KateMain86
KateMain86
About
- Username
- KateMain86
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@fake said:
I have heard several people's opinions.
In fact, you can find out in the character descriptions and archives that characters other than David are either homosexual or heterosexual.
What I found disturbing was the loud and high-handed announcement that "this character is actually homosexual" while making a dedicated news story. Unlike the other characters.
Of course I understand that this archive will talk about David King's character background. But the difference is that the news article was purposely created solely for this character's sexual preference.
I see this as having been unnecessary.
Diversity means a society where all kinds of ideas, tastes, etc. are universally accepted without saying a word.
Yet, David King was created for a separate news article.
“He is gay.”
It seems to me that they really wanted to make the appeal, "We at BHVR are a socially and not racially discriminatory company” that created a gay character.
Diversity is defined differently in the minds of many in my experience in life, especially in the context of inclusion. Often times people are excluded and seen differently because who they are doesn't conform to someone elses idea of a diverse society which defeats the whole point of diversity. You're absolutely right on what diversity means. We should all live and let live and any desire to have others see things the way you do should always be done in peace.
-
@FeminineSlime said:
Don't worry, BHVR, I'll tell you who else is in the LGBT community so you don't have to worry about it. :) Source: Trust me. Characters not listed are straight, or at the very least too in the closet to know better. And no licenses.
Dwight Fairfield: Bisexual, but not out to himself. Why do you think he hides in so many lockers?
Claudette Morel: Straight, but she's questioning her gender identity. Probably non-binary.
Jake Park: He/They icon. Thanks to jesterkind in the comments for correcting my oversight here.
Ace Visconti: The most bisexual man you have ever met.
David KING: Gay.
Kate Denson: Bisexual. Obviously.
Adam Francis: Straight, but only because he hasn't had a chance to experiment. Open to new experiences.
Jeff Johansen: Asexual.
Yui Kimura: Lesiban. Obviously.
Felix & Elodie: Bisexual buds. They helped each other come out.
Mikaela: Transgender Lesbian.
I'd do killers but y'know I'm not sure any of them care at this point other than bisexual king The Clown. Anyway there you go BHVR. I did the hard work of knowing the truth so you don't have to. You don't even have to pay me. Obviously this whole thing is a bit silly, but the true way to "represent" the community is to have more than a single token gay character on the roster. All of us know many people in the LGBT community in our lives, and if BHVR is serious about reflecting that, they'll take what I've said here as gospel and implement it next patch. Godspeed.
So you gave the ones you listed a sexuality based upon what again? I mean they can be whatever you want them to be in your opinion. I'm just curious what you based your conclusions on.
-
Youtube videos? No idea. I end up on lots of twitch streams every time I play DBD and its always fun interacting with the streamer after the match and talking about all the shenanigans we just had. 😂
-
@Barbarossa2020 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2949293#Comment_2949293
Well im forced to play as Twins to complete some, why not have parity?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2949307#Comment_2949307
I did say thus far, in respect to what challenges have been revealed and so far 0/10 challenges have required you to play David. Just because he has been spammed before, and is now being rehashed should'nt mean that the challenges don't associate with the character.
The twins have a unique power that the other killers can't use. Survivors don't. Why do you care about this? You're making a big deal over nothing and for some reason have a problem with players being able to choose which survivor they want to do the challenges on. Is your best or only argument that you have to play twins for those challenges? I'm sorry but I think you're being a bit dishonest here. I just can't see why the reasons you've stated moved you enough to make a thread about this.
-
@Barbarossa2020 said:
Then why do the challenges, (Thus far) not require you to play David? Only to use his perks?
Seems a bit odd that the Twins challenges require you to play the Twins, But you can do the David challenges with anyone.
Edit: and to iterate the point the memory is called "the importance of being king." Yet you dont have to play "The King"
You can play David for the challenges if you want. Are you really upset that players aren't forced to play as David? This is such a non issue to be concerned or mad about.
-
@OniWantsYourMacaroni said:
Dead by Daylight 2 announcement 😉
This peaked my interest, but how would they go about doing it I wonder?
-
Dead By Daylight THE MOVIE! 🤩 That would be hype.
-
Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.
-
I recommend Kate Denson.
-
@stikyard said:
It's probably the number one complaint from the Killer side and rightfully so. There is no downside to this perk. It turns every chase into a 3 hit down. Hitting a skilled Survivor three times in a reasonable amount of time requires meta gaming on the Killer side or GG.
