The reason I care about aggregates is they are often written into contracts now which include NDAs. So you often will never know whether a game failed to meet them and if so by how much. 80 is usually the cut off which is why a 7.5 tends to be known as a fuck you score.

Again, that's not my concern. I don't think that's a great way for publishers or developers to deal, but we shouldn't decrease the amount of sources for the benefit of developers.

assume you are talking about KC: D and nobody has ever actually provided proof.

There's not all that much proof there's white people in Bohemia, much less black people. There's just not a dearth of historical documents accurately dated to the Middle Ages of the Kingdom of Poland. Most of what we get is from secondary historians and inferences.

While you can't exactly pull up the fucking census, we do know the Mongols showed up, left (to go elect a new Khan) and then came back twice. We also know that the modern day Tatars of Crimea are descendents of mongols. We know there are black moors in Iberia. We know that Bohemia was pretty much in conflict the entire time, and there's definitely a good chance that there were mercenaries of Turkish, Cuman, Tatar, or Arabian descent. They may have even imported North Africans. Not to mention, there was a ton of trade rolling through Bohemia.

It's the mix of whitewashing, who's doing it (Daniel Vavra is about as full of shit as people come), and "Historically accurate" that bugs me.

If this was just historical fiction, I wouldn't give a shit, but I've spent time with some serious Revolutionary War reenactment groups, and being accurate is srs bizness to them. If you want to make historical fiction and run over George Washington with an AT-AT, be my fucking guest. However, if you claim "historically accurate recreation" of long ago, you best not be wearing your fucking wristwatch, and to me, this is a wristwatch - it's not doing your homework, being lazy, and blaming the fact that there isn't photographic evidence.