Rydog
Rydog
About
- Username
- Rydog
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,015
- Last Active
Comments
-
@johnmwarner said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347354#Comment_1347354
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347346#Comment_1347346
Getting the mask was great, but now there’s no real hope of getting a full chapter out of it. if they got the actual scream license they couldn’t do a second scream chapter
The trailer for my fantasy licensed content fever dream goes something like this:
- Bill and Ash are cautiously sneaking through some brush, trying not to attract attention.
- They hear a giant roar and they turn around, to see, barreling at them:
- New Killer: THE BOOMER.
- They take off running, getting separated in the forest. The camera follows Ash, looking behind him as he flees. He runs into someone and tumbles to the ground. He looks up to see:
- New Killer: THE DEADITE (AKA Evil Ash).
- Ash scrambles away, with the Deadite in pursuit. He runs into Bill again, and they continue to flee as a chainsaw is heard revving up in the distance.
- Out of the woods, accompanied by a piercing scream, comes:
- New Survivor: SALLY HARDESTY.
- The three survivors flee toward a house in the distance, with the two killers right behind them.
- As they are cornered on the bottom floor of the house, the two killers closing in, a (suspiciously pallet-esque) bookshelf tumbles from the top floor and knocks them out cold. The three survivors look up to see, triumphantly standing over them:
- New Survivor: SIDNEY PRESCOTT.
- The four hear the sound of the chainsaw coming closer, and walk out of the house as a group, to see, running toward them:
- Killer Remake: THE CANNIBAL v2.0.
Call it the Summer Terror Spectacular or something -- a la carte pages/chapter/whatever to fill in the gaps for survivor-less licensed killers and vice versa.
Alright, that's enough utter nonsense from me for now. But I can dream. 🤣
-
@MadArtillery said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346965#Comment_1346965
Oh God please don't use that word. This whole "only people with the lived experience can have an opinion" thing is just some weirdly popularized junk that has infected the world lately. Your allowed your own opinion just am I am. I just feel far too many people are putting too much effort into "helping" to the point it's actually causing damage. I can atleast say for myself just being treated as a person not a person of x group is all I ask for.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346924#Comment_1346924
I wouldn't know for Quebec on the whole in particular as it's kind of the strange offshoot of Canada having visited Pride Street/Gay Village during pride month in Montreal I can safely say yes. It's certainly got it's roots in the one place I've been in Quebec. It's not exactly a distant land and the internet rather diffuses things all over quite effectively.
Understood.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347437#Comment_1347437
Again, in my opinion, it feels like Soldier being gay was tacked on as an afterthought to his character for the sake of being gay. Had this been there in the beginning of the game, it wouldn't feel like that to me.
Like @Orion said up above, why do you assume he wasn't gay? The point I'm trying to get across is that it's still the same character. The timing of this revelation doesn't change it at all. I don't understand why this is a hill worth defending, or why you needed an advance heads-up that a character is gay when the subject was never broached one way or another (until it was).
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347431#Comment_1347431
IMO that would make it, to me, look like it was designed from that start. To me it feels more like a shoe-horn than a specific character design they went with from the start (if it was, I'm sorry, this is just in my opinion).
I don't understand why that is important, or what it would change or accomplish. What problem would this solve, if Soldier 76 were literally 100% the same in every way, aside from what you are describing here?
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347408#Comment_1347408
I mean, that's fine. I, personally, thought it more like it was shoe-horned in instead of it having been thought of from the start.
Can I please see the rainbow gun though? Just once?
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347405#Comment_1347405
Honestly I'm not exactly into Overwatch, but I think that him being gay was shown through a video at Blizzcon? Instead of having that video shown when it was, well after the game and his release, have that have just been part of the video explaining his backstory. It doesn't even have to be so super obvious in your face, change the design, bright pink magical unicorn, just something along the lines of showing Soldier giving his bf a peck on the cheeck, or even a hug. That, imo, would've been better (but Orion thought that the way they handled it was better, so all props to them).
I don't understand how what you are describing would change anything.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347380#Comment_1347380
I'm sorry, I should have worded myself better. It's 3am right now lol.
