What is Historical Game Studies? Rethinking History

Rethinking History The Journal of Theory and Practice ISSN: 1364-2529 (Print) 1470-1154 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrhi20 Introduction: what is historical game studies? Adam Chapman, Anna Foka & Jonathan Westin To cite this article: Adam Chapman, Anna Foka & Jonathan Westin (2016): Introduction: what is historical game studies?, Rethinking History, DOI: 10.1080/13642529.2016.1256638 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2016.1256638 Published online: 29 Nov 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 189 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rrhi20 Download by: [Umeå University Library] Date: 06 December 2016, At: 03:30 RETHINKING HISTORY, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2016.1256638 Introduction: what is historical game studies? Adam Chapmana, Anna Fokab,c and Jonathan Westind a Department of Education, Communication and Learning, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; bVisiting Scholar at the centre for Gender Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; cHumlab, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; dDepartment of Conservation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden KEYWORDS Historical game studies; history; games; videogames; popular history; Challenge the Past/ Diversify the Future conference In 2005, William Uricchio published ‘Simulation, History and Computer Games’, a chapter in the Handbook of Computer Game Studies (Raessens and Goldstein 2005). A few other articles on the topic of historical games1 had been published before this point (and some of these also contained valuable insights and ideas). However, it is Uricchio’s piece that seems to have been most consistently and frequently cited and used as course literature since its publication. Whilst undoubtedly this is partly due to the high quality of Uricchio’s scholarship and his engaging writing style, his chapter also continues to have relevance because of its particular focus. ‘Simulation, History and Computer Games’ moved beyond a sole focus on the content of individual historical games in isolation or the application of these games to other domains (such as education). Instead, Uricchio’s chapter looked at games both on their own terms and as an entire historical form, beginning to examine the variations and patterns of this new mode of expression, consider its potentially unique characteristics, the cultural conventions surrounding it and importantly, the discourses of (particularly poststructuralist) history with which it had, oten inadvertently, engaged. Like all histories, an alternative narrative can be ofered of the early days of what has become ‘historical game studies’ – ‘the study of those games that in some way represent the past or relate to discourses about it’ (Chapman 2016, 16). Squire’s (2004) thesis, for example, on the use of Sid Meier’s Civilization (1991–2016) to teach history in schools, is certainly also an inluential piece in both historical game studies and the broader ield of games and learning. And historical games and learning has since developed into a distinct and potentially important strand of historical game studies. However, it is the concerns, breadth CONTACT Adam Chapman [email protected] © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 A. CHAPMAN ET AL. and tone of Uricchio’s piece that perhaps best comprehensively predicted what the investigation of the relationship between history and games might become and the type and scale of the kinds of questions that this investigation might seek to answer. It therefore seems viable to forward this chapter as the beginnings of something that has only really started to properly cohere in the last few years. Uricchio does not seem to have returned to the subject himself. However, in the eleven or so years since the publication of Uricchio’s piece, it has become increasingly possible to recognise historical game studies as a distinct interest separable from the larger ield of game studies by way of the theory, content and purposes with which it is concerned. hough still very much nascent, the ield has steadily grown into a recognizable network of scholars, events, texts and strands of investigation concerned with what it might mean for the past to be represented and most importantly, played with, in the game form. Over this time, wider cultural discussion of games, whilst increasingly more astute, has oten been the paradoxically mixed bag of neglect, contestation and hyperbole. his, alongside the cultural association of play with childishness (despite the contrary work of early play theorists such as cultural historian Johan Huizinga), has meant that many of us who work with games have developed an almost relexively defensive posture when describing our area of study to those outside of it. Because economic considerations work as an easy shorthand as to signiicance in our globalised late capitalist societies, it is normally at this point in an introduction related to the study of historical games that we would defend our area of interest by ofering up statistics as to the enormous sales of such games and time spent by consumers with them. However, this defensive attitude has increasingly grown to seem a little outdated. Where once declaring that one