Josh Sawyer - Why Don't Developers Make Historical Games

Josh Sawyer explains why developers don't make historical games.

loading…

well??? re-uploaded from my other account.

More information.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance proves him wrong but yes not many developers make historical games. You could also add Paradox's grand strategy games to that list.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Kingdom Come: Deliverance proves him wrong but yes not many developers make historical games. You could also add Paradox's grand strategy games to that list.

Kingdom Come is not really what I would consider a historical game. It should be based on an event or person and somewhat accurately represent it for it to be considered historical. Depends on how loosely you apply the term I guess. I would call it historically inspired.

Originally Posted by bjon045
Kingdom Come is not really what I would consider a historical game. It should be based on an event or person and somewhat accurately represent it for it to be considered historical. Depends on how loosely you apply the term I guess. I would call it historically inspired.

Yes Historical games don't have to follow a certain person just the time period. So like you say it's how you apply the term. You can add the Assassin Creed games to that list.

Anyway it would be pretty boring already knowing how someones life/time will play out in advance if you cant change anything in it. It would be considered alt-History then.

Would Expeditions series count as historical games?

Originally Posted by purpleblob
Would Expeditions series count as historical games?

Yes setting wise but it doesn't follow any historical person.

A good setting for an RPG in that that time period would be the Saxon Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell. It's historical accurate but takes liberties like all written fiction.

The Saxon series would make a heck of a game, were it done correctly. I'd likely buy it just to check it out, even without rave reviews!!! A chance to immerse myself in that era/community is something I just couldn't pass up.

Originally Posted by purpleblob
Would Expeditions series count as historical games?

Of course.
Historical game doesnt need to be "document" about some event. Are historical strategy games historical?


Regarding the video - so problem of historical games is that most developers dont like history from school. I think it mirrors general attitude of common people. It seems that especially teenagers hate history. They think its useless to learn about it because its just old and not cool and modern so they are on the perfect way to repeat the same mistakes as ppl in the past.

Originally Posted by bjon045
Kingdom Come is not really what I would consider a historical game. It should be based on an event or person and somewhat accurately represent it for it to be considered historical. Depends on how loosely you apply the term I guess. I would call it historically inspired.

The whole video and the initial question seem to apply the term quite loosely, more or less just everything that's not scifi or fantasy.

In that context, Kingdom Come fits.

Are total war games (like Total War Rome) historical games ?

Kingdom come is plenty historical enough for me. It's based on events of the time and period and has many features and looks of the time period. Does a game have to be 100% accurate to be considered historical?

I would like more historical games and hope Sawyer makes one

Warhorse studios studied the time period of game very extensively. Objects of daily use, clothes, weapons, buildings, all is based on reality of that time. Also village and castle are very precisely based on reality. If thats not historical game then dont know what is.

I will also suggest that certain periods of history are very controversial, and most developers would be walking a slippery slope.

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
I will also suggest that certain periods of history are very controversial, and most developers would be walking a slippery slope.

Yes that's true look at Kingdom Come: Deliverance for an example again. The developer was shamed & banned by certain site for not being diverse and exclusive enough.

I wont go into details but this is what gaming journalism has come to nowadays.

Originally Posted by you
Are total war games (like Total War Rome) historical games ?

Yes they are historical TBS games based on real history.

Because there's already a gazillion historical games to choose from, there's just not many historical cRPGs, because people who buy cRPGs are doing so to.. get… away… from… reality. As far away as possible. *sigh*, how many times does one have to repeat oneself *facepalm*.

Here ya go, a 'small' selection of 'historical' games just from the last few months:

Imperator: Rome
Anno 1800
Civ VI: DLC10
Assassin's Creed: Whatever next
Battlefront: Men in Uniforms
God of War: The one you're supposed to play with your son edition
etc, etc, etc.

Yes but see some of us love Historical RPGs. They also don't have to be 100% realistic to enjoy. That's why I enjoy playing Mount and Blade II which is based on medieval history.

I get it you hate realism & survival RPGs based on a few threads. Yet KCD proved Historical RPGs have a market to sell. It's just not big enough for publishers though.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Yes but see some of us love Historical RPGs. They also don't have to be 100% realistic to enjoy. That's why I enjoy playing Mount and Blade II which is based on medieval history.

Most cRPGs are based on medieval history…

Yes but I can do without elfs and all the other mystical crap that's prevalent in modern RPGs. It seems developers can't move beyond Tolkien fantasy in most RPGs.

We can debate all day and go in circles once again but tastes differ.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Yes but I can do without elfs and all the other mystical crap that's prevalent in modern RPGs. It seems developers can't move beyond Tolkien fantasy in most RPGs.

We can debate all day and go in circles once again but tastes differ.

There are no circles. You, and Sawyer, or anyone else following this trail of debate are merely substituting the phrase 'non-fantasy' for 'historical', because… it's a more marketable term?

Did you try Vampyre or however it was spelt? It's basically a Victorian era 'historical' RPG with the occasional bit of vampirism.

And regards circles, the 'circle' that gets constantly circled around is the fact that historical means things that have already happened, the timeline is set, so, as said above in another post, the whole concept of choice and build doesn't really work, does it. Hmmm, today I want to play a Joan of Arc cRPG where I'll play as a black male bhuddist thief with a chaotic evil trait… and I already know how it'll end…

So in order for it to actually work, you'd still have to be a non-historical character in a non-historical setting, like Assassin's creed or Battlefront or Red Dead Redemption or etc etc etc, so you might as well be honest and just call it a non-fantasy RPG. To which, have fun killing humans, more humans, and even more humans etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Saxon1974
Kingdom come is plenty historical enough for me. It's based on events of the time and period and has many features and looks of the time period. Does a game have to be 100% accurate to be considered historical?

I would like more historical games and hope Sawyer makes one

No it doesn't have to be 100% accurate. I hope Sawyer makes one as well.