Wahara
Wahara
About
- Username
- Wahara
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
I grinded out to rank one survivor playing nothing but solo from rank 8 in one evening.
It's not that bad. You can ######### die and still pip.
-
My issue is that survivors will accuse you of camping and tunneling even if you aren't. When I first started this game, camping and tunneling was the only thing I knew how to do to get kills. It's pretty normal for new players to go through that phase, but I still got so much grief for it. "You're rank 15 for a reason, trash #########" etc. etc. Now, at rank one, nothing has changed. You can play exactly how they want for 95% of the game but if you tunnel down the death hook survivor who had the misfortune of popping up, you'll be called boosted and told that you're insecure about your ability to get kills because you tunneled.
The issue with punishing camping and tunneling is because there are going to be situations in which those two strategies are going to be the most effective ways of victory. Punishing them can potentially punish the killer for playing the best hand that he/she has available.
-
@Eight said:
I suicide when I can see no bastard is coming to get me, and I want to give the killer more time to go get the selfish shites.Edit: On a grey rank profile, either noone is coming or they're going to unhook you right in front of the killer. So, I'll die in peace, thanks.
Yeah, this is bullshit and you should feel bad about it.
Don't always assume that the reason people aren't getting you is because they're selfish. We could know the killer is close by, we could be seconds away from completing a generator, etc. It's also hypocritical because the logic you're using is "If I'm going to die, they're going to die" which is beyond selfish.
Ugh. You piss me off.
-
Honestly, it happens pretty often at rank one, too.
-
Something needs to happen. I wouldn't mind if it was something survivors could do if they were in proximity to each other, that would actually be kind of neat, but am unsure how that could even be implemented. It just isn't fair when you consider how much time it takes just to gain enough blood lust (which was nerfed, thanks for that.) to force a survivor to drop one pallet on some of the nastier loops.
-
You don't get excessively large and bouncing breasts until I get assless chaps David.
Hmph.
-
Tbh, even in solo play I think survivors have the edge. I've pulled off some amazing coordination with PUG groups just using gestures.
-
I love survivors that screw each other over, they're the best. If I catch you harvesting nectar and you point and give someone else up, I will reward your treachery with hatch.
-
I don't care about any of those things. They're annoying and they drive me crazy, but it's fair game. I won't camp you out of spite unless you're tea bagging me or taunting me with your flashlight, or being obnoxious by running behind my heels.
-
What upsets me is that accused of being a camper even if it's the right call to make at the time. I never start off camping, rather I try to get as many different hooks as I possibly can. If I've managed to get someone on there second hook and five generators are still up, and ruin hasn't been destroyed yet, why am I wrong for camping and making sure you die? It is the smartest thing to do in that situation, the likelihood of being gen rushed in the time it will take you to die is minimal and your death that early in the game nearly assures my victory.
Further, why, pray tell, is "toxic" constantly being used as a synonym for cheese? Builds that contain perks and add ons that have a lot of power combined with ease of use aren't toxic. Tea bagging is toxic. Holding games hostage is toxic. Trolling with a slugging, knockout leatherface who refuses to put anyone on hooks so he can watch everyone bleed out is toxic.
When you use the word toxic not to describe rude, abusive, or harassing behavior but to describe normal game play options it becomes devoid of any real meaning. Looping is annoying, it isn't toxic. Flashlight stuns are annoying, they aren't toxic. Camping and tunneling can be annoying, but they aren't toxic.
What survivors don't seem to understand is that they can die and still rank up. Killers, 98% of the time, must kill to rank up. They are pressured much more by the game to use tactics that will ensure a kill which may be considered "unsportsman like" than you are as a survivor to use tactics that will ensure your escape.
-
Hag and Trapper.
There would not be any safe place on the map to run to.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@NiceToMeetYou said:
lmao, WHY is hag GOOD? #########? She SUCKS.
Everybody says she has good map control with her traps. However, this is so not true. Survivors can easily stealth past these if they're looking for them and they will be if they're decent, they can be destroyed by flashlights which are probably the most used item in the high ranks and even if they are triggered the survivors get a MASSIVE notification that they have been and this gives them enough time to sprint burst away. Agreed if the survivors suck she can generally get a free hit on them or if she has shackles, but neither are very common. Her traps are also very useful for distracting her: run towards her trapped hex totem during a chase or while somebody is going for a save and the killer will go for the totem 9/10 times.Because the moment a chase starts she can immediately catch up to you when you hit a trap. She can also break loops by placing a trap. The only other killers that can BREAK a loop are Nurse and Clown, with killers like Huntress/Pig/Spirit having ways to beat loops (but not break them). And if she has Mint Rag she can teleport anywhere she wants, which is why its one of the top add-ons in the game, maybe THE top one.