If you're going to have a character be LGBTQ+, the best way to do it is to have that in mind from the start, and have it written into their character from the start. Be it explicit or implicit, it's part of them and so should be there. Otherwise it looks like you're just shoehorning in LGBTQ+ for the sake of it, and not having a fully-fledged character that was designed from the start. Must they be flamboyant, don bright pink, scream "YASS QUEEN" every three seconds and shoot people with rainbows? No, but having something is nice, so it makes people feel like they were always meant to be included and not something done for PR.
I agree he wasn't "made gay"- it's biological. That doesn't mean something from the start wouldn't have been nice, so that everyone would've been included from the get-go.
For the record, I have nothing against Soldier being gay.
Not that this is an Overwatch forum, but what would have been materially different about Soldier 76's design or character portrayal if this had been specified from the start?
-
Scream is not a license that DBD currently has. And if it was, I would imagine they would want Sidney Prescott to be a full survivor, not a skin.
-
-
@Onyx_Blue said:
@Rydog this is an idea to help with an issue that begrudges a lot of players. I struggle to see how it isn't a QOL change, enlighten me?
@APoipleTurtle still gotta contend with the crazy placements on screen. But what would you have Tier2 do to skill-checks instead/differently, since the reverse function has been extended out to base-gameplay in this scenario?
QoL isn't a mechanical balance change, it's a usability improvement, which is why it is called "quality of life."
A QoL change would be, like, if you could save multiple character builds, or if there were a reticule for ranged attacks, or colorblind options, or something of that nature which helps the game's playability or accessibility. A lot of people seem to think "QoL" just means "anything short of a major change." That's not what it means.
-
@dhealy646 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347137#Comment_1347137
Bold of you to assume I'm not a helicopter
Helicopters GET OUT.
-
@dhealy646 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347108#Comment_1347108
Once again it's not about the big gay it's about the blatant pandering and irrelevancy of it. It's needless pc bs being forced on us like everything these days. No one cares if a character is gay or identifies as a helicopter. Also funny you mention leprechauns because I'm Irish and I see one every day
Gay people care.
Also, helicopter people too, probably, if that were a thing.
-
@Leachy_Jr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/160372/moris-really-suck
Unfortunately moris kinda need to stay in the game while second chance perks and SWF dominate every killer.
I'll agree that a mori against a bunch of solos is unbalanced, but against a SWF they're fine. Even ebonys.
Read the whole post. I lay out a case about this singular mechanic having a way more specifically degenerate impact than any perk or item possibly can. If you're going to reply, at least consider what I said as part of your reply.
-
-
@dhealy646 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347069#Comment_1347069
They didn't shove them down our throats. The only mention of any relationship in this game is joey and Julie. Now we will have nothing but all these lgbct characters all over the place just ruining the immersion. I know tons of people and 1 gay person. It's extremely rare so why should every new character have some quirk about them and why does it even matter. This is a game about slaughtering people in an endless cycle not some woke game with deep political messages
LGBT people are not leprechauns. I'm sure it differs by area, but I can tell you here in California, I've worked alongside gay, bi, and trans people in office jobs.
Also, imagine being like "my immersion is now completely broken, in this game about an invisible Predator bellboy who runs around chasing a girl who likes Fast & the Furious movies and a guy who breathes heavier than an aircraft carrier, because this line of background text said that Meg kisses girls."
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1347067#Comment_1347067
Science isn't political, even if certain parties would like it to be.
Cue some "hurrrr hurrrr but what about POLITICAL SCIENCE HUH?" blockhead.
-
A similar idea popped up earlier today on the forum. I think it's a bad idea, because people would just wind up arguing endlessly about which bucket each perk should be placed into.
Also, divvying them up explicitly according to strength would make balancing an incredible inconvenience, and character builds would constantly be getting screwed up.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346984#Comment_1346984
I mean, I have never heard the argument that someone got morid because they were playing as a black Character (well, except for Blendettes, but thats not because of the Skin Color).
So I highly doubt that players will start to bring Moris, just because someone is playing a Survivor who is gay.
I have absolutely had people tell me they mori'd me because of Claudette's skin color. It's not rampant or anything, but I have seen it happen.
-
@BlazeNightash said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346187#Comment_1346187
moris are already getting nerf but with keys when it happens so just shut up about it you entitled surv main and wait
1) They are? Where are you seeing this?
