{"id":7557,"date":"2021-05-13T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-05-13T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/?p=7557"},"modified":"2023-01-05T11:32:00","modified_gmt":"2023-01-05T16:32:00","slug":"history-take-three-how-video-game-replay-alters-your-perception-of-time-and-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/?p=7557","title":{"rendered":"History, Take Three: How Video Game Replay Alters Your Perception of Time"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On May 7, 2021 at <\/em>the 88th ACFAS congress<\/em><\/a>, I delivered a presentation on replayability in video games in a conference organized by Simon Dor from University from Quebec in Abitibi-T\u00e9miscamingue and Julien Bazile from the University of Sherbrooke, entitled \u201cControlling the Past: Design and Critique of the Mechanics of History in Video Games\u201d<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below, you will find the full text of my presentation (translated from the original in French<\/a>)<\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

As I write these lines in 2021, history-themed games are firmly established across all major video game genres, and show continued signs of growth in popularity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And why not: what history-themed games propose to their fans is nothing less than captivating. Many call on players to witness pivotal points in history, and take part in the enfolding drama of human experience across space and time; some allow players to explore the cities and vistas of bygone eras, blending tropes and techniques of tourism and cinema; others still offer large-scale historical panoramas to brain-muscle against, inviting players to participate in the conflict between nations across centuries, or better: hold by the reins of the galloping, grand arc of historical development, against all odds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In truth, the popularity of historical video games can be attributed to a small, but unique set of core attractors: the narrative richness of historical discourse; the art and science of simulation that make it possible to \u201cbring back to life\u201d, in unprecedented ways, the experiences of our ancestors; better even, an \u201calt-history lab\u201d of sorts that allows players to \u201ctest\u201d alternative historical scenarios<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Irreducible to these different styles of historical play, I propose with McKenzie Wark (2007), Mathieu Triclot (2011) and Douglas Hoare (2019) that time control <\/strong>lies at the heart of video game seduction. As interactive media, video games allow players to enter and exit game time at will through various access points offered by each game. More fundamentally, video games simulate a control of temporality <\/em>(i.e. “how time is experienced”) by presenting the range of player agent possibilities in each game as a series of challenges to be undertaken and repeated at will. In short, video games offer players the unprecedented experience – to use the terminology of game designers \u2013 of the replayability<\/em> of fictional game scenarios.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a game design standpoint, the \u201creplayability\u201d of a given game remains a marker of quality valued by consumers. For the analyst of play<\/em>, however, the inherent replayability of games blurs the analytical line between play time and (fictional) historical time in games. The issue I wish to address today can be summarized in the following questions: are we \u201cplaying at<\/em> history\u201d or are we “playing with<\/em> history” when we replay fictional historical scenarios over and over again in video games? And how is the player’s experience of time altered when he\/she\/they replay history?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Temporal Structures in Video Games with Historical Themes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To disentangle these conceptual knots, we should begin by analyzing the different \u201cflavours\u201d of historicity<\/em> simulated in video games.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Philosophically-speaking, the standpoints of the player-historian <\/strong>and the developer-historian<\/strong> (which I take from Adam Chapman in his Digital Games as History <\/em>(2016)) can give us two jumping-off points to unpack temporality in games. Before explaining these concepts, let me state that Chapman’s work is part of an ongoing effort to legitimate a sub-discipline of Game Studies of which he is co-instigator – Historical Game Studies<\/a> \u2013 by providing a theoretical framework for appending video games to mainstream historiography, against the caution of some professional historians who emphasize the gap between serious\/ludic and factual\/fictitious levels of discourse. To underline the contributions of competent amateurs to historiography, Chapman puts forth the concept of historying<\/em> \u2013 or history-making – a practice inherent to the cultural currents of “popular history”, in opposition to learned history[1]<\/a>. According to Chapman (and others), the qualities of amateur production can be assessed in relation to professional historians’ discourse legitimized by institutions (museums, universities, media) mostly in the field of practice<\/em> – reconstructive, playful, cultural production, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

