I think you have to be pretty wilful not to notice the striking similarities between the clothing, vocabulary and social structures employed by the folks in this fictional world and that of Native Americans.
My wife didn't see the striking similarities, she's a PhD in Archaeology/Anthropology who specialized in contact period Native American cultures with fur and bead trade as her particular focus (read: she's spent countless hours handling and inspecting actual articles of clothing).
The architecture of the Nora is a straight lift from Scandinavian cultures. The bead work is more aligned with central Asian mountainous groups and Burma. The use of furs and facial hair alignments are also decidedly Scandinavian and/or Slavic/Rus. The symbology employed in both face painting and badges has a heavy Celtic influence.
That's before we even get into the other groups which diverge even further.
This isn't "post-apoc Native Americans!" It is an entirely fictional setting with a broad array of influences. Hell, the aesthetic from character to character is varied enough to prove that. Just because one outfit for the main character happens to be buckskin doesn't suddenly mean the entire thing is trying to ape Native American culture.
The original article had a point in that video game journalists aren't tuned in to minority issues in a meaningful enough way to actually have good conversations about this. The lack of understanding as to what is actually in Horizon, including by said original writer, is exceptionally good proof of this. A few questions pre-release with GG walking people through the inspirations would probably have made all this much clearer, but this is a hobbyist industry incapable of that level of introspection.
But this is what happens when people point the finger at something for being culturally insensitive/cultural appropriation without having actually played the game, like the original article author appears to have done.
It's a no win scenario when people will judge these products based on misunderstanding.
Also, the Atlanta Braves aren't offensive because of the word "Brave". They're offensive because of all the red face mascots they've had over the years and all the full on cultural appropriation carnival show bullshit they still do like the Tomahawk chop. If they called themselves the Atlanta B's and still did all the John Wayne western level bullshit in the stands during games they'd be just as offensive.
I'm trying to figure out how you can show a tribal society which can't be claimed to be cultural appropriation without it being so fantastic that people can't relate to it.
I don't think it can be done.
By going boiler plate tribal like GG did. It's pretty clear their biggest inspirations were Scandinavian tribal societies of the ~7th to 9th centuries, not Native Americans, at least for the Nora. Which makes sense because they live in a high elevation, mountainous climate.
Can people please learn the difference between adjectives and nouns, if you think brave as a noun has no relation to native Americans, can you please point out any other usage of Brave as a noun besides Native Americans?
It's origin bravo as a noun in 15th century Spanish and Italian language, or it's root Latin barbarus. It's various forms has been used by Europeans to describe individuals living on what they perceive as the fringes of their empires for quite some time. The most recent and popularized is the application to Native Americans, but a word doesn't survive and morph as a noun for about two millennia when no one is using it.