2) The fact that you are calling me a survivor main tells me you didn't even read my original post.
-
Can I just say I am super-glad to see another thread pop up instead of a reply to the two existing ones on the front page? Man, I was almost worried there for a second.
-
@Onyx_Blue said:
@gungle but beginners struggle with every aspect of the game. I don't think catering to noobs is healthy when considering changes to refresh and improve gameplay for the playerbase.
If I worked at Behaviour, stemming DBD's out-of-control churn would be way more urgent to me than placating its entrenched player base.
-
This is not a QoL change.
-
@elvangulley said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346139#Comment_1346139
Survivors dont want strong killers strong killer perks or strong addons. They dont want killers to killers to play optimally either. They just want bots that play by their rigged rulebook so just remove killers and replace them with real bots or just remove killers so they can have their gen simulator easy escape they want so bad.
I covered this kind of reaction in my OP.
-
@MadArtillery said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346857#Comment_1346857
Honestly I hate pride month. Having an entire month dedicated to how different you are kinda sucks. Having companies spontaneously declare characters gay on pride month for publicity is just plain irritating. Makes it blatant that it's just corporate.
Well, I apologize for anything I've said here that comes across as "straightsplaining," as it were. Obviously there are a whole range of opinions here, but I suppose it sucks to have the feeling that your identity is being treated as a prop.
-
@BlazeNightash said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346480#Comment_1346480
im really not, you can't come up with anything that would insanely game breaking, most of the current meta perks would completely fall out because you wouldn't be able to run them together, and there isn't alot of perks that combo into insane degrees. The fact you just rather spit your opinion without anyback up shows it all
It's not useful for either of us to devote a bunch of time to a granular argument over a hypothetical system that doesn't exist.
-
Lemme tell you about Friday the 13th, since you're asking. 🤣
I started playing Friday the 13th when it launched back in May 2017. Cuz hey, I love that franchise! The idea sounded pretty neat to me. I also purchased Dead by Daylight around the same time, out of curiosity (but I didn't really get into it much until about a year and a half later, after I finally walked away from Friday the 13th).
Friday the 13th was opaque. Like, OPAQUE AS HELL. Entire game mechanics were vague, more vague than anything we currently deal with in DBD. Oh, "considerably improves" such and such? That at least gives you some actionable information about what the perk does. But what about Friday the 13th? What does, I dunno, the Stealth stat do, just to pick out one specific thing? Well, if you asked people on Reddit or the forums, they would tell you that it let you hide from Jason in cabins, or made you undetectable by his aura-reading, or impacted your fear accrual. So I ran a bunch of tests to see what it actually did, and it turned out that it affected the "noise pings" that Jason sees when you run. Literally nothing else was impacted by this stat, not one thing. And the numbers on Stealth and other stats (rated 1-10) were radically disproportionate, and the numbers in some cases meant almost nothing (Stealth levels 6-8, for instance, were effectively identical).
I dug into the weeds with all of the counselor stats. Then with Jason's different powers and skills. Then with weapon stats. Then with item locations and map population mechanics (actually this was one of the first things I hashed out). I reverse-engineered almost everything in the game, because the developers didn't want to define anything beyond vague descriptions.
I made a bunch of exhaustive Steam guides (which you can see here, although I presume they are outdated at this point).
I worked with a team of really good players, including a guy named Pappus (who was super-committed to educating other players on high-level play), to essentially hash out the "meta" for Friday the 13th, as it were. We figured out the best perks to run, how many hits you could take from a huge number of actions, what the best weapons were for demasking or interrupting Jason, how Jason's teleport grid worked, how Jason interacted with objects like cars and water, how many of each item spawned per map, and how many different unique variations there were of each map (including how to immediately intuit which variation you were on, since the maps were static).
Then I got sick of everything surrounding the game. Its sycophantic forum community fervently shouted down serious discussion of strategic play. Its developers effectively abandoned it for months on end; I feel that they used the at-the-time-pending franchise rights lawsuit as convenient cover to avoid devoting even basic bug-fixing resources to it while they shifted gears to work on a different game (Friday the 13th was still rife with awful game-destroying exploits when I left). And the publisher continued to release it on console platforms even in its half-baked state, and got their big payday. They completely squandered a slam-dunk franchise, and the one serious competitor DBD has ever had.