It needs a sublte nerf, I've been thinking about "Broken" status until you go down. At least this way if the Killer does give up chase, you will remain injured for the rest of the match essentially. If the Killer later picks up chase on you again, he won't have to three hit you again, only two.
It adds a slight negative effect which is better than nothing.
Thoughts?
I think I've mistimed more dead hard uses than not in the times I have used it. Many of the times I did avoid a hit using it I ended up getting stuck in a corner or going right into a wall then going down very shortly after anyway. When it does work it works well, and I think that is the intent of the perk. It doesn't really guarantee anything but offers a chance to avoid a hit if used properly.
-
My hope if this happens is that it will encourage better play styles on both sides and discourage the things that caused it to happen to begin with.
-
Its called hell when you're the last survivor and you're trying to find the hatch with a silent killer there too. I love this map by the way. I always get spooked one way or another every time I play it.
-
The only thing I know to do is report them. Maybe if you or your BF could stream the matches so there is video evidence of it happening it might be able to help escalate the hackers getting removed. I rarely get in a match with a hacker killer but when I do they always just meme and take all the survivors to the exit gate when they've had their fun. I can see how it would be annoying if it happens half the time though.
-
@YOURFRIEND said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2943431#Comment_2943431
Killers do not share a singular consciousness. They are different people and all play different ways. Saying oh killers do this and this is always gonna be a pointless us vs. Them statement.
In any case yeah, base BT is coming in some form.
You're right they don't. I only meant that if tunneling was a rare thing in DBD then something like this wouldn't even need to be considered. In all fairness if safe unhooking was more common also then there may be less tunneling too.
-
@DrDeepwound said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2943431#Comment_2943431
Borrowed Time doomed itself. Had nothing to do with killer tunneling. The perk created the unsafe unhook meta which caused devs to nerf it numerous times, not because of killers actions, but survivors....
Survivors know what to do: Create the problem, complain about the problem, get devs to carebear it for you
You honestly think basekit BT will end tunneling? LOL you guys will be tunnelled and slugged even more, mark my words because unsafe unhooks will sky rocket too
I don't know. I think both sides contributed to this honestly. We'll see what happens. Maybe it'll create a new meta of 2 survivors trading with the killer the entire game while the other 2 work on gens. 2k might become the norm for killers now.
-
@RisingTron said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2943431#Comment_2943431
Killers will find a way regardless I'm afraid.
But base kit BT will be a start. As well as base BBQ. Encourages leaving the hook to go for other survivors and discourages tunneling survivors right off hook.
I'm sure it'll be something new if BT for survivors happens. Who knows? I'm surprised more killers don't play with the assumption that all survivors have it anyway. It'll be interesting to see how it changes game play now that they will know it.
-
Just think if killers didn't tunnel something like BT being base kit wouldn't be needed. By the way is BT becoming base kit for survivors? Are we finally going to see the end of tunneling?
-
I've gotten Legion I think twice since the update and the only difference I have noticed is his chase music and terror radius. Still feels like the same old Legion to me.
-
I LOVE the new Haddonfield map. I think it has a much scarier atmosphere now. The houses are terrifying especially against silent killers. I'm often scared to work on a generator in them. Maybe all of the generators should be in the houses. 😅
-
I've hated the bloodweb since the first day I started playing this game. To be fair, I think if it does ever change it should be optional and those who want the original one can keep it. I hate having to go around the entity on top of also losing most of my items in matches.
-
I wish I could select more than one, but I went with "Just to rant" as I think that is probably what I do here the most in the feedback forum. I do like coming here from time to time to see what people are saying about different things too.
-
@JimmyCasket said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2942010#Comment_2942010
The dumb part about the D/C penalty, is it makes the game lose players for, sometimes, up to several days at a time. They need to make the penalty have a hard cap of 30 minutes - 1 hour. No one will keep playing if they are banned for 3 fricking days!
Yep! I don't think very many people will bother if they know each time they do it once it gets to 30 minutes will leave just to wait another 30 minutes. If it gets up to days then I think there is a risk of players simply quitting. If its capped, then players will only be able to play after the capped time and honestly how many people are going to spend hours just to get into a couple matches?
-
@colley94 said:
Should be obvious really and there's a huge difference between a random disconnect and rage quitting when you've been hit. Do better as a company please the amount of time wasted cause someone quits straight away.
