MichaelAMyers
MichaelAMyers
About
- Username
- MichaelAMyers
- Joined
- Visits
- 181
- Last Active
Comments
-
Bones, Healing others, Helping others, or simply not being a toxic group of people who want to purposely sabotage the gameplay lol.
-
DCing is already being penalized and with this? Surely would make the game challenging.
-
"Doing a pretty good job so far." 😂
-
@zackdaylight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1798742#Comment_1798742
i meant I didn’t want to hear any excuses, because you’ll just be wasting your time. But anyway, this game is balanced off of solo queue or a group with no comms. Hence why the don’t have game chat, so of course it’s easy with a group using comms. But even then, you’ll still lose a lot. But That’s like saying “as a killer I can surely say the killers aren’t yet again OP especially with all my moris” or especially with all my one shot hatchets
Never made an Excuse my guy if I wanted to make excuses I would be blaming the internet connection or overall the concept of Ranking which I haven't.
Ok so now YOU are the one making excuses because of Comms and non-Comms come on man I've seen and have experienced as a Survivor making Killers rage quit just be looping and out maneuvering them with or without communication and if they were so OP the Devs would surely make changes to them all and surely by recent events aren't just "Favoring" survivors for having bigger chances against them. 🙄
-
@Felnex said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1798683#Comment_1798683
- I did answer it, read my post again
- Seriously? Are you trolling me right now? For somebody who questions other people's ability to read, you're missing a lot. Once again you literally say in the title "is genrushing a problem" (and although you ask a question, you apparently already have an answer in mind and you go onto argue that point, so it's not just an innocent question, you're very biased. change the title to "I think genrushing is a problem" becuase that's what you feel obviously) Emphasis on the word PROBLEM. Problems are negative, not good: they're a negative judgment. To call the playstyle of survivors (IE genrushing means you're being optimal) a "problem" is a negative judgment on all survivor players. You really need to pay attention to what you're saying.
just be honest.
1. I don't see one but ok.
2. "trolling"? If I wanted to troll you I would be purposely trying to fool or provoke you which I have done neither of the two whatsoever.
Man you love making so many false assumptions never once mentioned "Reading" or "Comprehension" calm down and actually now comprehend.
Firstly I'm asking the community as a whole where did I get an Answer? Where did I show any bias? You obviously don't know anything about me so making baseless assumptions is irrelevant
Secondly it sounds like you the only one being negative by trying to be so aggro with someone you don't even know or have met until today so take a chill pill and respond with logic not emotions.
Thirdly let's "Empathize" that I am not the only one who thinks it's a "problem" for Killer Mains or those who just casually play as Killers, it's not fun for us to wait for servers just to have it ended in 5 to 7 mins of the game as I also play Survivor and can surely say a Group of Survivors purposely doing it to ruin gameplay for killers is toxic and yes a Problem.
Now before you reply back like I said chill out.
-
Nah just like "Gen Rushing" is part of the objective concept and isn't a real thing this concept is vise versa with FaceCamping and Slugging because only "SuRvIvOrS" cry about the concept of Slugging as "KiLlErs" does with Gen Rushing.
-
@Dwight_Fairfield said:
There is no such thing as "gen rushing". That's simply survivors doing their objective.
It's as real as "OP Killers" and as I said in my post it's doing their "Objective" in a way that sabotages the killers gameplay sufficiently.
-
@zackdaylight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1798686#Comment_1798686
You should not have to be a god survivor to win. You can give your excuses to me all you want but killers destroy solo players and swf destroy killers most of the time. I obviously know they aren’t the most OP thing ever but even behaviors stats show that killers are OP. The stats should be like 35%- 65% kill rate, yet it’s like 50-85 percent. And that’s with a lot of people whining about swf and “genrushing” and DS and dead hard, etc, etc, etc. and people wonder why the killer with like an 82% kill rate got announced that he was getting a slight nerf soon lmfaoo
Excuses? What?....so me saying that I am experienced is now making excuses? Wow
But no as I said for m playing numerous killers isn't an excuse it's called giving a example because that shows versatility to my gameplay.