has a scholarly interest in history in games might be met with confusion (or even a thinly veiled sneer), increasingly such a declaration is much more likely to be greeted with nods (or at least shrugs) of acceptance or approval. Furthermore, measuring popularity through only market statistics ignores important nuancing, difering and contextualising social, geographical and cultural aspects of the role of games in contemporary life. As such, sensing that it is perhaps time that we move beyond this kind of simplistic measure of signiicance, that knowledge of the economic successes of games is now anyway commonplace, and forwarding the idea that the ield of game studies has perhaps outgrown this defensive posture, we make a conscious break from deploying this kind of rhetoric here.2 However, it is actually only really possible to make such a break because of the developments in recent decades in the philosophy and theory of history that have encouraged the consideration of forms of popular historical representation and engagement. his is quite apparent if we – even cursorily – consider some of the theoretical assumptions that oten quietly underpin such concerns. Historical game studies, as discussed below, is (like all ields) made up of a series RETHINKING HISTORY 3 of distinct (and even competing) foci and motivations, bound by some interest in a common object of study. However, it is perhaps not too much to say that most scholars who discuss, publish and write about them share at least some basic perspectives. For example, it seems that such research would be at least partly motivated by the idea that popular cultural forms/products are capable of meaningful engagements with the past and have the potential to both determine and relect how we both collectively and individually think about, understand, negotiate and talk about that past in the present (e.g. De Groot 2009; Erll 2011); that form exerts pressure on content (e.g. Munslow 2007; White 1987); and that each form might therefore represent the past according to its own ‘rules of engagement’ (Rosenstone 2006, 159) and should therefore be considered on its own terms. And of course, more speciically underpinning most of the work on historical games is the basic idea that games can indeed be, or relate to, history. Once again, whilst this latter point has oten been emphasised in historical game studies in the past (e.g. Chapman 2013; Kapell and Elliott 2013) perhaps increasingly there is less need to do so. In a sense then, regardless of the epistemological outlook of individual scholars, it would seem that the ield of historical game studies owes at least something to the diversifying and inclusive advances that have been the products of discourses in a number of diferent disciplines in recent decades: the dissolution of hierarchies between ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture and increasing interest in the latter in media and cultural studies; the work on cultural/collective understandings and engagements with the past in the burgeoning ield of memory studies; the linguistic turn in philosophy and subsequent postmodernist and poststructuralist positions in historical theory that emerge in relation to this.3 he legacy of each of these debates is found in a myriad of new ields, of which historical game studies is just one. Undoubtedly, the ield also particularly owes something to the rich tapestry of work on popular engagements with the past (such as historical ilm and reenactments) that has also emerged, at least partly, in relation to these wider discourses. It is perhaps because of this ancestry of sophisticated and nuanced work that historical games studies has also (for the most part) managed to avoid simplistic discussions about historical accuracy that have sometimes obtusely taken up much time elsewhere and oten to little discernable beneit.4 his has allowed the ield to spend its eforts examining broader and more productive questions concerning the nature, possibilities, uses and limitations of the game form itself, rather than simply the evaluation of the historical content of individual games through unfair/unproductive comparisons to other forms and/or cultural areas of historical production. We feel that this quality is echoed in the articles contained in this special section. he articles herein are not reluctant about examining the rhetorical means by which games and their makers attempt to establish a sense of authority and authenticity and are well aware of the tensions and interplays between reference and subjectivity in history. However, 4 A. CHAPMAN ET AL. they avoid becoming stuck in unproductive dichotomies about what is or is not, or can or cannot be, history – instead viewing history as a shared cultural process spread across multiple forms, practices, social domains, and stakeholders. he importance of open-minded journals such as Rethinking History in the formation and sustaining of these discourses, from which historical game studies has (even unconsciously) beneited, cannot be overstated. As such, to have a special section concerned with historical games in this journal feels, to us at least, somewhat like a homecoming. hat historical game studies should come to rest, even if only occasionally, in the pages of publications such as this, which has grown the kind of discourses and ideas