The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

[DonFerrari]

SuperNova said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

First two paragraphs. We're absolutely in agreement.

Last paragraph. I didn't say it was ok to 'pitchfork' anyone. I'd never condone such a thing. I said criticism is ok. Criticism does not equal to pitchforking, even if it includes questions about diversity. But it DOES include accepting an honest anwswer from the creator and most importantly does NOT include forcing the creator to censor or change. I'd never want that. Obviously criticism should be respectfully phrased and somewhat relevant to the thing you're giving critique. It should be up to the creator to take it or leave it. That's the way I see it anyways.

With your two hypothetical questions, facetious phrasing or not, the same answer applies as before: '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.' People should be able to accept that.

Like you say blatantly racist or mysogynistic content is a diffrent beast, but that's not the case here.

And as I understand from the article in this specific case, that is exactly what the reviewer tries to rather clumsily to clear up here. The reviewer brings the issue up, because one of the developers has apparently been associated with neo-nazism and she was adressing the possible concern that there might be racist elements in the game because of that and concludes that there  aren't. I don't agree with his alternative historical expert, but at least the reviewer consulted with someone and didn't just put out an opinion piece with zero additional research put in.

1) If you are against pitchforking and pro relevant criticism we are on the same page. Unfortunately the reviewer weren't doing good/relevant criticism

2) Agreed on devs prioritizing what they think is better for their story.

3) Well the problem on her clear up on racism is that she polluted that with the "what ifs", "woman abuse (which was also unfortunately accurate)" and that the game doesn't challenge history it embraces it and she doesn't recommend the game because of it, insinuating that if the game had lied to itself to pander to her wishes of skipping precision to give her what she wants she would applaud.

And yes, it's good that she at least tried to find some specialist information, but the way she done it comes to "a little knowledge is dangerous", because since she can use an argument from authority it is worse than she just said she think there could be a possibility of black people living there. That coupled with single (anonymous right?) source and possible clipping of content makes it a research that was made just to validate a point and possibly ignore all that contradicted it, that isn't good.