Narrative: Editing

Over the past few weeks I have met twice with my second reader, renaissance expert and historian Dr. Frazier. She played through levels 1-4 and gave me substantive feedback that I can use to make edits. I'd like to use this post to reflect on the edits I want to make level by level.

One of the challenges we have run into is this question: How historically accurate should the game be? 

This is a methodological balancing act, as well as an interdisciplinary one, that I have had to consider at every stage of the game's development. As far as I can tell, there isn't a right answer... It can't be perfectly accurate for so many reasons, but where it is 1) easy/reasonable to do given my resources and 2) doesn't compromise the effectiveness of the video game format, I would like to strive for accuracy. The game is intended to teach history through immersion, after all. The details are pretty important.

Here are a few examples of the kinds of things I have to think about:

1) I mention pews in the cathedral in Level 1, which is not accurate to the period. This is a small detail, and if it is easily omitted, then it makes sense to do so. If I can't find any artwork of the cathedral's interior without pews, it isn't important enough that I need to spend hours trying to photoshop them out. 

2) I mention Plato and Aristotle as having written books with titles. Titles are a much more modern invention. It would be easy to change this detail in the game, but it might confuse 21st century students if I say "Plato's book about justice" rather than "Plato's Republic" since they are unlikely to have read much, if any, classical philosophy. 

3) I describe Angelo Poliziano and Marsilio Ficino as philosophers, but they would have called themselves teachers, philologists, or other more familiar terms. This is an easy fix and it doesn't take away from the game's effectiveness at all, so it is an obvious edit for me to make.

Those are all relatively small things. I'd like to use the rest of this post summarize and reflect on the most important parts of Dr. Frazier's feedback for each level. (+) Will denote things that are working well and (-) will be things to work on. 

Level One:

(+) The conversations work well overall. The level is a good introduction to Florence and key characters.

(-) The biggest notes here were discussed above (the word "philosopher" and the titles of books). I should look at Castiglione's The Courtier and  dialogues from my class with Dr. Frazier to work on the conversations all throughout the game. I should also think about what key terms I want students to learn. I think this works decently in level 2 where I introduce the Italian word "fresco," but I need to think about doing it more intentionally, in level 2 and the rest of the game. I also need to remember that the threat of violence and losing everything is huge in the period. It happens with the Pazzi Conspiracy, but the servant can be the character who is most vocally aware of that danger.

Level Two:

(+) The game with the painting works well as an introduction to members of the Medici family. It is a good painting to use to illustrate art patronage.

(-) I should think about doing a visual analysis while the characters are talking over Gozzoli's fresco. There is exact language for this in Alberti's On Painting. I've done visual analysis before in art history classes, but I'm going to look at Alberti to see how it was understood during the Renaissance.

Level Three:

This level needs the most work.

(+) The basic idea of the mini game is good, but based on Dr. Frazier's feedback I want to change it pretty significantly.

(-) Writing a bunch of humanist speeches would be boring for me and for students, so I need to simplify the competition. I can have everyone bicker about what their speeches should be about to showcase how many different directions humanism went without getting deep into any of them. I could use primary sources as the speeches (maybe Lorenzo's poetry or speeches on Friendship from a competition Cosimo once held). That would save me lots of effort, and it would expose students to primary sources, which is always good.

Level Four:

(+) The conspiracy comes through well in this level. 

(-) I had struggled with how to show patronage between elites, and Dr. Frazier suggested framing it in terms of allies. I'd also like to use this dinner to discuss how the Medici rig the elections. I don't think this has to be an in-depth talk, but I think it should be referenced a few times. The emphasis of the level should be on political alliances, which I already show through the conspirators and their grudges against Lorenzo and with the Pazzi-Medici marriage. I just want to do more of it so it's very clear.

Level Five:

I didn't complete level 5 in time for my last meeting with Dr. Frazier, but I got feedback on it from Dr. Clulow.

(+) Very exciting level because it is action-packed. The player has a lot of choices to try and stop the conspiracy without having the counterfactual of actually stopping it.

(-) There is a section where the player asks persons A through E what is going on in the aftermath of Giuliano's murder. I need to use this section to show how lots of different kinds of people will be impacted by the potential fall of the Medici. Some people will be thrilled, some won't, but everyone will have opinions. This will bring the theme of patronage back into focus.