Wahara
Wahara
About
- Username
- Wahara
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Oh, they do? I guess I never really noticed. Well, in the spirit of fairness, then, a male killer who is equally exposed (but not intentionally sexualized) would be appropriate. I don't think it was intentional on the part of the developers, but I can see how it doesn't look the best that the only killer displaying that amount of bare skin is female.
-
I think it's okay. I mean, yes, she does show a lot of skin but her outfit isn't specifically designed to sexualize her. If she was touting a wonder push-up bra and a thong, complete with excessive graphics, i.e her breasts swayed from side to side as she chased people, I would say that you have a point.
-
If it is cosmetics, then it's the individual player's choice to make their character LGBTQ. They made the effort to purchase the clothing, and people who don't want it simply won't buy it. The main point should be the characters are what you make them. Instead of making one person trans for everyone, someone could instead equip cosmetics to make them trans for themselves. On the one side, the characters remain the same, their sexuality is a mystery. On the other side, the characters can be customized to be LGBTQ by the player. I don't see many people on here actually opposed to having an LGBTQ character, but most people just want their inclusion to be meaningful.
None of this seems arbitrary to you? While you are not made to play a queer character yourself, you are still being made to interact with queer representations of different characters. In the same way it is an individuals choice to customize their character for a queer representation, it is also the individuals choice whether or not to play an explicitly queer character. If they don't want to, they don't have to.
Should we also have the option of changing race and gender? That is still one (of a few) points that I've brought up that hasn't been properly addressed. If the representation of race and gender is okay, then the representation of sexuality must also be okay. If the representation of queerness is "forced" than the representation of race and gender is also forced. If the representation of queerness requires compromise in the form of an "opt out" than so too does race and gender.
Well, there isn't much I can really say to that except to chalk up our differences of opinion on the aforementioned likelihood to our differences in experience. We have both seen the ghost busters remake, though, and I'll dispute that as a proper example. Yes, the cast is all women, but in no way are their characters completely reduced to their gender. Did you have a response, by the way, regarding my most recent point about tokenism concerns?
I also hope most don't think me arrogant for saying this, but since the bulk of my points have still remained unaddressed, or improperly addressed, I'll treat them as concessions. I invite you to speak now or forever hold your peace. There is a detailed summary of my positions on page 8. In the event no one would like to accept that offer, I will move forward and treat the current subject of discussion as being not one of supposed irrelevancy or imposed political agenda, but rather the fear of being represented in an unhealthy way.
I understand. I sympathize, even. For all our sakes, though, so this discussion can progress at all, can we admit that this is really what it's all about? That as part of the LGBTQ community, it's not that most of us don't think our representation in media would be a great thing, but that we're so afraid of being represented improperly that too many of us would rather just be invisible?
Lastly, for every new poster such as Vortexas and Jack, who have indicated they haven't followed the discussion and are beginning on chapter one when in reality we are on chapter fifteen, will simply be ignored or re-directed to page 8. If you have a stake in this discussion and are interested in it moving forward instead of in circles, I sincerely request that you do the same.
-
@Aari_Piggy66 Why are you so eager to silence a perfectly valid discussion? I am actually enjoying myself, currently, with Orion and CoolAKn. They're making a serious effort in participating with me at the moment, and not intentionally being patronizing by questioning my motives or bringing up political views they suspect I have as an ad hominem.
There is no reason not to have this conversation. If you think it's stupid, there is an X button at the top right corner of your screen that you're free to press at any time.
I've noticed your latest post and will respond. Allow me to take a bit of breather and let the conversation flow a bit without me before I come back, so I can address it with several others if the need arises.
-
Finally, I figured it out.
Regarding "tokenism" - its existence is being framed as an argument against the inclusion of LGBTQ characters, but the inclusion LGBTQ characters isn't why tokenism exists. Bigotry and prejudice is why tokenism exists. It's being used as an example to hit the wrong target.
-
For what it's worth, Orion, I haven't really argued much for the representation of others in the LGBTQ because I'm simply just a gay guy. Though, I have tried to use "queer" instead of just "gay" when making my posts. If homosexual characters were to be included, I would also want the inclusion of characters who are trans, gender-fluid, etc.
I also want to point out that diversity helps games, it doesn't weaken them. Earlier, ToolBoxMotley tried to paint all of this as ridiculous by listing off a bunch of silly characteristics like allergies, cutting oranges, and video game preference in order to set up a false equivalency. But, it wasn't all garbage. He mentioned religion and mental illness, like bi-polar.
Yes. Yes! Why not include those things? By all means, include them! Why not include characters from sorts of different backgrounds and walks of life? Queer characters, religious characters, disabled characters, characters who suffer mental illness, homeless characters, etc. What separates all of these things from other purported "irrelevancies" is their higher chance of being related to, appreciated, and benefited from. This has never been about me or "my" agenda.
-
@Orion said:
@Wahara said:
That's still unsafe to assume because emphasis can be placed on their immutable characteristics but they can also be given depth at the same time. Someone who is flamboyant isn't necessarily two dimensional. You can only really guess the motivations behind the creation of any particular character unless the creator outright says why they were included.I also don't see the connection. If I add in a woman to a TV show because I notice that the series has only male characters up to this point, and I observe social media to notice a large chunk of my viewer base asking for a female lead, why am I inherently less likely to consider things such as her acting skills or her ability to fit in the show?
I agree with you very much on the last part.
Someone whose entire character can be described as a stereotype is not the same thing as someone who has one or two stereotypical traits.
Because you're just looking for "actress". That's the first trait you're worried about, so you're less likely to care about the rest. It's not a conscious effort, mind you.
Okay. We're in agreement on one thing. Characters who are based purely on stereotypes are poorly written and unhealthy. Given your experience as someone who is queer, in your honest opinion, how likely do you think it is that a character who did carry one or two stereotypical traits but contained depth at the same, would be written off and condemned as a tokenization anyways? My guess is that likelihood is very, very high. This is part of the reason why I concede, at least in the abstract, that this is a thing that exists, but have great difficulty taking concern over its prevalence very seriously.
The bolded words are the links in your last bit that I would like you to justify. There's just something about this "for the sake of it" fear that is just plain off. Admittedly, I don't think I am doing the best right now at pin pointing it. I think the fear is grossly overstated to which I think I've made an adequate case for and I suspect it may be entirely unfounded, but don't quite know how to get that far yet. I'll need some time to think and revisit. There's a specific name for this fallacy.
That's isn't a bad suggestion at all! I'm curious, though. How exactly is the possible visual expression of sexuality, such clothing or symbols, not "forced" on you, but a character who is confirmed to be a particular sexuality is? Isn't that, from your own perspective, capitulating to add representation "for the sake of it" albeit not as concrete? I mean, I'll take it, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying if Quentin can run around Gideon meat plant in high-heels and the hag can lay rainbow traps, you can also just simply have an LGBTQ character. Lol.
