Why would people NOT want Springtrap to be added to DBD?
He is a child serial killer trapped in a rotting old bunny suit (He is still alive inside I think) who dies in a fire in fnaf 6 which would be perfect for narrating him into DBD with lots of potential if given the chance. So why are people so opposed when you have edgy children with a knife (legion) and a Korean pop star who can throw glass knives? I've also seen people complain about op perks in peoples concept ideas but that could easily be fixed by the DBD mods who have some experience with balancing perks.
Tagged:
BHVR
Comments
Just throwing in my 2 cents, don't have to give a speech
I don't think powerwise is that much of a problem, I'm pretty sure the team can come up with something. He could be a stealth killer and maybe have the fnaf3 ghosts as a second hability.
Every single skin would basically just be furries.
...It's not like Rabbit legion.. or Minotaur Oni.. have fluff on them in the first place..
or Even Krampus..
There's a difference between monsters and furries.
Minotaur oni is a Fluffboi to me
he still counts reguardless, as a murderous furry
They say Fnaf doesn't belong .
And that would suck if we miss a Bioshock chapter over Fnaf.
Freddy is in the game. So that's not a good reason lmao
I feel like half the posts in this thread are people pointing out that Freddy was a child killer
Yeah that's what they've quoted me all day about, but their missing the point of what freddy is and his journey to where he got.
I saw someone else comment this but DBD is a collection of horror, characters like Michael Myers, Ghostface, Bubba, Amanda, Pinhead, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, debateably Elm Street (the pedophile ruined his entire character imo), even Ash from Evil Dead, they're all characters that defined horror to an extent. I know why they haven't done it yet but I think getting Jason would be more important than some creepy furry who neglected his family to kill kids (even killing his own kids at some point)
Also yeah, a lot of the fanbase are cringe kids and 'they've grown up!!!'.. No, they really haven't, they haven't matured at all. They still worship Scott and the ground he walks as if he's not beating a dead horse. (I've always had an issue with the fact he's said FNAF was going to be his last game and if it wasn't successful he'd quit making games - only to make his "last game" have lore that's worth like, 8 more games and 20 books? Who does that?) and a lot of the fanbase that did mature stopped caring about FNAF.
I don't like trickster either - gameplay and lorewise, he had a lot more potential than he was given, but Legion actually has a good lore and I like how it ties into Jeffs, but the gameplay of Legion was a bit disappointing. Also, if you're calling Legion 'edgy teenagers with knives', you'd be saying that to ghostface too, since that was the inspiration and (while not the canon DBD version), Stu and Billy were also high schoolers.
That's not the point - the reason DBD and FNAF don't work is because FNAF was originally a point and click survival game, while DBD is literally 'run-for-your-life' survival game. FNAF had several locations that you couldn't move from, the closest to being able to move was FNAF 4 when you could move around the room but not leave it. FNAF (until the recent game which was unfinished, buggy as crap and was about stealth, not outsmarting the killer in chase) was about sitting still and locking yourself away from the killer, not running away. There's nothing in any FNAF game that even remotely makes sense in a DBD scenario. There's also already several bunny skins if that's what you really want (4 for legion, huntress obviously, bunny feng min, clown has an elephant/chicken outfit, etc)
Overall, Scott is weird, homophobic and is milking FNAF and sometimes I feel like Michael is a weird self insert. In all seriousness, if FNAF ever came to dbd, I'd disconnect anytime I got in a game with that killer. If DBD had any self respect they'd keep that burning pile of crap away from their game. (He called himself 'pro-life' after making millions of dollars off murdering children so.. That's weird.)
That's the thing about Fnaf fan's they don't really appreciate horror, at least the one's I met they only want to play as Springtrap they want they want,but they don't understand how freddy Kruger redefined the supernatural slasher genre.
He showed a different side to killers in general as he mocks and plays with his victim in a dimension he has control over.If there was no Freddy who knows if their would be a Pinhead or a Chucky or Candyman.
Honestly, I don't even know if it's true. I haven't watched the movies, I've only heard people say it xd
Yes, he was a child killer in both canons. That's his origin story: the parents of the town found out that he (working as a gardener at a pre-school) was luring children to their deaths, so they locked him in a building and set it on fire. Freddy died in the fire but resurrected with dream powers to enact his revenge.
In the remake canon (the version in DBD), Freddy was both a child killer and implicitly a child molester, whereas the latter was only implied at best in the original series.
Thanks for making explaining "Freddy" for me xd
Nah nah nah, wait a minute. The bite of 87 and the bite of 83 are similar but still different incidents. The bite of 87 did happen in 1987 and was caused by either Toy Bonnie, Toy Chicka or Magle(I don't quite remember). And it ended up with someone, a grown-up man, losing its Frontal Lobe but still survived. While the bite of 83 happened in 1983, and that was caused by Fred Bear, AKA Golden Freddy, and ended up crushing the skull of a child, putting him into a coma. And then he died.
