The Role of History in Video Games
After all the debate about Six Days in Fallujah, it’s worth taking a step back to consider the role of history in games generally
The topic of how video games portray history has been intensely discussed recently. Six Days in Fallujah sparked a renewed conversation about how history is used in games. I won’t be getting too detailed into the specific case of Six Days in Fallujah because there have already been strong articles for and against the game’s development that cover the debate. This conversation inspired me to consider more holistically how game developers have dealt with history in the past and how we can understand the role of history and games in the future.
Historical games alter the typically passive learning of history into an active form and allow the audience to participate in historical events. I’ve tried to distinguish the various ways history has been used in games and I’ve identified a few prominent ones that are worth considering:
· Fictional people, Real scenario
· Real people, Fictional scenario
· Real people, Real scenario
I will be sharing examples from each of these scenarios so that we can explore them on a case-by-case basis. But, before delving into that, considering how multiplayer games set during real historical battles work offers much insight into how the interactive nature of games can achieve unique historical understandings that are not possible in other mediums. Introducing the role of history in multiplayer games is central to the rest of these categories.
The Function of History in Multiplayer Games
There are countless games, most often shooters, that allow the player to participate in historical battles against an opposing team. While multiplayer matches may not always represent history accurately, they can capture the lived experience of a battle.
Historical actors did not know the outcome of their actions, and neither does the player during each multiplayer match.
Battlefield 1, set during World War I, is a great example of this idea. In one of the multiplayer modes that is set during the Battle of Gallipoli, one team of British soldiers fight against another team of Ottomans. Yet, historically the outcome has already been determined: the British won the battle. So, how do we rationalize allowing the players fighting as the Ottomans to win in Battlefield 1?
Putting aside the obvious gameplay reasons (it wouldn't be very fun if one team always lost), the flexible outcome of the battle represents the lived experience of the soldiers. During the battle in history, the British soldiers on the front lines did not know that they were going to win. The Ottoman troops did not know they were going to lose. The uncertainty that existed at that time in history is present in these Battlefield 1 multiplayer matches because either team of players can win.
Games are unique in their ability to offer the audience an intimate look into what it may have felt like for the historical actors and the uncertainty that surrounded their decisions at that moment. It is unique because of the participatory nature that games demand of their audience. This active audience interaction leaves games vulnerable to a level of scrutiny that is not present in other types of media that recreate history because they allow the audience to be participants in history.
Of course, no form of media can capture the experience of a historical battle in perfect accuracy, but games can get closer to achieving that than other forms of media because of player agency.
Fictional People, Real Scenario
The game that I believe is a great example of this case is Valiant Hearts. Released in 2014 by Ubisoft, it is described as follows: “This fictitious story takes you back to famous WW1 locations, like Reims or Montfaucon, revisiting historical battles on the Western Front, such as the Battle of the Marne or the Battle of the Somme!”
Valiant Hearts is a side-scrolling, platformer puzzle game. Crucially, it has players experience four perspectives from fictitious characters that represent a real side of the war: an American volunteer soldier, a German conscript, a French conscript, and a Belgian nurse.
While every character in this game is fictional, the experiences they witness and partake in are often real. The goal of this game is to tell a story that shows how normal people experienced the war. In that regard, Valiant Hearts succeeds exceptionally.
Using fictional characters to explore a historical event is a common technique used in every type of media. It offers several benefits. For one, the historical scrutiny is less because the main characters do not exist in real life. They are created to be a vessel for the player. Because of this, the player may actually be able to get closer to the experience of the historical events because the fictional character does not have as much historical baggage as a well-known real figure.
Additionally, the game places numerous collectibles in each level that function as real historical artifacts. This system connects the game close to the history of World War I as the player can learn the historical context of many of the items and situations they are encountering in the game.
Valiant Hearts represents how fictional characters can be used to portray real historical events for a gaming audience. It gives the player a multitude of perspectives that highlights commonalities between diverse playable characters that exist.
Real People, Fictional Scenario
The Civilization franchise is the perfect example of the real people, fictional scenario category. It has the player control a famous historical figure and places them in a fictional world filled with other historical figures. This is a strategy game and the player is tasked with raising a civilization from nothing and creating a powerful society through many ways: conquering enemies, diplomacy, trade, scientific research, and cultural exportation.
Yet, because these historical figures act solely as a vessel for the player, they can deviate widely from their historical roles.
The most extreme, and arguably infamous, example of a historical figure thrown for a loop is the case of Gandhi. Specifically, nuclear Gandhi. While real Gandhi is known for his non-violence achievements, in Civilization the player can play as Gandhi and have their civilization develop nuclear weapons.
