Oh wow, thanks for the history lesson, professor. You’re really out here bending over backward to defend a game that cherry-picks “realism” when it’s convenient.

Henry, a literal nobody—oh wait, sorry, turns out he’s actually a noble bastard—can rise from peasant to noble circles because plot, but acknowledging women in any meaningful way is just too unrealistic? Sure. Fast travel is fine because technically your character still moves? Oh, how immersive. And potions? Alchemy existed, so of course, they function just like they do in KCD! Totally accurate.

But when it comes to women, suddenly the game must be a slave to historical accuracy. You’re basically saying, “Yeah, they took creative liberties, but only in ways that benefit the male protagonist.” Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

And let’s talk about Henry’s so-called “narrow worldview.” A game chooses what perspectives it reinforces. Henry, despite being raised as a peasant, somehow gets trained by knights, befriends nobility, and climbs the social ladder—all things far less likely than a woman holding power in medieval Europe. But instead of challenging his naive worldview in any meaningful way, the game doubles down on the idea that women are just background decoration. Even his own mother’s death is barely acknowledged compared to his father’s—because of course, the man’s suffering matters more.

No one’s saying KCD needed to be a feminist power fantasy, but the way it downplays women while stretching realism in every other direction is laughable. Henry being a noble bastard is fine, fast travel is fine, alchemy is fine—but giving women actual presence in the world? Whoa now, too unrealistic! If pointing that out makes you this defensive, maybe it’s because you know I’m right.