Yes, I'm a Fnaf lore nerd and I'm proud of it. Fnaf has such an interesting lore xd
I think that's just being unfair people have different tastes, fnaf was one of the franchises that got me interested in horror stuff in general, I always enjoyed games with lore behind the gameplay and Fnaf gave me that, so it is pretty high on my wishlist.
I'm not saying it's the BEST franchise or that it doesn't have it's flaws but it's a personal favorite.
These forums lmao
Tbh, there is nothing wrong with Springtrap at all. And little did many players of dbd knew, is that there is a lot of dbd players that are in fact furries. And there is a lot of kids that are 11 and up who play dbd anyways. There is nothing that the devs could do about children going onto Dead by Daylight unless if their parents have a parental setting set up to prevent their child from playing 18+ video games.
Fnaf isn't full of cheap jumpscares and yes, it would support someone that does somewhat support homophobic. But that doesn't take away from the fact that fnaf is the worlds most iconic horror video game series of all time. And the jumpscares set up a good setting for the game and gives a spine chilling vibe.
And so therefore, fnaf is a good choice for a license character.
I understand that, there's other monsters out there that are my favorite to.Some of these franchise are great but do the deserve a spot in the roster probably not.
I keep hearing the term defined jump scare era but ,obviously these fnafers never played Re Nemesis 1999 or Resident Evil 2 1998. Fnaf only took the thorp and made up close and unenjoyable.
I'm sorry honestly there's nothing, I can think good about the series.I wish I could be more positive but it's just a bad choice for DBD.
I like Predator as my favorite movie monster but he doesn't belong in DBD.
Just because someone has lgbtq friends dosen't mean anything. What you mean his opinion? Actively donating money to organizations that want to take human rights away isn't an opinion. It's hatred. Period. Just a lil fyi with the legion bunny costumes. Those are based off of robbie the rabbit from silent hill 3.
My only objection to Springtrap is the annoying fanbase (same with Pennywise) and the fact that Scott is a homophobic piece of #########. If Scott isn't getting anymore money from the license, then I could probably deal with it.
Game already has a bunch of cringy kids in it, that's a moot point.
Calling FNAF "The most iconic horror game series of all time" when Silent Hill exists is like saying the Star Wars prequel is the most iconic star wars of all time when "The Empire Strikes Back" exists.
I think saying it defined is an overstatement, it was a game that become popular due it's simple formula and the exposure from the youtube community, the community can be pretty terrible but many dbd fans are also fnaf fans so our community isn't that far from it either.
A lot of people say it doesn't fit because the main games are just jumpscare simulators but i don't think thats true, a few licensed killers where changed in some way when they came to dbd juts to name a few: Pig mostly used her traps to kill people, Nemesis is more known for his brute force and hability to carry weapons and in the game he just uses tentacles, Freddy has the microsleep and the clocks and so on....
I think the team can create a power and still stay true to the character, maybe give springtrap a stealth mechanic and give him the phatoms to startle survivors or maybe bots ( I'm not saying these are good ideas for a power, I'm just giving examples).
But I agree with you, at the end of the day it's just my opinion If it fits or not isn't for me to decide.
Didn't someone else mention that he also donated $50.000 to the Trevor Project?
Freddy.
There are better liscenes to add first would be my main reason. Second would be there are already two killers with childish mascot cosmetics.
Like I’ve already addressed, donating to a charity with zero direct legal power or say over legislation is not even remotely comparable to donating AND voting for politicians who DO have that legal power AND actively use it to push for anti-LGBT legislation. Trevor Project can’t put forth an anti-discrimination law. Anti-LGBT politicians can and do push for legislation that will strip human rights.
I never understand why this is a hard concept for people to grasp.
Well Springtrap may come in the game since Five nights at Freddy's was on a survey not to long ago about picking which licenses people want to so and FNAF was one of them.
There are quite a bit of neat concepts but rather see Springtrap as a Chaser/Stealth hybrid killer.
Again I just find Springtrap nostalgic from my time in middle school which was 2014. People from the 90's find Ghostface, Myers, Jason, and Chucky nostalgic and I have to admit it slightly easier to make power for but would be nice to have a killer from the teens years of the 2014 - 2016. Reason why I want to see Slenderman or Springtrap in the video game.
Even though would be harder to figure out how to put them in-game I think it would pay off.
You're acting like Scott's intentions was to rid of LGBT peoples' rights. His political opinion is also none of your business.