that allow its existence at all, does seem to be rather apt. But what exactly is it that is ‘returning’? What is historical game studies? As noted above, at its most basic, historical games studies can be deined as ‘the study of those games that in some way represent the past or relate to discourses about it’ (Chapman 2016, 16). Whilst this is the essence of the binding core focus of the ield, historical game studies is also a series of distinct but overlapping areas of interest and strands of investigation. As might be expected, close readings of the historical representations of individual or sub-genres of historical games (e.g. Gish 2010; Kempshall 2015a; Shaw 2015) are a regular presence and one that does seem to it neatly into the above description. So too does another central strand of investigation: formal analyses that aim to describe the properties of the historical game form by examining its structures of representation, processes of narration, possibilities, predispositions and limitations and oten also aim to search for an analytical metalanguage to describe these formal properties (e.g. Chapman 2016; Rejack 2007; Uricchio 2005). Similarly, research considering the representation of particular historical periods or events (e.g. Andersen 2015; Kline 2014) also seems to be neatly encompassed in the above deinition of the ield. However, other research concerns are only hinted at by this deinition. For example, research including the history-related practices of historical game players, such as modding, online discussion and goal setting (e.g. Apperley 2007; Crabtree 2013), also seems to it under the umbrella of historical game studies and yet is concerned with more than only the games themselves. his is increasingly the case and recent developments hint at a broadening of focus. hese include the study of: audience and developer perspectives on the relationship between history and games5; the relationship between cultural/collective memory and games (e.g. Begy 2015; Pötzsch and Šisler 2016); the historical practices of fan cultures surrounding ostensibly non-historical games (Webber 2016); the best practices and problems of designing historical games (Clyde, Hopkins, and Wilkinson 2012; Šisler et al. 2012); and the use of games in historical conlict simulation (Sabin 2007, 2012), history education (Kee 2014; McCall 2011) and heritage (Champion 2015; Mortara et al. 2014). As such, the ield might demand an expanded deinition going forward. Perhaps then a more inclusive answer for RETHINKING HISTORY 5 the titular question might be, ‘the study of games that in some way represent the past or relate to discourses about it, the potential applications of such games to diferent domains of activity and knowledge, and the practices, motivations and interpretations of players of these games and other stakeholders involved in their production or consumption.’ Whilst admittedly a little less snappy, such a deinition does at least serve to give a sense of the breadth and variety of the ield as it continues to adapt not only to its own discourse but also to the demands and activities of the complex networks and cycles of historical exchange into which games ind themselves increasingly interwoven. If this is a reined description of what historical game studies currently is or where it is heading, it is perhaps itting to say something more speciic about where the ield has come from, beyond the broader discourses already mentioned. If Uricchio has been the ‘bread and butter’ reference of the formative years of the ield, Sid Meier’s Civilization has undoubtedly been the equivalent case study for the same period. A critically acclaimed and long-running historical strategy series in which players control a ‘civilization’ from prehistory into the near-future, the majority of the earliest discussions of history in games concentrate on this title (e.g. Kapell 2002; Lammes 2003; Poblocki 2002; Stephenson 1999) and indeed it remains a frequently utilised example. Recurring themes in historical game studies, such as the predisposition of strategy games towards reinforcing or, conversely, disrupting colonialist ideologies (and the teleological master narratives that sustain them), emerged from the academic discussions that this game has engendered. In part it seems that Civilization provoked such interest not only because of its popularity but also because of its relative complexity and its total embrace of the more unique qualities of the game form (having for example a heavy emphasis on open narrative structure and player agency). However, changing trends in the game industry in recent years, driven both by technological and creative advances and shiting cultural appetites (particularly the growth of the ‘indie’ scene), have ensured an increasingly wide selection of games that engage the past and that do so in a variety of ways, oten entailing new kinds of representational and functional complexity. As such, whilst it is perhaps still not time to retire our concern with Civilization (particularly with its ever-growing popularity and a new version, Civilization VI, released in 2016), it is fair to say that historical game studies now considers a much wider variety of diferent types of historical games, having been led by the changes in the object of study itself. his is something we hope is somewhat relected in the articles contained herein, which deal with a number of types of historical videogames, from roleplaying games ofering fantastical alternate histories of World War II to more conventional depictions of the same conlict in irst-person shooters, to depictions of the slavery systems of the eighteenth-century Caribbean in action-adventure games. Even this variety speaks to only a small portion of what can be considered to it under the term ‘historical game’. 