As Survivor I can surely say the killers aren't yet again OP especially with a GROUP.
-
@OniWantsYourMacaroni said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1798647#Comment_1798647
Just wanted to clarify on that.It wasn't aimed at you.I only explained what real genrush is and that a lot of people don't really understand the term.
And i would call it garbage matchmaking,if it puts you against players that are way more experienced than you.
It's not about the experience I have been with high ranks it's the fact it's purposely done to ruin the gameplay for the Killers on any platform.
-
@Mugombo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1798650#Comment_1798650
Are gen rushers a community problem? That’s your title. It’s exactly what you wrote lol
Yes and your point?.....so asking a question is now illegal?
@zackdaylight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/211454/are-gen-rushers-a-community-problem
The problem is, is that killers are OP. So people feel the need to get gens done as quickly as possible. But that’s not genrushing, that’s just playing the game.
Killers are def not that OP in this comes from a very experienced Michael, Ghostface, Pyramid Head, and former Freddy/Trapper mainer they are underpower when it comes to many aspects.
-
@Felnex said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1798650#Comment_1798650
Your title is "gen rushing a community problem"? Yeah it sounds like you are saying that survivors doing their only objective (Gens) is a bad thing (problem)... can you read that in your own post? Maybe edit it because you're not expressing yourself well.
Also, maybe stop blaming people for playing the game? just a thought. ask the devs to make changes instead of judging all survivors by telling them they're a problen. so unfair.
1. I don't need to edit anything it's a simple question it seems y'all just don't wanna have this discussion because people want solutions on how to actually apply map pressure/anti-gen rushing tactics.
2. When did I ever blame any players or anyone?.....Point where I said "Survivors" or "Players" in my post I'll wait it's a generalized Question.
-
@YaiPa said:
gen rushing it's probably the biggest misconception in this community. What gen rushing means it's the chance of gens going so fast without being able to stop it, simply by doing the maths with the time; like still losing 2 gens with a short chase if survivors are optimal. People tho, tend to think that genrushing means blaming survivors who stay on gen, period, which it's not the meaning of the concept.
Never said that anywhere in my post tho.....
-
@Mugombo said:
Yes doing the one objective in the game for survivors is a community problem.
Nothing about that is the issue can you read that in my post?
Specially going to gens as groups or with specific add-ons/perks purposely used for Gen Rushing players by going to each one doing multiple and then waiting when one person lures the killer is a Community Problem.
-
@OniWantsYourMacaroni said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/211454/are-gen-rushers-a-community-problem
The actual problem is that a LOT of people misuse this term.
Actual gen rush is a team of survivors that focus solely on doing the objective and would even let teammates die just to focus on completing their objective.
The problem with that now is that a lot of killer just blame their loss on gen rush and say something like "Well,they genrushed me.Nothing i could have done about it."
Which is almost never true.So many people just aren't able to look at their own mistakes they made during the match and blame something else for it.Those players will never get better at the game and that goes for both sides
Sorry alot like shift blaming and then trying to twist the narrative make it sound like I'm a "Bad" killer (my YouTube surely debunks this.)
If I'm seeing a full team with Add-Ons/Items especially/purposely used to Gen rush on Killers how is that my own mistakes?
I don't pick them the servers do.
The ranking system does.
If you put baby killers with the pros then what do you call it? "git Gud"? Or "Misuse of Players"?
-
Legit no reason for him to be Nerfed tbh.
-
@Mookywolf said:
jesus christ this thread is still going huh?
Same thing I said.
-
@Wackyspider said:
Just a FYI, its not just LGBT people being toxic. But I agree, if they wanna introduce sexuality it should of been in the story non chalantly, and not this big announcement. I dont get why the rest of their backstory is less important than their sexuality, they haven't gotten announcements on twitter.
Agreed Wacky.
-
@Squirrel_Thicc said:
100% agree with the pandering statement. They can add gay and straight characters all they want, I just don't think it matters in MOST lore.
@BigBrainMegMain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1349058#Comment_1349058
Except I'm gay too and he/she has a point.
It's with out our intention, pushed forcibly down everyone's throat and it creates further dislike to our community.