The only way to really do well against the Hag is to have UE, which most survivors run but it only reduces her map pressure slightly. She can still force you to hit a trap by returning to the hook or gen fast enough, and again once she starts the chase you will hit traps.
Precisely. The one other thing that I want to add is that since this is by nature a horror game, the situations in which you may panic and lose focus are considerable. Yes, you can simply avoid traps, however, it is difficult to pay attention to where traps have been laid when you're in the middle of a chase while you also have to simultaneously do things such as periodically look behind you. Also, the situations in which survivors often make a mistake and panic against the hag is when they crouch into a hook save, but run out. Just because you know better doesn't necessarily mean you won't still screw up if you don't remain calm and focused. Which, even the best survivors can't claim they maintain in every single match.
Throw in Make Your Choice into her build, and the chances of her being bullied by SWF become severely reduced.
-
@NiceToMeetYou said:
@Wahara said:
My exact estimates in order of effectiveness once mastered:Nurse
Hillybilly
Hag
Spirit
Myers
Huntress
Doctor
Pig
Clown
Leatherface
Trapper
Wraith
FreddyBroken up specific tiers:
S+ Nurse
S: Billy
A+: Hag, Spirit
A: Myers and Huntress.
B+: Doctor and Pig.
B: Clown
C: Leather face and trapper
C-: Wraith and Freddy
Toss ups:
I had a hard time deciding whether to put hag over spirit, Myers over huntress, and doctor over pig. I chose the hag over the spirit in the end because she has more versatility insofar as her ability to adapt better to the flow of the game. If she's experienced has a decent grasp of the map, she can adjust her trap placement to survivor movement patterns. Her main weakness is that she can usually only defend one side of the map at a time, so she has to herd survivors to where she needs them to be in order to be a real master.
The spirit is great for her ability to have an extremely strong and fast early game advantage. The haunted ground + Ruin combo is fairly nice since it makes survivors more weary to destroy totems. She can almost always take advantage of that full minute and get someone down because of her speed. Where she falls short under the hag, though, is her ability to handle looping. Both killers can be looped, but the hag has more tools at her disposal to deal with it. She can set up traps, she can fake a trap, she has collision add ons, or can simply abandon the chase on a dime when someone else triggers a trap and suspects they might be an easier target.
The spirit only has two options: Out mind game the survivor and spirit fury.
Putting Myers over Huntress was also a hard decision. Ultimately, I chose Myers because he has much more versatility than Huntress. The evil with 3 lunge quickly ends mindgames at unsafe pallets. You also have to pay really close attention to how much power he has left to stalk from your team so you can know when it's safest to engage. The add ons you can combine to give him unlimited tier within 3 while at the same time shortening the duration it takes to get there make him virtually unstoppable since he can usually get there by the time the first generator is complete.
He also has utility even at Evil within 1, especially on maps like Lery's memorial institute. You can get 4k's simply by sneaking around and pulling people off generators. The Huntress, by comparison, can be equally deadly but she's too dependent on hatchets. Even in the hands of a master, the hit-boxes are pretty unreliable. The situations in which she runs out of hatchets and is forced to give up a chase to stock up hold her back.
Moving onto the The Doctor and The Pig. This one was probably the trickiest. Personally, I struggle more against the doctor than other killers because I'm a very stealth based survivor, so I might be a bit biased. Both have the ability to slow down games and the ability to soft counter looping. The doctor has his shock stun and Amanda can crouch ambush at unsafe pallets. The doctor's answer to looping is typically more effective, though. Amanda has to wait until she's chased you to a pallet where the survivor feels forced to play that game because they haven't spotted another pallet or can't make it there in time. Even at that, the speed of the ambush isn't a guarantee you're going to end the mind game quickly.
Her main utility is her zero terror radius crouch. It's excellent for catching survivors off guard or fooling them into thinking that you've left the hook just to sneak right back for the punish. It's also useful in chases if you can tell the survivor isn't looking behind them. Crouch and mislead them into believing you've abandoned the chase but are secretly watching them sprint behind some cover. The Doctor still outclasses her in that regard because he doesn't have to waste as much time, he can simply shock around if he loses or is about to lose the chase. Amanda's reverse bear traps are also very hit and miss. You rely on them to slow down the game or to catch survivors out in the open attempting to remove them, but the survivor may simply take their chances and work on generators. I often do this when I play against the pig because she'll assume I'm going to busy for awhile and not bother.
lmao, WHY is hag GOOD? #########? She SUCKS.
