Since the issue is that you have ethical misgivings about supporting certain creators, it’s probably right to say that you wouldn’t want to play a game that itself nakedly represents the values of those creators. given that KC:D fundamentally does do that, in its intentionally rare and specific use of dark skin tones and some of its gender dynamics (there may be more, these are the ones that come to mind for me), I think that Shadow Complex is a better example.
The story is, purportedly, written entirely by Orson Scott Card, so it’s fair to cite Card when talking about the game. Having said that, I don’t remember Shadow Complex representing his repugnant values in any way. So the question is, do you want to support a game ‘by’ Card, regardless of its content? Do you want to support a game created by a team who decided to work with Card?
I think that, when we talk about auteur theory in games, we are talking about the influence of a creator’s life and values on the themes of the game. We’re using that lens to try and frame the work in a critical sense, as in Leigh Alexander’s amazing piece on MGSV as a mechanical representation of Kojima’s experience working under Konami. But when we talk about KC:D and Shadow Complex, we’re not always talking about how a bigot’s values ended up represented in the game. Sometimes they are, as in KC:D, and sometime’s they’re not (at least to my memory), as in Shadow Complex.
I can only speak for myself, but when I think about if I want to buy Shadow Complex, I’m thinking about if I want to give Card money, or if I want to show the industry that a developer who works with Card can expect no pushback. Although KC:D does arguably reflect the presumed values of the shithead ‘in charge’, for me in the case of both games, my decision not to buy them is less about whether or not I want to play a game that represents their values and more whether or not I want to support an asshole.