It's not our fault that companies White Knight like this without us even wanting it to. There is no true, pure intention other than it'll make them some money while simultaneously pushing others away.
@Aneurysm said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1349075#Comment_1349075
Ofc BVHR doesn't really give an f about us, because they're a company and June is an orgy of various organisations slapping rainbow stickers on themselves because it can be profitable these days.
But the original commenter does just seem to hate themselves/the rest of the community and blames us for it.
@Orionbash said:
OP, thank you. As a gay person, it is 100% corporate pandering and I'm sick of it.
I just wanted to thank you/I am not here to cause anyone trouble with the words of "pandering" :( I am not gay/bi or anything and I find it offensive to my friends/family that companies do this in June only and never did it from the start.
-
@Frankie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347927#Comment_1347927
I guess you and I just came up with what they should have done, then. Sell cosmetics and give the proceeds to relevant charities in their area.
@bm33 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347920#Comment_1347920
If the money from Pride cosmetics went to related charities it would be accepted like the Charity Case cosmetics. If it went to BHVR people would complain they're using it to make a profit - like any other company that tosses a flag on a product and sells it in June.
Great ideas tbh
-
@MiniPixels said:
I personally think they should've just kept leaving it up to the players imagination, obviously with the exception of licensed characters, defining an original characters sexuality heavily complicates the whole finding someone you relate to thing and decreases your options if your gay and or straight, this then brings up the problem of balancing the number of gay and straight characters in the game and just overall screws everyone over. I would like the inclusion of more flamboyant characters and personalities, but they shouldn't outright confirm a characters sexuality in order to keep the peace in the community.
Agreed here.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346517#Comment_1346517
What he seems to be saying is that it is foolish to pander and retcon existing characters. Just make new one's X sexuality, that way it fits into their backstory better.
Correct
-
@Ghostwithaface said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346656#Comment_1346656
Disney star wars, rewrites it's lore all the time. Leading to endless inconsistencies, retcons and general story issues. There is no reason to be invested in it or give a care, for not only have they given the middle finger to old legacy characters like Luke, Han and others more times than one can count. They even try to rewrite the original movies with their animated shorts. Making Luke look like a fool and moron. Making Han look worst than he was in the movies. Making Leia look like a crazy blood thirsty insane person. When they were trying to get people hype for episode 9 and the Emperor returning. They release a copy, that brought in a new character that simply bash and insulted the Emperor and made the Emperor look like a idiot. Making a fair few people question why the heck did they do this, when they are trying to get people hype for the Emperor return but than release this comic, which make it seem like the Emperor is no big deal and is nothing more than a moron. Which goes against episode one to three, where he is a master mind that plots the downfall of the jedi and taking control of the galaxy for himself.
So while you can rewrite stuff or retcon stuff. It should be used in a very sparingly way or you end up with the mess that is disney star wars. Since if you retcon stuff all the time or the rules of a magic system can change on the drop of a dime. Well you give people no reason to care, for there is nothing to sink their teeth into. They can't get invested in the fights, for they lack any understanding as to how the magic system works, the powers and abilities both characters have or why they are fighting in the first place. For consistency is normally king when it comes to writing, since it allows one to get more invested in the conflict of the story and the characters. For a character that acts in a consistence way, can make them feel more like a real person. Since you get to know what they like, dislike, why they act a certain way and ect.
It's like making Freddy Krueger into a good guy when retconning/making new stuff.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346693#Comment_1346693
Lore also has to do with the game, which this is.
Why not donate to LGBT this month and then donate to other things in other months? Is there something wrong about this month? Is the weather not right?
And today I learned that one tweet is "marketing/indicating so much".
Lore is just text.....it has nothing to do with the gameplay.
the concept of what I said didn't truly set in....they are doing it now all within this span for Marketing to the LGBT community and you just learned about this one tweet? thats alright but from what people are telling me it's just PR/Pandering.
this is all I got to say to you Orion, I hope you have a nice day.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346639#Comment_1346639
They also announced they were adding a Silent Hill chapter, crossplay, EGC, and more. Have you considered that they just announce things before they do them? Why is this any different?