But I wanted something to scratch that itch and, uh, here I am and here I've been. Props to Behaviour for being very diligent about supporting their game.
-
@Bovinity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346812#Comment_1346812
What decision?
Like I said, just doing it. Not having legal draft up the most corporate-sounding statement ever and putting it on social media to announce, "Hey, now that it's June, we thought we'd let you know what a good company we are!!"
It's why members of the gay community are often the first to call out companies for simply "Rainbow-Washing" during the month of June rather than actually being supportive.
And yes, I'm sure every individual at BHVR is a fine person. But companies usually end up being less than the sum of it's parts when it comes to human issues.
Sure, I'd think the pessimistic view is that Pride Month is an opportunistic time to do something like this. But doesn't Pride Month exist to call attention to the impact that LGBT people have had? There's a positive connotation to have a company saying "hey, we hear you." It may not be ideal, but am I wrong in thinking that this kind of progress is a net positive?
-
@Bovinity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346784#Comment_1346784
Because it's just cynical marketing and pandering.
They don't actually care, but they want credit for caring. That's why tome fragments about Dave and his boyfriend didn't just appear to fit into the character, but rather BHVR took the opportunity to have legal draft up the most corporate sounding "We like inclusion now that it's June, guys." statement ever.
Don't get me wrong, if some people are made happy by it, then that's great. But do not look to Corporate America for your heroes and role models and representation. There are plenty real, genuine, heroes out there taking real action. If you want people to look up to, look no further than them. Not some hand-crafted, sanitized, token fictional character shoved into a game for Woke Cred.
I assure you that I have a very dim view when it comes to corporate responsibility in a broad sense. But what decision could they make, which you think would check all the boxes to convince everyone that they actually care, instead of "pandering" as you put it?
Companies are made up of individuals, and I 100% believe that many of the people who work at Behaviour are supportive of this on a personal, human level.
-
@Rivyn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346724#Comment_1346724
I 'think' it's because of the bad rep small parts of the LGBT community have developed. Namely, the people that make their entire life revolve around their sexuality. As if being of a certain sexuality is ALL their life is about, and everybody should be the same.
Nothing against anybodies sexuality. Who you're attracted too is your business, but what hole you stick something into shouldn't be somebodies entire persona. Thus, when tweets like this pop out, it makes others worried that any characters created with a certain sexuality will be their entire backstory.
Not to say there aren't people that are homophobic, or resistant to change. I'm sure there are. Just my two cents.
But from a game play perspective it won't matter. Unless you get the toxic player that claims you moried them because they're gay.
I somehow doubt that, say, David's backstory will become "One night David was at a gay bar doing gay things with other gay people and then he left and a rainbow-colored fog swept him down a very gay road to a fabulous campfire where a gay cosmic entity transported him into a gay realm where a gay killer was trying to pierce him with a gay hook." No, this is not going to happen. This is not something anyone needs to worry about (and even if it did happen this way, um, cool?).
If I had to speculate on the actual outcome of this, it would be something like "...and then Claudette's girlfriend was worried sick, because she never returned" in a lore entry somewhere.
I said this earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating, re: "single-issue personalities."
The curse of marginalized groups is that their marginalized status has to be called out in order to shine a light on the problem that exists, to acknowledge the thing that they struggle with. You aren't going to see a character bio that calls out a character's proud straight-ness because that's the "default" and is -- relatively speaking -- unremarkable. It would be amazing to live in a world where people of all colors and orientations were treated with the same social fairness and respect, and for all of this to be -- relatively speaking -- unremarkable in terms of the factors that make up our individual human identities. But that isn't the case, and you can't call attention to it without calling attention to it.
-
@Bovinity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346761#Comment_1346761
Guy over on page 3 mentioned something to the effect of how it'll be nice to have a gay survivor when they choose to play survivor.
Some people are very much prone to identifying with characters, personalities, figures, and so on. Other people aren't. No one in DbD "represents" me, regardless of color, gender, orientation, etc.
Besides, it's a pretty trivial thought process to follow. Changes like this are only made this explicitly because companies know some people look to fictional characters for representation. It's the point I was making in the first post that you dismissed.