-
That's still unsafe to assume because emphasis can be placed on their immutable characteristics but they can also be given depth at the same time. Someone who is flamboyant isn't necessarily two dimensional. You can only really guess the motivations behind the creation of any particular character unless the creator outright says why they were included.
I also don't see the connection. If I add in a woman to a TV show because I notice that the series has only male characters up to this point, and I observe social media to notice a large chunk of my viewer base asking for a female lead, why am I inherently less likely to consider things such as her acting skills or her ability to fit in the show?
I agree with you very much on the last part.
-
**Sorry but I despise the idea of inclusion for inclusion sake and the it's for representation excuse means nothing to me.
Honestly the only characters sexual preference that has even been mildly internet is Ace and The Nurse everyone else is pretty much just held ambiguous so why the hell do you have the force representation into it. If you want to see David or Min as gay by all means do it.**
Okay. I mean, I guess that's fair. If representation doesn't mean anything to you, you're entitled to that. They're are valid points for why it's important, though.
I guess I'm still hung up on this "for the sake of it" line people keep bringing up. For one, how would you reasonably determine whether a character is added for the sake of it or not? By the looks of it, it seems like people are saying any minority character who happens to be poorly written ended up that way because they were created for the sake of it. Maybe, they're just a character who is a minority who happens to be poorly written.
No one has said anything about forcing anything, either. Why is my side of the argument being characterized as forcing something, or demanding something, when in reality I am simply asking for something and articulating why I think it's logically consistent and a good idea.
@TheLegendDyl4n1
Look what you've done. So much chaos in one thread. Im actually impressed, having a great time seeing people go at each others throats cause of the sexual preference of pixels.It's more than that. Those of us who want something as simple and innocent as playing a character who represents them are being told their visibility doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter to them. People don't really understand what they're saying when they keep repeating "It doesn't matter" What's really being said is "You don't matter."
-
@ToolboxMotley said:
My most recent "attempt to discredit you" is probably the most effective way I've depicted the argument everyone is trying to make; that it's a superfluous addition and a waste of space to anyone that isn't part of the Progressive religion.How about Jewish characters? A lot of them are still getting a pretty awful hand dealt to them. Christians? I don't know steeped you are in social justice warrior ideology, so it's possible you think Christians have always been mega-oppressors at the forefront of any and all injustices the world over, but they've been pretty screwed, too. How about the Irish? Can't really tell who's Irish at a glance, would have to have it shoved in somewhere in their bio, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go into Irish history while trying to describe the character.
Gotta ask, do you want equal treatment, or special treatment? None of the other characters have had their sexualities disclosed. That's a pretty good blank-slate approach, a way to ensure that players can impose their own stories as desired. Heterosexuality is indeed the norm, but whose fault is it for assuming that every character must be straight? Society, for not forcing everyone to be gay? Or yours, for doing the actual literal act of assuming they must all be straight?
You may not like it, but my previous post does in fact convey the main point being put forward. It is irrelevant information. Claiming that no one is listening to you and then insulting them while crying that they're moving the goalposts when they do address your arguments doesn't change that.
Victory for the LGBT acceptance movement is for sexuality to not matter. You're instead insisting that it does matter, and apparently, that society must "pay them back" for abuse that most in this day and age have never actually experienced. Some have, yes; just as some people with physical deformities, sickly tendencies, and food preferences have been abused for who they are. Sometimes, people have a crappy time thanks to other people targeting very stupid aspects of their personality. I was bullied for having long hair and liking Sonic the Hedgehog as a kid. That's not large-scale oppression, that's a few people being #########. Oppression of homosexuals is largely over, at least in the USA, and clinging to it will just keep it here for longer.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, and a line or two of flavor text wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd give a warning to the developers to not take it too far, making gay people seem like the attention whores that efforts like this have made them out to be, and a warning to you and Legend, to not let something so trivial consume the entirety of your being. You're more than who you're attracted to, and you live in the present, not the past. Your body, does, at least; your mind, well, that looks to be stuck in the past, a bit, but it can always catch up.
Not really. You're trying to make out sexuality to be superfluous and irrelevant by comparing it to inherently more superfluous and irrelevant things. If you believe that being gay is as likely to shape someone's life experiences and perspective as cutting oranges or enjoying SEGA, you're being A)intellectually dishonest or
a moron. I'll let you pick which one you like better. It also doesn't address a previously made argument (Which I am irrationally crying that people aren't addressing, apparently.) that if sexuality is as superfluous and irrelevant as all those things, then so is race and sex, yet they're included.Once again, it's hard for me to tell whether you're asking your questions rhetorically or not, but I see no reason why characters of different religions shouldn't be included.
I said that heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default. I didn't say that I assume the characters must be straight when I play. If you're going to discuss with me, fine, but don't start resorting to putting words in my mouth. The point is that since heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default, heterosexual players don't really have to go out of their way to use their imaginations whereas queer folk would. Why should we have to do that?
Honestly, your post really just confirms it more than anything. You politely requested where I believe I'm not properly being listened to or ignored. I took the time to recap nearly the entire topic and listed every single specific instance just to be told I'm crying that people aren't listening. Why did you even ask for me to show you if you were going to be obtuse any simply assert the contrary anyway?
In your next paragraph, you're really going off the rails a bit. I am asking to play as a gay character in a video game, not demanding society to "pay me back." That's such a douchey mischaracterization. If I wanted that I'd start a petition for reparations or something. What is with you? Yes, the goal of the LGBT rights movement is for sexuality to not matter, but, as I previously mentioned before, and am crying real tears as we speak because you ignored this point, representation is proven to help in that process.
I don't really see much in the way of substance in the rest of your post. I do see a lot of presumptuous preaching, though.
You're resorting to political buzz phrases like
"SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR PHILOSOPHY"
thunder cracks
and
"PROGRESSIVE RELIGION"
the earth opens up, plumes of fire shoot up and light the sky
in order to make me look less credible because you don't know how to deal with the arguments you're being faced with. How is asking for an LGBTQ character "clinging to oppression?" How is arguing why that would be a good idea make me "living in the past?"
-
@Aari_Piggy66 said:
Who cares about their sexuality or about slapping a lgbt-whatever character, it's pointless and stupid.If you want to see some random ass lgbt rubbish, look up rule 34 dead by daylight.
I'm sure you can find Dwight blowing David or some ######### like that.This is precisely the kind of willful refusal to engage that I'm talking about. Sorry about your post...that keeps happening to me too.
Hi, Aari. I realize that you've walked into somewhat of a mess, but it would be helpful if you followed a long. I don't deny that you may have a valid perspective, but your current post doesn't seem like it takes into account the material that has already been discussed.
