care: make it up. If you really feel like it: purposely tell lies.  The wider community will censor you soon enough if you cross an unacceptable line.  Same process happens with film and literature all the time.

I personally feel reality has no place in my games. Similar to the movies I watch and the books I read. I don't care if something is physically possible, if there's any accurate science behind it or what color dark matter should be or if you can hear sounds in space. I do all the above activities to escape reality so I care little if there's any factual, historic or scientific basis behind the game.

Depends what kind of game we're working on.  For some games, like sports sims, you need to get to know the game quite well and understand the subtle aspects of play and rules which make the "real" game what it is.  My first game was a tabletop game sim based on Karrom and the rules dictated a lot of the presentation of the game which for me was a great help.

Thanks for the replies - all interesting (well, at least I think so!)

The thought arose after I did some reading on physics engines, i.e. components that make objects interact more realistic - that is, as they to IRL, to us, in this universe. The Lasagna fighters used in the great Durum war in the fantasy Gnocchi universe thus still seem to obey the same physical laws that, well, our own universe has! But let's take the first games in the Call of Duty series: I think they give an extra edge (apart from good gameplay) as they obviously have done some in-depth studies in French geography, mid-century architecture and actual historical events that did occur. Of course, the main purpose of a game is not to be a lecture in history - a game is supposed to be fun - but as games more and more become a significant part of our cultural heritage (similar to books and movies), I think the question is valid: do game developers have a responsibility to depict historical events accurately in those instances when they, like the first couple of CoD games, apparently attempts to reflect actual historical events?

Because I don't think it is too far-fetched to argue that there are games that, similar to books and movies, also are carriers of ideas (in addition of being mere fun). To take a couple of FPS examples, have a look at Special Forces (released by Hizbollah), America's Army (initially released by the US Army), or why not Under ash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Ash). Or the obtained benefits from choosing various government styles in Civilization.

LOL, I think I'm just wired a lot differently than some of you guys. I hear about the research necessary to build a complete world and it makes me throw up a little in my mouth. My favorite first person shooter? Unreal Tournament although recently it's being beaten by Team Fortress. Nothing real about either of those things and we break the laws of physics (and many other laws!) in those games all the time. That's part of their fun :)

I personally hate the games based in reality. The more real a game is, the less I like it. I hate sports games, I can't stand war games that look like something I could have watched in a history class and I hate realistic sims and strategy games. (for example I LOVE Rise of Nations, but can't stand Civilization!).

When I hear that someone does a lot of research to build a world, I gag.I like it when the worlds make no sense and I have to suspend belief. Games like Toe Jam & Earl have made me smile for years!

So it sounds like your answer is, it depends. Both on the type of game you're making and what audience you're making it for! Give me alternate reality any day. And you can research it as poorly as you want ;)

Dave Carlile:

I don't think there is much correlation between fun and scientific, historical, linguistical, psychological accuracy.

In your opinion.

But I'd like to think that a majority of the people enjoy a game more when it at least attempts to be historically accurate when being serious about a topic. For example the ray gun in CoDWaW totally ruins the mojo the (single player) game has going.

For me, having accurate data to create a game is necessary. While games can certainly go off into another realm of reality, games that act real or are based on reality are much more engaging because they are easy to identify with. Case and point: Fallout 3 may not be extremely realistic but knowing that its physics are based on those in the real world allows me to expect and react to in game actions in an automatic and immersed way.

Having said all that, Wikipedia is great for gathering basic ideas but if you want the deep information on a topic you will have to hit up the bookstore or library.

George Clingerman:

LOL, I think I'm just wired a lot differently than some of you guys. I hear about the research necessary to build a complete world and it makes me throw up a little in my mouth. My favorite first person shooter? Unreal Tournament although recently it's being beaten by Team Fortress. Nothing real about either of those things and we break the laws of physics (and many other laws!) in those games all the time. That's part of their fun :)

I personally hate the games based in reality. The more real a game is, the less I like it. I hate sports games, I can't stand war games that look like something I could have watched in a history class and I hate realistic sims and strategy games. (for example I LOVE Rise of Nations, but can't stand Civilization!).

But games like UT and TF2 are based on reality. Things like guns, electricity and vehicles (not to mention how buildings are designed) are all truly based on what we have in real life. It really depends on where you draw the line of course...

John Sedlak:

Dave Carlile:

I don't think there is much correlation between fun and scientific, historical, linguistical, psychological accuracy.

In your opinion.

I don't think the "in your opinion" jab is really called for.  We're all giving our opinions, and we're all entitled to them, you included.

the only research that should be done on a game (as far as i'm concerned) is market research. games are made to make money. Thats it. Just like movies, just like the news, just like text books.

if it applies, you should research the laws of physics (so you can bend them), and enough contextual information to immerse the player in the storyline (such as decorative patterns of ancient egypt for game art, voices/accents, sounds, etc.). If you are trying to educate players, then do some historical research and make it accurate. if you are trying to make some money, imagine the most exciting storyline for free in half the time. hmmm...

you really should do your homework yourself though instead of just posting your questions in a forum :)

I'm more of a science fiction/fantasy guy, so I have to invent a lot of the details myself.  When it comes to actual research, it's usually a combination of Google, Wikipedia, and my local library.

I feel that the gameplay is definitely more important than the game's "world-view".  Games are (almost?) always fictional in nature and intended to be good fun, as opposed to documentaries which are (theoretically, anyway) expected to be fact-based and meant for educational purposes.

As for reinterpreting history...  We've been doing that since there was a history around to reinterpret.  It used to be the stories that were passed down from parent to child, and now it's movies and videogames.


Samuel H. Potter
"Darkeil"