The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

[Tulipanzo]

DonFerrari said:

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:

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?

I like bullet-points, like a tacit admission you can't come up with one coherent argument.

1) The reviewer never claimed the game is racist. In fact, he directly states the game isn't racist.
    This leads me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about. 
2) He is stating facts, and directly reporting the clearly political motivation of the lead dev. I guess reporting truth is political now, but you should try to justify       why he shouldn't have 
3) I'm sorry you had to find out this way, you must be shocked
4-5) It seems harsh on Vavra, I wouldn't say the historical narrative is very badly made, just inaccurate at points. Which is fine, "historically accurate Middle           Ages" is a fictional setting after all.
     It's his inane responses to criticism that make this worth discussing.
6?) I'm going to say, maybe don't mention "many historians" if you have none, and know the one historians that the dev railed against. 
      This is base knowledge of the topic; makes you look bad when you don't even have that