-
This post is going to be an ugly dumpster fire because the tags aren't working properly....
Starting on page 3, I made this post:
**Because representation (of historically and currently under represented groups of people) is important. Let's say for the sake of argument that all characters in DBD were white, and we asked the developers if they could make characters of other races, and you responded with "why are you interested about skin color?" Or if they were all men, and we asked why there weren't any women, and you responded with "why are you so interested in gender?" that would sound just a bit obtuse, wouldn't it?
LGBTQ survivors, or even killers, would be a much welcome addition to DBD. It would add variety and make things more interesting, like say, a gay killer who's motivated to kill based on religious trauma experienced during adolescence.**
To which, everyone completely ignored and focused mostly on Legend. It contained two important arguments. 1) The illustration that the inclusion of race and sex but the exclusion of sexuality is an irrational double standard 2) A character's sexuality can indeed be relevant to their background.
Moving on to my post on page 5.
**A few things, since the forum ate my last post. If a moderator can find and approve the last post that I made which randomly went into the queue, that would be appreciated.
A) I feel like the people claiming that it "isn't necessary" are being somewhat disingenuous. If the roster of dead by daylight survivors were only black women, I am highly skeptical the majority of you claiming this would be as encouraged to play the game versus if you had the ability to choose a character that looked like or was more similar to you. The exact same arguments repeated here could be used against the inclusion of anyone else.
In response to Soylent and the point that sexuality, paraphrasing, "isn't something that should come up or something that people should care about." - visibility is a part of that normalization process. Familiarity breeds fondness. People who come into contact with diverse groups through the media that they consume become more accustomed to them. Will & Grace, for example, was one of the really large turning points in altering the average American's perception of gay people.C) Many things aren't necessary or don't matter. It isn't necessary for me to play dead by daylight, drink coffee, go for long walks, or sleep with five pillows. I do them anyways because they make me happy. Our desires and wants aren't usually determined by necessity but by emotional appreciation. If the inclusion of LGBTQ characters would be emotionally appreciated by a decent amount of the player base, why would you deny them, if not simply to be a dick?
D) You can't argue "No" because "It doesn't matter" That's arguing a negative and neutral stance at the same time.**
Here, I reiterate the irrational double standard, that, again, isn't addressed. I also illustrate the argument for why representation is important and does actually matter whilst also arguing that non necessity isn't a valid basis for exclusion.
Our first attempt at engaging begins with Orion, who latches onto one small aspect while ignoring the rest:
And you are playing as a gay character, as far as you know. Just because the devs haven't said they're LGBT doesn't mean they're not LGBT. I said it in my first comment in this thread: just assume they're whatever orientation you are and be done with it.
Yet, he doesn't justify why those of us who do want explicitly queer characters should have to play pretend.
You can see the beginning of my frustration in this response:
**I understood what you said the first time, but you haven't articulated what threat the explicit inclusion of a sexual orientation would present to the game.
I have previously argued that it has the capability of adding depth and intrigue to characters, whereas you seem to be under the impression that it would do harm, or take away from the game some how. Okay, I'll bite, but you gotta give me something to work with.**
My frustration was understandable, I made detailed arguments for the affirmative which were all brushed away and was instructed to use my imagination without follow up. For the rest of my post, I went into more detail about how sexuality could be very relevant to a character's back story by writing out the concept of a gay killer.
Orion's response:
I think it's irrelevant to the lore and the characters, the same way it's irrelevant in real life unless you want to know if you can date and/or have sex with someone. I also think it's usually done as a token inclusion, and those always suck.
A clear and complete shift of the goal posts. He reiterates the irrelevancy, ignores the example to demonstrate otherwise, and shifts his concern to "tokenization"
He attempts to rephrase, but has the exact same meaning as his prior statement:
Let me rephrase: it's irrelevant to the current characters' lore.
Moving onto PolarBear:
As I said It hardly affect the lore of the game. In my opinion it's better to leave it to the imagination so if you want a character to be gay, straight, etc. then you can choose to think that way. Also if you can't represent a group of people in a meaningful way it's just better to leave it out. It doesn't make BHVR look any better if they just slap a gay tag on a character.
He simply just reasserts the irrelevancy without engaging with any of my points. He simply asserts irrelevancy, simply asserts the representation couldn't be done in a meaningful away, and simply asserts BHVR would "slap on a tag"
The next response is from you, which isn't really disagreeing with me at all, as far as I can tell. I then made my first exit from the discussion based on my annoyance.
On page 6, still, no one attempts to address my previous rebuttals but continue to repeat the "It doesn't matter, therefore no." argument. Namely, Mc_Hardy and Peasant.
My next post specifically addressed the fear of sexuality being "tacked on" since I hadn't properly addressed that concern yet:
**I say I'm leaving and then come right back. I have too much time on my hands. But anyways. cracks knuckles
"We don't know the sexuality of the characters so you can just pretend."
It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something. Weird.
Also, MichaelMyers, did you know that deep throating every post that confirms your biases with capital letters makes you look really smart? You're doing great, keep it up.
There was one thing that I feel silly in hindsight for not expanding upon. When xmenfanatic mentioned that falling underneath the queer umbrella encompasses a lot more than who you want to have sex with, I should have added that gender presentation also factors into this. Characters that don't fit into their expected binary would be a welcome change, i.e. a male survivor who wears earrings and lipstick.
"I don't want their sexuality to just be tacked on."
I feel a little embarrassed for falling for this, because it's a sneaky trick. Sexuality wouldn't be "tacked on" any more than sex or race is "tacked on" It can be relevant to their story or it may not be. Neither are a valid basis for exclusion.**
Here, I show that being queer is about more than sex, but gender presentation as well. I'm completely ignored, again, whilst people like peasant and Mc_Hardy continue to go after Legend.
It is not until I start to become a real ######### in response to Peasant is when I get some takers:
**Is Claudette throwing her blackness in your face? Is Feng Min throwing her Asianness in your face?
All of you are being obtuse cowards about this very basic and [BAD WORD] simple question. Why is the representation of race and sex permissible but the representation of sexuality is not? If you cannot answer, you must accept the possibility of having an irrational double standard and take some time for a bit of self examination. Seriously.
I'll be waiting while you ignore me to regurgitate your tired points at Legend over and over again.**
After Mc_Hardy fails at the proposed challenge by arguing the neutral and negative at the same time (again) your response is that I'm just dismissing people that disagree with me:
Once you pick away the nonsense like "viewpoints opposed to my own". PSSSH. Stoopid disagree-y people.
Am I done? Is that good enough? I really shouldn't have had to do that. You don't get to say stuff like this when everything is clearly cataloged and demonstrably shows otherwise.
To your most recent attempt to discredit me: people that have six toes, allergies, cut oranges, or make 11 dollars an hour do not have histories of endured oppression and violence stretching back millenia which still continue to the present. These groups would not benefit or appreciate from representation in media we consume compared to a group that is disenfranchised.