Everybody says she has good map control with her traps. However, this is so not true. Survivors can easily stealth past these if they're looking for them and they will be if they're decent, they can be destroyed by flashlights which are probably the most used item in the high ranks and even if they are triggered the survivors get a MASSIVE notification that they have been and this gives them enough time to sprint burst away. Agreed if the survivors suck she can generally get a free hit on them or if she has shackles, but neither are very common. Her traps are also very useful for distracting her: run towards her trapped hex totem during a chase or while somebody is going for a save and the killer will go for the totem 9/10 times.
In return for all of this the hag is slower, is short as hell making her FOV tiiiiiny and has a smaller terror radius.
The terror radius isn't a problem if your actively looking around, which you will be if your decent.
So yes hag might be good at low ranks, but she just gets bullied to hell in the high ranks. So why is she up there with hillbilly and Nurse!? #########?Admittedly, SWF can screw with the hag pretty hard. The thing is, really decent hags won't place their traps that obviously. Yes, flashlights can destroy them, but you can still screw up and get too close if she's brought in a trap range add on. If she's placed traps in places to end chases, you can't necessarily crouch past them. You would have to keep track of her at all times and that's not exactly easy to do. I can see why people think she's bad, though. I used to main her, so I tend to know how they think and don't have much trouble with her at all, but the teams I play with do.
-
Because if I didn't step in this entire topic would have been nothing but different people trading blows against legend, as well as a complete circle jerk between people convinced that the addition of LGBTQ characters is silly, unnecessary, etc.
When one or two people are attempting to engage multiple people, simultaneously, on a topic that is emotionally provocative, replies will appear with frequency. I hope this answers your question.
Speaking as someone with far less intelligence, I just wanted to let you know that commas are your friend.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention. I have a feeling this point is going to get me in so much damn trouble, but here we go. Technically speaking, sexuality is included in the game. Freddy Krueger is a confirmed child predator with no preference for gender.
While the clown is more ambiguous, it is heavily indicated that sexuality forms an aspect of his character by his add ons, the prized pinky of a red head and the VHS porn tape.
-
@Aari_Piggy66 said:
Wahara said:Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.
You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
Damn @Wahara pulling no punches.
This going to be funNah, I've pretty well lost control over the conversation at this point. Condescension and ridicule only work on people smart enough to realize they're getting curb stomped. You won't get a concession or anything, but it can usually get people who are more aware to at least drop a non point. In Shrimp's case, he just seems to really not get it, and there's not much I can do about that without damaging my own credibility by being forced to repeat myself.
So, a change in tactics. I'll simply have an "Irrelevant posts boat" that I place people into and a "People I am still potentially taking seriously" boat I place people into, and do what I can to make sure the discussion reflects the latter more than the former.
"well im just going to ignore you since ijust noticed you only have a total of 64 posts which says alot"
Ignoring MichaelMyers would make this conversation much healthier. He's reduced himself to the role of cheerleader at this point and regardless of whether you think LGBTQ characters should be included or not, you have to admit that's really unhelpful to the discussion.
-
Let's do crimes together.
-
Okay, you're being a bit obtuse, there is definitely more than few points in that post that you're just repeating but phrasing in a different way. I would call upon the integrity of people in the audience, but nah. Actually, I would ask for Orion's help, since his posts suggest he's smart enough to know better about a lot that's being said in this topic.
At any rate, you're going in the same boat as MichaelMyers: the "posts not worth paying attention to or dignifying with a response" boat. Get cozy.
Edit: Okay. Since I want to be completely fair to shrimp, as far as I can tell, a lot of his points are just re-phrasings of things I've already responded to. If you have followed the conversation and see something specific in his most recent post where you think he might have me, try quoting it and phrasing it differently. It is 3:16 am now and I acknowledge the possibility of missing something.
-
I don't really know how to phrase it better than this. Here's my best shot.
Hey, guys! Did you know we live in a world where women get raped and assaulted on a pretty frequent basis? I know, it's nuts. Who would have thought? (I'm just using the super conservative estimate of 1 in 7 just so I don't trigger people. Sssh.
