And I'm not debating that. In fact I said, it's their choice, it's fine.
I just pointed out that if diversity was important to this dev they could have kept the time period, european setting and historic accuracy while still having diverse characters. 'Historic accuracy' is not the right argument here. It's 'We didn't want to.' And that's fine.
That's correct. They had another intention, they wanted to depict the area they live in in a historical interesting time. And their research about that came up with not much diversity (they include people from neighbouring countries though and historically to be expected people from farther away).
Yes, You summed it up better than perhaps I could.
Since you ignored my last reply to you, this is the last one I'm going to give you.
They would not have had to force anything. The historical context is there, they would just have to set their game accordingly. They didn't. Because it wasn't a priority. Those points arent really up to debate.
Games don't just 'happen'. Like you said yourself, there's concious decision making behind all of this. They made the game they wanted to make.
You're failing to see that there's tangible proof that these people existed in Europe at the time. Hence why they could be included in a 'historically accurate' game about the period. By setting it in an area that had very little contact to outside influences, the devs made a concious decision. Maybe they just really wanted to set it there, because they like the area. That does not make them racist or anything, but it does mean that the aerial setting of their game was more important to them than having diversity. See? Decision making.
Pretending like there's anything else going on here is just dishonest and would probably also make for a bad game. They have every right to make this decision. There's no need to hide behind a flimsy argument.
Lastly, we tell stories about extraordinary people because they are interesting. That's how most of all storytelling works, especially hero stories. A game can only benefit from having an interesting cast of characters that face unique challenges.
I haven't ignored any post, you may not have seem the reply to you or I may not have seem your post, if that was the case I'm sorry.
The only thing else happening is you judging their intention without knowing better because "if they really wanted they could have chosen that one story that would have a female protagonist and a lot of important black NPCs" as if their decision was made in a way to prevent black people from appearing on the game.
And I don't buy any shenanigan that for the character to be extraordinary they need any specific gender or race.
Well my direct reply to you was like two posts above the post you decided to quote, but if you didin't see it that's fine.
I'm not judging their intentions. I know nothing of their intentions. I said as much in my post. I guessed at their intentions when I said: 'Maybe they just really wanted to set it there, because they like the area'.
Other than that I judged their priorities, because they are clearly visible in the end product. If their priorities lay diffrently, the end product would look diffrent. Simple cause and effect.
I also never said they did anything to conciously prevent any diversity, just that they also didn't make a concious effort to include it because other stuff evidently was more important to them. And then I said that they also have NO OBLIGATION to make an effort to include diversity and that it doesn't mean that they are racist that they didn't.
And no obviously characters dont NEED to be any specific ethnicity of gender to be interesting and I never said they had to be. Since we were talking about a historic context I pointed out that historic outliers tend to be interesting.
At this point I'm really not sure why you keep arguing with me for pointing out the obvious, while you keep interpreting things into my posts that I never said. Please stop straight up making stuff up about my posts.