To me, in answering the question, I wasn't thinking so much about historical accuracy, as "Is this accurate, in that it could be do-able in the game world I'm playing in?" That type of thing can make or break a game for me. In Post Mortem , for example, I really loved that the main character's artistic skills were being used throughout the game. That rang true, to me. But if I'm being asked to believe that a game in a "real-world" setting involves some of the ludicrous puzzles and stilted dialogue I've seen, then the accuracy question really bugs me, because it's noticeable.
On the other hand, since many responses are focussed on historical accuracy in games, I will say this: a really good game of this type, historically accurate or not, will at least have me LOOKING UP further details to find out for myself. The very fact that the game compels me to take that extra step, seems to imply to me that the game was good enough to MAKE me want to take that extra step, whether it turns out to be accurate or not.
|
