TAG
TAG
About
- Username
- TAG
- Joined
- Visits
- 9,205
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Laeyon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2930000#Comment_2930000
Lmao this is the first time in my life im hearing this.
BHVR never posted this on their instagram or other social media platform, like they did with david :)
Sounds to me like you don't have much interest in the lore, then. Which is fine, but then you don't really get to complain about this, then. :P
-
"(note that I am not necessarily accusing you of being one of those people)"
-
@Valik said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2929237#Comment_2929237
I mean - generally, we really don't care about those people.
Hateful and childish people will always exist in this world - they aren't worth our time or energy.
But I mean, I don't remember insinuating that there was a problem with David being homosexual in my original comment
Unfortunately, some hateful and childish people aren't content simply being ignored. So simply saying "who cares about those people?" is simply ignoring a problem that exists and allowing it to hurt others.
-
I personally believe that a percentage of the people saying "HOW" are using it to cover up "THAT" (note that I am not necessarily accusing you of being one of those people).
-
@Valik said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2929231#Comment_2929231
? Who has a problem with him being gay?
Lots of people. Have you not looked at the forums?
-
@Valik said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2929051#Comment_2929051
I find it worth a chuckle that the same people who are quick to defend the validity of David King's homosexuality in blatant spite of past heterosexual relationships are just as quick to use inferred past heterosexual relationships as some sort of profound statement of sexuality in other character lore.
In truth - it's really the two following things:
1.) Elements of history are not, by merit, current or relevant in totality. There is a great deal of ambiguity in the distance afforded by tomes, which allow characters to enjoy a certain affable disconnect from the current. Broad and sweeping sentiments lack the bite of specifics. Claudette can have lore that she loves plants and finds them amazing, and she uses them to survive. Would she burn down a forest to live, or is she a tree hugger that would rather die than harm a plant? It's ambiguous and understandably unimportant. While there can be some clues and gentle pushes, players are encouraged to take home their own leftovers on the topics.
2.) Moreover the announcement in totality. We should not shun people for their beliefs, but are we going to have a massive pro-religion announcement when the lore comes out that a character is mormon? Instead of insinuating that a character was raised in mormonism and may have been effected by their time in the church - making a very loud and public statement of their current beliefs and adherences to Mormon beliefs. The ambiguity is lost, the translation is lost, the comfort of a past life vs a current one is lost. More importantly, they have set the president that every minute change should be broadcasted on a loud speaker. "EVERYONE! THIS IS OUR FIRST NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN!! WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT!" while it certainly is a positive change, now every single change and addition must be followed with a push and extremely 'careful' foray into that subculture that is to be represented.
Nobody freaked out about Felix having a kid. Behavior wasn't grabbing the megaphone and screaming from the rooftops that the first confirmed hetero parent was in the game or anything - understandably so. And the status of his parenthood did not exclude him from certain interpretations. We've all seen the art - that kid does not dissuade the LGBT+ artists. The Devs never slammed a gavel down and said 'No, this man is a determined father who loves coffee and fell in love with his wife in college. He had to overcome his family instilled biases after his time in church and began to experiment with methe-" you get the idea.
Now, characters cannot be given ambiguity - nor the comfort of silence.
Now, each character's differences must be uncovered and proclaimed loudly.
That's a lot of work.
Hey, no one had a problem with David having a girlfriend. Why have a problem with David being gay?
-
@Valik said:
100% agree.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
If they wanted to leave characters ambiguous and open to interpretation with very little divulged about their personal persuasions, that would have been more than fine.
Nobody really needs to know the romantic interests, religious ideologies, political views, and outspoken opinions of each character. But once that choice is made, now every character has to by hyper deep and refined - which I worry may weigh heavily on the already flustered devs.
It would have been a lot easier to simply say 'We will neither confirm nor deny the sexuality of our characters - have at it!' to the community, but now that they've set the stage - they're going to have to represent everyone and everything in every which way.
The Christian survivor, the Muslim survivor, the Pro-Choice survivor, the Neurodivergant survivor.