-
Okay, starting on page 3, I made this post:
**Because representation (of historically and currently under represented groups of people) is important. Let's say for the sake of argument that all characters in DBD were white, and we asked the developers if they could make characters of other races, and you responded with "why are you interested about skin color?" Or if they were all men, and we asked why there weren't any women, and you responded with "why are you so interested in gender?" that would sound just a bit obtuse, wouldn't it?
LGBTQ survivors, or even killers, would be a much welcome addition to DBD. It would add variety and make things more interesting, like say, a gay killer who's motivated to kill based on religious trauma experienced during adolescence."**
To which, everyone completely ignored and focused mostly on Legend. It contained two important arguments. 1) The illustration that the inclusion of race and sex but the exclusion of sexuality is an irrational double standard 2) A character's sexuality can indeed be relevant to their background.**
Moving on to my post on page 5.
**A few things, since the forum ate my last post. If a moderator can find and approve the last post that I made which randomly went into the queue, that would be appreciated.
A) I feel like the people claiming that it "isn't necessary" are being somewhat disingenuous. If the roster of dead by daylight survivors were only black women, I am highly skeptical the majority of you claiming this would be as encouraged to play the game versus if you had the ability to choose a character that looked like or was more similar to you. The exact same arguments repeated here could be used against the inclusion of anyone else.
In response to Soylent and the point that sexuality, paraphrasing, "isn't something that should come up or something that people should care about." - visibility is a part of that normalization process. Familiarity breeds fondness. People who come into contact with diverse groups through the media that they consume become more accustomed to them. Will & Grace, for example, was one of the really large turning points in altering the average American's perception of gay people.C) Many things aren't necessary or don't matter. It isn't necessary for me to play dead by daylight, drink coffee, go for long walks, or sleep with five pillows. I do them anyways because they make me happy. Our desires and wants aren't usually determined by necessity but by emotional appreciation. If the inclusion of LGBTQ characters would be emotionally appreciated by a decent amount of the player base, why would you deny them, if not simply to be a dick?
D) You can't argue "No" because "It doesn't matter" That's arguing a negative and neutral stance at the same time.**
Here, I reiterate the irrational double standard, that, again, isn't addressed. I also illustrate the argument for why representation is important and does actually matter whilst also arguing that non necessity isn't a valid basis for exclusion.
Our first attempt at engaging begins with Orion, who latches onto one small aspect while ignoring the rest:
And you are playing as a gay character, as far as you know. Just because the devs haven't said they're LGBT doesn't mean they're not LGBT. I said it in my first comment in this thread: just assume they're whatever orientation you are and be done with it.
Yet, he doesn't justify why those of us who do want explicitly queer characters should have to play pretend.
You can see the beginning of my frustration in this response:
**I understood what you said the first time, but you haven't articulated what threat the explicit inclusion of a sexual orientation would present to the game.
I have previously argued that it has the capability of adding depth and intrigue to characters, whereas you seem to be under the impression that it would do harm, or take away from the game some how. Okay, I'll bite, but you gotta give me something to work with.**
My frustration was understandable, I made detailed arguments for the affirmative which were all brushed away and was instructed to use my imagination without follow up. For the rest of my post, I went into more detail about how sexuality could be very relevant to a character's back story by writing out the concept of a gay killer.
Orion's response:
I think it's irrelevant to the lore and the characters, the same way it's irrelevant in real life unless you want to know if you can date and/or have sex with someone. I also think it's usually done as a token inclusion, and those always suck.
A clear and complete shift of the goal posts. He reiterates the irrelevancy, ignores the example to demonstrate otherwise, and shifts his concern to "tokenization"
He attempts to rephrase, but has the exact same meaning as his prior statement:
Let me rephrase: it's irrelevant to the current characters' lore.
Moving onto PolarBear:
As I said It hardly affect the lore of the game. In my opinion it's better to leave it to the imagination so if you want a character to be gay, straight, etc. then you can choose to think that way. Also if you can't represent a group of people in a meaningful way it's just better to leave it out. It doesn't make BHVR look any better if they just slap a gay tag on a character.
He simply just reasserts the irrelevancy without engaging with any of my points. He simply asserts irrelevancy, simply asserts the representation couldn't be done in a meaningful away, and simply asserts BHVR would "slap on a tag"
The next response is from you, which isn't really disagreeing with me at all, as far as I can tell. I then made my first exit from the discussion based on my annoyance.
On page 6, still, no one attempts to address my previous rebuttals but continue repeat the "It doesn't matter, therefore no." argument. Namely, Mc_Hardy and Peasant.
My next post specifically addressed the fear of sexuality being "tacked on" since I hadn't properly addressed that concern yet:
**I say I'm leaving and then come right back. I have too much time on my hands. But anyways. cracks knuckles
"We don't know the sexuality of the characters so you can just pretend."
It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something. Weird.
Also, MichaelMyers, did you know that deep throating every post that confirms your biases with capital letters makes you look really smart? You're doing great, keep it up.
There was one thing that I feel silly in hindsight for not expanding upon. When xmenfanatic mentioned that falling underneath the queer umbrella encompasses a lot more than who you want to have sex with, I should have added that gender presentation also factors into this. Characters that don't fit into their expected binary would be a welcome change, i.e. a male survivor who wears earrings and lipstick.
"I don't want their sexuality to just be tacked on."
I feel a little embarrassed for falling for this, because it's a sneaky trick. Sexuality wouldn't be "tacked on" any more than sex or race is "tacked on" It can be relevant to their story or it may not be. Neither are a valid basis for exclusion.**
Here, I show that being queer is about more than sex, but gender presentation as well. I'm completely ignored, again, whilst people like peasant and Mc_Hardy continue to go after Legend.
It is not until I start to become a real ######### in response to Peasant is when I get some takers:
**"Is Claudette throwing her blackness in your face? Is Feng Min throwing her Asianness in your face?
All of you are being obtuse cowards about this very basic and [BAD WORD] simple question. Why is the representation of race and sex permissible but the representation of sexuality is not? If you cannot answer, you must accept the possibility of having an irrational double standard and take some time for a bit of self examination. Seriously.
I'll be waiting while you ignore me to regurgitate your tired points at Legend over and over again."**
After Mc_Hardy fails at the proposed challenge by arguing the neutral and negative at the same time (again) your response is that I'm just dismissing people that disagree with me:
"Once you pick away the nonsense like "viewpoints opposed to my own". PSSSH. Stoopid disagree-y people."
Am I done? Is that good enough? I really shouldn't have had to do that. You don't get to say stuff like this when everything is clearly cataloged and demonstrably shows otherwise.
