Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 was revealed yesterday, and is set to be a considerably larger and more comprehensive representation of medieval life. As part of this, it's set to address one of the more controversial elements of the first game, its lack of diversity.
In an interview with IGN, Warhorse was asked directly about its philosophy on historical accuracy in the first game, and whether that philosophy had changed in the second. To this Warhorse responded «Henry is embarking on a journey from the countryside and local quarrels to a relatively cosmopolitan city that is besieged and occupied by the invading king. Naturally, in a place like this, people can expect a wide range of ethnicities and different characters that Henry will meet on his journey.»
For context, the original game was criticised for including no people of colour beyond a handful of Turkic Cumans. In response, Warhorse vociferously defended its position based on the grounds of historical accuracy. In a statement from 2018, Daniel Vávra claimed the nationality of its characters «reflects what we know about Bohemia in 1403» which included «entire family trees and property rights». Vavra admitted that «the situation at the time looked more heterogeneous in some other countries», but that, for the specific area of Bohemia the game represented, there were no people of colour around at the time.
This stance became the topic of some debate among historians. Some concurred that the ethnic representation of the area Kingdom Come depicted made sense given its primarily rural nature. Others, such as Sean Miller, felt that absence of proof did not constitute proof of absence. For Eurogamer's review of the game, Miller stated that «Czech cities Olomouc and Prague were on the famous Silk Road» and that «if you plot a line between them, it runs directly through the area recreated in Kingdom Come.» His point was that there was simply no way to be certain about a total lack of POC in the area Kingdom Come is set.
Read more on pcgamer.com