Because that has to do with the actual game?....and it's different because why donate to LGBT now in this month and not every month? why market/indicate so much that you are so "LGBT" now and make this a thing?....as said by someone else it's a "PR Stunt" for marketing which doesn't sit right with me and others.
-
@Rydog said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346631#Comment_1346631
There are gay characters in horror films, too.
And this is the same kind of strange argument that people made about Overwatch, too. I don't even know what it means when people say that a character being gay feels "forced." It is a fictional character, it's whatever the creator wants it to be. If anything, Soldier 76 played against type, and it was a good way to say "hey, orientations are of all shapes and sizes" within the confines of that fictional universe. Like Overwatch, Dead by Daylight does not feature blank slate characters who are devoid of characterization. They both came out of the gate with characters who had backstories and personalities (more implied than shown in DBD, but you get the picture). There has never not been a "canon lore," as you call it.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but these kinds of arguments always come across as "Can we just not have gay stuff in here?" when they boil down to the kinds of points that you have been making.
- Yes but there was no specific focus, people didn't watch horror films for race/sexuality but for the monsters/slashers.
- And people felt it was forced because as I said there was no definition for Soldier ever being Gay/Straight/Bi but when he was just written that way because of a "Picture" it was just not necessary but there is canon lore to these character.
- It's not about "no gay stuff in here" it's about how its done, I felt new character's should be
-
@SewerSwans said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346651#Comment_1346651
Then tell me, where was this disagreement when unambigous heterosexuality was included in the game?
Thats what you had to ask the devs 3 years old with/for
-
@hahadrillgobrrr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346600#Comment_1346600
Like I said, it most likely is a PR stunt but it doesn't take away the fact it could help the movement around the cause. It also could be that they actually support minorities, even if it took them 3 years. Opinions can and do change over time.
Heterosexuality has been forced on people for a long time and it still is an ongoing problem. That is the reason why saying "don't shove it down our throats" hurts people who doesn't fit the straight norm. Especially them who found out their "odd" orientation at young age.
Lore is lore. It can be rewritten, you can always add more to it, take away from it, whatever the writers feel like. Not accepting diversity just because lore hasn't been detailed doesn't really sound a strong argument.
Never said I am "not" accepting "Diversity" I said the opposite btw.
-
@SewerSwans said:
The Nurse has a husband. Crickets. Julie, David, Dwight, all have lore featuring heterosexuality. Tumbleweed. Every character's appearance and outfits align flawlessly with cis norms? Not a peep. As soon as the possibility of queer lore is announced, hullabaloo! It's pandering, the game shouldn't be political, every character should be ambiguous, etcetera, etcetera!
Representation is nothing to me. I have never been represented in any piece of media; perhaps I am a strange person. This is likely just gonna be some white dude having a masc4masc kiss with another one, too, so it's not that I care, but the outcry about this has a very clear motivation.
But is it pandering....the definition of Pander is " to provide gratification for others' desires." in current social definitions the company wants to profit from a community...and I like when a character is ambiguous because it opens the doors for us fans to make our own "Lore" for them.
-
@Cancan71 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346564#Comment_1346564
I see you don't want my characters to be retconed but would any characters lore be retconed if they were made gay?
For example before the Archives I could say that Dwight is gay and it wouldn't contradict any of his lore. I could also say that Dwight drugged his boss and that wouldn't have been against his old lore. Now with the Archives we know that Dwight drugged his boss, even though his original lore didn't mention this.
With most of these characters we don't know much about them so we can't say that asking them gay would retcon their backstory. Of course there are some exceptions like the Nurse but the majority of characters are possibilities at this point.
Of course if they want to make a new LGBT character I would like that as well.
I prefer new characters being and let me quote "Being properly represented" rather than retconning established lore.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346606#Comment_1346606
Exactly, so why are you making such a big deal out of it?
Because it didn't need to be publicly mentioned as if it wasn't a pandering agenda?....I made that clear already.
-
@Rydog said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346571#Comment_1346571
Look, for the record, yes, let's be civil. I agree. And I'm sorry that I maybe attacked you a little bit for that.
