The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

[DonFerrari]

sundin13 said:
Well, that sounds pretty.....fair?

I've complained about similar things before, but it was largely in the context of two things: One is a tone which too broadly attacks the game for some subjective elements, and two is score. This review doesn't really do either.

It made sure that its comments on race were well contextualized and makes it clear that they aren't accusing the game of racism. They make sure to highlight that these elements largely lie in the absence of representation, not a racist representation itself.

Then, the comments on the "love" mechanics are valuable information for a review. Reviews are consumer-centric, not "art" centric. What that means is that they serve as a buyer's guide, not some deep critique of a game's themes and mechanics. As such, it is entirely within the scope of a review to speak about elements which may turn off some buyers. Personally, I like romance elements in games when they are done well, but this mechanic doesn't really sound like it is up my alley. I'm glad the reviewer included such information to allow me, as the consumer, to make a more educated decision.

And at the end of the review, there is no score. Score has always been the problem with this form of "it may bother some people" criticism. Without it, it is only information. It is up to the reader to make determinations of what that information means to them.

If you choose that it doesn't matter to you, well, that is fine, but it doesn't mean that this information should not have been included in the review.

You contradict yourself on the review that should be to inform customer but also go there to make political agenda. And the criticism to the lack ofrepresentation is bullock when the case made is that perhaps there could have been a black person because of reasons.

JWeinCom said:

DonFerrari said:

not out of context, the context of the OP is the same from the review.

And even the full quote makes nothing... it just say that there were some places and events in europe that had participation of black people and that "perhaps in that specific area there may have been one that stayed overnight". The justification is total bullocks.

 

Yes, it is taken out of context. Because, the first part of the historian's quote explains why specifically in that area there may have been different ethnic groups.  The first half explains that because the town was located on a popular trade route, it is reasonable that there may have been people from other cultures and locales staying there.  

You may still find that not very compelling, and that's fine.  To be honest, I don't think it was an especially great argument.  But, the way it was presented was deliberately misleading.  It goes straight from " a historian I spoke to, who specialises (sic) in the area, disagrees" into the second half of the historian's quote.This gives the impression that this is the entirety of what the historian said, and it simply was not.   The part that was omitted was entirely relevant to the point and it wasn't especially long to the point where it needed to be cut for length.  Moreover, of the paragraphs quoted, the others were cut and pasted in their entirety.  This paragraph, which is probably the most relevant to the argument the review was making, was the only one to be chopped up like that.  There is literally no reason, other than to intentionally mislead, to cut the article like that.   

And have you gone to the reviewer and also asked for the full source of the historician right? Because at least op gave the link to the original article, while the reviewer almost certainlyedited his text to just portray the points from asingle person that could sustain his flimsy point.