There's literally nothing he could do about it. He donated to the politicians because he thought they would run the country well, he didn't donate to them explicitly because of the rights of LGBT people being discarded. He donated $50,000 to the Trevor Project because he actually respects the rights of LGBT people.
Relax man.
Because people tend to point to his political donations as evidence that he's a 'homophobic piece of ######### who deserves everything coming his way', when everything we have ever seen him discuss about the topic, as well as other private donations, indicate the opposite.
You can support the views and actions of one aspect of a politician, organisation, charity, group, etc while simultaneously not being personally on board with another aspect. He's made this clear both through his other actions and his words.
Agreed, this is the part were people find it hard to grasp.
Except the Trevor Project also operates on advocacy and public education, meaning that that money will be put towards swaying voters away from anti-LGBT legislature. The Trevor Project is pushing against anti-LGBT legislature, and Scott supported that.
Unless money directly buys legislative power in the US, the money that the Trevor Project got has just as much voter-swaying power as what any politician gets. Except while the politicians will have other issues to campaign on as well, the Trevor Project would be purely focused on pro-LGBT campaigning, so its funds would be more focused on that particular issue.
And if money DOES directly buy legislative power in the US, you have way, WAY bigger fish to fry.
It becomes my business when it's one, public info, and two, something that directly affects the safety of people that aren't him: The human rights of LGBT+ people. The politicians he did donate thousands of dollars to and voted for actively pledged to work to get rid of LGBT+ peoples' rights. Also, "I think promises for a better economy are more valuable than human rights" is not the gotcha you seem to think it is. Since you somehow can't understand something this incredibly basic, let me put it in easier terms for you. Even if the economy gets better, that doesn't really matter if LGBT+ people don't get to reap those same benefits because those politicians also stripped away human rights such as the right to work without being legally fired for being LGBT+. Actions speak louder than words. Yeah, the $50,000 to the Trevor Project is great and all. They don't make laws. The politicians do. You know, the ones he voted for and donated thousands of dollars to. But yeah, just relax. The privilege to say just relax because your own human rights aren't in threat is hilariously unsurprising here.
So what? You are still responsible for the other policies they literally pledge to bring on-board in their very campaign promises. Just cause you vote for promises for a better economy does not absolve you of the responsibility from the extremely anti-LGBT politician pushing the anti-LGBT legislation they ALSO promised. You don't get to just pick and choose what parts you're responsible for. In this case, he decided a politician's promises for a better economy were more important than maintaining equal human rights for LGBT+ people. So yes, he is responsible for the resulting consequences of donating to and voting for people like that. But hey, this means you'd be perfectly okay with people voting for politicians that want to strip away every bit of human rights they can from you if they voted for a different policy from those politicians as their main reason, right? A politician that thinks you don't deserve the right to marry, work without legalized workplace discrimination, ban you from your needed medical treatment, and more ain't a bad person if they promise to make the economy better, right? Even though you're not going to benefit squat from that economy since employers can and will legally fire you for who you like or how you identify, right?
Yeah, and you know what has a bigger sway on legislation than that? The actual politicians in the seats making and pushing those laws. You know, the ones he voted for and donated thousands of dollars to. Also cut the whataboutism. People can have issues with more than one thing at a time. I cannot believe I have to explain this. A charity's campaigning for education and advocacy is not even remotely comparable to the legislative power actual voted-in and financially supported politicians have. Just cause there are bigger fish does not make the minnows any more less scum.
It's not your business and was never meant to be. As I've said in this thread or another, the people who revealed the donations were people who hated Scott for presumably petty reasons. I am literally bisexual and I think this whole argument is dumb as hell. This argument should've been about Scott as a person, not #########' politics, like hello???
Also, I highly doubt Scott even knew about the LGBTphobia from the people he donated to.
Those donations are literally required by federal law to be publicly available data. Stop talking if you have zero clue what you're on about.
Scott literally talked about their anti-LGBT views and then went on to say he thought their economic policies mattered more anyways. Why do you keep talking about things you literally don't know what you're talking about?
"Even if there were candidates who had better things to say to the LGBT community directly, and bigger promises to make, I believed that their stances on other issues would have ended up doing much greater harm to those communities than good."
This moron somehow thinks voting for people who want to strip LGBT+ human rights is less harmful to LGBT+ people than voting for the people that aren't trying to strip LGBT+ human rights. I don't understand how this numbskull doesn't understand a better economy doesn't matter if LGBT+ people don't have the equal rights to enjoy said better economy.
Fun fact, politics is a part of life and one that directly affects people when it's discussions about whether or not people deserve human rights, even as stupid as it is that something like that is even up for debate to begin with.
But yes, caring about human rights is petty. You sure got me. I pity you.
This discussion has gone on quite far enough, and whilst people are entitled to their opinions and things are a matter of public records - I really do not think we need to have this discussion here.