It seems like your position hinges on the game's genre. This is silly. We can make an argument of this nature for any genre or any framework used to tell any story in any form of media. Everything is a collection of genres and tropes formed together to form some sort of narrative structure.
At its most base level, Dead by Daylight's universe consists of square blocks interacting with one another's active frames and hitboxes in a gray untextured world. The fiction and the artwork they have wrapped around the game molds it into what it is. This includes character lore and backgrounds, much of which is currently vague -- and actively being explored and fleshed out via the Archives. Is Meg Thomas gay? I dunno, maybe? They're allowed to make that up about their character who they want to provide texture and personality to.
I don't even read much of the game's lore to be honest, but adding this type of humanity to it doesn't create a problem or prevent anyone from enjoying the game, and it helps to turn the characters they've created into a better reflection of the real world, which is what inclusiveness is.
The reason I state the genre is because the genre set the whole universe up....if you look at Halloween/Friday the 13th/A nightmare on Elmstreet there is no "I identify with this victim" because they are there to either die or to survive.
but if we look at games like Skyrim,Sims, and Fable which gives us players the free reign to marry or have sex with anyone then why not? it's developing your character/characters/world than just "Hey our game now has [Insert] community"
this is what happened with "Overwatch" the adding of more background was obvious Tracer being a Lesbian was implied/Hinted thats fine because it adds more because it showed her Girlfriend but when making Soldier 76 a gay man out of nowhere upset the community because it was basically forced and even my gay friend felt it was "forced" and that there was nothing hinting/implying soldier was gay.
I would rather prefer the "Make them how you see" vs "Canon lore"
-
@BigTimeGamer said:
hot take: "this character is _____ now because of we want diversity" is not the same as "this character is _____ because they are _______" its basic writing and character development lol, this is blantant pandering, like WoW doing MoP.
btw idc what people are/identify as, i play videogames for escapism, idk why thats so controversial now
not to mention its a L4D style party game not some Bioware RPG xd
I understand the "People wanna Identify" but this is why fanfic exist...people don't have to accept the canon sexualities whatsoever.
-
@Dead_by_Gadfly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346532#Comment_1346532
Thats simply wrong and you know it. Bhvr made it a big deal when they first said they werent going to bring it up and then went back on it.
+1
@hahadrillgobrrr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346468#Comment_1346468
Games, movies, media in general gives great exposure to problem in modern society, which is accepting people for what they are. Yes, BHVR most likely does this for good PR but that doesn't take away the good it can bring. People have been suffering for not being "normal" and still suffer to this day. Accepting anything else than straight sexuality is still for some reason really big issue to many. Even in these threads the usual response is "I don't care but don't shove it down my throat.". These minorities that suffer need to have their voice heard, that is why there is active movements around the cause. Adding diversity in game is not shoving anything in peoples throats, it literally is adding diversity. People like to feel related to characters they play. Even if it's a horror game and I can understand that. It doesn't take away anything from anyone. Why is it such a big deal? If you support people being themselves and support their sexuality, you wouldn't get all defensive.
I'm not against this and Im not being "Defensive" i am being worried because as you said "it's good PR" if they cared that much (community or not) they would have been doing such a thing beforehand and not now after 3 years.
and as you said "Adding diversity in game is not shoving anything in peoples throat" that can also be said for heterosexuality based arguments, I've seen on Facebook this first hand about "You are shoving your heterosexuality down our throats." when I never seen the original concepts of the lore ever being that detailed.
-
@LALYTHIA said:
If you really don't care about a character's sexuality, then why does it matter how they change the lore to feel more inclusive of different people? By the same logic you're using, it shouldn't.
Every step toward progress or inclusivity can be touted as pandering, that doesn't make it so. Change has to start somewhere. If every effort someone makes to cultivate change is brushed off as shallow and insincere - the alternative is no effort at all. Not really the better option.
If the sexuality of characters isn't important to you, then this shouldn't matter to you.