) Maybe that doesn't seem like a high enough number for you to care, so to put it in perspective, it means that there is almost a 100% probability that several people you know and love have been violated in a heinous way. Unless, of course, you just don't know any women or never come into contact with them.Is it reasonable to assume then, that these 1/7 women who play dead by daylight, may have, say, I don't know, a high likelihood of being put off by a brutalized, near naked woman who's breasts are also cut? Not put off in a "Gosh, this is so scary kind of way." not even in a "Gosh, I am so offended, how DARE they have a character who shows any skin!" kind of way, but put off in a "Gosh, this is tapping into a great deal of emotional pain" sort of way? And if you do agree that is reasonable to assume, wouldn't the denial of a simple request to remedy that problem, such as a more fully clothed skin, make you a giant #########?
That's all.
-
I..never said you were arrogant. I said that I displayed arrogance to you because you accused me of it. You know, the "If they think I'm this, I'll show them this" rationale. Okay? You are right, I don't speak for everyone, but you are mistaken in believing that is what I am doing. When I say that it is easier for straight players to project their sexuality onto their characters, that does not mean I am saying I have a difficult time my projecting my sexuality onto my character. It does not mean that I am saying all LGBTQ folks will struggle doing this. It means exactly what it states, that by comparison, it is more difficult.
If you want to argue (and this where I suspect you are back pedaling) that the fact race or gender is easier to represent is why it was more likely to be put in, then I agree with you. I just don't know where you intend on going with that since that isn't related to the arguments I was putting forward. Your first post was with the full intention of discrediting my comparison by highlighting the differences between race and gender from sexuality in terms of obviousness. Now, you are arguing that you only meant to show that obviousness was the basis for why they were more likely to be included. The comparison is not being used as point to argue what is or what isn't likely, it is being used as an argument to determine what is fair. The aforementioned is also why I do not accept the claim stated in the third parenthetical.
While the fact DBD characters have sexuality that is unconfirmed is not an explicit exclusion, the point is that it still functions as one, given that heterosexuality is the default. Heterosexuals are not really forced to use their imaginations in the same way that LGBTQ folks are. Assuming that all the characters were explicitly confirmed to be heterosexual, your argument that that one could simply use their imagination would still apply. But you wouldn't, because as you previously admitted, that would be unfair. The onus is on you to justify the still remaining unfairness. Why should the fact that heterosexual players have an easier time, generally, relating to their characters than LGBTQ people be the status quo?
You're right, maybe the developers didn't want to. I mean, I didn't create the game. I have no idea what their processes were. That isn't necessarily a good reason not to ask for LGBTQ characters, though. Simply because they don't want something doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea or that efforts of persuasion aren't worth it. Personally, I think survivors are imbalanced at high rank play, but I don't think the developers really want to do anything about it. Does that mean no one should try and convince them otherwise? No. I also don't really know what you mean by "pressure" What exactly do you have in mind? People keep using words throughout this discussion like "forced" in particular, as if those of us who want LGBTQ characters are ready to storm BHVR HQ and hold them at gun point.
As to your hypothetical regarding the ability of a gay character to relate to a straight character, this is about options. It would not be an issue because he could play a gay character if he wants.
-
Those are some dense paragraphs, Shrimp. I'll wait a little bit to actually try dissecting all of that, because the thoughts expressed appear a bit disjointed to me and I'm not sure how I'm going to structure my response without it looking really disorganized.
Though, I will say on the subject of arrogance, you were the one who misrepresented what I said and used it as a basis for accusing me of arrogance, so I showed you what real arrogance looks like. For what it's worth, for you in particular, I will return to base line. Your post appears to contain what seems like back pedaling, but I can genuinely see that you are trying, and see no indication that you're being intentionally obtuse. (Which is what triggers the ever living ######### out of me) I see no reason to punish you for that. The tone is sincere. That's not to guarantee anyone else is safe from me turning the ######### switch back on. I will bring it right back up to ten once I start noticing weasel tactics.
A full response will be given tonight or tomorrow. I'm not sure yet.
-
Yeah, I never really got why there isn't an unranked system for those of us who don't care. I'm not saying there isn't any reasons, but I got noth'n.
-
@ChesterTheMolester said:
Actually im just gonna say this:
If you wanna change her current outfit to fit your standards, then stop playing because it shouldn't change just cause you dont like it.If you want an optional cosmetic for free that is less revealing then i have no problem with that request.
I'll sprinkle a bit of love on this post.
It's not that difficult to be reasonable. :chuffed:
-
Er, my previous post shows pretty clearly that I know when a new point is being made versus when one isn't.
But hey, it seems like you're finally starting to get it. slow clap You made a new point too, just like Shrimp did! And it's actually...not that bad. If you guys can keep this up, I'll be less of a #########. I promise. :chuffed:
To that, I would say you wouldn't necessarily have to confirm sexuality for every single character. Some could be confirmed, some could be unconfirmed. Fan fiction people still get their jollies and so do people like me.
