Because people where saying that the they couldn't possibly include diversity because of 'historic accurary'. I pointed out that if they had wanted to tell a diverse, historically accurate story in 14th century europe, they could and would have prioritized that. But they cared about other things, like portraying the area they are from, more. I was trying to be clear a bout the fact that that is not a moral judgement of the devs on my part. I simply do not like the logical error in the reasoning.

That is what I have been saying this entire time.

On a side note: Why would you think someone wanting to tell a divese story is on an agenda, while someone wanting to tell a homogenous story isn't anyways? Don't people usually just make games about topics they are passionate about and that they find interesting? In it's own way isn't that desire for expression pretty much the agenda of any given game? Why this extreme defensiveness?

Someone asked: 'Why isn't this game more diverse?' and the answer pretty obviously is: 'Because we were prioritizing other things in our vision for the game, like an historically accurate portrayal of our home stretch of land in 1400.' Everyone should be good at this point.

Someone wants to make a historically accurate, fun game about a white lady pirate in 14th century europe? Cool. Someone wants to make a historically accurate, fun game about a black danish nobleman? Cool. Someone wants to make a historically accurate, fun game about a  white son of a blacksmith turned warrior? Cool. Someone makes a game that I think has unused potential? Ok, I'll put in the research and pitch something I'm passionate about. Maybe the devs will take it into consideration next time because they think it's a cool idea, or maybe I'll make my own game about it.

It's ok to analyze and criticize media and it's ok to express your opinion about it and voice your concerns and wishes. It's also ok for a creator to either take or disregard that criticism and create whatever they want.

I brought Nioh and Tsushijima because both are the most recent samurai games I could think first hand.

The topic is about KCD.

And since OP is about "ifs", who can prove that no samurai have ever walked near bohemia region during 1400?

1st paragraph, if that was what you meant then I stand corrected, if it was their interest (and not external pressure/censorship) sure they could have a story on Europe middle age that featured black people among NPCs depending on where they decided to locate and research. Still if they want to tell the story about where they are from and be historically accurate, not adding black people shouldn't become an issue like the reviewer made.

If someone decides to pick a story just so they can have only white people sure you can infer that an agenda is at play, which didn't seem to be the case. Same way if someone pick a story just to have diversity it's an agenda, while if they just chose a theme they like and diversity was a natural outcome it was an agenda driven choice.

Sorry it isn't ok to pitch fork against developers and complain "why didn't you made a game about a pirate lady instead of this" or "why is history correctness more important than my need of feeling included at all cost". It is ok though to buy products you like and avoid the ones you don't like and since this game isn't make a point to be racist or misogynist it isn't ok to attack it for its choices.

Bold: You gave a poor example when using NiOh and I criticized that, that's all there is to it. I didn't say anything about Ghost of Tsushima because the game isn't out and I don't know if a fantasy game or if it's aiming for realism.

Occam's razor, it's highly unlikely samurai were anywhere near Europe because of the great distance, samurai were not explorers and there are no diplomatic links between Japan and European nations at the time. It's an extraordinary claim so it requires extraordinary evidence.

Devs never said anything about being realistic or not on Tsushijima, but that they are basing on a historic event.

So use Occam's razor to the not having black people on Bohemia 1400.

Another Eurogamer classic...

I will avoid them just as I avoid Kotaku. Except for Jason... I wish he could go to another website

Well OK, let's examine what this reviewer said. 

We know of African kings in Constantinople on pilgrimage to Spain; we know of black Moors in Spain; we know of extensive travel of Jews from the courts of Cordoba and Damascus; we also know of black people in large cities in Germany.

This all seems alright, if there's any doubts about these facts then they can just be researched individually. I want to touch on the last line about black people in Germany in a few paragraphs though.

Czech cities Olomouc and Prague were on the famous Silk Road which facilitated the trade of goods all over the world. If you plot a line between them, it runs directly through the area recreated in Kingdom Come. "You just can't know nobody got sick and stayed a longer time," he says. "What if a group of black Africans came through and stayed at an inn and someone got pregnant? Even one night is enough for a pregnancy."

The problem here with connecting the Silk Road to Africans is the Silk Road was more of a connection between Asia and Europe instead of Europe and Asia. Bohemia is close to the Mongol successor states in Eastern Europe, so it wouldn't be hard to imagine the presence of Tartars, Cumans (who are in the game), and Mongols.

The reviewer said that there is evidence of black people being present in large German cities. Bohemia borders Germany so it's possible by proxy but this isn't solid proof or anything. The pregnancy bit is also quite an assumption, wouldn't travelers have just passed through without trying to start much trouble? If something like a pregnancy did happen it would have been an isolated case. More importantly though, the game takes place in a rural area and not in a large city, so the evidence the reviewer uses to prove his point isn't applicable here.

Overall this paragraph is not convincing and it requires a lot of assumptions for it to be true. So using Occam's razor you can ignore the assumptions for just being baseless assumptions and nothing more here.

It's not conclusive proof but it's readily available doubt to undermine Warhorse's interpretation. What muddies the water further is whose interpretation it overridingly is: creative director, writer and Warhorse co-founder Daniel Vavra's. He has been a vocal supporter of GamerGate and involved in antagonistic exchanges on Twitter. More recently, he wore the same T-shirt depicting an album cover by the band Burzum every day at Gamescom 2017 - a very visible time for him and his game. Burzum is the work of one man: Varg Vikernes, a convicted murderer and outspoken voice on racial purity and supremacy. He even identified as a Nazi for a while.

I'll just paste what Vavra said here:

The reviewer is jumping the gun here with "doubt" since the counter evidence provided is pretty weak. The main point that the reviewer uses to drive home is the presence of black people in large German cities, which is not rural Bohemia.

It's understandable to think Vavra could have an agenda if he associates with controversial groups/people like GamerGate and Varg.  But "could have" doesn't necessarily mean he does or that KCD represents his views. It's best just to independently verify what Vavra has claimed and then draw a conclusion from that.

So while we're at it, let's answer Aeolus' question in the OP: Reviewers should just keep this kind of crap to themselves. Modern day politics should stay out of gaming in my opinion. Do you agree? What do you think of this review?

I think Aeolus' anger is misdirected here, the problem is that this review is poorly written and relies on a baseless assumptions to drive it's point across. But if this game was actually racist and it was trying to promote a racial political agenda, then it would be worth it to discuss the politics behind the game. There's also games out there like Metal Gear Solid which are full of politics, so it would make sense for a reviewer to touch on that topic.

If games are a serious art form like books and films then the messages that they promote have to be held up to scrutiny.

I would say we have an agreement them.

any game is up to criticism even more if válido and they may contain politics or be evaluated using its criterea. Só yes the reviewer deserves a fist for the poor job not for looking into political aspects. 

Bold: Nice! That's good to hear.