Now everyone needs to have representation - now every character needs to have the details of their romance and interpersonal convictions defined and exposed.
If one character's romantic interest in another man is worthy of tweets, confetti, and its own little community parade before it even comes out - are we supposed to do this with every other detail for future character development?
They already said a good while ago that while they initially subscribed to the theory of "we'll leave it up to your interpretation," the fact that they already had multiple characters in a heterosexual relationship was already straying far enough from that theory that they were no longer going to follow it.
So not sure why you seem to think that NOW is when they are dropping the ambiguity.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928996#Comment_2928996
If you want to give some other examples, feel free.
On this topic, I'm completely willing to say that - no - kids of that age lack any concept of sex, and thus any topics of this nature in school are massively inappropriate.
But okay, let's flip the chessboard for a second. What are your reasons for *supporting* the teaching of sex-ed in kindergarten? I've yet to get a straight answer on this one from anyone.
I think I've gotten everything I need to know from you. I think my time is better spent discussing things with better people.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928993#Comment_2928993
Yes.
I agree with it. Completely.
There is absolutely no need for any sort of sex-ed in kindergarten, whatsoever.
I think I understand why you seem to think that things are going peachy keen in the modern West regarding this topic. I suggest you stop digging your grave.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928975#Comment_2928975
No, there isn't.
If it's the bill I'm thinking of (DSG) - it only forbids it in Kindergarten through...it was either second or third grade. Either way, I don't see how that targets homosexuals. Why the hell do kindergartners need to learn about sexual identities?
I didn't say it forbade the teaching of sexual orientation across all grades. I said that it forbade the teaching of sexual orientation in school, which you seem to agree with.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928928#Comment_2928928
Hmm. Okay, let's dig in here a bit. Keep in mind that I'm talking about the LG and B, because the 'T' is a contentious topic and even progressive circles are massively split on even the fundamentals.
- Are the people in power really like that? About the closest I can think of is maybe MTG (who's a complete whackadoo) and maybe Pence and at worst, they simply believe some mildly regressive stuff - I can't think of anything they've actually done.
- Can you name me a single, current piece of legislation that targets homosexuals in a negative way?
- UK government...not sure what you mean. As far as I know, they've said that they think it's better to go at it at a social level rather than a legal level, as far as getting rid of conversion therapy goes - which Labor and co. spun into 'you hate gay people' somehow, despite them coming out strongly against it.
- As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, it's not expressly forbidden by law - but that doesn't mean the sort of aggressive conversion disorder you're likely thinking of is commonplace, and it is forbidden in many places when it comes to minor.
That all said, it's a very complicated topic, because a lot of the laws count any sort of theraputic intervention as conversion therapy, even when it's made at a patient's request.
- "Can you name me a single, current piece of legislation that targets homosexuals in a negative way?"
There is a law recently created in Florida that forbids the teaching of sexual orientation in schools.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928853#Comment_2928853
Yup. This is basically where I've been for the last...maybe decade. It feels like we've moved backwards somehow.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928879#Comment_2928879
It really is though, at least in the modern West.
Or maybe things are changing (which is honestly even worse) - but I remember a golden era back in the late 90s and early 2000s, where it...really wasn't a big deal. I mean, we had two gay chaps in our residence at Uni and they were just other dudes. We were even able to have a bit of fun banter with them.
Perhaps in your personal circle, but absolutely not in the world at large, be it West or otherwise.
-
@AlbinoViera said:
Already said it somewhere else, but I'm just gonna say it again.
I think this whole thing has been a step backwards in my personal opinion. Not because he's gay, but because of the way it's been handled, both by BHVR and by the community. A person/character being gay, is not something special; so why are we treating it as such? Why can't we just act like it's the norm for a character to be gay and move on? Treating others differently because of their race, gender, orientation, et cetera.. Aren't these the things people want to avoid?
Or is it only when the treatment is negative? In that case, should Jane or someone be celebrated and have an announcement for liking the opposite sex then?