6 A. CHAPMAN ET AL. Alongside this broadened consideration of games and topics, in recent years a number of longer works concerning historical games have enabled the growth and strengthening of a shared discourse in the ield. hese publications have played a role in coalescing a tangible line of discussion from a previously rather scattered literature of single articles and chapters across a dizzying variety of journals and edited volumes. It is now becoming much more common to ind books focused exclusively on the meeting of history and games. For instance, Kline’s (2014) anthology looks at the representation of the Middle Ages in games, whilst Winnerling and Kerschbaumer’s (2014a, 2014b) concentrate on representations of Early Modernity. Similarly, a few monographs now also deal with the topic and add to the discourse in diferent ways. Examples include: McCall’s (2011) Gaming the Past: Using Video Games to teach Secondary History; Kempshall’s (2015b) he First World War in Computer Games; Champion’s (2015) Critical Gaming: Interactive History and Virtual Heritage; Sabin’s (2007) Lost Battles: Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World and Chapman’s (2016) Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Ofer Access to Historical Practice. Undoubtedly, one of the most signiicant publications in terms of its role in cohering the historical game studies ield is the Playing with the Past anthology (Kapell and Elliott 2013). his skilfully edited collection brings together many diferent strands of research. In doing so, the volume provides an excellent introduction to thinking about historical games and a shared ield of reference for continuing conversations in historical game studies – as evident from the fact that each of the articles contained in this special section references at least one of Playing with the Past’s chapters. his capacity is added to by the collection’s well-written introduction – a clear and cogent discussion of the broader relation between history and games. his chapter, whilst also providing a sophisticated discussion and comprising perhaps part of an early manifesto for historical game studies, is particularly valuable reading for students and those newly encountering the ield. Indeed, publications of this nature might become more important as increasingly higher education programmes move to include consideration of historical games alongside their teaching on other popular forms of history. hough still far from commonplace, a recent brief and informal investigation by us discovered at least 22 current higher education courses at various institutions throughout Europe and North and South America that either directly focus on historical games or that include consideration of them. It also seems likely that these courses will become more commonplace. hat such courses are able to exist is no surprise given their frequent popularity with students (this in turn being unsurprising given that most of these students will now have grown up with videogames as a regular part of their media consumption – oten including those games that represent the past). For instance, our course for PhD students on the topic of historical representation in games at the University of Gothenburg in 2014 (as part of the Doctoral School in Educational Sciences RETHINKING HISTORY 7 initiative) drew 19 students from various parts of Europe and the USA. Courses such as these seem set to play a part in ensuring the future and increased coalescence of the ield, if they are not already. Similarly, whilst once it was fairly unusual to see papers on historical games, even at game studies conferences, it is now much more common to see the topic dealt with in conferences across a range of disciplines and interests (e.g. games, digital humanities, history, memory studies, heritage and philosophy). Such developments have the potential to contribute both to the discourse of historical game studies and that of the subjects from which they emerge.6 Indeed, it is events such as these that return us to the impetus for this special section. Challenge the Past/Diversify the Future was a conference that we held in 2014, also at the University of Gothenburg. he conference’s aim was to act as a broad invitation to those that study visual and multi-sensory representations of the past and their potential to challenge and diversify our understanding of history and culture. As part of this, we included a track on historical games. his proved to be very popular and ultimately featured 35 papers on the topic given by an internationally diverse group of scholars hailing from institutions all over Europe as well as further aield (including the United States, Japan and Australia). he track also seemed to draw a number of attendees and engendered signiicant interest and productive cross-topic and cross-disciplinary discourse from those attending due to