-
No, it doesn't. You're resorting to mis-characterization, now. I did not say that everyone who is LGBT will have a hard time imagining their characters as having their orientation. I said that it is harder for them to do so compared to players who are straight, given that heterosexuality is the assumed default. How would you like that to be spelled out for you more clearly? Would you prefer a pop up book?
Again, and I asked you why whether or not sexuality is easier to display or not is relevant, not just to the question of whether or not sexuality should be confirmed, but to anything.
Oh. Wait a second. Finally! You actually made a new point! One that hasn't been repeated! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm so proud of you. Your point is still bullshit, of course, but I'm proud of you. Good job. The claim, if I understood correctly, is that "Race and gender are easier to display than sexuality, therefore there is less excuse to not include them and that they have priority over sexuality."
The problem is that both of those conclusions don't hold water. You cannot connect the ease of something or the difficulty of something to whether you should do something. Sometimes, the harder thing to do takes priority over the easier thing to do and vice versa. See? Now if you had made this point the first time instead of rudely repeating what had already been addressed several times, you wouldn't have gotten such an attitude. Was that so hard?
And no, you mentioned gender, but the only thing you actually attempted to dispute in detail was the contrast with race. Within the context of a video game, I will argue that sexuality is easier to display than both gender and race. Gender and race both require coding to express. By comparison, a few simple sentences is much easier.
-
chuckle
I didn't think the tags would be necessary considering this thread has a whopping 5 pages already. This topic is where the buzz is. You can assume I'm a coward or maybe...you can assume I made a pretty reasonable guess that you'd be paying attention?
I didn't even have to get my pimp hand ready. Look at that. All that anger with no substance. It's beautiful. No attempt to actually address a point or form a structured argument. Speaking of which, did you know that the attitude you receive directly corresponds to the attitude that you come off with? It's crazy #########, huh?
-
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Wahara said:
Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
You're going to ask me to "show myself out" on a public forum and claim that I'm the one embarrassing myself? And I read the post. It doesn't change much.
Your comparison of gender and race to sexuality holds little ground. If you made all the characters explicitly white men, that directly excludes others. Whereas none of the character's sexualities are confirmed in DBD, therefor no one is excluded. It's just not confirmed. If all the characters were confirmed as heterosexual, you comparison would make more sense. We would have a reason to ask why some of the characters aren't gay. But, since some of the characters could very well be gay, they aren't excluded. The comparison falls flat.
"Why should I have to play pretend?"
Both sides do, because nothing is confirmed.The characters can be either gay or straight.
"It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something."
This is a you issue. A lot of people have no issue imagining some of the characters as gay. You even stated it in your own words. "Assumed." You can assume the characters are gay all you want, just as someone else can assume they're not. No one is right or wrong. Nothing is explicitly confirmed.
"Why is race and gender okay to portray but sexuality isn't?"
No one said it wasn't okay, but race and gender are much easier to show visually without having to include it in a bio. Since the characters have to be visual in this game, it's easy to include people in this way. I personally think it's better that the characters sexuality is left to the audience's imagination. Makes it seem like their ships and fics hold more weight. Again, if you want the character's sexualities to be shown visually, I doubt it'll be received well. At the end, it's the dev's choice.There are some things I can agree with. I think saying it's not necessary isn't a good argument. Because at the end of the day, no lore in this game is necessary. But that only makes this post all the more ridiculous, because it's essentially an argument over things that don't matter.
I can also agree that representation is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean we should pressure the devs into including it, nor does it make it explicitly necessary in DBD.
Now do us both a favor and drop this attitude you've got going on. You want representation and acceptance, yet your first reaction to my opinion was to "show myself out." You're a complete hypocrite.
I acknowledged the reasons for my anger and how, specifically, you could avoid being subject to it. Therefore, you cannot blame me for the reaction you received nor can you reasonably call me a hypocrite. It is understandable to be frustrated when the same points such as the one's that you had made are repeated near verbatim. I don't apologize and stand by the fact you deserved it. It is rude and a disservice to a conversation when you enter and voice a position without taking into any account where the conversation has already been and which points have already been visited. Here, you don't do much better, though you are a bit more long winded about it.
The argument you make in your first paragraph is entirely dependent on the argument you're making underneath the claim I've made that "heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default", so I'll begin with that to knock two birds with one stone. You are ignoring the point that I made that while someone is LGBT has the ability to imagine their character as possessing their orientation, they do not have the ability to do that as easily as heterosexual players do, since heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default. It is inherently easier as a straight player to project their sexuality onto their survivor/killer of choice. They do not have to go out of their way. LGBT folk do.