In all honesty, good for bhvr and it's nice to see a gay character, but.. I genuinely don't see why they, and by extension we, need to big it up so much. Just let a character be a character, whatever they're into.
Because that isn't how these things are treated outside of the video game space.
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928681#Comment_2928681
No I am aware.
I just don’t blow it out of proportion like others do. Because it is not that detrimental in my matches.
One's mileage may certainly vary. I'd say that proclaiming that it always equates to a third health state is equally as ill-informed as proclaiming that dealing with it is as simple as baiting it out.
-
@Sakurra said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926451#Comment_2926451
Think. I'm not here to answer
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928705#Comment_2928705
You didn't answer my question
And you'll have to forgive me for telling the person who, as per their own admission, doesn't support LGBT
Ooooof, you walked right into that one, @Sakurra .
-
@OldHunterLight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928801#Comment_2928801
The lore right now explains or are you assuming it does? I'm not caught up yet since I came back yesterday for nostalgia issues.
Since I'm not caught up to this rift lore to me this is like "oh he fights" into "I came out this season" like going from season 1 of a show to randomly going into season 10, kinda like not playing metal gear solid and complaining in metal gear solid 4 why is everything nanomachines
Both. It is a very safe assumption that a lore tome called "Devotion" about a character that the devs just announced to be gay is going to delve into that. On top of that, at least one person has allegedly looked into the datamined lore and confirmed the above to be true.
-
@OldHunterLight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928787#Comment_2928787
It isn't really complaining it is more of a I need to know before changes, maybe we will get some lore explaining yeah but seems like bhvr did it out of order from most people's POV.
Imagine something you really like or some character ina TV show or whatever, randomly doing X thing without saying, it would be off.
But yeah I'm hoping for the answers on the lore soon.
But David isn't doing X thing without saying. He's doing it while having it being explained in the lore. This is more equivalent to a tv show announcing that next week is the big episode where X plot point happens.
-
@OldHunterLight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928774#Comment_2928774
At the end of the day, it is a virtual character I would've loved more lore on david at least 1 more chapter so they could explain.
It seems strange to be complaining about a lack of lore when there's brand new lore for the character in question being released right now.
-
@OldHunterLight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928774#Comment_2928774
The problem is that they never showed david having a change, I've never heard of someone who enjoys fighting behind bars not being straight if that makes sense.
Luckily for you, we have a new tome coming out.
And I don't see a reason to believe that the two are mutually exclusive. Fighting behind bars doesn't give any indication of sexual preferences.
-
@OldHunterLight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928757#Comment_2928757
Oh my B I misunderstood your question before, I think maybe adding a subtle hint rather than "I beat people to death or almost death" or "I beat my dad and told him to be grateful" maybe give us a real change of heart of how he sees things rather than "I miss heart to heart talks" that david said
That kinda suggests to me that someone who identifies in that manner can't be seen as rough and tough. I don't think it really makes sense to pigeonhole a character like that.
-
@OldHunterLight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928742#Comment_2928742
At least some lore I guess? I will use apex as an example since this thread is about it, before any new season starts they bring a new event for X character and force you to use X character for a bit so you understand their lore, they give you some kinda like comics in game (kinda like the lore in the rift) but they do it BEFORE they announce new stuff not just out of nowhere.
Like maybe if this tome (I have no idea about the lore in this tome since I haven't reached it yet) just maybe if they added some lore then before part 2 comes out then they announce it would've been so much different rather than how they did it.
No, I mean what is missing from David's previously established lore that would make it not seem out of nowhere?
-
Some spikes don't want to have to choose between optimal gameplay and fun gameplay. I think that's a valid concern.
-
@OldHunterLight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928724#Comment_2928724
Oh I may have typed it wrong then, I meant that his lore isn't fleshed out to come out out of nowhere.
Like I do understand that there isn't always a perfect time but how bhvr handled it seemed really bad.
Maybe during this tome they will explain it better.
What would need to have been a part of David's character in order to make it not seem out of nowhere?