other interests. his volume of papers, whilst still relatively small in comparison to those generated by broader ields of scholarly interest, was nonetheless a signiicant moment for historical game studies and was probably the largest gathering of scholars working on these games so far. his event also provided the momentum to establish the Historical Game Studies Network (a small but rapidly growing community of scholars that currently has around 200 members). his active group aims to foster the discussion of ideas, collaboration and the sharing of publications and information concerning historical games.7 For at least some of us who attended Challenge the Past (particularly those of us who had been working with historical games for some time), the conference felt signiicant because it seemed to be symptomatic of the point at which historical game studies became recognizable as more than a scattered ield of reference and isolated communities and became an international network of shared discussion and focus. he aims of this special section are twofold. Firstly and most obviously, the section functions to give some of the work on historical games from Challenge the Past a deservedly wider readership and one that hopefully shares Rethinking History’s open-mindedness about unconventional ways to represent the past. And in doing so, we hope that this forges or reairms links to the wider scholarship on historiography, theory, popular history etc. from which historical game studies emerges and to which it continues to relate. However, secondly, we also hope that the section gives readers a taste of that same sense that we experienced at the conference – an idea (or, for some, a reminder) of why historical 8 A. CHAPMAN ET AL. game studies matters in the irst place. Furthermore, we hope that this section gives an entry point into the discourse, a sense of the breadth and kind of work that is already being done, and, hopefully, a glimpse of the future of the ield. In terms of the latter, whilst historical game studies has already explored a variety of issues relating to the depiction of the past in games in its relatively short lifespan, there are certainly still omissions that have become increasingly glaring. For instance, as noted above, by way of Civilization and strategy games of a similar ilk, historical game studies has spent considerable efort exploring the connections to representations and ideologies of colonialism in historical games. However, it is fair to say that relatively little attention has been paid to the representation (or lack thereof) of systems of historical oppression and wider discourses of identity at the level of historical agents. his is particularly important because mainstream historical videogames seem to have a tendency toward deeply hegemonic interpretations of and perspectives on the past – particularly in terms of gender and ethnicity/race (with the games by far favouring the historical experiences of white, European, males). And yet, far too little academic time and attention has been spent trying to understand the formal or cultural conditions that have resulted in these depictions, analysing instances that step outside this general trend and exploring the potential for progressive representations utilising the speciic afordances of the game form. Emil Hammar’s article contained herein seeks to begin to address this imbalance by exploring the representation of marginalised identities and the potential for what he terms ‘counter-hegemonic commemorative play’ ofered by games. Examining the representation of the eighteenth-century transatlantic slave trade and its systemic racism found in the game Assassin’s Creed: Freedom Cry (2013) (a mainstream historical game that ofers a rare opportunity to play as a non-hegemonic player-character), Hammar explores the potential ofered by the game’s structure, whilst still remaining critical of the wider problematic discourses and frequently missed opportunities that it also symbolises. An important step in Hammar’s analysis is his inclusion of the play experiences of some players (game critics Evan Narcisse and Justin Clark) and their relections on the relation of the game’s historical representation to their own contemporary identities. Indeed, somewhat surprisingly for a ield concerned with a form dedicated to the active role of its audience, historical game studies has so far spent relatively little time examining the reactions, practices and understandings of the players that actually utilize these games or the developers who produce them. his has begun to hamper the ield in the sense that many arguments and assumptions about the play experience and design process (implied by the objects of study) have been made in the past, however, the evidence for the extent to which producer or consumer understandings and practices match up to these assertions remains underwhelming. his oten makes it diicult to determine which of these lines of inquiry might prove most fruitful for further investigation. It RETHINKING HISTORY 9 is for this reason that articles such as Tara Copplestone’s piece herein, which provide information about the actual people involved in the production, critique and consumption of the cultural artefacts with which we are concerned, are so important for the future of the ield. Laying a foundation for this