If a company knows that some people want this, and they take steps to fulfill this wish, why is that a bad thing?
At best, a company takes steps to make its audience happy. I feel like you are trying to put this at odds with fiscal pursuits, but sometimes these two things can exist harmoniously.
-
@Ghostwithaface said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346667#Comment_1346667
Marvel comics turned Iceman gay. A character who has a history of being straight, dating countless women and being in relationships with one. Than suddenly out of the blue, marvel turns him gay for reasons. Which throws past history of the character into the trash. Which even ignoring that. The character could still possibly be good with this change but nope. They turn him into the worst gay stereotype you can think of. Making him come off more like a pure jerk who only cares about himself. The new current iceman has gotten upset at a love interest, for not wanting to put being in danger all the time, due to super villains. Something that sounds very reasonable but no, the current iceman doesn't understand that and comes off like a jerk. Has created ice status of himself, just to waste his parents time by making him think he is just waiting outside the fast food place they were visiting and before that, yell at them for trying to help out someone else while in public. Has destroy the property of others for no other reason, than just to be a jerk. That and Ice-man endlessly reminds you he is gay. Which would be akin to a character saying i'm straight over and over again. That or badly used flash backs that remind you three times in a row of information you already knew, like what the naruto anime does, leading it being annoying, due to just being told the same thing in a short period of time and treating you like a moron who can't remember anything if not told to you over and over again. Yes yes i understand they are x sexually. Lets get on with the story already. So in the case of marvel Iceman. Not only did they change the character's sexually for no real reason. They also turn a character that would care for the ones who loved, into a self center jerk, who only really cares about himself. That and endless issues with simple bad writing. Could they have made this change work and have it possibly made logic sense? Yes that is possibly but with the way they did it. It come off as force, lazy and poorly written. Along with giving the middle finger to people who have been following this character and his adventures for years, possibly generations now by throwing out past cannon and history for no real reason. While in return all one is given, is poor writing and poorly written stories. With the whole thing coming off as force, since they so rapidly changed a character for seeming no logical reason.
I have not followed X-Men for a very very long time, so I cannot speak to this, other than to acknowledge that I have heard, in passing, that this happened at some point. There are, certainly as with anything, unwieldy ways to handle the subject matter.
Behaviour's current stance and implied direction is not one of them.
-
@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.
You can't retcon something that wasn't established in the first place, though.
-
@MichaelAMyers said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346667#Comment_1346667
- 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
Different people take different things away from media, so you should not presume to speak for everyone. A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2 -- the first sequel to one of the most iconic and influential slasher films ever made, and an indelible inspiration for Dead by Daylight -- is one of the most celebrated gay horror films of all time, to the extent that a feature-length documentary exists on this one subject.
Defining characters for which "there was no definition" is the opposite of being "forced." Like, you are literally making an example of a character who was a clean slate, who the creators made a creative decision for -- perhaps inspired by a piece of background material as you point out. This is how creative development works. How else do you expect it to work?
-
@MongolPSR said:
So this will be my final post for this thread because to be honest this turned into something that makes me genuinely uncomfortable. I didn't realize me expressing happiness for a decision and talking about how I'm happy that a company will include representation when for a majority my life media has been used to treat LGBTQ+ people as villains or mentally ill people along side the world doing the same in both nonviolent and violent ways would anger so many people. My bad, in the future I'll choose to not talk. Didn't mean to make anyone uncomfortable.
Don't choose not to talk, it's important to show support. There's never going to be a scenario where people DON'T come out to exhaustively disagree, but you shouldn't be taking that as a sign that you've done something wrong. Props to you.
-
@SpaceCoconut said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346303#Comment_1346303
Which is also why giving them a sexuality doesn't really matter imo. By leaving it out, players can choose the sexuality of their character on their own.
But as a person with a strong sense of self, I don't need representation in a video game although I know how nice it would feel to have a Mexican Killer in the game.
As you imply in your last sentence, it boils down to "It makes me happy to see people in the things I like, who look like and otherwise reflect me." I'm a white dude, so I don't have to think hard about this, it has never occurred to me. I am validated by default. But it matters a lot to many people (even in some dumb video game about guys with chainsaws chasing the Stranger Things kids through a haunted saloon), as media is a reflection of society.