If they did this then they would have to include a warning with the "leave match" button letting the player know this is going to happen. That alone doesn't make sense because why include an option to leave the match if the result is getting banned? The fact the game even has this option means in my opinion that this should be an unpunishable choice. If a player doesn't want to be in a match then they shouldn't be forced to stay in fear of being punished for it. If people say it would be abused without a lockout timer then create more incentive to stay in the match. Blood points, with what often is the few some survivors get in a match they want to leave anyway, isn't enough to incentivize this as well as the experience that goes towards shards. Eventually players that constantly leave matches before its over will get tired of doing it and play something else. I don't think in the long run it would continue to be a problem especially if you give players who continue to participate something unique that those who leave don't get.
-
@Chaos999 said:
Wait, so offerings are toxic now? They should put a label on those xD.
This same thing happened to me the other day. The killer was as toxic as they possibly could be to everyone and at the end of the match they said it was because of the map offering. I don't know why they would prefer a random map over a map offering given the random map could be one they don't like too. Killers can also play map offerings.
-
@SuzuKR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2941463#Comment_2941463
People have cishet representation in almost every single piece of main media ever. Obviously, it's not like every single character needs to be LGBT+.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2941514#Comment_2941514
You should take some time to re-evaluate yourself if your belief system tells you that you shouldn't support your fellow person for something that isn't their choice, and also isn't a bad thing. Also one of them doesn't advocate hate against stigmatized groups.
My "belief system" doesn't advocate hate towards anyone. Quite the opposite actually but because of the forum rules I don't think I can go into detail to explain to you why. Unfortunately my faith is often stereotyped because of the ignorance of others who claim to adhere to the same faith as I do. I live everyday of my life with many things assumed about me that are not true due to nothing more than a lack of understanding.
-
@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.
"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."
It sure does. I'm glad you made this point because I do think this is how a lot of people feel about it. It really couldn't have been said clearer than that. This is why I say leaving areas like a character's sexuality alone and letting the player create their own narrative about the characters is always the best approach, and most inclusive. Of course someone will come along and call me a bigot because they think bigots don't deserve any kind of inclusiveness. Well, that is an opinion and being inclusive means including the people, ideas and beliefs of those you disagree with. We live in a diverse world. Diversities of faiths, cultures, perspectives, philosophies and so on. No 2 people think alike. The inclusiveness of one thing will always lead to the exclusion of something else and no one should have to conform their convictions to please something or someone that excludes them. So in my opinion if DBD insists on continuing with this representation approach then I hope over time there is something for everyone to relate to or be represented by added to the game. If it does happen then of course not everyone will agree or like everything but the point would be that it wasn't all just about one or two things. It would be about having something for everyone to relate to.
-
@Satelit said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939959#Comment_2939959
So ,,actively'' is defined by tweeting about it?
They have a pinned tweet for the pride charm and posted about David King's sexuality in the context of "representation matters." Yes, in my opinion it is.
-
@Satelit said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2939924#Comment_2939924
They already actively represent a variety of people
Actively? I don't know. I don't recall the extra emphasis on anything else other than lgbt. The roster is diverse but I've never seen a tweet saying "hey here is our new female survivor because representation matters."
-
@deKlaw_04 said:
I really am curious with who bhvr is gonna choose next
I'm curious if they are going to actively represent something other than lgbt. You know since representation matters so much.
-
@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.
It would "feel" like tokenism for some, but don't you see how doing something like a twitter post to focus in on this one thing about a character is received much differently as opposed to making a character gay and not making a big deal about the fact they are gay?
-
@Stroggz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2938563#Comment_2938563
Oh and an inverted cross too please!
They can add anything they want. Just let us choose which ones we want to own.
-
@Stroggz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937799#Comment_2937799
Whatever floats your boat, Katie.
I hope one day they add a Christian cross charm to DBD for representation and give everyone the choice of whether they want it or not. You'll never see me here demanding everyone be forced to have it.
-
@TragicSolitude said:
Boil Over was a terrible idea for a perk from the get-go. When the wiggle increase is too high, it incapacitates console players and can make someone with Boil Over unhookable on certain maps. That's not acceptable. You can't make a perk ridiculously OP against a large percentage of the playerbase just to make it viable against the other percentage. BHVR needs to come up with a better purpose for the perk.