kind of investigation, Copplestone starts with the seemingly basic yet important (and, as her analysis and data reveals, actually multifaceted) issue of perceptions of ‘accuracy’. hat is to say she investigates the difering epistemological understandings of the relationship between games and cultural-heritage held by various stakeholders (players, developers and cultural-heritage practitioners). Copplestone’s results and analysis provide a much-needed empirical basis for some of the foundational assumptions that have oten underpinned arguments about the nature and role of historical games even whilst sometimes remaining unrecognised. Her article also provides some surprising results – particularly in terms of highlighting tensions between the hanging shadow of authoritarian epistemologies drawn from other forms of historical representation and nuanced and sophisticated understandings of the nature of games as a historical form (and indeed the wider process of historical representation). Johannes Koski’s article delves into similar concerns in the sense that it examines the tensions at play in Japanese tactical role-playing game Valkyria Chronicles. As Koski suggests, though ostensibly fantastical, the game is clearly a reframing of the Second World War. His insightful analysis highlights the complex tensions between the game’s usage of the popular narrative of WW2 in order to ground its supposedly ictional representation in history and the subversion of this same narrative (and the normative perception of the nature of history more generally) through the license that the fantastical setting provides. hough seemingly concerned with only one game, Koski’s argument actually has far ranging implications for historical game studies. he piece points to the importance of diversifying our focus to include games originating from beyond western cultures and to consider games that might be overlooked under more immediately obvious conservative deinitions of historical game. Koski’s shit pays of handsomely, inding in Valkyria Chronicles a case study of an unusual historical game, notable for its diverse cast, thematic inclusion of the Holocaust and attempts to explore the nature of memory and historical representation. And signiicantly, a historical game that seemingly oten plays with the past in meaningful ways not despite of its fantastical setting but precisely because of it. Just as in 2005 Uricchio’s work represented what historical game studies might become, we hope that the articles of this special section represent where historical game studies is now headed. hough we remain conscious of the historian’s tendency to periodise, still it does seem that the ield is now moving into its ‘second phase’. A number of exciting PhD projects seem poised to take the topic in exciting new directions and increasingly there seems to be a general purposeful diversiication of concerns, with previously overlooked histories, games, game cultures and production/consumption practices and 10 A. CHAPMAN ET AL. understandings now being considered. Such developments point to the enormous variety of ways in which historical games play a role in contemporary culture. And, more generally, the importance of pursuing the creation of an analytical language to describe the ways in which digital technologies continue to change the ways we engage with the past, particularly given that these technological changes tend to continually outpace our eforts to understand them (Foka forthcoming). Furthermore, each of these new concerns and directions for the ield adds to our understandings of the possibilities, limitations and potential of games as a form of history. Historical game studies has, thanks to the academic heritage from which it emerges, mostly avoided simplistic and unhelpful comparisons between games and academic history that have occasionally blighted some other discourses concerning popular history. However, there are still some balances that must be carefully struck going forward. In particular we must remain careful not to succumb to the easy master narratives of technological progression, expecting games to simply solve wider problems of, for instance, historical engagement and education or to function as a neat replacement for the historical forms that precede them. Instead, we must also remain critical, even whilst hopeful. Like all historical forms before them, games undoubtedly introduce new possibilities, but they also introduce new limitations and history in games is subject to new formal and cultural pressures (Chapman 2016). hese aspects are just as important to account for if we are to truly understand the relationship between the representation of the past and the form of games. As Rosenstone writes of historical ilm it ‘doesn’t do away with the old forms of history – it adds to the language in which the past can speak’ (2006, 6). A similar sentiment seems to be an important caveat to remember as historical game studies continues to develop. And yet the ield undoubtedly also emerges from a respect for a medium through which millions now engage with, and enjoy, history (and respect for the endlessly creative eforts of those who allow them to do so). We promised we would avoid invoking this popularity as a simplistic shorthand as to signiicance. However, it seems it is diicult to rob oneself entirely of old rhetorical habits and this efort must, like historical game studies itself, remain a hopeful work in progress. Notes 1. 