-
@MichaelAMyers said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346604#Comment_1346604
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"
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.
-
@Dolls said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346303#Comment_1346303
I just personally...dont like inclusiveness if its just a gimmick. It feels so cheap to me. And can even feel falsely inclusive. Like they REALLY dont care as a creator.
Dev rolls 20 sided die
D8
*checks list*
"Kate's Queer" well..on to other things ...
Maybe its just my way of seeing things...maybe im not even explaining very well....
These are characters in a fictional world. Everything about them is made up. Every gay fictional character in existence was made by someone who said "Hey, I think maybe this character should be gay" at some point, and then made them gay. This is how fiction works -- it is created by someone, and characters have attributes and personalities that the creator applies to them.
-
@MichaelAMyers said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346562#Comment_1346562
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.
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.
-
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.
-
@MichaelAMyers said:
Listen....I understand everyone in the LGBT community wants some sorta "Representation" and "Inclusive" in media but this is not the way to do it....
I don't care for a characters race/sexuality whatsoever because it has nothing to do with the gameplay, when I play a video game I play it for the game not just the character.
Listen I support the LGBT Community but this is pandering this also feels like a "Promotional" agenda and for what? the original "Make them how you see" was the best way because it didn't matter canon or not about how fanfic and shipping's were.
This isn't a "RPG" like Fable or Sims this is a Horror themed video game where survival are the goal/motives and not about their "Sexuality"
Now that I am reading from Facebook/Twitter...the LGBT is being toxic toward those who don't agree with their views (opinions) which is why I think leaving them to the "Fans" was the best idea that or allowing "LGBT" Cosmetics would have benefited perfectly for the community but retconning or adding new lore just to pander doesnt sit or feel right to me and others who are LGBT or are supporting the LGBT.
this is just my two cents how does everyone else feel?
Note: Let's be civil and not toxic and attack others known Opinions.
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.
-
@BlazeNightash said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346448#Comment_1346448
alright give me a combo of perks that wouldn't fall under a same catagory that would be totally busted as a meta
The fact that we are arguing in these terms about a proposed perk categorization system is evidence in support of everything I have been saying in this thread.
I don't want to argue about what perk would fit where in what imagined system, and what would be meta and why. You're missing the forest for the trees here.
-
@MongolPSR said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346435#Comment_1346435
@Rydog lets be honest this topic was off topic almost immediately. The thread got hijacked. Kind of just want to delete the thread and not bother anymore.
This topic is a bit of a hand grenade, and this forum about a video game where a woman with stomach flu hits ice cream vendors and military veterans with her lamp is definitely not the best place for a nuanced discussion about social responsibility and inclusiveness.
-
@BlazeNightash said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346342#Comment_1346342
yes people won't be happy because they can't combo a list of bullshit perks together anymore, Even though it would really balance the game out alot more, Just because the people are mad doesn't make them right
It would just skew the balance in some other unforeseeable way. We would wind up in the same place with some rearranged deck chairs.
-
@Quol said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346325#Comment_1346325
Not sure what your assuming but I would really enjoy the devs telling us which survivors have what political views. Let's be inclusive now.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You know perfectly well that this is a bad faith whataboutism argument that you are making.
-
@BlazeNightash said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346231#Comment_1346231
bond? information easy theres alot of surv info perks object alert kindred, Adren exhaustion perks simple, meaning you can't run both deadhard and adren gotta pick what ya want, DS 2nd chance perk along with unbreakable BT and a few others. Sure can ######### about it but thats what players always do this would bring alot more balance to the game and for sure kill the current meta and actually bring light to other perks and other builds rather than this is the best build you can go because this this and this
Right, my point is that this kind of debate would swallow any good intentions whole, in such a system. No one would be happy with broad categories or all of the bucketing of specific perks.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346231#Comment_1346231
I'd say have it something like mobile for categories- they can fit into multiple categories, and then you're allowed say 2 perks from each category. For example, the available survivor categories are Navigation, Strategy, Perception, Support, Safeguard, Adaption, and Concealment. Perks like Iron Will would go into Adaption and Concealment, and Dead Hard fits into Navigation and Adaptation. We're Gonna Live Forever is in Support only, and Premonition is only in Perception. So you could run a build of Dead Hard, Iron Will, We're Gonna Live Forever, and Premonition, however using Urban Evasion, Fixated, Iron Will, and Deliverance wouldn't work since 3 out of the 4 perks are in Concealment.