Further, you have not justified why, even if race or gender is easier to show, how that is relevant to the discussion of whether sexuality should be explicitly confirmed. How "much" easier sexuality is to express than race or gender even if true, is being grossly overstated. A verbal expression, for example, (as has been already discussed and admitted by others to be effective), such as a few simple sentences could do the trick. And be done in a way that is both innocuous and non patronizing. Still, interesting to note, it is only the comparison with race that is disputed but the comparison with gender is left alone.
-
I think rank is underrated and overrated at the same time. I disagree that just anyone can get there, since it's a pretty small percentage of both survivors and killers that actually reach rank 1. Where I agree with you is that rank isn't always an indication of skill. I have only reached rank 1 as survivor (7 for killer) and I still notice survivors dying to killers they had absolutely no business dying to.
The same with killers. Even at rank 1, they too often let their pride get the best of them and over focus on chasing down a survivor that's wasting too much of their time. It can be annoying when I watch streamers like TrueTalent and Monto who are constantly jerking themselves off about rank. Okay, especially True. He can get downright insufferable. Tydetyme is a little bit better about it, but even he still occasionally says things like "Oh, that person shouldn't be rank 1 because they made X mistake." It's silly. Being good doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, even obvious ones at times. It just means you make them less often.
Where I disagree is that rank is no indication of skill at all, for the simple fact that you're not going to find a God like nurse at rank 20. It just won't happen. So, yeah. It's not completely meaningless, but most people could definitely afford to be a bit more humble about it.
-
Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.
You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
-
Everything you just discussed was addressed literally one ######### page ago.
Please show yourself out.
-
No one else? Orion, possibly? Powerbat?
whistles
click click click
Come on. Don't be shy, I won't hurt you.
I'd especially appreciate azazer. I got my pimp hand ready for you, boy.
-
I no UnDeRsAnd y do u CaRE????
LOL SO OFFInDED!11!
-
Okay, there's bigger fish to fry in this topic than you. I'll wait for someone else.
-
@Malakir said:
Wahara said:I don't know anymore if you are trolling or not. People always surprise me, in the wrong way. Still, you made my day
for the wrong reasons> @Malakir said:
Wahara said:
You see right through me, Malakir. The truth is...I am actually an angry lesbian with lots of tattoos. I like pina coladas and long walks on the beach. When I am not busy diversifying my collection of gender studies textbooks, you can usually find me wiring car bombs for Antifa or teaching children how to make Molotov cocktails. I don't know anymore if you are trolling or not. People always surprise me, in the wrong way. Still, you made my day
for the wrong reasons
I'm mocking you pretty heavily on the basis that you attempted to use the label of "pseudo feminist" in order to make me look less credible.
I have never played dark souls (I would like to) but I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with your example. It ignores the fact that the point of whether Rin is sexualized or not (It has been conceded that she is not, by myself and the OP) isn't the crux of the issue.
It also assumed that I am necessarily against characters being sexualized to begin with. I am okay with characters that have sex appeal as long as it's done with proper consideration in mind. For example: a game in which only the women are sexualized is not okay, but a game in which both men and women are sexualized is fine. A game is which a character's sex appeal is only a part of their character is fine, but a game in which a character's sex appeal is all of their character is not fine.
It's not really a strawman, considering my "99%" bit earlier was obvious and intentional hyperbole. We're at four now, though! :chuffed:
Not less credible but these arguments are pretty brought by them. about mocking, no ######### sherlock!
Isn't the only part, she's not all sex appeal unless you are into dead people pretty heavily.
She has a back story that makes you sure with her motives, makes you feel strong with a woman who uses a katana to kill her victims probably taught by her father, which makes the patos skyrocket. They are using classic clothes like @Jack11803 pointed out correctly. If you just see that you have to dig some more since just by her looks I can see at least 3 movies inspirations.
About op, yeah she is the goddess of fertility so? I bring up that example but I can do the same even in the same franchise about other charges or as sad overwatch just for a pose and this is exactly that all over again. Its like saying I'm uncomfortable because David have his torso naked or because the trapper looks too manly. About the video.. Omg I hope you wasn't the guy who made it. Just the example of Freddy being a ######### made me cringe for the remake flashbacks plus put it the clown in the mix implying they abuses the spirit in the entire world is just dumb
So, forgive me, I may just be slow. But is there anything in your post that is actually contradicting what I believe and have stated is the problem? I can see that you've tried to characterize me as a pseudo feminist, and a sexist, and to presume my views on sexualizing characters. I cannot see a rebuttal, though.