2. 3. hough of course it is possible to forward many deinitions of the ‘historical game’, we work from the open deinition of this as those games that in some way represent the past, relate to discussions about it, or stimulate practices related to history. However, for those who can’t resist, some of those statistics on sales of historical games can be found elsewhere (Chapman 2016, 14). And of course the origins of many of these discussions are found in earlier works such as E.H. Carr’s What is History? (1961), from which we paraphrase our title. RETHINKING HISTORY 11 4. In this respect the ield certainly owes something to scholars, such as Robert Rosenstone, who fought these battles previously in historical ilm studies. 5. hough published studies of this type remain rare, these foci seem to be an integral part of much of the forthcoming work in historical game studies. See, for example, the work of Sian Beavers (Open University) and the wider work of our contributor Emil Hammar (University of Tromsø). And of course the article by Tara Copplestone (University of York) contained herein. 6. Worthy of note in this regard is the MAMO (Middle Ages in the Modern World) conference. In 2014 this conference featured a number of papers on the representation of the Middle Ages in videogames, contributing not only to the wider discourse of medievalism but also to the development of this as a distinct strand of historical game studies. Similarly, the Rethinking How We Explain the Past: History, Simulations and Games workshop, organized by Filipe Penicheiro at the University of Coimbra in 2012, was an important event that brought together scholars interested in historical games. 7. For those interested in joining the Historical Game Studies Network, the group can currently be found on Facebook. Acknowledgements he Challenge the Past/Diversify the Future conference was funded by the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, University of Gothenburg, Visual Arena (Lindholmen Science Park) and HUMlab (Umeå University). he authors gratefully acknowledge these contributions. Disclosure statement No potential conlict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding he Challenge the Past / Diversify the Future conference was funded by the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, University of Gothenburg, Visual Arena (Lindholmen Science Park), and HUMlab (Umeå University). Notes on contributors Adam Chapman is a senior lecturer at the University of Gothenburg. He is the author of Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Ofer Access to Historical Practice (Routledge, 2016), alongside a number of other publications on the topic of historical games. He is also the founder of the Historical Game Studies Network. Anna Foka is assistant professor in Information Technology and the Humanities at Umeå University, and for 2016, guest researcher at the Centre for Gender Studies at the University of Oslo. Her background is in classics and ancient history. She has published in the ields of cultural history, gender studies, technology, visualizations, geography and history in the new media. Her most recent piece is ‘Experiential Analogies: A Sonic Digital Ekphrasis as a Digital Humanities Project’ for the Digital Humanities Quarterly. 12 A. CHAPMAN ET AL. Jonathan Westin is a researcher at the Department of Conservation, University of Gothenburg, and co-director of the Heritage Visualization Laboratory. In his research he studies how we form our perception of the past through representations, and how these representations become part of our cultural heritage. By focusing on the communicative aspects of heritage management, he approaches the creation of visual representations as a negotiation process between new research and established images. Recent publications include articles in the International Journal of Heritage Studies, Visual Anthropology Review and the Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds. ORCID Anna Foka http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9949-616X http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3901-2650 Jonathan Westin References Andersen, Carrie. 2015. “‘here Has to Be More to It’: Diegetic Violence and the Uncertainty of President Kennedy’s Death.” Game Studies 15 (2): n.p. Apperley, homas. 2007. “Virtual Unaustralia: Videogames and Australia’s Colonial History”. Proceedings of the Cultural Studies Association of Australasia Conference 2006, 1–23. http://www.academia.edu/385987/Virtual_UnAustralia_Videogames_ and_Australias_colonial_history. Begy, Jason. 2015. “Board Games and the Construction of Cultural Memory.” Games and Culture. doi:10.1177/1555412015600066. Carr, Edward Hallett. 1961. What is History? New York, NY: Random House. Champion, Erik. 2015. Critical Gaming: Interactive History and Virtual Heritage. London: Ashgate Publishing. Chapman, Adam. 2016. Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the past and Ofer Access to Historical Practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Chapman, Adam. 2013. “Is Sid Meier’s Civilization History?” Rethinking History 17 (3): 312–332. Clyde, Jerremie, Howard Hopkins, and Glenn Wilkinson. 