Yet, nuclear Gandhi does not cause a mass outcry. This boils down to the intention of the game development studio. Civilization is not designed to be historically accurate. Therefore, it is a stretch to accuse the game of tainting Gandhi's non-violent legacy by having him destroy enemies with nuclear weapons. In this game, Gandhi is under full control of the player. Whatever his historical actions may have been hold no standing once control is handed to the audience.
Real People, Real Scenario: the case of Six Days in Fallujah
This final category is a rarity in video games. In fact, I could not come up with any previous examples of a video game that has participants of history reenacting their real historical story. I’m sure they exist, but they are clearly few and far between. If anyone knows of a game that falls into this category, please let me know!
Nevertheless, this type of game is far less common than the previous two. Player agency is a central pillar of video games and allowing the audience the opportunity to have agency and control over real people in real historical events is a phenomenon that is not possible in other mediums.
Six Days in Fallujah is attempting to create a game in this category. I must preface everything said about this game with the fact that the game has not been released yet. Yet, there have been such strong calls to cancel its development before release that I feel like an examination of its premise is necessary.
The website describes the player’s role as follows: “Lead a fireteam through real events from the battle. Each mission is played through the eyes of a real person who narrates what happened.” It clearly puts the player in a situation with real people in real scenarios.
The historical effect used in this game, which is reminiscent of Battlefield 1, is that the game seeks to share the experience of US marines in Fallujah and the uncertainties surrounding it. Uncertainty is an incredibly difficult emotion to share. But, through player agency, uncertainty can be explored as the player must navigate unknown environments. To support this idea, the game uses a procedural generation system so that the layout of the city changes every time. While this takes away from the truth of how Fallujah was actually laid out, it leans into the goal of capturing the experience of the soldiers by translating the uncertainty that the player feels with a newly generated map every time with the uncertainty of the marines fighting in Fallujah for the first time.
The anger surrounding this game, pre-release, represents the challenges that games face when pursuing projects in this category of historical games.
Some of those who reject Six Days in Fallujah’s development have raised the point that games should not deal with such recent history. Yet, this argument does not hold much standing since it forgets that all other forms of media recreate recent history frequently. Hollywood is a prime example of this. United 93 came out in 2006, only five years after 9/11. Black Hawk Down (2001) was a movie about the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu. Six Days in Fallujah is based on the history from 2004 and suggesting that 17 years is too soon to tell that story in an art form is a challenging proposition to accept. Media frequently retools historical events, so why should there be an exception for video games?
Yet, Six Days in Fallujah faces another problem that all sides of this debate can agree upon: it is a monopoly. It is the first (and currently only) game that takes place during this particular battle. Therefore, the way the battle is represented holds additional weight due to the lack of other game adaptations of this history. Despite this, I do not think it would be reasonable to mandate that the first game made on a historical event must offer a sweeping holistic look at the event. The goal of this game, as described, is to share the experience of US marines during the Battle of Fallujah. That is a narrow perspective and if that is the goal then is there a problem with that?
All that being said, I think that Six Days in Fallujah should be allowed to explore this historical game category. For one, more conversations should be had about creating historical games that use the actual historical actors who were there. A good that has come with the debate around this game is that people are having this conversation. This type of historical game is rare, and developers must be allowed to explore techniques for capturing such an experience. I think there is a great opportunity to have historical games in this genre as they offer the ability to share a historical experience with the audience’s participation.
I am not arguing for absolving this game of criticism. I don’t know how the game will end up portraying history because it has not been released. I am arguing that historical games of this category should be allowed to exist and explored. No game is capable of capturing history with total accuracy. They are largely made as an entertainment product after all. But, that does not mean that this category of games should be abandoned. Someone has to try and make a game for this genre to grow.
Final Thoughts and Questions
I am left with a few questions surrounding this topic.
What, if any, additional responsibilities does player agency force game developers to face when creating a historical video game?
Should additional scrutiny be applied to the first game released about a historical event, rather than a game that is based on a historical event that has many games about it? (i.e. a Fallujah game vs a World War I game)
Are the labels “video games” and “play” responsible for strong reactions against historical games? Is the concept of “playing” through a tragedy the central issue? Is it simply an issue of terminology?
Will this debate around Six Days in Fallujah inspire more history games of the “real people, real scenario” category to be made, or will it scare off prospective developers?
Thank you for reading this. I hope these thoughts and questions inspire people to consider how history has been used in games and how history may be used in games in the future. I think there is a tremendous opportunity for historical video games, and I hope to see more of them being developed.