-
@OldHunterLight said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928703#Comment_2928703
David's lore is about basically assaulting people hand to hand, some had eyes out of their sockets, had a gf (yes I know a few gay people who had gf before they came out) but his lore gives more of a straight maybe bi because of his only real friend rather than being gay. (From tome 2 iirc)
To me and many it seems like bhvr put a pic of all survivors in a dart board and whoever the dart hit became gay rather than giving real lore explaining.
If you could explain how does david's lore flesh him out as a gay character, please do I wanna know for reals.
Which part of his new lore isn't fleshed out, though? You briefly summarized it, but didn't explain what wasn't fleshed out.
-
@Sakurra said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928712#Comment_2928712
Who is complaining? I'm laughing
I definitely saw you complaining. :P
-
@OldHunterLight said:
First let me say, I support Lgbtq+ it is their life and they can do whatever they want.
I agree, apex has that, like loba,valk, banga all were really fleshed out lgbtq+ characters, gibby as well and hound being non binary, all characters are really well done lore wise and explain it well through seasons like right now between loba and valk (spoiler free).
David doesn't really make sense to me lore wise feels more like forced rather than being real.
Happy that people finally got their lgbtq+ character but I think actually making a really fleshed out character would've been better.
What makes David not a fleshed out character as far as his sexual preference?
-
@Johnny_XMan said:
We all know this, but it’s apparent that many (like some in this very thread) seem to think that the only time it is ever used it WhEN YoU DeAd HaRd fOR DiSTaNCE.
Meanwhile, others like some in this very thread don't seem to be aware that it's best used for distance. :P
-
@UnknownKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928288#Comment_2928288
Excuse me the "fuss" btw its not a fuss just an opinion is about that Ive tried to say it throught the posts but you all saw it as an attack.
You've been running around in circles for two pages trying to defend a position that doesn't make much sense when compared to your lack of speaking up in the past over similar situations. I'd say it qualifies as a fuss.
-
@UnknownKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928266#Comment_2928266
Yeah but the others david may be bisexual or other conditions and with caategorically saying is gay you killed them all. Thats what im saying.
Everyone would be right to say david is gay david is straight or david is trans is devs says Terra World 456 gay David, Terra world 0 david is asexual...
You are making a huge fuss over something that you did not make a fuss over in the past when it could have been equally relevant. You are holding things to a blatant double standard.
-
@UnknownKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928160#Comment_2928160
I think you all should calm down as I said I dont mind they add X lore for whatever character you wish but if you wish so you have to not declare any character as X condition.
If we have later a lore of David that doesnt like men or woman are you gonna burn Behaviour enterprise to embers? Does asexual people doesnt deserve representation?
I don't understand your argument at all. Adding lore is fine, but adding condition X is not? Where is the line that is drawn?
-
@UnknownKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928155#Comment_2928155
Becuz devs cant add lore for a gay felix,straight felix,bisexual felix,agoraphobic felix or whatever felix you wish.
I dont mind if they add lore of a character that says is gay,bisexual or whatever but I mind that you declare a character Gay.
Becuz that mean david is gay and thats it no more posibilities and cant be bisexual david,cant be straight david and cant be other davids so all characters can represent you.
"Becuz devs cant add lore for a gay felix,straight felix,bisexual felix,agoraphobic felix or whatever felix you wish."
Why not? You just said:
"They could perfectly say in a lore piece that Felix got married and had a child but he later marry a man or better he never met that woman and had a child for example."
-
@UnknownKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928142#Comment_2928142
Becuz being in a heterosexual relationship doesnt make you straight.You could be on a straight relationship and you are bisexual.Btw that is lore that can change thats what in my opinion devs are killing by saying X character is Gay
They could perfectly say in a lore piece that Felix got married and had a child but he later marry a man or better he never met that woman and had a child for example.
Thats universes plot
But you didn't complain about there not being alternate realities where they are in a homosexual relationship. Why?
-
@UnknownKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928135#Comment_2928135
Becuz its the first time devs confirm sexuality of a character.
