Bran
Bran
About
- Username
- Bran
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,515
- Last Active
Comments
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940717#Comment_2940717
Well it was good buff but perk is still not great. Killer can counter it if they don't walk to pallet.
For sure.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
It buffed to 15% wiggle. So it is more easy to activate it.
Yeah I was mad surprised when I saw 15% wiggle.
-
@_AdamFrancis_ said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940711#Comment_2940711
Still doesn't mean you should go out of your way to ruin matches.
Most definitely should not ruin matches.
-
I ain't condoning it, but us Legion mains just got fed, we can't let them ruin this for us ✊.
-
They really do gotta start giving more characters cosmetics don't they
-
That's not very country roads 😞
-
@Ryuhi said:
I think this kinda boils down to the issue of retroactively giving/expanding on established character lore. retcons-rewrites-etc always run into that kind of issue, and some people feel like the content's nature makes it feel like its inherently protected from criticism.
Personally, I don't care about the topic in regards to anyone in the fog. Some do, some don't. People on the internet (and especially in this community) absolutely love to assume the worst from people that don't agree with them, while topics like this make some people put a lot more personal stake into their stance (understandably.)
The reason I personally feel it could have been handled better is because of the original point: Its not that they didn't put effort into it (they clearly did) nor that they did any research or care into it being a first step in representation (they clearly did,) but that for some it feels almost like a bait and switch.
For one, sexuality has absolutely zero impact on the trials, nor should it. I'm reminded of Rogue Legacy where there are various genetic and hereditary traits you can take that have various impacts on gameplay, then one of them is just being gay/lesbian. In a game where even your character's height or being farsighted are permutations that can affect various aspects of the game, being gay affects... nothing. Just your spouse's gender in the ending, thats it. I thought that was an outstanding way of handling it, especially because it inherently fortified the aspect that it makes absolutely zero difference to the player what your character's orientation is outside of what meaning you, yourself, provide.
With a situation like David, after all the years of the game, cosmetics, jokes in the community, headcanons people have been building over the years, it starts to feel like it was decided for the player. In the above example from Rogue Legacy, the impact would be completely different if being gay was something that was put on the player without them knowing. You know you are choosing it when you do, and thus, the impact is direct and intentional. Inclusion is important, and you'll rarely find good faith arguments that claim its not in this case. However, if it was something that was randomly or arbitrarily decided for you, you can absolutely bet there would have been controversy over how it was handled, which would lead to a similar situation like this. Sexuality is not a good topic to surprise people with in video games (or even stories in general) where it is both completely irrelevant and completely unrelated to said game or story.
In this case, again, they put a lot of work and effort into that part of the situation. This wasn't some half assed "throw a pride flag on his back and pump out more cosmetics for pride month" situation. It WAS, however, one that fell victim to a discordance in its reception due to the nature of its elements. I've heard the "we didn't want to make them paid dlc" argument, but the long and short of the matter is that the game has, for years, been structured around a "build your own headcanon" stance due to how barebones the lore started, while being slowly "caught up" with each subsequent tome. That in itself will always make controversial topics create discordance on some level. Especially when it might come off as unrelated to what was before (IIRC his original intro involved him having a girlfriend, and just being a rough and tumble ######### who got in bar fights all the time, basically the "macho british lad" stereotype.) Certainly the two are not incompatible, but like I mentioned at the start, the sheer whiplash between the two comes off as a bait and switch.
Hopefully someone doesn't try to find a way to put words or opinions in my mouth from this post, or try to demonize me for something they assume i must have been implying or something, but thats about it. I think they did everything right about it except for having it suddenly be a surprise after this many years.
Well said
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940325#Comment_2940325
I really just wanna know their motivation to be so against this story line of David being gay.
they say it’s about David not intended to be gay when he was created (which there is not even proof for in any way) but then… they also never ever complained about any other lore addition in any of the other tome story’s??
My stance is not against David being gay, just not in favor of it.
-
What I meant was even if they added another LGBT character, it wouldnt change the criticism of David.
I have no issue with representation at all.
When I first heard about that, I thought it was a gag, but if it turns into a thing. That would be a little weird.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940269#Comment_2940269
Of course not. Why would it? It’s established official lore and won’t change.
but if they did create a new character who is revealed in their backstory to be LGBTQ+ they would show you that they are putting in effort into representation, right?
Sure, but that wouldn't change the fact with David. And I'd just say why not start with said new character to begin with
-
@Dito175 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939880#Comment_2939880
Not really, tokenism would be just putting a label on him. They made a lore entry about his pass that was pretty well written and helped us understand his character more. Tokenism would be if they just did the twitter post and nothing else.
Lores just there to explain it. Doesn't change much
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940000#Comment_2940000
What if they add a new character that’s LGBTQ+ as well though?
Wouldn't change the stuff about David
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2940000#Comment_2940000
That doesn't necessarily mean that what was done here constitutes as the minimum.
Doesn't mean it can't feel like that
-
That hardly changes much
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939974#Comment_2939974
That's why I ask what is missing from what they did that would constitute effort.