-
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logic> @Jack11803 said:
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logic
Here, we have further evidence that my earlier frustration about the goal posts being moved is justified. After being clearly directed to page eight where your points were brought up and addressed, you denied they were there and then repeated more previously addressed points. After being called out, you refused to have any sort of courage in the form of a concession but dropped everything to shift to a completely different hoop for me to jump through.
I am not playing this game. Whack-a-mole time is over.
-
I don't remember, do perks like bond or empathy trump blindness?
-
My sincere apologies, I'll try to be more careful. I'm not sure I agree, but I'll allow you to expound further with others before I decide whether it's wise to take you up on that point yet.
-
I don't know anymore if you are trolling or not. People always surprise me, in the wrong way. Still, you made my day
for the wrong reasons> @Malakir said:Wahara said:
You see right through me, Malakir. The truth is...I am actually an angry lesbian with lots of tattoos. I like pina coladas and long walks on the beach. When I am not busy diversifying my collection of gender studies textbooks, you can usually find me wiring car bombs for Antifa or teaching children how to make Molotov cocktails.
I don't know anymore if you are trolling or not. People always surprise me, in the wrong way. Still, you made my day
for the wrong reasonsI'm mocking you pretty heavily on the basis that you attempted to use the label of "pseudo feminist" in order to make me look less credible.
I have never played dark souls (I would like to) but I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with your example. It ignores the fact that the point of whether Rin is sexualized or not (It has been conceded that she is not, by myself and the OP) isn't the crux of the issue.
It also assumed that I am necessarily against characters being sexualized to begin with. I am okay with characters that have sex appeal as long as it's done with proper consideration in mind. For example: a game in which only the women are sexualized is not okay, but a game in which both men and women are sexualized is fine. A game is which a character's sex appeal is only a part of their character is fine, but a game in which a character's sex appeal is all of their character is not fine.
It's not really a strawman, considering my "99%" bit earlier was obvious and intentional hyperbole. We're at four now, though! :chuffed:
-
You see right through me, Malakir. The truth is...I am actually an angry lesbian with lots of tattoos. I like pina coladas and long walks on the beach. When I am not busy diversifying my collection of gender studies textbooks, you can usually find me wiring car bombs for Antifa or teaching children how to make Molotov cocktails.
-
So, the only part of the post you're going to engage with is the part I already admitted was "neither here nor there." Okay. We're getting a little predictable, but okay.
But if we're going to by that logic, we should just be able to sodomize survivors until they bleed out. Maybe we would add extra points for any survivor within that vicinity that saw? Simply because this qualifies as a horror game doesn't mean that we don't still have to be prudent about the specific manner in which the players are being made to feel uncomfortable.
Ideally, a horror game makes it's players uncomfortable because they're scared, not because they're potentially reminded of a traumatic experience.
-
Bioshock disagrees with you, but that's neither here nor there.
This isn't about making a political statement. It's just simple consideration: kindness. Since when did a little bit of compassion become so damn political to people?
-
"Also stating sexual assault statics muddies your argument, since the statistics are different everywhere, and your 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 is actually exaggerated and misleading. It depends on the country and who is recording the stats."
Actually, no, it isn't. The most conservative estimates that you will find are 1 in 7, so whether it's 1 in 3 or 1 in 7 is splitting hairs. It's a lot, and it is a distinctly more (not exclusive) female problem than a male one.
The point that is trying to be made isn't that Rin's outfit is intentionally sexualized. The point is that given the unfortunate statistics of our world, it would be in good taste to DBD's female player base to give Rin a cosmetic where she isn't bloody and near naked.
-
@azazer said:
Wahara said:I wish you luck with this conversation, I really do. Gamers aren't exactly known for their awareness or sensitivities in relation to social issues. I attempted to have a productive discussion about the inclusion of LGBTQ characters in the lore section just to be branded as a social justice warrior with an agenda.
I hope you're prepared for 99% of the posts in your topic attempting to discredit you as a feminazi.
I think coming from the position that your alphabet soup aligned character 'should' be included is the issue. I don't recall anyone's sexuality survivor or killer being mentioned save for the very recent wraith/nurse thing. It's not essential. Mentioning a character's sexuality is you sexualizing the character for no other reason than your own self interest and the same with the spirit body shaming. You're projecting your internal politics on a game where it's not needed. Leave the spirit alone and go write a fan fic or something
The breadth of your misplaced arrogance in which you speak refreshes me. A lot of these points you raise are mentioned in the topic already and have been discussed there at great length. I would be happy to have you there. Watch your step, though.