To your most recent attempt to discredit me: people that have six toes, allergies, cut oranges, or make 11 dollars an hour do not have histories of endured oppression and violence stretching back millenia which still continue to the present. These groups would not benefit or appreciate from representation in the media we consume compared to a group that has been and is disenfranchised.
-
Alright, well, that's going to be one giant ass post that's going to require a cigarette. Hang tight.
-
@ToolboxMotley said:
@Wahara said:
Race/ethnic background is not always obvious. Depending on what their heritage is, further elaboration may be necessary. Unless, of course, you're claiming to be psychic and can determine the genetic and cultural makeup of someone by merely looking at them? That would be an interesting argument to make. The olive toned person you think is hispanic could actually be Arabic. The person you suspect is Asian could actually be native inuit.And those trivialities are entirely irrelevant. Their melanin quantities are different, yaaaaay. That's as far as it needs to go. Only people obsessed with race (not a good thing) would want it to be taken farther than that.
@Wahara said:
I'm not entirely sure where you intend on going with this differentiation between how one observes race versus how one observes sexuality. Something that is visually expressed, like race, is not inherently worse or "pushier" than something that's verbally expressed, i.e. "Sandra disappeared mysteriously one night after a late dinner with her girlfriend." Anyone that could read something as innocuous as that in a survivors biography and think that sexuality is being shoved in their face is simply not thinking very hard.If it's that minor, sure, no problem. They haven't made any reference to non-parental relationships in any of the other Survivors' stories, but since it seems some gay people just do not have enough imagination to fill in the gaps on their favorite characters' pasts, their mental handicaps could be accommodated via the inclusion of a line or two like that.
@Wahara said:
Oh, you know that's an improper characterization. You yourself were argued down from "Quit being so God damned shallow" to "Okay, actually yeah it is kind of nice if it's done right"That's how debates are typically supposed to go, reaching an understanding and, if viable and/or necessary, a compromise. Not the "I MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS" like many people seem to be taught.
I never said it was kind of nice, by the way. I still think that those who need it to happen have wildly unhealthy mindsets.
@Wahara said:
Er, to your question, I'm not sure exactly how to respond but I cannot tell whether you're phrasing your question rhetorically or whether they're being asked in good faith. Some clarification?I was asking in good faith and offering one way I could see it being done without being obnoxious, but that good faith is waning as you continue to state that any arguments opposed to yours are simply unworthy of consideration.
Your exact words were "If it's done right" so, you know, paraphrasing. Unless you would like to clarify that you meant that if it's done right, it...would be mediocre...? Personally, I think the purpose of a debate is to reach the most logical conclusion. Compromise can be a part of that process, but it doesn't have to be. I'm not going to give up a point because you gave up one, because that would be "fair" I'll give up a point if it's clearly wrong.
I do welcome you to point out where I have dismissed anyone's point without an honest attempt of rebuttal. I will happily correct the oversight. Conversely, if you would like me to quote the interactions where I feel justified in believing others are not properly engaging with my own, I would be happy to do so.
You and Orion are the only two participants in this discussion thus far that have come remotely close to honestly engaging with me and I suspect you know that, but I'll try not to be presumptuous. If you really do believe I'm just writing off people who disagree with me willy nilly, that's disappointing, but I think the conversation speaks for itself.
-
Okay, let's back this up a bit before we get taken down a rabbit hole. The discussion on whether race is more obvious than sexuality may be a completely unfruitful discussion. Let's just say I grant you the point and that it is, why is that relevant to the argument that the representation of sexuality is "more pushy" than the representation of race?
When someone says "pushed" or "shoved" they're implying aggression. Simply because it could take more work to express sexuality than race in no way entails it is being forced on you. Further, I also mentioned sex as an immutable characteristic, but only the comparison with race was disputed. Why is that?
-
"I don't care, but I question why it's necessary. I don't care, but I question your motives for desiring their inclusion. I don't care, but their inclusion is shoving an agenda down my throat. I don't care, but you're shallow for wanting this. I don't care, but you should just play pretend"
Uh huh. Yeah. Bull mother ######### ######### you don't care.
-
"Compared to sexuality, yes, it's more obvious"
Okay. This will be fun. Please explain how it's more obvious without sounding racist. I'm dying to know how you're going to do this. Give me something good, like "I know they're black because they have dark skin and curly hair." Lololol.
Just as an example, upon seeing Tiger Woods, most people would immediately think "black guy" but he is not merely black, but of Caribbean and Indian ancestry as well.
"Yeah you did."
Okay, yeah. I did. I'll quickly concede this point so I don't make myself out to be hypocrite, having just complained earlier that a good lot of you are being willfully obtuse. In which case, I admit my mistake and stand by my revised statement: I am not neutral. I argue the affirmative, and dispute the logical consistency of arguing both neutral and negative.
"No, but then again multiple people don't care and they don't want to care. Accept that already."
I do accept that some people don't care, what I don't accept is that the people purporting to "not care" in this thread are being honest. Someone that doesn't care wouldn't be getting into a long quote fest with someone that does. For someone that doesn't care, you seem to care a great deal.
How is it "pandering" if a video game company takes notice of their queer fan base asking for representation and kindly obliges them? That's called consideration.
Can we skip a step on that question and just get to what you're setting me up for?
-
@Mc_Harty Race/ethnic background is not always obvious. Depending on what their heritage is, further elaboration may be necessary. Unless, of course, you're claiming to be psychic and can determine the genetic and cultural makeup of someone by merely looking at them? That would be an interesting argument to make. The olive toned person you think is hispanic could actually be Arabic. The person you suspect is Asian could actually be native inuit.
"Yet you implied that was a win, since no one cares, so why not?"
Um, no. No, I didn't. I have been clearly arguing the affirmative this whole time. I am arguing the affirmative while simultaneously pointing out the contradiction between arguing a neutral and a negative, that doesn't mean I'm arguing a neutral and a positive.
I am not neutral. I would very much like to see a LGBTQ character. Ugh, there's something else I want to mention here but I can't find the words for it. I hope it comes to me the next post.
"for the sake of having them."
Uh, yeah? People keep saying this line like it's some sort of self evident argument. That's..what representation is? Your statement, worded different, but containing the same meaning could read: "You want representation just because you want representation."
Brilliant observation, my dear Watson. throws hand up in the air You got me!
-
I'm not entirely sure where you intend on going with this differentiation between how one observes race versus how one observes sexuality. Something that is visually expressed, like race, is not inherently worse or "pushier" than something that's verbally expressed, i.e. "Sandra disappeared mysteriously one night after a late dinner with her girlfriend." Anyone that could read something as innocuous as that in a survivors biography and think that sexuality is being shoved in their face is simply not thinking very hard.
-
1) Your point implies that the inclusion of sexuality is innately more "shoved down one's throat" than race or sex.