More fundamentally, market economies separate production from consumption, where ludic cultural production <\/em>must “realize its value in the sphere of circulation” (to paraphrase Marx), i.e. seek to satisfy player demand in the consumer market for video games. Because video games are marketable commodities, we must therefore posit the figures of player-historian<\/strong> and developer-historian<\/strong> as distinct. As we will see, the life cycle of a video game product makes distinctions between these two historying<\/em> roles seem somewhat arbitrary ; albeit they remain necessary for the sake of conceptualization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And this is where I’d like to place my first critical intervention: can the act of consumption (buying and playing commercial games) be productive of historical discourse? In their encounters with different game genres, are players seeking to scratch an itch for (vicarious) historical experiences made accessible by games? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Digital Games as History <\/em>(2016), Adam Chapman develops a taxonomy of historical representation in games following the dominant styles of video game historicity, which he classifies into two overarching categories: \u201crealistic\u201d historical simulations, which mostly concern action and exploration games, and \u201cconceptual\u201d historical simulations, applicable to strategy and management games.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What does Chapman say about video games that seek to represent reality “as it appeared to historical agents”[2]<\/a> ? First, ‘realistic’ historical simulations are characterized by a ‘high degree of sound and visual specificity’. This approach inherits stylistic techniques of “realism” drawn from a long history of the arts in the West. In this mode of representation, we can observe an inverse relationship between the attention paid to details and the narrative scope of the game, limited to a given space-time. This type of \u201chistorical immersion\u201d relies on an effect of transparency, by which the mode of representation subsumes its very status as<\/em> a representation – only the interface elements, the ludic structure of the experience – or a bug – remind the player that s\/he is playing a game. The historical scenery realistically depicted in these games is designed around the principle of referentiality<\/em> dear to empirical historiography, apparently uncontaminated by ideology. Finally, since historical description in these games primarily operates through the audiovisual aspect, this type of representation is relatively easy to interpret by the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Conversely, “conceptual” simulations , typical of strategy games, choose to inform us about the past without claiming to show it to us as it appeared to historical agents[3]<\/a>. This type of simulation, which prefers the Big Picture over minute details, retells history using figurative or abstract audiovisual representations. Historical description primarily operates through interactions with game systems, making it possible to represent large-scale historical processes, systems and actions. By emphasizing “expressive” game mechanics, the narrative effects carried by algorithmic logics form the backbone of historical representation in these games (what Ian Bogost calls \u201cprocedural rhetoric\u201d[4]<\/a>). From the standpoint of epistemology, historical representation in this category of simulation is also derived from referentiality, but by first being passed through a frame of reference provided by the historical discourse of the developer-historian. This approach, which we could qualify as \u201cconstructivist\u201d, recognizes the contribution of the interpreter in shaping historical content. In addition, this \u201cmacro\u201d approach to history makes it possible to study the behaviour of collective agents, and to risk oneself at generalizations about causal relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

These are, in a nutshell, the two major trends of historical simulation in computer games analyzed by Chapman. If we thus go with the assumption that the historical content of games are fictitious representations inspired by historical facts, how then do video games deal with historical time?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his book Half-Real <\/em>(2005), the video game theorist Jesper Juul describes the temporal parameters of video games, observing that video games provide a fictional universe to set the scene of a game, further allowing players to control an agent (represented or abstract) at the heart of the (fictional) action. Juul theorizes a double structure of temporality, in which play time – the play activity of the player – relates dynamically to the time represented in-game<\/em> by the game and narrative designers[5]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Different game genres present this relationship between play time <\/strong>and fictitious time of a game <\/strong>differently. Realistic simulations induce a simultaneous relationship between the events represented in the game and the player’s play time. You are not only in a character\u2019s shoes, but in the heat of the moment. The player’s relationship to fictional time in the game is declined in the present (verb) tense, as 1: 1 time ratio[6]<\/a>. In effect, as long as the magic of immersion operates, the player in a psychological state of “flow” generally loses all sense of time. It is only by replaying a sequence – or by being confronted with sloppy design – that the programmed illusion of the game rises to player awareness. This temporal structure confirms the player in her\/his impression of being engaged in what Chapman calls the “exploratory challenges” of a historical agent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201creal-time\u201d framework can also be deployed on a \u201cmacro\u201d scale in video games. Real-time (or play-timer) strategy games were for a long time the standard-bearer of historical computer simulations, especially during the 1990s. Think Age of Empires<\/em>, or historical city-builders like Civ City Rome<\/em>, or the more recent “grand strategy” suite of titles from Paradox Interactive. These games offer the player a top-down view to a playing field, and the opportunity to “give orders” to units and manipulate game elements on the game map. By virtue of this design choice, these games operate a separation between play time and the scale of fictional time represented in the game. Control of the game speed by the player makes it possible to telescope historical time at will, inside fictitious time scale set by the developers. Ultimately, the game’s units of time visible in the game interface \u2013 hours, days, months, years – come to signify the unfolding of fictitious historical time in the game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast to the timekeeping (and time-scaling) device used in real-time gameplay, turn-based strategy games make advancement in the fictitious timeframe of the game at the discretion of the player. Turn-based games maintain an