History and Video Games: A Brief Thought

I am definitely one of those people who enjoys playing video games that have an historic theme or which are tentatively based in some historical period. Having overheard some of my friends’ discussions on the subject I began to think of how problematic these games can be for historians. To the average person games like Call of Duty appear as “historical” games, because they are largely (Infinity Ward’s “Modern Warfare debacle notwithstanding) set in our own observable past: primarily the Second World War and the Cold War. Likewise games like Company of Heroes, Day of Defeat, Age of Empires, Empire Earth, and the entire Total War series feature an interpreted historical setting as well. I have found that many people dislike the association between taking place in the past and being historical. Arguably these games do not really deal with history as academia understands it, but rather utilize the popularity of some of the more famous topics of historical study as a springboard from which to propel their game’s story. Call of Duty, for example, can exist entirely without the historical context. Replace Axis soldiers with aliens and the fields of Central Europe with some distant alien landscape and the game’s fundamental elements are unscathed. Same can be true for most of the games I have listed. These are not works of history but rather creative projects which use history as a means of enhancing the story-telling. There is a fear that these games distort the casual understanding of historical events. Call of Duty (I understand that I’m beginning to sound like a broken record but give me a chance) depicts the Second World War in very black-and-white terms, Allies good, Axis bad. There is not expression of the horrors of war, no levels that force the player to sit in a cold tent, no mini-games to stave off frostbite and shell-shock. Players simply advance and kill. Shoot people until you reach the next ledge, only then will you be secure in the fact that your saved game is slightly closer to your current position. What right do these games (which have easily surpassed film and television in sales and [maybe?] audience) have to misrepresent such important events?

I’ve painted for you a pretty cantankerous picture of video games and history, and honestly I often have this worry about games myself but recently I have begun to think about the positives of such mediums. What about those people who question the legitimacy of these games? What about those few who play Call of Duty and want to learn more about what’s going on in-game? I ask this because I’ve been there. I remember playing Age of Empires and wondering what the heck actually happened that inspired such a game. Realistically I first became interested in learning some of the relevant histories because I was an exceptionally un-creative child and wanted ideas for campaign editing. I remember taking out books on ancient Carthage, Rome, and, later, Medieval England. These books provided me with the information necessary to create interesting levels and campaigns with the in-game level editor. Wouldn’t you know it if the stuff wasn’t pretty interesting. These books were designed for someone my age (about 8-12) and were a stepping stone to some deeper learning later on.

So what am I rambling on about here? Basically I am not too worried about the misuse of history in video games. Sure Age of Empires isn’t historically accurate, and of course Call of Duty is a gross misrepresentation of the war, but perhaps some of the people who enjoy these titles as entertainment will take it upon themselves to look further into the bits that interested them. Maybe, just maybe they will continue down the path that this curiosity paves for them.

If I could tell my 12 year-old  self that I would be ranting about my experiences on Age of Empires to ones of tens of people on the internet I’m sure he would be impressed.

Here’s looking at you [me] kid!

 

– Alex