2) Duh? I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. That's the whole point of comparison, you describe similarities between two things that are different. The similarities being that they are both immutable characteristics.
3) YES I AGREE THAT IS THE ######### POINT YOU DENSE MOTHER #########. Neither is the mere existent of LGBTQ people. You're making me facepalm into a coma.
4) I can repeat the main argument, here. If no one gives a #########, then there's no reason not to include it.
5) You didn't understand the point. It is logically contradictory to argue a neutral stance and also a negative stance. You either don't care or you do care, not both.
6) Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything? What the hell do you think I'm discussing? Marching into BHVR HQ with armed drag queens? Don't be ridiculous.
7) Heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default. -
@ToolboxMotley Oh, you know that's an improper characterization. You yourself were argued down from "Quit being so God damned shallow" to "Okay, actually yeah it is kind of nice if it's done right" Orion, as well.
Er, to your question, I'm not sure exactly how to respond but I cannot tell whether you're phrasing your question rhetorically or whether they're being asked in good faith. Some clarification?
@Legend. I didn't mean that offensively. I mean that the members here in this discussion are blatantly picking on you so they can ignore points they don't want to deal with, and that's not cool.
-
@Mc_Harty said:
@Wahara said:
"when you almost militantly march forward forcing your ideas on everyone and injecting them into every single medium you can get your hands on my tolerance for the whole group drops."Is Claudette throwing her blackness in your face? Is Feng Min throwing her Asianness in your face?
All of you are being cowards about this very basic and [BAD WORD] simple question. Please justify why the representation of race and sex is permissible but the representation of sexuality is not.
I'll wait.
Simple. No one gives a #########. Not about race, sex, or who ever you want to [BAD WORD].
Stop acting so offended.
"No one cares, therefore no." - Arguing a neutral and a negative at the same time.
YouTried
Next on down!
I am also not acting offended, but I am acting aggressive. I am acting aggressive because several of you are ignoring my points to repeat tired arguments that have been properly addressed. If I have to behave a bit more brutishly in order to force others to engage with an argument, so be it.
-
"when you almost militantly march forward forcing your ideas on everyone and injecting them into every single medium you can get your hands on my tolerance for the whole group drops."
Is Claudette throwing her blackness in your face? Is Feng Min throwing her Asianness in your face?
All of you are being obtuse cowards about this very basic and ######### simple question. Why is the representation of race and sex permissible but the representation of sexuality is not? If you cannot answer, you must accept the possibility of having an irrational double standard and take some time for a bit of self examination. Seriously.
I'll be waiting while you ignore me to regurgitate your tired points at Legend over and over again.
-
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.
-
I'm gay. The whole numbers game isn't really a valid basis for any argument anyways. It is interesting to note that several people who are LGBT aren't really as against the idea as they appear to be, once you pick away through the nonsense like "it's not needed" and such, they're concern ultimately boils down to a deep cynicism.
I understand it, but like I said, it's a bit sad and defeatist.
-
I say I'm leaving and then come right back. I have too much time on my hands. But anyways. cracks knuckles
"We don't know the sexuality of the characters so you can just pretend."
It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something. Weird.
Also, MichaelMyers, did you know that deep throating every post that confirms your biases with capital letters makes you look really smart? You're doing great, keep it up.
There was one thing that I feel silly in hindsight for not expanding upon. When xmenfanatic mentioned that falling underneath the queer umbrella encompasses a lot more than who you want to have sex with, I should have added that gender presentation also factors into this. Characters that don't fit into their expected binary would be a welcome change, i.e. a male survivor who wears earrings and lipstick.
"I don't want their sexuality to just be tacked on."
I feel a little embarrassed for falling for this, because it's a sneaky trick. Sexuality wouldn't be "tacked on" any more than sex or race is "tacked on" It can be relevant to their story or it may not be. Neither are a valid basis for exclusion.
-
She can be. In my book at least, she's the third best killer in the game. She suffers more from coordinated SWF groups than other killers, though.
-
Easy: The killer is a camper the first person they see. I'm usually not the first person found so in these situations as long as teammates aren't stupid, we're all getting out or I'm finding the hatch.
Challenge: Killer's that can out mind-game me and predict my movements. More importantly, killers that adapt and don't fall for the same trick twice.
Overpowered: Have you faced a talented hag on Gideon meat plant, with nurses calling, sloppy butcher, deerstalker, and ruin? She's omnipresent.
-
"for sharing objective opinions"
"as no "OPINION" is based on pure facts"
Yeah. Playing chess with a pigeon about sums it up. sigh
-
@PigNRun said:
Wahara said:I feel like people have begun to stop seriously engaging with me. The goal posts have been moved all over the damn place. First, I went up against the idea that the request for LGBTQ characters implies an irrational fixation with gender or unnecessary identity politics. Then, I go up against the idea that it "doesn't matter" Then, I go up against the notion a character's identity cannot inform their lore. Now, the argument is but it's too likely to end up portrayed in a damaging manner so we shouldn't try.
Nah. I ain't play'n this game of whack-a-mole. You dears have fun.
So, you were politely refuted each time with valid points in a public board. -Sarcastic "Oh no!"-
If you feel the need to indicate sarcasm with a tag, you're probably wiser to leave its usage to people that grasp it better than you.
I hope this helps.
-
I...don't think either of you two are the most constructive participants in this discussion, to be fair.
I'm not revisiting the debate for aforementioned reasons, but the issues raised by this discussion, on if and how to represent queer people in dead by daylight, deserved to be treated with a bit more care. The discussion would fair better if it were remade and presented with adequate nuance, and the two of you have agreed to excuse yourselves from it.
-
Stealth builds are out classed by looping/chase builds but they aren't unviable.
BBQ & Chili: Sprint toward the recent hook and urban evade away.
Whispers: Screw with them when you find out they have it by sending someone in and out of the killers terror radius.
Also, don't hide in obvious places if you can help it. Most high rank killers will have a time limit for how long they'll try and sniff someone out before moving on. I always consistently catch people camping out in the yellow tractor on Autohaven wreckers. I always catch people hiding in the circus caravan that has a chest in it on Father Campbell's asylum. The bottom stories of the shacks in backwater swamp, also obvious. People seem to think the killer won't risk the danger of being caught in a loop to search for you there.
Your initial instinct is to stake out the very best cover and find something that feels like a cozy box, but it's better to hide in places that have only partial line of sight blockers, though many of them condensed together to weave in and out of.
But, I can only speak from personal experience and what has worked for me. I only play stealth builds as survivor because that's my jam.
-
"Your killer suggestion a few posts ago isn't too bad in that regard, actually"
Though, I will take the ego boost on my way out. Thanks.