elastic relationship to the fictitious time of a given game’s universe<\/a>, and there is no time limit that a player can take within a turn. In the original Civilization<\/em>, Sid Meier’s decision to change real-time gameplay to a turn-based structure was based on the player’s apparent passivity in the face of real-time simulated in-game events. Putting temporal control in the player’s hands allowed the latter to become the active principle of the game; this \u201ctemporal activation by the player\u201d in turn-based games therefore coincides with the simulated historicity of these games. The structuring parameters of the \u201c4X\u201d genre can further be used to represent complementary historical processes that appear to be \u201cnested\u201d in one other, for example, economic, technological and cultural infrastructures, in a gameplay <\/em>framework that aims to be “trans-historical “[7]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While they cannot control the playing time of players, 4X game developer-historians can create a sense of historical time through the game’s story arc and core game mechanics. Ironically, the algorithmic implementation of “historical process” in 4X games often results in ahistorical gameplay – witness the plethoric anachronisms that come with your average Civilization <\/em>playthrough. To which critic Markku Eskelinen concludes that “turn-based strategy games […] seem to favor causal relationships to purely temporal relationships”[8]<\/a> .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To complete our review of these time structures, let us summarize Chapman’s discussion of narrative time in historical video games. Generally speaking, the time of narrative action in a given game unfolds according to the game and narrative design choices of the development team. Of course, the interactivity of video games makes it possible for players to intervene in the narrative framework. Result: despite being \u201cgrammatically\u201d declined in the past tense, historical games set the action of the historical narrative in the player\u2019s [present] tense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This past\/present temporal coupling <\/strong>is typical of historical fiction in video games. The “imperative present” verb tense (“do this”, “do that”, as summons to the player) is emphasized in action games, due to game objectives and pressures induced by the gameplay <\/em>on the player[9]<\/a> . For conceptual simulations, we note instead a marked disposition for potentiality <\/em>in verb tense; the player directs her\/his thought and action not only to meet gameplay challenges, but towards a (figurative) future that beckons. In turn, each newly attempted scenario teaches players to measure their historying<\/em> up against “the future that did happen in real history”, i.e. engage in counterfactual reasoning[10]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, both realist and conceptual historical simulations highlight that the present moment of time (of the player) is the place from which discourse about the past is generated in games.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This is the end of part 1 of our exploration of temporality in video games. To read the second (and final) instalment of this series, click here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Chapman, A. (2016). Digital games as history: how video games represent the past and offer access to historical practice <\/em>(Ser. Routledge advances in game studies, 7). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group , p. 5-13, 173-262.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Chapman, Digital games as history <\/em>\u2026, p. 61-69.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Chapman, Digital games as history <\/em>\u2026, p. 69-82.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Bogost, Ian<\/a> (2008). “The Rhetoric of Video Games.” The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning<\/em><\/a>. Ed. by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 117\u201340. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Juul , J. (2005). Half-real: video games between real rules and fictional worlds <\/em>. MIT Press, p. 141-156.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Chapman, Digital games as history <\/em>\u2026, p. 91-93.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Chapman, Digital games as history <\/em>\u2026, p. 94-97.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Chapman, Digital games as history <\/em>\u2026, p. 96.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Chapman, Digital games as history <\/em>\u2026, p. 97-98.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Chapman, Digital games as history <\/em>\u2026, p. 99.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On May 7, 2021 at the 88th ACFAS congress, I delivered a presentation on replayability in video games in a conference organized by Simon Dor from University from Quebec in Abitibi-T\u00e9miscamingue and Julien Bazile from the University of Sherbrooke, entitled \u201cControlling the Past: Design and Critique of the Mechanics ofContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":7580,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[15],"tags":[602,151,492,365,597,601,410,600,599,443,598,353],"coauthors":[393],"class_list":["entry","author-roy","post-7557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-articles","tag-abstract-time","tag-game-studies","tag-historical-game-studies","tag-historical-representations","tag-historying","tag-phenomenology","tag-philosophy","tag-replayability","tag-temporality","tag-theory","tag-time","tag-video-games"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/spiralclock_faded.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7557"}],"version-history":[{"count":132,"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7557\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8014,"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7557\/revisions\/8014"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/7580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7557"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.playthepast.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcoauthors&post=7557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}