Its not cuz its gay I would say the same if the confirm David is straight becuz doing it so just chain creativity
We know that at least two different characters have been in heterosexual relationships. Why didn't you say anything then?
-
@UnknownKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928106#Comment_2928106
I dont complain of gay david or felix being straight Im just saying that declaring that Y character to be Y conditions is losing much posibilities with lore.
They're asking why you waited until now to bring it up instead of when you learned about all those other instances of heterosexual relationships.
-
@Mdawgu said:
I wonder if people will start using homosexual characters to stalk and harass gay people. Then will behavior backtrack and just delete the content like they unjustly did to bubbas faces?
I don't see Doctor being removed from the game, so no.
-
@Lochnload_exe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2928059#Comment_2928059
No part is being taken away, that is my point. I stated that if they just simply released his tome (in the event that the tome is actually well done) and let people enjoy his development and see the representation naturally, it would've been taken much better because it doesn't appear like a big grab for attention. By making it a large announcement, without letting people actually discover the reasoning or writing that reveals his sexuality, people are already just associating David as the gay character instead of David's actual character and personality. David is MORE than just a gay character, but because of the way BHVR went about it, he is now just seen as the gay character.
Idk, I don't see a reason to believe that anyone who now associates him as just "the gay character" wouldn't have done that anyways regardless of the circumstances or even regardless of who it ended up being.
-
@Lochnload_exe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926935#Comment_2926935
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926962#Comment_2926962
Both of those are correct. I both think it was badly done in the way they went about announcing David, while I am also ok with David being chosen. David can still be his own character and be gay, sexuality has nothing to do with a character, but at the same time because of the way they announced it so big - he is now just going to be associated as the gay guy, which takes away from David's character.
"he is now just going to be associated as the gay guy, which takes away from David's character"
I don't understand this part. Which part of David's character is being taken away?
-
What you're describing doesn't sound to me like David losing his character so much as people choosing to pigeonhole the character for their own reasons.
-
@ThiccBudhha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926339#Comment_2926339
Okay, but what do you achieve by implying he is homophobic, exactly? What does that actually do? He said he isn't, he didn't like being called that as it insulted him, and now we try to gaslight him into, what exactly? You think you are going to trick him into believing it?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the person in question made comments that I believe were taken down.
-
@UnKn0wN45 said:
Or how about dropping RBT altogether
Instead, put hook alternatives around the map, the glass tubs from the movie, or the syringe pit, that require rapid skill checks to escape, and you have to escape yourself, other survivors can't get you out?
Though the flaw in this idea is already obvious: Camping. :(
How does giving Survivors guaranteed self-unhooks help Pig at all?
-
@Tatt3dWon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2925200#Comment_2925200
Well my feng is gay why isn't it in her lore I want it officially put in or I quit.
You're welcome to quit if you wish.
-
@UnKn0wN45 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926172#Comment_2926172
Elaborate :D (if you don't mind ^^)
This is just my opinion, but I think the Pig's base kit is only a few tweaks short of being a decent Killer. She needs her Traps to be a bit more consistent (I personally would make all RBTs take two boxes minimum to open), her ambush needs to be less telegraphed and overly reliant on mindgames (raise the Pig's FOV when crouched, delay the roar, maybe even let the Pig jump a pallet when ambushing), and please let the RBT timera auto-start again when the EGC begins. There are ways to prevent guaranteed deaths during that time without needing to resort to such a heavy-handed nerf.
-
Better ambush, better RBTs, Papa Johns.
-
@Stargazer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926060#Comment_2926060
Again I haven't seen any evidence that this type of change doesn't run parallel to the homophobic idea that being gay is a choice. Whether BHVR made a new character or updated an old as they did, homophobes' would complain. We accept that as a reality we ignore their argument.
In my opinion as an LGBT person, the act of looking at all the characters in the lineup and signaling out one as a best fit to be LGBT years after their creation and implementation is in my opinion parallel to that very abhorrent idea. There are no implicit characteristics of LGBT people outside of sexual orientation. They can be and are anyone that's the point.