-
I feel like people have begun to stop seriously engaging with me. The goal posts have been moved all over the damn place. First, I went up against the idea that the request for LGBTQ characters implies an irrational fixation with gender or unnecessary identity politics. Then, I go up against the idea that it "doesn't matter" Then, I go up against the notion a character's identity cannot inform their lore. Now, the argument is but it's too likely to end up portrayed in a damaging manner so we shouldn't try.
Nah. I ain't play'n this game of whack-a-mole. You dears have fun.
-
It would only be irrelevant if you wrote it as irrelevant. The example I wrote for you very clearly interweaves the character's sexuality with his back story and what he became.
The notion that a person's immutable characteristics don't influence their personal development and life experiences is silly. To say it's innately irrelevant? I'm sorry for taking off the kid gloves here a bit but that's just ignorant.
Further, "tokenization" is kind of an irrational boogeyman and the complaints I see from others about it are nearly always unfounded. Points to the recent star wars movies If a character who is a minority is poorly written, that is a completely unrelated issue from their identity. They're simply poorly written, and that's it. Nothing about their identity would make them innately more difficult to flesh out.
What I think you mean to say is that you don't want characters which rely on stereotypes. Which I agree, that's harmful, happens often, and hurts more than it helps. However, characters can be both stereotypical and layered at the same time, they're not mutually exclusive things. It is also somewhat defeatist to give up on media representation of other groups of people out of fear it may be done wrong.
-
I mean, it's not an insurmountable task to write LGBTQ characters with depth.
-
@Orion said:
@Wahara said:
I want to be able to play as a gay character. Why the hell not?And you are playing as a gay character, as far as you know. Just because the devs haven't said they're LGBT doesn't mean they're not LGBT. I said it in my first comment in this thread: just assume they're whatever orientation you are and be done with it.
I understood what you said the first time, but you haven't articulated what threat the explicit inclusion of a sexual orientation would present to the game.
I have previously argued that it has the capability of adding depth and intrigue to characters, whereas you seem to be under the impression that it would do harm, or take away from the game some how. Okay, I'll bite, but you gotta give me something to work with.
Well, no, not a checkmark. I would find that equally insulting. Many of the survivors have serious and dark undertones for their back stories, and being queer could easily play into that. For a survivor, what if we had someone that still struggled to come to terms with their sexuality and was bullied for being perceived as feminine?
You could have a perk called "Perseverance" - your experience enduring and weathering through abuse has shaped you to be courageous and stoic in the face danger. You are unaffected by perks like distressing and skill check zones are increased 10% within the killer's terror radius.
There was also my idea earlier in the thread in regards to a gay killer. Imagine a gay killer who's background involves religious trauma. Do you remember the mother from Stephen King's Carrie? Something that terrifying and horrible. His first love could have been found out by his parents, who ended up making him watch a forced exorcism that resulted in his death. His parents eventually brainwash him into believing that what happened was the lord's will and that he could still be spared if he repented.
Years of suppressing and rationalizing his lovers murder finally result in a psychotic break once his father, who is the pastor of a small church, convinces his congregation of a doomsday prophecy, and that to be spared from the horrible fate that was about to be unleashed upon the world, the solution was suicide, to be cleansed by God's holy fire. The doors are barricaded by the ushers and the building is torched with everyone inside. Our killer manages to escape, but develops the urge to kill. In men, he sees the hatred of his father and in women he sees the willing complacency and silence of his mother.
He would carry a jug of gasoline in one hand that he could splash on people from a distance and in the other hand carry a blow torch. When his terror radius came near, you would hear the blow torch flicker on and off while he hums the tune to "He's got the whole world in his hands."
How's that?
-
You're phrasing your point as evidence that people don't care about characters they can relate to, but the more likely explanation that such a large percentage of players used Claudette isn't because people don't care about characters that they can relate to as you seem to imply, but because Claudette starts out with extremely useful perks and the fact that possessing dark skin more easily allows you to slip away from the killer.
Your final point contains an assumption I don't understand. This isn't about what certain players can't do, it's about what we want to do. Obviously, all of us can play characters nothing like us. God of war is a great game, and boy let me tell you I am not remotely similar to a stoic war deity with rock hard abs. It's about what we want.
I want to be able to play as a gay character. Why the hell not?
-
A few things, since the forum ate my last post. If a moderator can find and approve the last post that I made which randomly went into the queue, that would be appreciated.
A) I feel like the people claiming that it "isn't necessary" are being somewhat disingenuous. If the roster of dead by daylight survivors were only black women, I am highly skeptical the majority of you claiming this would be as encouraged to play the game versus if you had the ability to choose a character that looked like or was more similar to you. The exact same arguments repeated here could be used against the inclusion of anyone else.
In response to Soylent and the point that sexuality, paraphrasing, "isn't something that should come up or something that people should care about." - visibility is a part of that normalization process. Familiarity breeds fondness. People who come into contact with diverse groups through the media that they consume become more accustomed to them. Will & Grace, for example, was one of the really large turning points in altering the average American's perception of gay people.C) Many things aren't necessary or don't matter. It isn't necessary for me to play dead by daylight, drink coffee, go for long walks, or sleep with five pillows. I do them anyways because they make me happy. Our desires and wants aren't usually determined by necessity but by emotional appreciation. If the inclusion of LGBTQ characters would be emotionally appreciated by a decent amount of the player base, why would you deny them, if not simply to be a dick?
D) You can't argue "No" because "It doesn't matter" That's arguing a negative and neutral stance at the same time.
-
Is selfish or hindering actions on part of the survivors always necessarily trolling? For example, if you're in a chase and know someone is hiding that isn't as skilled you, and you lure the killer toward them in hopes he switches to an easier target is a bit cut throat, but not necessarily trolling. Sometimes sabotaging the weakest link is the right call if they're a bigger hindrance than help.
-
I feel like the people claiming that it "simply doesn't matter" are being slightly disingenuous. I am highly skeptical that those standing by this would be as eager to play dead by daylight if the survivors to choose from were all black women. Can you imagine how ridiculous and silly that would be? Yet, we could use the exact same arguments repeated here to deny the inclusion of anyone different.
To the other point that was raised, that sexuality "isn't something that people should care about", or something that should even come up, visibility is a part of that normalization process. Familiarity breeds fondness, and the more people come into contact with diverse characters in the media they consume, the more used to it them they become. For example, TV shows like Will & Grace were massive steps forward in changing public opinion of gay people.
So really, the question is, why not include LGBTQ characters? Because it isn't "necessary"? Lots of things aren't necessary. What a stupid argument. Playing dead by daylight isn't necessary. My consumption of a whole pot of coffee every morning isn't necessary. Me posting on this forum isn't necessary. We do things or want things not always out of necessity, but emotional appreciation. If the inclusion of LGBTQ characters would be appreciated by many, but it "doesn't matter" to you, then why would you deny them for any other reason other than to be a dick? You can't say "no" because it "doesn't matter" That's attempting to argue a negative and be neutral at the same time and that's just not how good argumentation works.