They just could've made a new character, That's all. There isn't much else to say to answer that that goes into detail.
There's just more to be desired than that.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939965#Comment_2939965
That isn't a thing missing from the list of actions that BHVR did. I'm asking what they did not do that could be seen as effort.
That is also answered. Just because they did something doesn't mean someone else will say they put in a lot of effort. Simple or complex.
Them having done it that way can be said to be a good effort, but the sentiment ot feeling you get by them doing that, can still be as I said above to really see it as not a lot besides the minimum
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939960#Comment_2939960
You are certainly welcome to say what you think is missing, since that would answer the question even if I don't agree with you. The thing is that you are straight up not answering the question.
That answered your question, but I'll rephrase it.
What is missing is the sentiment, feeling or however you'd like to phrase it, that bhvr did more than just say David is gay and make a story to make him gay to add a gay character into the game.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939947#Comment_2939947
I already posted exactly what they did several posts ago and then asked you what was missing from what they did. Something you have failed to answer despite being asked multiple times.
Asking that is like asking a rhetorical question. I can say anything as long as it makes me feel like they missed something, even if it may not make sense.
But I'll say this. Bhvr has just not proven to many people that the intent to make David gay and to include LGBT representation is anything more saying "David is gay" and making a story about it. Some people just don't like it.
Maybe sentiment will change. Who knows.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939941#Comment_2939941
You are not answering the question. I am asking you what is missing. You are not telling me what is missing.
What is missing?
Its not about what is missing, it's about what they did do. They did barely anything. That's my thing I'm saying. There is no intent to David being gay besides "let's make him gay".
So what is missing? That's something you need to think about yourself and why you think it's good representation and not bad. What did they do?
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939931#Comment_2939931
You're avoiding my question. If you can't explain to me what's missing that would constitute effort, then you can't really argue that there was a lack of effort. If you think that there was a lack of effort, then explain to me what is missing that would constitute effort.
I have been answering your question.
1: using a pre existing character is less effort.
2: they just made lore to justify it
There is nothing else.
-
@KateMain86 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939883#Comment_2939883
I'm curious if they are going to actively represent something other than lgbt. You know since representation matters so much.
I don't know, it may seem a lot harder to do so. But I think bhvr is mainly focusing on LGBT representation as of right now.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939917#Comment_2939917
Still doesn't answer my question. What is missing from the process I described that would qualify as effort?
Thats it. Anyone should be able to say after 2 years just choosing an existing character and saying "their gay" isn't a lot of effort. Even if we factor in the new lore.
Making a new character would show they made a unique character, style, personality, unique lore, or just put in more effort in general.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939798#Comment_2939798
That doesn't answer my question. What is missing from this process that constitutes effort?
More than saying "David's gay and here's why". That's less effort than making a new character
-
@Dito175 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938706#Comment_2938706
David is already a good character with an already fleshed out lore, releasing a new gay character would feel like tokenism because it would feel like that character has no other purpose.
You can make the case David is tokenism as is.
-
It does, but is vague. If a killer is actively going after a specific person as if their targeting them, we can call that tunneling.
If the killer has been put into a position where that sure is the best way to continue with the game, that's just not.
-
If any basekit were to be added it shouldn't change anything so drastically. Probably shouldn't even give them a basekit BT.
Somehow it would need to differentiate the actual situation happening.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939054#Comment_2939054
I have no opinion of the cosmetic.
You neglected to answer my question about what was missing that would constitute effort. You basically just regurgitated what I wrote.
A new character just would've been more effort. That's it.
-
I don't think it would be a better change, but it is a neat idea to ponder over.
-
Makes sense.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939016#Comment_2939016
I mean, you kind of found your issue right there. People don't like being left on the ground for several minutes, particularly when their teammate isn't coming to pick them up and the killer shows no signs of hooking them. Or worse, when the teammate does pick them up and it turns into a game of looping pickup tag that drags out the match another ten minutes.
While DCs for hatch are definitely a thing... in this scenario, I would suspect less people are leaving specifically because they want their teammate to find hatch and more because they're going "######### this, get me out of here" because you aren't letting them leave otherwise.
Possibly.
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939041#Comment_2939041
Stop trying to change the topic and either give actual evidence or understand you have no real point.
No one has a real point because bhvr isn't tell us any actual behind the scenes. This is just put opinions on the matter. There is no point in continuing to say the same thing
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939041#Comment_2939041
I'm not talking about the cosmetic. I'm talking about the decision to make the character in question gay. With regards to David, they:
1) Consulted an external party that is more well-versed in the subject than they to ensure the subject was being treated properly throughout the whole process
2) Went through their catalogue of existing characters and compared them to the goals they were trying to meet to see which would be best suited
3) Worked in lore that developed the character in a way that was still consistent with what was previously established of the character and grew them in new directions
What exactly is missing from here that would constitute effort?
1: they consulted with gaymerx sure who knows how that actually went.
