By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

Errorist76 said:
Tulipanzo said:


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. 

How many historians have already stated that it was indeed very unlikely to come across a black person in medieval Bohemia?

 

And people still keep riding that horse?!

This whole discussion came about after he openly antagonized an historian on this very subject, so I call rubbish on "many historians".



Around the Network
Tulipanzo said:
Errorist76 said:

How many historians have already stated that it was indeed very unlikely to come across a black person in medieval Bohemia?

 

And people still keep riding that horse?!

This whole discussion came about after he openly antagonized an historian on this very subject, so I call rubbish on "many historians".

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?!



Errorist76 said:
HoloDust said:

You have no idea how ridiculous, arrogant and ignorant you sound to me at this point - yeah, I really need Brazilian to tell me how to differentiate my fellow Europeans, cause somehow I've been unable to do it by myself in my late 40s.

Travel a bit more if you can, get back to me when you do.

I've travelled a lot through all parts of Europe and people differ a lot. For example, Latvian girls look like a mixture between Swedes and Russians (deadly)...which is exactly what they are. You honestly come off as pretty ignorant (or seem to have a visual problem) if you refuse to admit that...No matter how much you travel. 

One just has to watch the Olympic games to understand what we are on about.

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.



Errorist76 said:
Tulipanzo said:

This whole discussion came about after he openly antagonized an historian on this very subject, so I call rubbish on "many historians".

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



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

https://research.uni-leipzig.de/gwzo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192&Itemid=381

This guy was interviewed by GameTwo, the biggest German gaming channel, according to the subject. He's teaching at Leipzig university and is specialized on eastern and middle European history, Leipzig is just around the corner to Czech republic and former Bohemia, which even was German at some point.

If he says it's highly unlike, I will believe him....

Of course you SJW people won't believe anything he says anyway. 

I can't believe someone would even have preferred to put ONE quota black in the game, just because there was a vague possibility that some Mauro merchant once fell ill and got stuck in some bohemian village. It's embarrassing.



Around the Network
HoloDust said:
Errorist76 said:

I've travelled a lot through all parts of Europe and people differ a lot. For example, Latvian girls look like a mixture between Swedes and Russians (deadly)...which is exactly what they are. You honestly come off as pretty ignorant (or seem to have a visual problem) if you refuse to admit that...No matter how much you travel. 

One just has to watch the Olympic games to understand what we are on about.

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/



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)



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

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.

Crying to? This forum has alot of lefties. Hardly sounds like a place an anti-sjw would seek protection. There's more than a few reviews bitching about the silly crap.



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.

Where to even begin with this mess.

The dev let his own politics come in the way of his mission statement of the game? How? In the context of historical realism it would be incredibly unlikely at best for there to be black people in the area at that time frame, therefore it would make sense for there to be no black people in this game. But furthermore, even if that was not the case, even if black people were rarely but regularly found in Bohemia during that time, what specific politics of the dev prevents him from adding black characters to the game?

He aligned himself with a known hate group? Which one? As far as I know he hasn't supported the likes of Communist organizations, Nazis or Antifa. So which group are you calling a "known hate group"?


This is in no way the same as the rift between Kojima and Konami, and your comparison is frankly laughable. Did this dev put profits above the vision of the development team and force his team to release a game early? Did this dev effectively abuse his employee for months before release, preventing him from even directly speaking with team members? Did this dev prevent his employees from receiving rewards they earned due to fear that they might say something disparaging against them? No? Then it's not the same at all.

How about instead of giving your two cents you actually put some time into educating yourself about the dev, what his politics are, what the actual vision of the game was, what actual, named historians who are open about their credentials actually say, and what happened between Kojima and Konami. There's no excuse for being so blatantly wrong.



potato_hamster 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.

Where to even begin with this mess.

The dev let his own politics come in the way of his mission statement of the game? How? In the context of historical realism it would be incredibly unlikely at best for there to be black people in the area at that time frame, therefore it would make sense for there to be no black people in this game. But furthermore, even if that was not the case, even if black people were rarely but regularly found in Bohemia during that time, what specific politics of the dev prevents him from adding black characters to the game?

He aligned himself with a known hate group? Which one? As far as I know he hasn't supported the likes of Communist organizations, Nazis or Antifa. So which group are you calling a "known hate group"?


This is in no way the same as the rift between Kojima and Konami, and your comparison is frankly laughable. Did this dev put profits above the vision of the development team and force his team to release a game early? Did this dev effectively abuse his employee for months before release, preventing him from even directly speaking with team members? Did this dev prevent his employees from receiving rewards they earned due to fear that they might say something disparaging against them? No? Then it's not the same at all.

How about instead of giving your two cents you actually put some time into educating yourself about the dev, what his politics are, what the actual vision of the game was, what actual, named historians who are open about their credentials actually say, and what happened between Kojima and Konami. There's no excuse for being so blatantly wrong.

HoloDust may say some(excuses for being so blatantly wrong).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."