Quick Look: Dawn of Man

Yep, no, no denials here either.

Still, though, fess up. Has Vinny been surreptitiously leaving post its with long words around the office as subliminal hints? Because that's my running theory.

I'm sorry but this is false and ridiculous (the lawsuit part I mean). BCE/CE has become more widely used globally because it's more inclusive. In the US, individual school districts and teachers are free to use whichever nomenclature they want.

afaik leather implies the skin was tanned and would be better, but requires someone actively tanning

I understand the act of playing up a character that the audience likes, a la Dumb Dan. But he can't honestly be that stupid.

The questions he was asking... He should have accidentally stumbled on to the answers to most of these in his 35 years on this earth. AND THAT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT HE WENT TO COLLEGE.

The Dumb Dan act got extremely old in this video. And I like Dan.

I usually don't chime in on the "What the hell is wrong with Dan?" thing, but oh my god.

"2000 BCE sounds a lot like cavemen to me...oh, and is the Renaissance BC?" It's almost like he never even went to school.

Not to mention the Pangea thing, but that was Abby.

Anyway the game looks okay, but I'm with Alex at being a bit surprised about the hype.

As a history teacher I died multiple times.

@chrispy145: I hate to break it to you, but it is 3000% not an act. He is genuinely that ignorant of history, science, or anything that doesn't involve video games or wrestling.

Anyway, as bad as all of Dan's question were, I think it's just as telling that Abby asked if humans existed around the time of Pangea or asked if there were dinosaurs in the game, and that Alex couldn't adequately answer most of these questions either. Folks need to go back to school, holy hell.

A skin and a leather are not the same thing - one can be used to make the other, though.

@noelveiga: So remember that the US is less than 250 years old. Studying ancient history in this country can be challenging for those who are not already interested because of how foreign it can all quite literally be. If you live in, say, England, than you have a direct line of history to you going back to Roman times not to mention hundreds of years of tribal lineage before that. The same is true for much of Europe. Hell if you live in the Mediterranean, human history and your nation's history are not all that different in scale.

I will give you a noteworthy story that I think illustrates my point. My Father travels around the world for work. He was in London a bit ago and saw a shop going out of business that had a sign saying "thank you for 200 years of business" or something to that effect. And it occurred to him that this shop had existed for almost as long as the United States, and that there is not a single business in our entire nation that has existed for 200 years. After all, save for the Eastern seaboard, the nation was just a bunch of forests and deserts 200 years ago. If you live in a major European city, chances are you can find a building still in use that was erected before the United States was founded.

Now personally I think people should be equally interested in all of human history, but many aren't. And it is difficult to find a good approach to teach that history in a nation that didn't experience it. What perspective do you choose, for example? History in Europe is taught from the perspective of the conquering empires. From millennia of tradition and pride. But the US is a nation of rebels and radicals. Do we describe European expansion from the perspective of the Europeans or the perspective of those expanded upon? And what of the 500 years of stagnation that occurred in Europe during the dark ages? Do we study that or do we study the advances made in various Asian nations during that period? Even more recently, there are questions. Do we spend much time on World War 1, a war America only took a very minor role in, due to its influence on global politics? And if you do how do you frame the complex diplomatic scenarios that lead to that tragedy? WW2 is easy. Nazis bad. Allies good. WW1 was caused by a confluence of political and diplomatic factors whose origins could be traced back to the Holy Roman Empire.

All this is a long way of saying that Americans traditionally don't learn nearly as much history as Europeans as Americans were not part of 95% of that history. The history we do learn is largely an overview of world events leading up to the foundation of our nation. Traditionally American high schools spend as little as a single year teaching all of world history before delving into American specific history for a year or two. In most places, you only need to take two years of history to graduate high school and no university I know of requires students to study history unless it is related to their major. Geography is usually taught for a single year at most, and in some locations is optional entirely.

Generally Midwestern states like Kansas are among the most American focused school systems as they are the least diverse in population and furthest from the border. Their small populations also lead to lower funding which leads to worse educations. Certain wealthy towns might be able to offer high quality education for their residents, but at a state level limited income in the best of circumstances is combined with a heavily conservative viewpoint on taxation leading to minuscule budgets for important things like education.

Overall, I would say that Dan in not especially more ignorant than many small town Americans I know.

This is a Corrections section gold mine lol

Could anyone tell me if this does anything differently/better than Banished or other games of that ilk

aka The Ultimate Dan Ryckert History Adventure. Holy shit.

According to Dan, "The Renaissance" covered the big bang through 1983.

I see a lot of judging in these comments and not a lot of teaching.

Americans do learn of the various ages... But they are not American "tools". They are really fairly modern terms/eras made up by Europeans in the 1800's, and widely used in European history specifically; generally not applied around the rest of the world, (at least not in the same context or time periods). In fact, even in Europe, the time periods they describe are very nebulous and vary wildly from modern nation to modern nation.
For example the Iron Age ended for some regions when the Roman Empire rose around 100BC-100AD (?), for others it wasn't until as late as 800AD.
So most Americans are probably only vaguely familiar with the eras when studying them in terms of European history, (like saying "the Dark Ages" - Native Americans dont have that same "Dark Ages", its a European thing). But anyone who played Age of Empires is familiar with it ha-ha. But in Dan/Alex/Abby's defense they are a very Euro-centric thing.

And Dan could be doing an act. He played Assassins Creed Origins and Odyssey which showed dates and what it was like back when... And he knew the term "before common era"... But maybe he just ignores all that stuff?
As an American I find this quick look infuriating as well. But I enjoy history, maybe they don't.

