Live data from Hacker News

The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

leidenmedievalistsblog.nl

101–110 of 246 posts

Re: The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

#101
This was a really cool article! Fascinating to learn how some of this stuff really worked. That said, game makers need to balance making their game fun, having a goal, and not being too tedious. It takes a lot to run a town and most of it isn't fun, so it's understandable that they simplify and leave things out.

I've had a lot of fun playing Outlanders[0] on Apple Arcade. It's similar to what's described here. You get a small island and a few people and have to make a town using only resources from the island. Looks like it's set in maybe the 1700s or 1800s. Works on the iPhone and is a great time killer.

[0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/outlanders/id1463407936

Re: The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

#102
Hrm. My opinion is that complete accuracy isn't all that fun. Folks have used tax records to do analysis of, say, how many farmers it takes in a village for a blacksmith to be present, and so on and so forth. It was a lot more than you might imagine.

On the other hand, looking at the D&D 3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide 2, they have finally fleshed out Saltmarsh. Bizarrely, a town of less than four thousand people actually has an assassins' guild, with roughly ten members. Do they take turns, each assassinating one person a year? Because that's roughly how infrequently it would have to occur for their little club to escape notice. Hardly worth paying dues for, sitting around, discussing that murder you managed five years ago and how you look forward to one in another five.

Take a look at city-building ... in most games you rarely see the hub-and-spoke develop around a port city, despite that being a prevalent pattern, or the unique feel of isoheight versus steep streets in a hilly region (the San Francisco pattern). If you watch city maps over hundreds of years, many forces are at work, and I think they might be simulable but I don't know if the end result would be enjoyable enjoy to warrant it.

If you look at our actual cave ecosystems, troglobionts, which are adapted for living strictly in caves, are typically quite tiny. There's simply no food down there! Resources are scarce. Hence you would get no gelatinous cubes or hook horrors or carrion crawlers stumbling around the caves, lurking about, waiting for adventurers or the average bear. Instead you get some very small, pale shrimp. This is not exciting for the adventurer. Some handwaving of a source of energy called "Faerzress" eventually takes place and is only vaguely acceptable if one does not look hard, serving as kind of a bottom trophic level for the game.

The balance between actual plausibilty and what one might call "fantastical satiation" is quite difficult. Your large-sized dragon, perhaps your standard-issue Vermithrax Pejorative, would need something like a log flume ride of virgins delivered straight to its gullet to sustain its bulk, not to mention the caloric expenditure. Clearly, this isn't very satisfying for your story-telling, either.

The balance is rough and I suspect that nitpicking in the name of accuracy can undermine most of what is constructed.

Re: The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

#103
The point is not to be historically accurate. Ideally you strike a good balance of fun, challenging, and historically accurate - in that order.

I can't speak for the games listed, but for the one AAA game I had the opportunity to work, "but is it fun?" was a question we would ask ourselves periodically. The natural tendency was to strive for correctness and simulation level accuracy. But that's usually very much not fun.

Re: The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

#105
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense that they also developed Stellaris. Looks like I have a new game to buy and play.

Consider yourself warned: all Paradox games are highly addictive drugs. What you must have experienced with Stellaris is representative of most their games. EU IV is indeed a good choice if you liked Stellaris (I usually explain Stellaris to people as EU in spaaaaace).

I've been meaning to revisit Paradox games for a minute. Crusader Kings II hooked me the most. I never really delved into EU. The big problem I had with Stellaris is that I usually lose interest in the mid-game. I love the exploration, the building and even the initial diplomacy, but I just lose interest when everything levels out. I understand from AARs and the like that there are late game effects to disrupt the status quo, I've just never had the patience to wait for them.

Re: The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's cool! Does it say what exactly you are taxing (labor, land, capital, income, wealth)?, or is that left abstract?

There were times that the Romans auctioned off the right to tax a region. So you’d pay the state some sum and then have the right to extract whatever you can from the population. I’m sure the whole story is much more nuanced than that outline.

And I thought debt collection agencies are shit. We really do live in the best times so far.

Re: The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

#108
post #103

The point is not to be historically accurate. Ideally you strike a good balance of fun, challenging, and historically accurate - in that order. I can't speak for the games listed, but for the one AAA game I had the opportunity to work, "but is it fun?" was a question we would ask ourselves periodically. The natural tendency was to strive for correctness and simulation level accuracy. But that's usually very much not…

That tracks, I think. Most strategy games are about things that real people had to be paid to do. There haven't historically been many who would govern a province for "fun". For money, glory or influence, sure, but not really for the visceral thrill of the thing.

Re: The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

#109
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense that they also developed Stellaris. Looks like I have a new game to buy and play.

Consider yourself warned: all Paradox games are highly addictive drugs. What you must have experienced with Stellaris is representative of most their games. EU IV is indeed a good choice if you liked Stellaris (I usually explain Stellaris to people as EU in spaaaaace).

Personally, I prefer Aurora and Distant Worlds: Universe. Paradox games are fantastic but these are Dwarf Fortress-level detail (if you’re into that sort of thing).

Re: The historical accuracy of medieval city-builder video games

#110

Townscaper and Dorfromantik are more fun for me than any city builder or Sim game. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1291340/Townscaper/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1455840/Dorfromantik/ I like them because they're _not_ rooted in realism, so they're free from the things that some days feel more like work than play (tax collection, agricultural shortfalls, physical material limits etc.).

Those both look really cool, thanks for sharing! I especially love Townscaper's self description as being more of a toy than a game.

I love toys! Whether they are physical objects or programs there is something so _lovable_ to me about using craftsmanship and creativity to create something for the sole (and very noble) purpose of just being fun to play with. I think I'll have to buy Townscaper and engage in some goal-free play tonight!

Post reply on HN