The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

[DonFerrari]

Tulipanzo said:
My two cents:
A review is supposed to be communicating to readers information that may be of interest regarding purchase. Now, since not every person thinks the same, those standard may vary.

To me, the fact that this dev let his own politics come in the way of the mission statement of the game, historical realism, is enough to give me pause. That the guy aligned himself with a known hate group leads me to avoid the game completely.
To you, this is not a problem.
This is fine.

What is not fine is you demanding the reviewer avoid mentioning the head honcho's politics, despite those directly affecting the resulting game, because you feel they are not a selling point.
It would be akin to ignoring that, say, MG Survive was mostly based on the work of a previous team, unceremoniously fired after their last project, because it makes Konami look bad.
The only difference here is you think him right


There are many reviews which completely ignore this; I dare say that Eurogamer are in the minority by just mentioning this.
It makes it all the more laughable that one review sent you crying back to the forums about the mean sjws.

1) the game isn't the creator, so saying the game is racist because the creator is, is a fallacy. He would have to prove the racism in the game, which he wasn't able.

2) The one with political agenda is the reviewer.

3) Aligning on Gamergate is a problem?

4) His historical narrative is very badly made, based on if cases of if cases, and with inaccuracy.

5) and very good personal attacks

Tulipanzo said:

Errorist76 said:

No idea what historian he was talking to, but I'm talking about all the historian who have been questioned AFTER they brought up this stupid discrepancy, in quite a number of interviews, videos and articles on the net.

 

What is next?! Are they gonna complain about Ghost of Tsushima not having whites and blacks as well?!

Let's put a huge [citation needed] on those "many historians", since you don't even know the ONE historian you need to know for your opinion on this topic to be worth a toss

So you are going to use an authority argument? And worse yet the reviewer didn't even name the historian he said is a specialist, so who can say it really is?

ghost_of_fazz said:

HoloDust said:

Of course there are differences, but they are not as pronounced as our distant friend from Brazil is making them to be.

Are you honestly want to tell me that just by looking at these pics (without knowing who they are) you can tell who's from were?

Cause if you do...well, either you are hawk-eyed or for whatever reason you're deep into differences between European Caucasians.

Just to give you some insight: Race is a pretty big deal in Brazil (and in most, if not all, of Latin America), but the issue is a bit different from what happens in the USA and in Europe. Prejudice is more based on appearance than in racial purity.

Brazil is a pretty mixed up nation, but there are places like southern Brazil that have a higher amount of "whites", let's say brazilians from german heritage. Most Latin American fellows will tell you that race is not important, and that racism doesn't happen, but it's actually the opposite.

Here in Mexico it's not uncommon to hear that you are "improving the race" when you, as someone with dark skin, manage to marry someone with whiter skin, no matter their racial background.

https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/04/05/inenglish/1491390844_576668.html

http://org.elon.edu/brazilmagazine/2005/article10.htm

https://blackwomenofbrazil.co/2013/06/29/white-women-for-marrying-and-the-brazilian-solution-to-race-the-elimination-of-the-black-race/

Man in brazil they usually complain when black guys marry "white" woman and say they are trying to whitewash the race.

And we do have racial issues here, but they are lot less problematic than what we hear from USA and Europe (all those cases of Brazilian soccer players being called monkeys)