Americans get Ancient History just like anyone else would. We cover Rome, Egypt, and Medieval castles, etc. But we have a HUGE focus on wars: the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, and WW2, Vietnam, now the Middle East. (We are Americans, we tell time by battles!). Every country is going to have very specific topics and eras they focus on.

I always liked bear meat as a kid but it's definitely gamy if that puts you off. Was definitely a treat when I got it.

How does Dan have lifelong questions and never think to google them, just ask people and get laughed at repeatedly?

Dan is a treasure

I don't understand how anyone could be mad at this QL, I'm a history nerd and found it hilarious.

"There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question". - Carl Sagan

Yes

The amount of ignorance of basic history from everyone especially Dan is staggering here. Sometimes it really seems like Dan is just playing a bit.

Once again replace Dan with Mike MaHardy.

@rocketraccooncmro: Yeah, that one made me cringe. Even if you're not aware of the exact time frame involved with Pangaea, surely anyone who knows enough about geological history to know that term would ALSO know that it predates humanity by hundreds of millions of years?

@borklund: There's a creationist museum in Kentucky. Dan going there and coming back with "knowledge" would be a disaster.

If Dan asks so many questions how does he still not know anything? I enjoy Dan content and him asking questions other people are afraid to ask. It just struck me he should know a lot by now from asking all these questions.

@cr0ssbow: The only significant distinction this game has is the way it does tech. Other minor differences is that it does active hunting and combat, but it's not like they're game changers. The draw is basically going through the ages, developing from simple bone tools and weapons to flint to copper to iron to steel, building simple tents to huts to houses etc etc. As I said in my first reply here, the game has a bit more "stuff" than its predecessor (and similar indie builders), but it's lacking in engaging mechanics.

It was inevitable that I inevitably noticed Alex's inevitable use of the word inevitable, inevitably every other sentence.

@liquidsolidus: yeh but omg how does dan not know things that every single human being is born knowing intrinsically

What are you guys talking about Pangaea being hundreds of millions of years old? Theres a Pangaea Bread just down the street from here! - Dan, probably

The people ITT who think Dan is doing a bit are just as gullible as Dan.

I wish Dan continued success and hope he gets a great new job opportunity soon.

@raven10: I mean, cool, I get that, but I'd argue that the Iron Age has a pretty direct throughline to modern Americans. Right? Like, direct descendants linked?

@quietone: Thank you for the warning, I will give this one a friendly pass!

I really hope this was an act, the alternative is just sad.

"It's a grizzly scene in there!"

Indeed, Dan. Indeed.

I wish someone would make a game like this but with a more futuristic or fantastical setting and premise. I don't inherently mind a genre all about slowly building up a civilization but why's it always gotta be historic or ancient or modern and realistic. Why can't I raise a populace of weirdo aliens and build a city out of zerg-like goopy shit or something.

@danryckert Dan, please try and bring Tail of the Sun to Giant Bomb. There is so much more to that game than you found with the Super Replay, and I think it has been enough time to where it would be a very fun feature for GBE!

This quick look gave me the fantastic mental image of people using catapults for transportation... thank you!

When Gorkal Ryckert is 15 years old they'll find this video... and they'll learn the truth.

Dan could have really benefited from a 4-H membership as a kid.

You guys are right to nit pick and criticize Dan when he doesn't know something about history. I tried to order a sub the other day and they stopped mid-roast beef when I couldn't answer when the Renaissance happened. Heck just this morning I was denied a bank loan because I couldn't accurately describe what Pangaea was.

This is your brain.

This is your brain on wrestling.

Any questions?

@lazyaza: While it's not aliens or anything the predecessor to this game is literally a space base sim.

Honestly, not really. There's obviously a physical link, but ideologically, it's taught as a hard separation. (at least to my recollection.) All that old Europe and Africa stuff happened to other people, US history happened to us. It's separately taught in different years of school. I'm not sure if it's intended to be that way; it could just be the only commonality of a nation of mostly immigrants as an identity just naturally reinforces it.

I think the difference between skins and leather is mostly one of size. Roughly you can think of it like skins are smaller animal skins that you need to stitch together to form clothing while leather is when the hide is big enough that you cut pieces out of it for the pieces of clothes.

@joedangerous: Oh my god you're so right. Not only can I get a bank loan or order a sub without knowing what the renaissance was or when it happened, literally everything except a few words of English are superfluous. We need to radically reform the school system so kids don't learn to think critically for themselves at all. We just need to teach them enough words to get by every day, and not consider anything else.

In all seriousness though, your post is dumber than anything than was said in the video. It's about knowledge in general, in being educated in general, so you don't get taken advantage of. I could convince Dan to believe anything, because he doesn't know enough to disbelieve or doubt the validity of what I would be telling him. An elderly, racist version of Dan ran for President of the United States and the vast majority of eligble voters either voted for him or stayed at home, and now the person with nuclear command authority is someone who believes whatever the last person he spoke to told him. That's not great, to put it mildly.

For what it's worth cavemen weren't really a real thing, it's just a pop-culture stereotype based on an early 1900's idea of what palaeolithic man was like. Kind of a genericised blend of all of human history from about 3 million BCE to 8000 BCE.

I'm no expert, but I think the idea is that "skins" are just untreated skins, and "leather" is skins that have been tanned.

@dzlv: Wait, really? I loved that playthrough but assumed they discovered all the content there, what other stuff is going on in TotS?