2012. “Beyond the ‘Historical’ Simulation: Using heories of History to Inform Scholarly Game Design.” Loading 6 (9): 3–16. Crabtree, Gareth. 2013. “Modding as Historical Reenactment: A Case Study of the Battleield Series.” In Playing with the past, edited by Matthew Kapell and Andrew Elliott, 199–214. London: Bloomsbury. De Groot, Jerome. 2009. Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture. Abingdon: Routledge. Erll, Astrid. 2011. Memory in Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Foka, Anna. forthcoming. “he Digital Aesthetic in Atlantis the Evidence (2010).” In Ancient Greece on Television, edited by Amanda Wringley and Fiona Hobden. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gish, Harrison. 2010. “Playing the Second World War: Call of Duty and the Telling of History.” Eludamos 4 (2): 167–180. Kapell, Matthew, and Andrew B. R. Elliott. 2013. “Introduction: To Build a past hat Will ‘Stand the Test of Time’ – Discovering Historical Facts, Assembling Historical Narratives.” In Playing with the past, edited by Matthew Kapell and Andrew Elliott, 1–32. London: Bloomsbury. RETHINKING HISTORY 13 Kapell, Matthew. 2002. “Civilization and Its Discontents: American Monomythic Structure as Historical Simulacrum.” Popular Culture Review 13 (2): 129–136. Kee, Kevin, ed. 2014. Pastplay: Teaching and Learning History with Technology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kempshall, Chris. 2015a. “Pixel Lions – he Image of the Soldier in First World War Computer Games.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 35 (4): 656–672. Kempshall, C. 2015b. he First World War in Computer Games. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kline, Daniel, ed. 2014. Digital Gaming Re-imagines the Middle Ages. Abingdon: Routledge. Lammes, Sybille. 2003. “On the Border: Pleasures of Exploration and Colonial Mastery in Civilization III Play the World.” In Level up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings, edited by Marinka Copier and Joost Raessens, 120–129. Utrecht: Utrecht University. http://www.digra.org/digital-library/publications/on-the-borderpleasure-of-exploration-and-colonial-mastery-in-civilization-iii-play-the-world/. McCall, Jeremiah. 2011. Gaming the past: Using Video Games to Teach Secondary History. Abingdon: Routledge. Mortara, Michela, Chiara Eva Catalano, Francesco Bellotti, Giusy Fiucci, Minica HouryPanchetti, and Panagiotis Petridis. 2014. “Learning Cultural Heritage by Serious Games.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 15 (3): 318–325. Munslow, Alun. 2007. Narrative and History. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Poblocki, Kacper. 2002. “Becoming-state: he Bio-cultural Imperialism of Sid Meier’s Civilization.” Focaal 39: 163–177. Pötzsch, Holger, and Vit Šisler. 2016. “Playing Cultural Memory: Framing History in Call of Duty: Black Ops and Czechoslovakia 38–89: Assassination.” Games and Culture. doi: 10.1177/1555412016638603. Raessens, Joost, and Jefrey Goldstein. 2005. Handbook of Computer Game Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rejack, Brian. 2007. “Toward a Virtual Reenactment of History: Video Games and the Recreation of the past.” Rethinking History 11 (3): 411–425. Rosenstone, Robert A. 2006. History on Film/Film on History. Harlow: Pearson Education. Shaw, Adrienne. 2015. “he Tyranny of Realism: Historical Accuracy and Politics of Representation in Assassin’s Creed III.” Loading. 9 (14): 4–24. Sabin, Philip. 2007. Lost Battles: Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World. London: Continuum. Sabin, Philip. 2012. Simulating War: Studying Conlict through Simulation Games. London: Continuum. Šisler, Vít, Cyril Brom, Jaroslav Cuhra, Kamil Činátl, and Jakub Gemrot. 2012. “Stories from the History of Czechoslovakia, a Serious Game for Teaching History of the Czech Lands in the 20th Century–Notes on Design Concepts and Design Process.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7522, 67–74. Squire, Kurt. 2004. “Replaying History: Learning World History through Playing Civilization III.” PhD diss., Indiana University. Stephenson, William. 1999. “he Microserfs Are Revolting: Sid Meier’s Civilization II.” Bad Political Education for Everyday Life 45: n.p. http://bad.eserver.org/ issues/1999/45/stephenson.html/view?searchterm=Stephenson. Uricchio, William. 2005. “Simulation, History, and Computer Games.” In Handbook of Computer Games Studies, edited by Joost Raessens and Jefrey Goldstein, 327–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 14 A. CHAPMAN ET AL. Webber, Nick. 2016. “Public History, Game Communities and Historical Knowledge”. Paper presented at the Playing with History: Games, Antiquity and History Workshop, DiGRA and FDG Joint International Conference, Dundee, August 1–6. White, Hayden. 1987. he Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Winnerling, Tobias, and Florian Kerschbaumer, eds. 2014a. Early Modernity and Videogames. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Winnerling, Tobias, and Florian Kerschbaumer, eds. 2014b. Frühe Neuzeit und Computerspiele [Early Modernity and Video Games]. Bielefeld: Transcript. Games MicroProse, Avalon Hill, Activision, Firaxis Games. 1991–2016. Sid Meier’s Civilization [Series]. MicroProse, Avalon Hill, Activision, Infrogrames Entertainment SA, 2K Games. Ubisot Québec. 2013. Assassin’s Creed: Freedom Cry. Ubisot.