Hey all,
You may recall we were talking about authenticity, accuracy and immersiveness when it came to computer games like the Assassin's Creed series of games, and I provided you earlier with a link to a video of one of the historical tours of the Origins game in the series, set during the Peloponesian Wars in Athens, plus or minus 2400 years ago. Well check out this video of two Classical Scholars touring the game, including Kathleen Lynch from the University of Cincinnati, an archaeologist who's worked for 25 years on the archaeology of Athens. It is an insightful, and impressed, reaction to the effort at accuracy offered up by Ubisoft, the game designers. But was this level of detail necessary, do you think? What does this level of archaeology "Easter egg" accuracy in the game impart, beyond one part impressing an expert, and one part inviting quibbles over details? Is this something archaeology should be trying to do more broadly to immersive people in the pasts we explore?
1 comment:
My hesitation to say this level of detail is necessary because I am not sure whether game players will pay much attention to details of the game environment, such as the pattern on the pottery. On the other hand, I share the same amazingness with Dr. Lynch. Through her demonstration, I start to appreciate the accurate details presented by the game developer. Instead of thinking more about the game per se, I start to think whether it is useful to bring in experts like Dr. Lynch to act as a demonstrator for this sort of game. It seems to me that Dr. Lynch plays the role of educator here. I am sure that Ubisoft consulted professionals for the construction of the ancient site in their game, but similar to the field of scholarly works, multiple voices and opinions should be welcomed to continuously vitalize and develop theories and practices. That says, if we take the game more seriously as a potential source of archeological education, then game tours in a scholarly manner are better to be incorporated rather than optional. I insist that trying to learn history through playing games is not ideal, but since playing games is much more popular than studying history, and since the game is produced, why would we not want to “capitalize” on it? Therefore, my response to the last question is mixed: yes if we could add the extra weight of meaningful education towards this sort of game method of history education, no if the game remains the game.
Post a Comment