It depends where they go down at. Downing a survivor doesn't automatically guarantee a hook and it shouldn't. Getting them to a hook does.
-
@Stroggz said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2935418#Comment_2935418
But you should. Because if you don't -- you are a bigot.
Are you literally trying to argue that people who don't use the pride charms are bigots? 🤣 I'll add that label to my other ones I've gained on the forums here.
-
@SuzuKR said:
I think this would be a pretty nice move to have them both from the start. There are also people who might miss the notices about the redeem code options for said pride flag charms and thus wouldn’t know they were even obtainable, especially as time goes on and other game announcements will appear on top. Also there is no downside to this at all.
Well this certainly feels like the most dishonest post I've read today. So tell me again why you want people who don't want these charms... to have these charms? Because a few people might never know about the claim codes? They are better left optional. Its Ok if a few people somehow don't end up getting them because they didn't know about them. Besides I'm sure they aren't limited time things. If they are then thats their problem.
-
@RoboMojo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937771#Comment_2937771
David is still David though. All that's changed is that canonically, he's into dudes. I don't get what you mean.
I didn't see him as gay before is all I meant. I do recall reading his information page in game awhile back and never saw anything that implied he was or could have been.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937759#Comment_2937759
i would argue it isn’t. As evidenced by the reaction of the community right here.
there are people only criticizing the announcement, sure. But there are also plenty of complaints against LGBTQ+ as well, it feeling forced that it was David because he doesn’t seem gay or didn’t have any hints towards it etc. These are complaints rooted in homophobia.
I don't think people seeming to think David King isn't gay before this is rooted in homophobia. I think a lot of it is just based on people's experiences and perspectives they've had throughout life. I know I've said before it isn't nice to assume things about people but sometimes things just seem obvious to people. It doesn't mean they're right or wrong and it certainly doesn't mean they are any kind of phobe.
-
@RoboMojo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937752#Comment_2937752
A lot of people don't read lore though. Might not have generated the same buzz. They should've had lgbt+ rep from the start so them announcing it through Twitter 6 years after the game's release feels a little... insincere maybe? Better late then never I suppose. Still great news regardless.
Yep. I said yesterday in another thread that I think most people who play DBD will probably never even know David King is gay. The only reason I found out was because I saw it on the dbd twitter page which I rarely go to. To me it was like here is who you thought David King was and now here's who he really is which isn't the David King I've known all this time. To me he was someone else. Someone I saw him as and someone I wanted him to be. It just seems better this way.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937751#Comment_2937751
If you want to normalize or represent something you think isn't normalized yet then why does it have to be done this way?
its really simple: because it isn’t normalized yet and BHVR had changed their stand on this after being unintentionally excluding anything LGBTQ+ related while having multiple heterosexual relationships added kn lore.
i am VERY sure they won’t make a twitter post or announcement any time in the future when an LGBTQ+ character get added (or an existing character gets revealed)y. IF they continue to do so I will definitely call them out for that as well. But in this case as it is their first representation and the direct result from their collaboration with GaymerX, it’s really disturbing how people that want their opinion heard without ever hearing anything that might not be kn line with their own point of view can’t even acknowledge that there ARE reasonable reasons to announce it (acknowledging that would not be the same to agree it was a good decision, no one said you people have to like it)
I would argue that it is normalized in many places in the world, and even more so online. I feel like when it is done in more subtle ways just like everything else there isn't as much or even if any controversy about it. Have they considered that not everyone who identifies as lgbtq wants to be represented like this or even at all? Regardless if you feel it isn't normalized or not, treat it like it is. At the end of the day most people just want to mind their own business and go about their lives not worrying about what other people are doing.
-
@_AdamFrancis_ said:
Please don't move this to feedback.
At least I feel like it was. The fact that they made an entire TWITTER post about it was unnecessary. I, as a bi man, feel like if LGBTQ is going to be looked upon as normal in society, then we can start by not making such a big deal over gay characters in media. Even his Tome cutscene felt a little forced. My point is, the entire reveal felt more like a stunt for respect rather than actual representation. Notice how when Felix was said to have a wife and a kid it was in his lore casually. Things like that. Whenever there are straight characters in this game it's pretty much always put low-key in their lore. So I feel that it was kinda strange to make such a big deal out of this.
Tldr: it seems weird how when their is a presumed straight character in DBD there isn't any sort of twitter post about it, it is put in their lore but when there is finally an LGBT character it is made as a bigger deal than something it is not.
