I’ve been eagerly anticipating this week’s readings. I knew that we’d be looking at the Lost Museum, as well as the Historic Tale Construction Set. I’m extremely interested in virtual representations of history. If I decide to torture myself by going on for a PhD (and someone accepts me into their program, of course…) then this is the avenue I intend to pursue. I think there is a great opportunity to reach new audiences with historically accurate, virtual simulations.
But the Lost Museum was a great disappointment. I’m glad we all looked at it, as it seems to me the shining example of how NOT to do virtual history. There are two main reasons for this.
First of all, when creating virtual historical simulations…why create a museum? Museums are flawed creations. They present artifacts out of context, and are designed as much for the comfort of modern individuals, as for teaching about the past. It makes absolutely no sense to create an imperfect virtual representation of an imperfect historical teaching tool. Instead, virtual exhibits should focus on recreating the past itself. I understand that in this case, the museum itself is a lost artifact from history, but honestly, a virtual exhibit of a museum seems like a pretty flawed idea. And where are the visitors in this museum? I’ve seen other examples of museums trying to create virtual models of their physical buildings, and I just don’t get it.
Secondly, the idea of browser-based, Flash-powered virtual exhibits is a non-starter. Instead, historians should be focusing on virtual worlds that already exist, and can be manipulated quite easily: video games. Tens of millions of people around the world interact in these virtual worlds every day, and have an established comfort level that we can take advantage of. Tools are readily available for historians to craft visually attractive, easily navigable virtual worlds. The interface and graphics on the Lost Museum were terrible, I’m sorry to say. As someone who enjoys a good video game, I personally was not willing to spend much time in the Lost Museum. It has clumsy control mechanics, and graphics straight out of the 1990′s. It is using the same mechanics/graphics used in the game Myst, which was released in 1993…
Last semester in Clio Wired, with not a lot of effort, I put together a very crude functioning virtual battleship museum, based on 1890′s photographs. I used a very dated video game graphics engine (because I happened to have the editing tool installed), and given the requirements for the course, did only the most basic virtual renderings. Here are some sample videos. It is crude and rough around the edges, but given enough time with a more modern gaming engine, it would be pretty easy to develop a sophisticated, attractive virtual model of the past. If you’ve seen recent video games, you know how spectacularly eye-catching they’ve become, and the amazing level of interactivity they enable. I think this is the way to go, especially if we want to reach younger audiences.
While I agree that the video game arena provides more variety, and more options, than the online museum, a lot of what we are being exposed to at GMU and CHNM is how historians can become an online presence in a way that merits attention and respect within the historical community. To do so, we have to take advantage of simple and effective tools that exist, and let a few brave souls forge a path of new tools (Omeka, Zotero, etc.) My feeling is that many historians will simply not bother to create websites and learn design, how can we then expect them to design a video game?
OK, we know historians won’t design a game for EA or Nintendo. At best, these companies might hire historians as consultants, or even as “authors” of games. But, what incentive would these companies have in hiring an expert of the field? What market exists for historically accurate, or nuanced, games?
Like you, count me in as one customer! I would love to play a game that is both fun and historically sophisticated. So, I am not arguing against your post.
But, as a former high school teacher and political observer, our educational system seems intent on sucking all the joy of history and the social sciences from an early age. We are not engaging students in an authentic way in the social science classroom. Until we do, the market for games edited by historians will simply not exist. Instead, we have the type of ignorance of an ill-informed public that routinely calls into talk radio entertainment, and nutcases that are invited on “news” shows as “political consultants”–the type of shows I would encourage high school civics students NOT to watch. On the other end, we also have gaming companies that sell many more games if they add sex and carnage.
To not sound like an utter pessimist, I really enjoyed seeing some of what you hint at in the sample videos. Perhaps more attention should be brought into the possibilities of gaming tools for historians. I would enjoy working with it, and see its value. Is this a generational thing? Do you have to have a childhood with some gaming memories (at least the Atari 2600?)
Pingback: comments 4/7-4/13 « Brewing History
Thanks for this thoughtful post. This is an issue I’m quite energized by, and love to discuss with people.
First, let me clarify one important point: I am not talking about making games. I am talking about using gaming engines to create authentic, interactive historical simulations. Essentially, the exact same thing we saw in the Lost Museum, but with modern technology. I am not proposing commercial games created by developers, but rather game modifications created by historians. Most video games are released with free tools that allow complete customization. Anyone who wants to can create very attractive video games, for free. The companies that produce these games are also willing to give licensing rights away for free to non-profit ventures.
So, rather than making a video game where you rescue George Washington from goblins, I’m proposing to create a virtual Mount Vernon that people can walk around in. It won’t have artificial quests and missions, instead it will be a similar experience to visiting Colonial Williamsburg, with a strong focus on authenticity based on primary source material. I intend to build one of these virtual worlds (once I finish this MA and actually have some free time…)
Secondly, your point about lack of engagement in the classroom is exactly why I am excited about this technology. I’m proposing to develop educational curriculum based on this technology, that will speak to students in a format they understand, and even enjoy. As a teacher, wouldn’t you like to be able to tell your students “tonight, your homework is to read chapter 5 on the American Revolution, and then spend 30 minutes visiting Virtual Philadelphia and the Continental Congress.” Which of the two do you think your students would be more interested in?
Your skepticsm is valid, and I appreciate you bringing these questions up. This approach won’t be for everyone. But I think one of the issues is that the history PhD is very focused on the “old way” of doing things. Personally, I’d like to be working on cutting edge digital tools and out-of-the-box thinking in this field. The web has its place in digital history, but it is not the only channel. And while I think many PhD’s will (and should) continue the traditional avenues of study, I think there needs to be a new cadre of graduate students who are focused as much on digital outreach, as on print publication and teaching. So as a “digital history PhD,” I’d propose a curriculum that would include both history classes, as well as advanced programming classes. My expectation here is that 95% of history graduate students would continue with the traditional format, while a small group would be working in this brave new world.
Thanks for clarifying your intent (I just thought you were crazy-now I feel dumb for not thinking through what you were proposing).
As far as engaging students, I agree with you that new tools that appeal to their learning habits are really needed. But I also know that too many educators, and especially those in charge of classroom decisions, see technology as the way to engage students…without seriously considering the curricular problems and instructional delivery. In order to do so, is to admit that what you are doing in schools is not working. Too many teachers and administrators can’t come to grips that they are ineffective and willing to listen to ideas that will fundamentally change what they do. So, instead, they turn to a new textbook or cool online tool to “fix” the problem: student apathy and laziness. When, in fact, its the teachers’ refusal to look inside and come to some difficult realizations that are the main issue.
Once the majority of educators become willing to make the needed changes, then the beauty of gaming and online tools becomes truly engaging. Right now, sadly, it’s often an easy way to book a lab and not teach for a day to many teachers.
Well, you were correct to assume that I am crazy, but that’s an issue for another blog post…
Great post. I wasn’t crazy about the Lost Museum, too. There arewere issues with game play that could be better, even though it’s a few years old. The voice acting was strange, too. I would check it again, but my work computer is not letting me watch the movies.
In the end, though, two things come to mind that remind me not to judge the Lost Museum too harshly. 1) It’s not built with the same scale of development as, say, the latest EA game, with hundreds of programmers working for a few years. 2) Any interactive historical game is better than none. Developers may in the future use a more basic site like the Lost Muesum to make something really great.
When you do decide to build your historical site, I am definitely going to check it out. Who knows? Maybe some gaming company in the future will want you as a consultant.