-
On a somewhat related note, the unironic usage of the term "snowflake" automatically makes you look like a tool. It's a snarl word used by jerks to discredit/dismiss the sensitivities of people that are different from them.
-
When you see that #########, you just throw on Franklin's. Trust me, they'll come back for it.
-
@xmenfanatic said:
@ToolboxMotley said:
Speaking as a gay guy...You're being goddamn shallow. Quit begging for "representation" in the form of such a completely trivial character trait. Take pride in your personality, not your superfluous, immutable characteristics.
I'd much rather read about a character's chosen profession and last moments than who they prefer to bone. And most other people who have been raised to see themselves as a person rather than a checklist feel the same way.
To be shallow is to lack depth, and I'd definitely say that the detail would literally add more to the character. I don't know why people are making posts about how they'd rather see an occupation instead. Those bits of info in the bio don't need to be mutually exclusive, and can both be involved in the background.
Also, no one is begging for representation. Any point being used to express an interest in said character would make sense if someone simply wants to see a more relatable character. Essentially every post that seems to be insisting the desire for a gay character has been made in response to someone else expressing their interest in someone who's gay not being in the game. It makes sense to voice the desire to see a gay character in response to someone saying they don't want one, especially in a thread about queer characters.
I don't see an issue with people taking pride in both their personality and qualities about themselves that they can't chance. Once again, you don't have to sacrifice one to express or feel strongly about the other.
Being queer isn't just about who you want to bone. Someone queer could be an asexual character. And being gay or queer can be about a lot more then who you wanna have sex with because it's brought up in ignorant and irrational ways. Like someone implying it's only needed to refer to a sex scene.
What if they character is a romantic, and their whole story is about the their lover dying and they couldn't save them. Or maybe they loved someone who got pulled into the void since it's implied people in the real world know if and possibly worship The Entity. There are two simple examples of a bunch that could be introduced.
I feel like people here queerness being involved in something and for some reason you assume it has to be the most important detail. Instead of being a detail of many.
I'm certainly not saying i want a gay character simply to have one. I'd love one who has a cool background and good perks, and an interesting visual design, and happens to be queer.
I am giving a second thank you to this post. The fact that you have to step aside and educate people in this manner is a bit disappointing.
-
@PolarBear said:
Why are you interested in the sexual orientation of the survivors? What does it matter if a character is LGBTQ or not it hardly affect the lore of the game. There are much more interesting questions to be asked.Because representation (of historically and currently under represented groups of people) is important. Let's say for the sake of argument that all characters in DBD were white, and we asked the developers if they could make characters of other races, and you responded with "why are you interested about skin color?" Or if they were all men, and we asked why there weren't any women, and you responded with "why are you so interested in gender?" that would sound just a bit obtuse, wouldn't it?
LGBTQ survivors, or even killers, would be a much welcome addition to DBD. It would add variety and make things more interesting, like say, a gay killer who's motivated to kill based on religious trauma experienced during adolescence.
-
@Fao said:
People even forget you can play without healing yourself and you can even play without being healed if you are good enough you don't need no heal during a trial. That's actually why there is an iridescent emblem if you don't even get down during the game.The only thing self-care is providing is greedy survivors who heal themself ten times then comeback every time to try and give trouble to the killer while you are supposed to be injured and in need of assistance you just fade for 15s and you comeback fresh as never. So yes even if they add 10s to the healing process while using self-care under sloppy butcher, this is still not enough as a legit nerf to the healing mechanic which is pretty much a god mechanic
You touched on something that I think is important - this nerf really helps against SWF bully squads that try to show you how powerless you are. They're a bit more hesitant, I've noticed, to all go in for that three man body block of the hook.
-
Weird. I made a long-ish really long post here but it's not showing up...
I don't really mind it either. I think it just makes survivors forced to be more mindful/careful about when and where they decide to heal, i.e. right in front of the killer when he's carrying someone to the hook. I'm biased though since I've had success without running self care. With bond and plunderer's instinct for medkit rummaging, it's never an issue 95% of the time.
It's also not really fair that as killer, you can come out swinging within the first minute of the game and get three hits, just for the first two to be healed by the time you've managed to force the third to drop one pallet.
Hopefully I can figure out what happened to my other version of this post. I feel cheated, haha.
-
I don't think it's too bad. It's not terrible if you're mindful about when and where you decide to heal. Survivors can be pretty brazen about where they decide to heal up, like right in front of your face when you're carrying someone or when they think that you don't care and you're just going to keep after the person you're chasing. Right under the hook, too, is what gets me.
Especially given the prevalence of nurses calling, it does discourage self care a little bit, since it's like putting a big target on your back. Since the healing nerf, my nurses calling/whispers Myers manages to kill self-care users the fastest/easiest.
I guess we won't really know the full extent of the nerfs effect on balance until after it sticks around for awhile. As far as I can tell, it just makes survivors be a little bit less obvious and keep better track of their teammates. Though, I might be biased. I've never bothered to run self care. I use bond/plunderer's instinct and can snatch a medkit or find an ally to heal up quickly 95% of the time. In my opinion, I think balance is achieved when the skill cap to reach rank 1 survivor is roughly equal to skill cap required to reach rank one killer. I don't remember the exact percentages, but I believe the percentage of rank one survivors is something like 2.8 percent and rank one killers is 1. something. So, there are nearly a third more rank one survivors than there are killers. That indicates a considerable advantage, so it makes sense that there should be a considerable nerf/buff in favor of the killers.
Assuming this nerf is that considerable, anyway. Keep in mind that the nerf also came with a buff, reducing the time needed to recover from the dying state. The reason why I welcome the healing nerf is because you can put in a crazy amount of work in the early game simply to have it completely negated in under a minute. I catch three people attempting to rush a gen, smack dwight out of the window, fake the chase, come back and smack the meg who returns to the gen, she sprint bursts away toward a double story loop, but I still see scratch marks the opposite direction, follow them a few feet to smack the Nea attempting to urban evade in a corner and by the time I force her to drop one pallet Meg and Dwight have already healed up.
#########. That. The nerfed healing speed also encourages killers to spread the love around a bit instead of just tunneling down the first person they see. Though, I will add the disclaimer that I'm only a rank 7 killer. Playing survivor at rank 1, though, I have barely noticed the effect of the nerfs.
-
I agree that you should lose pips, I just don't think it should be punishable more than that. Maybe add in a safety pip for everyone else in the event someone DC's.
I also disagree with the notion that if you're the first person to be caught you need to simply be better at stealth. You can spawn the closest to the killer with no safe or completely non obvious hiding places. A good example is Badham preschool. It really sucks spawning close to a Hillbilly behind those stack piles located by the back walls of the map. There is literally no other cover except for a few skinny trees and a hedge bush.