We historians are a little protective of our respective domains — but a constant (and well-deserved) criticism we lob at each other in general is that through various means, we deliberately make ourselves inaccessible to the average, interest layperson. Over at Terra Nova, Nate Combs takes up the question of historical video games, referencing a great 2006 New York article by Niall Ferguson (Harvard professor and historian) on the 'state of play.' The answer? Pretty damn bad, at least when looking on from the Ivory Tower:

So why do I hate Medal of Honor? The trouble is—and the same could be said of nearly all its competitors—it’s profoundly unhistorical. It’s what’s known in the games trade as a first-person shooter (FPS) game. As a player, you take on the role of Lieutenant Mike Powell of the U.S. Army Rangers. You see the battlefield—a Normandy beach, for instance—from his vantage point. As Lieutenant Powell, you do pretty much what you feel like—which is to bag as many Germans as you can. In reality, an officer’s principal concern on Omaha Beach was somehow to maintain the cohesion of his unit in the face of a lethal storm of steel.

He does go on to have some slightly more positive things to say, but Combs' takes up the issue — the boardgames that generally do a better job of 'playing with history' frequently provide a lot more 'meat' for the historical stew:

Where I think these board games triumphed was in their ability to communicate history as a coherent model: history as a system of rules. History as an interlocking LEGO set of measured hypotheticals and realities. Players moved the pieces around to see what happens. If it was only an amateur's recollection, it was a rich one.

(This historian would offer that when you actually see history as a system of rules, you wind up with modernization theory, but for the purposes of play — it's useful. Let's just stay away from a Reischauer's Making of Modern Japan when thinking up new titles)

So where's the difference between board games and console or PC games?

... historical simulation games were never big business, not in the way mass entertainment console gaming (for example) is. Another way of saying this is, perhaps, to say that these games were largely developed for and by amateurs.

One could only suppose that if more video game product were developed by amateurs that we might see more history, more playing with history, and - to cite Niall Ferguson's claim - a greater appreciation in society of the lessons of history.

Considering the relative popularity of ahistorical FPS that use the trappings and 'hardware' of historical settings, I can't imagine 'real' history will ever be big business — but maybe someday. A historian can dream.

Playing with history [Terra Nova]; How to Win a War [New York]

Less has been written about the defining role television plays in the design and presentation of games, especially sports titles. Long-running franchises like the Links series of golf games have gone by the wayside, largely because their simulation of the sport relied more on playing the game than watching it played.

The market is what it is, but I think the CNN-ization and ESPN-ization of video games comes at a cost. It limits game design to the visual and structural framework of television, and it removes the player from a true simulation experience. I want a video game to offer me something more than a simulated sports broadcast. The more Madden talks, the less like Payton Manning I feel.

What do simulations simulate? [The Brainy Gamer]

McDonald's Interactive announced today at the International Serious Games Event that it was through working for a corporation that cares more about fattening up its chattel than long-term survival.

Their reasoning is both sound and admirable. The whole story is laid out at the website, and I dearly hope that when it was delivered at the conference today, it received a standing ovation.

Scientists believe that to avoid ever-more-likely calamity, we must reduce our emissions by 70% very quickly. Since governments won't do that without popular pressure, helping to generate revolt is the only responsible choice, the only true CSR.

The most interesting bit about the whole thing is how they reached this decision by watching young McD's executives play their build-the-fast-food-corporation simulation. The eager young bucks consistently made simulated in-game environmental and sociological decisions that resulted in the end of the world.

First one to melt the ice caps gets a tiny pie.

Godspeed, McD Interactive. Get yourself a real name and get the hell out of there. Eliza Gauger

Read press release and entire story of the simulations here. (No seriously, go do it) [McDonald's Interactive]

Eds. Note: This appears to be a hoax by an Italian anti-McDonalds group. Read more about it our smart shopping sister site the Consumerist.