LOL, if anything most people always do this.  From reading the article it reads as his opinion so you can either take it or leave it.  All reviews are an opinion and what bothers one person is nothing to another.  When all is said and done, you either share the same taste and opinion of a reviewer or you do not.  I find it funny when I read comments from a review how people will single out parts and make a big case either good or bad and depending on a person  perspective at any given moment where they sit on the subject.  Its' all objective.

At this moment, the reviewer thought they should be more people of color, developer says one thing, reviewer got information that its another.  If you were thinking this is a historic piece and you saw something missing you might have a different perspective depending on where you sit on the issue.  Maybe you are black or asian and know the time period.  History is a funny thing because there are many version depending on who was in power when it was written.

Bolding, Italicizing and underlining something doesn't make it more true.

1) You can predict the geographic area someone is from based on a single photo. (You obviously can't using your "citation" but I'll get there)

2) Your picture from an article regarding predicting the hypothetical skin tone people should have in 2007 based on UV index, skin reflectance of "indigenous people", and Vitamin D3 synthesis amongst others, supports this claim. (Yeah, I did read the citation days ago. It's pretty clear you didn't because you completely misrepresented it right from the start, and had the audacity to insult the intelligence of anyone who dared question you)

3) The criteria for determining "indigenous people" in the article is not arbitrary (It is defined in your citation as" those which had existed in their current locations for a long time prior to European colonization." Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, especially considering they use it to predict the skin tone of what people from Europe should be.)

Here's my citation. Here's an older version of your citation that's freely available, since the current version is locked behind a paywall.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/011d/4ccb74f32f597df54ac8037a7903bd95038b.pdf

Now go tell an Innu and an "Indigenous" Irish person they have the same skin tone with a straight face. K. Thanks. Bye.

Point me to where I have asserted otherwise?
There is a point to Bold/Italics/Underlining certain parts of a reply, it places emphasis on the point being presented so you don't miss it.

Up to a point. And I did elaborate on why it's not accurate in the modern world or did you miss that part?

The map was updated in 2007. It wasn't predicting the skin tone that people will have in 2007.

And people wonder why I have the audacity to insult the intelligence of others? I mean really. Common.

Here is a another source that breaks down how skin pigmentation evolved thanks to UV exposure.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962

And?

You are just reinforcing my position.

So. Have you done another backflip and are thus suggesting the source that I presented does come into conflict with your prior assertion?

Because you don't seem to be capable of remaining consistent in your argument.
Or do I need to make some more quotes to point out where you have contradicted yourself?

Most people aren't reviewer or are stating their opinion as facts professionally.

Half his review is based on the alleged lack of diversity and prejudice of the game creator. So it isn't so much a case of singling out, even more when the OP said the first half was a good "objective" analysis of the game, while the second part was SJW shenanigan.

When he goes and say he consulted an expert and them put developer can't prove that was totally impossible to have a black person there and that the expert gave him a very flimsy "can't prove or disprove" what if scenario and he used that to bash the lack of diversity that was trying to make it a fact.

I'm 3/4 black slave descendant and married to a Japanese descendant woman and developer study seems much more substantiated on its 3 year research than the quick tackle of the "unnamed specialist" that say perhaps a black person could be there since you can't prove it was totally impossible... you also can't prove it was impossible for a Chinese, yet he isn't pointing that. He is trying to push an agenda.

I consider that interpretation.  In other words when you read something, what makes you believe someone is stating something as a fact or as their opinion.  All reviews are opinion pieces.  People disagree with reviewers opinion all the time and for every person that sees that opinion as justified, another sees it differently.  The reviewer mention the allege prejudice of the developer.  Some will find this important some will not.  Just like some people have issues with companies, studios and publishers who policies they like or do not.  To just blindly throw what he stated out because you placed it in your SJW bucket shows a prejudice in yourself.

This particular reviewer stated what he thought.  He stated he consulted someone who is verse in that time period.  Its up to the reader to either care or not care if his opinion is worth merit.  Usually I would say it comes down to knowing the work of the reviewer and understanding if their opinion is of any merit.  

I read what he said, and after reading and seeing he was wrong I put it as SJW shenanigan, not the other way around. And when you are giving OPINION you don't go there and put a "specialist" to reinforce it unless you want to make it a fact.

His opinion on the first half of the review is worth a merit because it discuss the game and funny enough he likes the game (which later he will say he wouldn't recommend because the creator is racist and the game lacks diversity). I rather evaluate his review than trying to either give it more weight or bash based on his historic (that would be prejudice on the review). So his second half which is he upholding his agenda is what becomes not worth.

What is the proof that he is wrong.  Did you do your own history search during that time period.  Have you actually followed the developer of the game and know his history.  I believe if you want to validate your opinion you definitely do you homework and that would be to check with someone who knows the period of time.  Just because its an opinion doesn't mean it should not be an informed one.

One of the reason I read reviews instead of just looking at a score because I want to know what the reviewer thought about a game and what are their pros and cons.  Not all the time do I agree or care about some pros or cons.  If I care about a certain developer and their behavior which I do not agree with then that could be a reason for me to not support their game.  Its a reasonable thing to bring up, the only thing is if the claims are valid.