I don't necessarily believe that was their intention I think most people are well intentioned, they have terrible execution. After a history wrought with this idea in the LGBT community still to this day even, it's extremely odd that this wasn't thought out more carefully. I couldn't care less if no one else makes that argument. It doesn't make me any less wrong; It doesn't make me more right either it's a non statement. Again, if others are fine with it, that's fine. This is my opinion, and it's not going to change.
Where is the "evidence" that it does run parallel?
-
@Stargazer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926050#Comment_2926050
"whether those decisions be made when the character is first concived or down the line after the character has long been established."
An established and extremely highly debated and criticized topic among many fandoms notwithstanding DBD. It's not even close to something that's considered a widely and easily accepted practice.
I don't know what you mean. Are you referring to the topic of changing/developing established canon?
-
@Stargazer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926025#Comment_2926025
Ideas are intangible including the words real or fictional does nothing to discredit the comparison. Also the fact that one person has pointed this out and other's haven't is another meaningless statement.
Please explain to me how looking at all the characters finding out which character would be the best fit for them being gay(the community manager's own words on how the company picked them) is different to the abhorrent notion that being gay is a choice.
Because fictional characters are 100% constructs of human imagination, decision-making, etc.? Everything about the existance of a fictional character is the result of a decision made by one or more humans, whether those decisions be made when the character is first concived or down the line after the character has long been established. Fictional characters fundamentally cannot exist as anything other than the result of choices being made.
-
@Stargazer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2925127#Comment_2925127
I don't care who you collaborated with. BHVR could have hired every single LGBT person including me to work on this collaboration and still I would be against it.
"New characters don't have lore" That's completely untrue licensed characters don't have lore because BHVR legally can't make stuff up for them. Newer characters have pages of it.
The act of choosing a character to be LGBT, for any good or bad reason, is very parallel to the idea that being gay or LGBT is a choice. When you choose one character over another you're implying either that there are implicit characteristics that are gay/LGBT. Any of the characters could be LGBT even Felix with a wife and kids could be LGBT. Singling David out for whatever reason or whoever you collaborated with again is very parallel to the idea that's it's a choice either that was intended for the character from the onset or it wasn't. I've seen the community manager you collaborated with some group and looked at all the characters and realized David was the best fit. That's choosing someone to be gay. Again it's both odd and concerning how parallel to the idea that being gay is a choice this is.
If you didn't want a paywall for the first LGBT character you could have released them for free. Imagine the better publicity around that. Being inclusive and diverse is so important to us as a company that we will release the first LGBT character in DBD for free. Again I'm LGBT I enjoy representation, what I don't like is the idea, that being that way is a choice. I don't like choosing this character to suddenly reveal his queerness years and years after his introduction. "He could have been gay the whole time" True he could have that's my point that would have been more pioneering and interesting. This is pandering, I'm not for this at all.
You're the first person I've ever seen argue that choosing to make a fictional character LGBT is analogous to the idea that real human beings choose their orientation.
-
@cordonrouge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2925629#Comment_2925629
someone who doesnt want to get sued. i mean, people won in court against genshin impact for nerfing a character.
but realistically, they should just put nasa's computers as recommended specs so that no one is tricked into wasting money into a game that they can't even run properly. that to me is absurd.
Source? I'm not seeing articles saying that they WON a lawsuit.
-
@Peanits said:
Unfortunately, the shrine changed when the update released earlier today. We aren't able to revert to yesterday's shrine since some of the perks are required for the upcoming Tome release, but we have manually put BBQ & Chilli back in the shrine since we know how sought after it is. If you check now, you should see it in place of Lightborn.
The reaction of the person who spent hours upon hours grinding enough shard and waited patiently for Lightborn to appear in the shrine only to see it replaced with BBQ just as they are about to log on to finally buy it:
-
@Kurri said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2923448#Comment_2923448
Do you have reason to believe them beyond them just saying they did?
Nope, because I haven't seen the end result yet.