And, as I predicted, there are already three separate posts in this topic which attempt to discredit the OP's concerns based on the fact that he or she may or may not be a feminist.
-
Yes, Orion, possibly. I've discussed it before. I don't think it was in my point by point break down on page eight, so I'm not going to be a dick about it. I was tempted, though. Technically speaking, there is no sure way to know which race someone is unless they tell you. There is no physical trait that we associate with any given race that is exclusive to them, they only appear in higher frequencies. Similarly, for sex, you really have no concrete way of knowing unless they tell you or if you examine their genitalia.
What is also interesting to note, is that the basis for arguing race and sex are more obvious - that they have physical indicators whereas sexuality has none - isn't a given. Studies confirm that people can ascertain a person's sexuality accurately, above a 50% chance, by simply looking at their face. In fact, the percentage of accurate guesses still remained above 50% when participants were shown just an eye, nose, or mouth. Take a minute and look it up, it's interesting stuff.
Is this particular branch of the conversation perhaps something you would enjoy discussing with me on my profile page, by the way? It is probably best suited there unless someone can show how it's relevant.
I'm going to bed for the night, I think. I am officially in the "not ######### playing patty cake anymore" kind of mood and will probably be here for sometime. Consider that in your future responses.
-
deep breath
No. On page 8, I listed how, specifically, a gay killer or survivor could be represented. To which, several other members have acknowledged to be effective. When you say that "All that's on page 8 is he said, she said" I know, for a fact, you're being obtuse. Do you know how I know that? Because I remember what I ######### wrote.
The distinction that race or sex is possibly more obvious than sexuality is not a valid basis to argue against the inclusion of sexuality, nor is it a valid basis to argue its inclusion would be "forced" Within the context of the current argument, it is a completely and utterly irrelevant distinction.
I'll help you a long in the right direction, since you appear to need it. In order to actually have anything close to the argument you think that you have but don't, you would need to find a distinction that makes race or sex more immutable than sexuality, not more obvious. Comparison(s) are bridge(s) between two different things. You break a comparison by breaking the established links. Was obviousness ever a connection that was made? No. It wasn't. How basic is this? Jesus.
Now, I suggest you not waste any more of my time before you slowly provoke me into becoming more of a condescending jackass. I don't enjoy being aggressive, but for posts like yours, which are willfully disingenuous, it's warranted. In fact, you repeated yet another argument in the very post I am quoting that was covered on page 8.
-
I believe I answered your inquiries on page eight. Please let me know if you don't find the explanations contained there adequate and I will do my best to elaborate in greater detail.
-
@powerbats said:
@Wahara said:
@LyinginbedmonI wish you luck with this conversation, I really do. Gamers aren't exactly known for their awareness or sensitivities in relation to social issues. I attempted to have a productive discussion about the inclusion of LGBTQ characters in the lore section just to be branded as a social justice warrior with an agenda.
I hope you're prepared for 99% of the posts in your topic attempting to discredit you as a feminazi.
i respected your post and thought it was a good topic of conversation.
Don't lump the majority of gamers into that statistic since that just shows your bias due to people not agreeing with you.
Here goes the bias and prejudiced comments again since hey if people disagree it's obviously going to be because they think your x.
We can't disagree with someone just because we feel they're wrong so it has to be because we're biased and sexist/misogynistic/biased/perverts etc etc etc.
I mean, I am just speaking from my own experience, dude. If you feel you are not part of what I am describing, you could have simply excused yourself. Seemed a touch defensive. To number three, I guess we'll have to wait and see. I would be very happy to see my prediction fail.
-
I think I agree that it's The Pig, if you want to get technical about it. Paradoxically, her motivations for killing you are altruistic.
Oddly enough, the killers that give me the hatch most often ares Pig mains. It may be just coincidence, but I like to think they do it more often to fit in with her character. "You're the last person alive, you've proven your worth"
-
I wish you luck with this conversation, I really do. Gamers aren't exactly known for their awareness or sensitivities in relation to social issues. I attempted to have a productive discussion about the inclusion of LGBTQ characters in the lore section just to be branded as a social justice warrior with an agenda.
I hope you're prepared for 99% of the posts in your topic attempting to discredit you as a feminazi.
-
Calm yourself. She or he has already conceded that her outfit isn't specifically engineered to be sexy, but a problem still remains in terms of optics. It would be a kind gesture to DBD's female player base if a different skin which contained more clothing could be started out with versus having to be purchased, or as I suggested, an equally exposed male killer, in the spirit of fairness.