Also, you have a good idea in terms of them making LGBTQ supportive cosmetics. It would be cool if they offered 'cause' cosmetic packs and donated the proceeds to organizations that support that cause.
it matters because LGBT shouldn't be a marketing concept for having communities buy the game as someone once said "I don't want my sexuality to be a accessory" this is common thing companies do which to many and myself seems distasteful because they didn't have to make a statement they could have made new characters and trying not to retcon/rewrite characters.
-
@Rydog said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346524#Comment_1346524
Your original post consists of the following:
- I get that LGBTQ+ people want representation and inclusiveness in media.
- This isn't the place for it.
- I don't care about a character's gender identity, and I prefer to make up the lore myself.
- Because this is a company making the statement, it is "pandering" for some agenda (...ignoring the context that this is Pride month).
- Character identity is largely unimportant since this is not an RPG.
- LGBT inclusiveness is being "toxic" toward people who don't agree with their views (lol what?), according to uh, Facebook, the bastion of positive representation.
- You know, this is just like, MY OPINION, man.
- OK let's be CIVIL toward people with different opinions.
- Let's not retcon any of the characters whose lore I (arguably) don't care about, since this isn't an RPG.
Come on, you know what you're doing with this thread. I know I am paraphrasing you here, but this is a textbook "Hey man let's not have this here, it's just MY OPINION don't attack me" bad faith argument.
Bad faith argument is trying to "Manipulate" the point of my original post....this is a "Horror-Themed" video game this is not a RPG/Sim based game correct?....so why would we wanna care for such things when the goal is to kill or be killed? and yes be civil/attack others opinions is something I dont want to be for those who want the freedom of speech they want.
-
@Mikeadatrix said:
It's June, y'all, yknow, Pride Month? I'm not surprised they're doing this because they've made it clear in the past that certain characters are a part of the LGBT+ community, all I'm saying is if they pull it off correctly, ie: not retconning previous lore and making it an added attribute and not their sole personality trait, I see no reason to complain.
Agreed on adding new characters which properly represent that character.
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346468#Comment_1346468
That's not what you said, though. You said you didn't care about a character's race or sexual orientation.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346490#Comment_1346490
There are no politics or social agendas here, just more lore.
It is literally what I said and it shouldn't matter about the race/sexuality spectrum when it wasn't really there to begin with until Archives.
@Cancan71 said:
For your "make them as you see" point, I say the reason for this is the Archives. Beforehand most of the characters were blank slates, for example all we know about Meg is that he takes care of her mother and that she is sporty. Now since they are expanding on characters backstories, the old philosophy of "make them as you see" is outdated as they add more to these characters backstories.
Plus it's not like they avoid relationships before this, Nurse is a widower and David is confirmed to have a female ex in the archives. If they start adding more stories about the characters relationships then surely one of the characters would be in a same sex relationship. There are over 40 characters in the game, surely one of them is LGBT when you look at it from a statistics point of view.
Anyways no matter how they do it, as soon as they put in a gay character they are going to be accused of pandering, see the Last of Us 2.
As a side note, people on both sides of the coin are going to screech about it on the internet. That's just how the internet works. Try not to judge a group base on what you see on Twitter.
The last of Us 2 was more or less another issue in my eyes vs how it's being done...if properly done and not retconning existing characters sure I will state I prefer new characters/killers being introduced as more inclusive.
-
@Exerlin said:
I see this exact same argument every time an LGBT character gets announced in a game, and it's getting really old.
People like the things they like, and if you don't care about the lore and characters' backstories, that's completely fine. What isn't fine, however, is shitting on people that care about the lore and might want to see themselves in a character. If you don't care about the lore, than this shouldn't affect you at all.
"see themselves in a character" is what the original concept I stated helped with the community you know the "Keep it to the fans" because this is a "Horror Theme" video game this isn't a Online/Offline RPG/Sim video game.
and I am not shitting on anyone because the lore (original) just explored the basics nothing really about who this or that person's sexuality is/was.
-
@Rydog said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/160495/the-representation-tweet
I guess today is the day for these hand grenade topics. Ah well, Behaviour took a stand, so I feel like I am free to stand up in support of it.