I'm not saying I agree, but this could be a way for them to do it.
I mean, yeah, there are any number of ways it could be divvied up. My point is that nothing would go over well with everyone.
-
@Madjura said:
Context: https://twitter.com/DeadByBHVR/status/1271526607828779009
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346237#Comment_1346237
This is definitely going to happen though.
This is a reductive way of looking at it.
People see characters in various pieces of media who are non-hetero, and they go "Wow, that non-hetero character's non-heteroness seems to be their singular character trait! Man, I wish they would stop pushing this NON-HETERO AGENDA on us!"
The curse of marginalized groups is that their marginalized status has to be called out in order to shine a light on the problem that exists, to acknowledge the thing that they struggle with. You aren't going to see a character bio that calls out a character's proud straight-ness because that's the "default" and is -- relatively speaking -- unremarkable. It would be amazing to live in a world where people of all colors and orientations were treated with the same social fairness and respect, and for all of this to be -- relatively speaking -- unremarkable in terms of the factors that make up our individual human identities.
But that isn't the case, and you can't call attention to it without calling attention to it. This is the crux of what is unfolding in the world right now.
-
@JustCats said:
@Rydog Right, and the symptom of rampant or common face-camping should be an indication that things are not okay with the killer's experience of the intended gameplay loop. Punish the symptom and you'll have a bunch of players who can't even settle for that and they'll just quit.
The positive out-of-match rewards are never going to be enough to make someone suffer through a miserable gameplay experience, as they're meaningless if you don't enjoy the game. If killers (in, we're assuming, big enough numbers to be a problem) are frustrated enough to resort to face-camping to get something out of a match the problem isn't face-camping it's the frustration that leads to it.
I agree with everything you are saying, including the reality that currency and rank rewards are an uphill battle. Anecdotally based on my experiences in this forum, I think there are a lot of people who are terminally handcuffed to this game despite not enjoying the basic rules of play, and I don't know why that is. But does that say more about the player, or the game?
There are specific things I do not like about Dead by Daylight (as everyone here well knows lol), but if I were not enjoying it to the degree that it seems a lot of people are not enjoying it, I would just stop playing and find something else. I don't enjoy being single-mindedly tunneled, or face camped, or mori'd out in the first two minutes, or playing killers who should not reasonably be as weak as they are, or the Sisyphean perk grind, etc. etc. etc. But the basic gameplay loop -- survivors evading killers, and killers hunting down survivors, and the asymmetrical objectives that they are both after -- is fun to me. I like the tag, and the hide-and-seek, and the light Metal Gear, and the mindgaming that can happen. I enjoy the basic gist of the game. It seems like someone who resorts to face camping... does not. I wish players like that would just leave.
-
I would like to assert that my topic endeavors to be the more constructive one, certainly in terms of the title. But the fact that these kinds of topics pop up with alarming regularity is indicative of a problem.
-
@Ghostwithaface said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346199#Comment_1346199
Thrilling tremors comes to mind. Like how one would label that? Since yes it does act like corrupt in terms of blocking off gens, yet it often used for information, to know where to go next after hooking a survivor. Due to becoming aware of which gens are being worked on and which gens are not being worked on. So would it fall under gen stopping or tracking?
Yeah, exactly. Like let's say (for the sake of argument) that they bucket perks into four categories per side, one to coincide with each emblem. So for survivor you have: Objectives, Survival, Altruism, and Boldness. And for killer you have: Deviousness, Sacrifice, Brutality, and Hunting.
How would you categorize, say, Bond? Or Adrenaline? Or Decisive Strike? No matter how you did it, people would go IT BELONGS IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY! And look at how I divvied up the categories, too -- people would argue that's not the best way to do it, no matter what kinds of categories Behaviour settled on. It would just result in a system that there are endless arguments about. And if you limited perk selection based on category (like no more than 2 perks of a given category or whatever), people would complain about the limitations.
-
@Respectfulnancymain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1346206#Comment_1346206
Ohh i misread the post damm
Heh no worries. Sorry for my snark up above. 😀