This is the point I and others have been trying to make. I'm glad to see you talking about because I think you've said it as plainly and simply as possible. It all too often feels like the strong desire to represent lgbtq has turned into a circus rather than being substantive and genuine. If you want to normalize or represent something you think isn't normalized yet then why does it have to be done this way? Why can't it as you said just be put in the lore in the same way everything else is without doing the whole all eyes and ears on me approach trying to convince the world you care about representation. I've been labeled a homophobe for having dissenting opinions over this, but I never label them for seeing it different than me or for doing that to me. The hatred is insane and I all too often feel like if I don't go along with it and have the same views then I'm the bad guy. I don't even feel comfortable mentioning my own sexuality or other things like my faith in fear of being labeled and attacked.
-
@deKlaw_04 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937183#Comment_2937183
Is this where we are seriously getting at?
Yea... its sad isn't it? Any dissenting opinion to the idea of any survivor being thrown into the lgbt community risks getting you the homophobe label. I already got mine recently. Hell I got 2 of them.
-
@Sludge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937178#Comment_2937178
If David can be gay then anyone can be gay. Why not Kate? are you a homophobe?
Can you please stop with the homophobe bs? Seriously. If someone doesn't want to Kate to be gay they are perfectly fine to feel that way. No one is forced to think, feel or see things the way you do and they shouldn't be demonized for it either. Not wanting Kate, or any survivor for that matter, to be gay doesn't make someone a homophobe.
-
@Killmaster said:
Since this isn't strict reality could someone like David get pregnant or does the entity prevent pregnancy all-together? Would it allow a couple in the fog to have a child to feed off their hope of giving it a better life? I think these are some important lore related questions that futures tomes should answer.
I don't know how to respond to this, but I salute you nonetheless.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937335#Comment_2937335
Good point! Do it could also be used in David’s case, that he is still on his long journey of discovery.
and voila, you yourself came up with a solution for you problem with this reveal.
I'm not expecting David to be hooking up with any of the ladies on the roster anytime soon. But who knows? I do wonder now if there will be a focus on starting relationships within the canon of the game. I'm not sure if any of the licensed characters from other games can be a part of that but there is still enough people there to make things happen.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937277#Comment_2937277
Okay so let me decide Nurse is lesbian. Oh wait. Not possible as she was dearly in love with her husband. Okay then Frank is totally gay, right? Probably having a thing with Joey? Oh. Oh wait. No. He is in a heavy sexual relationship with Julie. Okay. Wait. Where were we?
You mean none of that couldn't be just a long journey of discovery about who they really are? Isn't that what David went through with his girl friends and all.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937204#Comment_2937204
We= you and me and everyone reading your posts.
it’s not an assumption. It’s obvious this is an act. You said yourself you like to have dissentive (or whatever word you used) opinions.
people have told you (and it’s general knowledge) that in-game lore is what defines characters in-game. You focusing on this one tweet is you acting up.
or are you taking every other tweet as serious as well? Eg those Dwelf tweets? Or that tweet telling you Sprint Burst and Lithe are a great combo?
Never said I like my opinions being dissenting. If I did let me know and I'll correct myself on that. I said my opinions are dissenting, on certain things of course.
I think it would be just as weird if they made a similar announcement but instead it was confirming a certain survivor to be straight. You know what would be better? Letting the fan decide for themselves what each character is and means to them.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937068#Comment_2937068
the statement is only relevant because of the in-game tome story.
we all know that’s just an act by you.
Not an act. Its not nice to assume things about people. I genuinely don't feel like I can assume anything anymore about the survivors. Also we? Is there some secret club of forum members here that gossip about me behind my back? Hmmm I wonder.
-
I'd care more about it if the game had more content pertaining to it. Repairing gens and running all the time doesn't really feel like a very story driven thing.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2937036#Comment_2937036
Confirmed by the devs, via the lore in the game.
It's not all about the tweet.
David isn't gay because of the tweet, that would be the cheapest, laziest thing they could have possibly done. No, its written into his lore, which is now in the game itself. That's what makes his character.
I don't know... I don't feel safe assuming anything about any of the survivors anymore until I see a confirmed statement about it.
-
@Satelit said:
Yes Yui would make SO much sense
Why do I feel like I can't say the same thing but in the context of Yui being straight?