This is exactly the kind of argument that keeps marginalized people marginalized. "I understand everyone in the LGBT community wants some sorta 'Representation' [BUUUUUUUUUUUUT can it not be here]" is the problem in a nutshell. I know I am paraphrasing you here, but I feel that this is what your position amounts to.
Not really no
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346488#Comment_1346488
Disagreeing with you strongly is not toxic.
I dont see disagreeing but thats a agree to disagree.
-
@Dead_by_Gadfly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346471#Comment_1346471
This is simply false. Id like something that stays out of politics and social agendas altogether. Dbd was that
That is the truth.
-
@coppersly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346473#Comment_1346473
Keeping everyone ambiguous was ok. But that severely limits your ability to tell certain types of stories. If they want to explore that part of the lore they should be free to do so if it's interesting and well done. (If it's like the Nurse rework it won't be but we don't talk about her anymore)
Thats what I am talking about with being ambiguous lore-wise because it leaves us (the community) to explore what their sexuality were/are.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346431#Comment_1346431
That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Do you really think Bhvr is going to post an update saying "You know what? It appears some people on the internet are upset about this so even though we just made a big point to say we'll include LGBT characters and we have been celebrating Pride month for the last two weeks, we're gonna now pull a complete 180. Sorry, our bad!"
So you can either get over your discomfort and continue playing the game, or you can play something else.
There is no "discomfort" and I asked nicely for no toxicity and this is about creating something new, I am fine with new characters being included but I don't prefer if they retconned/rewrote specific characters.
-
@Orion said:
If you don't care, then it won't affect you. That's what "not caring" means. It will only affect people who do care.
I care because LGBT shouldn't be a promotional concept for things that don't determine the game itself.
@MongolPSR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346444#Comment_1346444
Why? Video games are art and mediums to tell stories, sure some of them aren't story masterpieces or story focused but every videogame brings across an idea.
The minor backgrounds for the characters were fine enough to be vague and to have fans explore.
-
@coppersly said:
All I can say is it's nice to play as someone you can identify with.
You've got like 6 or more straight dudes of varying backgrounds and activities. Can we can one gay guy? or girl? Would it really be so bad to have just one of them in the game?
Of course it's not going to be the focus of their character or lore but god damn I'm tired of having no characters that are gay because "do we really need it?" Well if you never include it yeah, you kinda do need it at some point man.
Thats why I said the concept of "Let the fans explore" fits the identification concept more than just trying to retcon/add new stuff that has nothing to do with the overall game.....because by this then we should include religion,politics, and all the other stuff that has nothing to do.
@Mellow7 said:
I agree with you 100% when I play a video game I don't go out my way looking for what sexuality a character is, I play a video game to enjoy it. I could honestly care less if Nea was lesbian and Dwight is gay. I'm actually fine with them going into depth of their orientation so long as they don't push this agenda in game such as Tome lore etc.
Understandable.
-
@MongolPSR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346424#Comment_1346424
@Flyguy115 How do you think LGBTQ+ people feel with literally any romance thread in any entertainment medium. Is that not also shoving it down our throat?
Um....Movies/TV series all have had alot of LGBTQ+ representation both main/minor character and where Video games shouldn't be a focus for such things.
-
@Yamaoka said:
Why exactly do people care about the sexuality of fictional game characters?
I honestly don't know...I can understand if the game is bringing in alot of RPG/Sims like vibes but if its Horror/Killer themed why does the sexuality even matter?
-
@Flyguy115 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/160495/the-representation-tweet
I somewhat agree with you , I could care less what sexual preference a character has just please dont shove it down my throat .
Agreed and this is not the way it should have gone because I preferred the "Make it your own story" to their sexuality.
@brokedownpalace said:
All I can really say is you're going to have to get over it 🤷
Cool opinion.
-
Not bad whatsoever.
-
@fcc2014 said:
Season 1 and 2 were fine. The characters were likable so you may not want Audrey, Noah or Brooke to get killed. Season 3 was garbage. I wanted everyone to die. Slasher Season 3 wasn't bad. The Killer reminded me of Legion except he did actually killer people well except for that first guy it was stabby stabby then hit by a car.
Ooof
-
My account says it all.