2: they went through there survivors to see who they wanted to make gay.
3: they made lore to explain why he's gay.
But IM asking what YOU think about the cosmetic.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939037#Comment_2939037
That is roughly the standard amount of effort that would be taken when compared to making a new character.
Possibly. That is something which different people can well see differently.
But also, the cosmetic. I've yet seen any real mention of it besides once.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939035#Comment_2939035
Yes, and the situation regarding David does not constitute tokenism because a fair bit more than the minimum effort was put into developing diversity, and if BHVR is being sincere with their goals (which, to be fair, remains to be seen), it's not the last of this push.
So far what we've seen them do is make a character gay and make lore to explain how. That is not specifically high effort.
Also...what's the thoughts on the cosmetic?
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939030#Comment_2939030
Tokenism is the act of making a minimum, generally obligatory effort of inclusion purely for the sake of fulfilling a perceived quota of diversity with no real intent of going beyond that minimum amount of effort to promote diversity.
Indeed
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939014#Comment_2939014
That's not what tokenism is.
I was just going on another quota than continuing with it since dude wasn't going to answer
-
@IlliterateGenocide said:
Dcing for hatch isn't really a problem anymore since hatch only spawns when one survivor is left. So they can't find it and have there friend dc.
Well when your slugging for the 4th and don't know where they are. It's more of a problem since obvious reasons
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939006#Comment_2939006
Still waiting on your evidence.
Its clear from even the Peanits response, they looked at every character. David was not always indeed to be gay. Just not much else to say
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938994#Comment_2938994
While I'm sure I won't really agree with you, I want to try and clear up what your point is so I can better understand
Is your point that, you think BHVR picking a character from their roster instead of creating a new one from scratch was a bad idea because in your opinion that wasn't the intention when the character was conceptualised, so you find it to be insincere as opposed to a new character designed with those characteristics from the start
Is that right or did I miss something?
I think it's better if they make a new character yes.
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938998#Comment_2938998
Not how it works. Burden of proof is on you to dispute the official claim. But I'll entertain you anyways, since you're struggling with this. BHVR wrote an entire tome's worth of stories for him and his backstory in collaboration with GaymerX to build it into the story.
Anyways, try again.
Okay so what. You have no point. All they did was make a new story to explain why he's gay. People have also said if they made a new character they'd be tokenism. So what's the difference?
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938994#Comment_2938994
Still not hearing a single piece of evidence. Making a gay character because they want to make a gay character does not mean it is tokenism. Try again.
It could be called tokenism either way. Tell me how it isnt.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938990#Comment_2938990
I didn't dispute that. What I disputed was the notion that they simply labeled him gay and that was it. They went beyond that by exploring David's character using new information that was not previously known to us.
They weren't going to just say he's gay and move on. That would definitely case more issues.
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938989#Comment_2938989
That's not proof, try again. If anything, that is literally proof against you, given the effort they put into it.
Okay...they made a character gay because they wanted to make a gay character. I think that's the proof. And do note it's been revealed they didn't only look at David..they also looked at the other Survivors to see which they wanted to make gay...they just decided David would become gay.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938982#Comment_2938982
No, they didn't. They made an entire story out of it.
You can in fact make a character gay and then also make lore for that character to say how they are gay.
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938982#Comment_2938982
Feel free to give any actual real proof of that.
I mean...look at the other David posts and their Twitter...
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938971#Comment_2938971
What makes it more sincere?
With David they've essentially just labelled Him as gay for representation.
-
@HPhoenix said:
We used to call it "DC Tech" back in my days before the hatch changes. Now, if you DC, is like gambling in a casino. What end up happening is that you ate a 5 min penalty just to watch a 50/50 game of chance. Either the killer find the hatch and get's a 4k that way (Assuming that the gates are really close for the killer to patrol.) Or there survivor finding it first. Now, imagine if someone toss in a hatch offering and the killer slug for a 4k, that person can DC and let the other survivor get hatch for free which is extremely stupid, in my opinion.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938891#Comment_2938891
Most people won't care about their BPs, in my opinion.
I still say that they should increase the penalty to at least 10 mins, in my opinion. Then again, there are people with bad connection so I doubt that will happen, that and it would be a horrible idea, I think.
Very true, they wouldn't not care about BP
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938965#Comment_2938965
How does that make it not meaningful? I could just as easily say "one was made gay for representation" while "the other was only made to be gay for representation." What makes one more valid than the other?
The new character is a more sincere approach
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938959#Comment_2938959
What makes it not feel meaningful if the two scenarios ("make a new character" vs. "use a pre-existing character) end up being roughly equal in content?
As I've just said. One was always meant to be gay and represent, the other was only made gay for representation.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938954#Comment_2938954
What would make it bad in this case?
Using a pre existing David. In this case he just wasn't already gay and the devs just decided "let's make him gay just to add representation and tweet about so everyone knows he's gay even before the lore officially released".
That's it's. It may not go that deep and doesn't feel really meaningful just to make someone gay rather than someone who is gay being added in.