miketheratguy
miketheratguy
About
- Username
- miketheratguy
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@WexlerWendigo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160914#Comment_2160914
There’s no reasonable discourse to be had around why someone thinks discrimination is okay.
I've known enough people to not judge them on their worst act. It kind of astounds me how much people seem to think that everyone has the same worldview, lived the same lives, had the same experiences, agrees on the same things, were treated equitably by the same people, never had to deal with being harmed by someone unlike themselves, etc.
Is discrimination bad? Sure. So is trying to tell others that they have to subscribe to your own set of morals to be a worthy human being in your eyes. I've met enough people in my life to have learned not to judge them solely by their worst features.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160875#Comment_2160875
You haven't been here long enough to know about this, but this isn't the first LGBT thread. A lot of ######### acting exactly like you described (or worse) have been banned.
As well it sounds like they should have been.
My point is, what does that have to do with anyone here? Am I being that #########? Am I saying that the LGBT community disgusts me and that I wouldn't play the game if it included such characters? Did the person who provided the example of a black person being stereotyped when he was included in the other game?
I'm going to be frank: You sound as if, clearly, you are part of the LGBT community (this may or may not be obvious but I don't want to speak in an authoritative way about people I don't know). If so, that's perfectly fine. It also sounds like you've dealt with people who have made such things, if they are true, very unpleasant for you. If so I'm legitimately sorry to hear that. I don't approve of such things, regardless of how my comments in this thread have apparently been misconstrued.
What I don't understand is, what has been said in this thread that makes you feel that you and / or your preferences, should they be what they seem, are under attack? From what I can tell the vast majority of this thread, including myself, AGREES with you, and the few people who have voiced any concern whatsoever have been met with what strikes me as a lot less tolerance than you want to be shown to yourself. Why?
-
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160646#Comment_2160646
Like I said, I don't think we will agree on that topic but I will still try to explain my point a bit more.
There are three reasons why I wouldn't seperate having a negative opinion from persecuting something.
1. Words alone can hurt. I know you can argue about that to a certain point "was this opinion insulting or is the other person just too sensitive" but in my opinion there is a clear line. If you deny someone the legitimacy to live there life you are insulting them. To me there is no arguing that, but like I said that is an opinion that is definitely culturally influenced.
2. There is an escalation process. Many people that killed or hurt people of a specific group talked bad about them beforehand, for example in online forums etc.
3. Your words might lead to other people persecuting. I do not have an optimal example so I'll go with the attack on the capitol. All the politicians who told the election manipulation story are atleast partially responsible for it even though they themselves did not take part in the attack. I know it's not a perfect example because there was already an explosive atmosphere in the US and other things like conspiracy theories had also an impact, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
About your friend: I'm sorry for using such extreme examples but there were nazi generals who were lovely to there families and still did terrible things. What I'm trying to say is, you are right people are not onedimensional, but being a good person in some things doesn't stop you from being a horrible person in other things, so I would be wary about a every person who is saying hateful stuff, unrelating to their behaviour outside that situation.
I get what you are trying to say with the personal upbringing but I think in this day and age it's only an explaination to a certain point because there are ways to inform you outside of the bubble. Also, like I said, I believe, if something escalates and hateful words led to hateful actions, can upbringing really excuse that?
To add a personal story: I was raised christian, my parents were active in the christian community and went to the children's church every sunday. My mom was raised christian aswell, in the firm believe that being gay is wrong because the bible says so. She still believes that (sadly) but isn't oppsed to same sex marriage because she thinks if two people care for eachother they should get the legal benefits just like heterosexuell couples. She would also never post mean things about gay people or threat them disrespectful. But she also takes the thing with "love your neighbor like yourself" and "don't jugde other people unless you are without sin" really seriously. What I'm trying to say is, my mother believes what she believes based on how she was raised and I can't change that, even though I try. But she is also able to see things not just black and white. And since the bible especially mentioned that you shouldn't be judgemental I can't help but feel, that some Christians are massive hypokrits.
What I'm trying to say is: I believe that you should have no right to be hateful to others and that hateful words can led to hateful actions so I find hateful speach hard to excuse even if it is related to your upbringing.
You have a very different perspective and we will likely not agree, and that is okay.
Not to minimize your points with a brief summary in return, but I need to focus on something in particular: First, do remember that I don't approve of my friend's comments (nor many things about him, for that matter, though he has a good side as well as a repulsive one). My argument was not that he should be free to speak hateful things to people, because that would fall under the umbrella of using his hate to harm others. If, to use a different example, I had a friend or family member tell me that they hated Jews, or Hispanics, or whomever else, I wouldn't immediately turn my back on them. I would ask them why, try to understand things from their perspective. If I felt that there was any room for reasonable discourse, I might also point out where I felt they were being wrong or unfair. But at the end of the day, if I knew that he kept his hateful thoughts on the inside and didn't outwardly treat anyone differently, I feel that it wouldn't be my place to try to convince him to change who he is. He has a right to be who he is, and feel how he feels, based on his own personal life experiences. No one should be required to think a certain way just because it's popular, or because more people think it's wrong than right.
That said, yes, if I knew that someone was openly acting in such a fashion, we'd have words. The Christian friend and I have had words, I assure you. A great very many words.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160812#Comment_2160812
Or cis, white, heterosexual men.
That's not an insult. 2/3 of those things can be applied to me. It's no more offensive than calling me bisexual. It's accurate. Just for the record, though, I didn't call you any of those things, I just commented that nobody cries "IDENTITY POLITICS" when it comes to characters with those traits.
You can claim that "identity politics" has a specific meaning, but it only ever seems to be used as an excuse against inclusion; i.e.: to be divisive. Who's more divisive? The people asking for everyone to be included, or the people asking for some to be excluded on purpose?
I've said about 30 times in this thread that I'm completely open to any character of any sexuality or ethnicity being in this game.
I've heard that one before, usually followed by a "but" and an excuse for why LGBT characters shouldn't be included.
I've also pointed out that what I disagree with is the aggressive insistence that if it doesn't happen, it's somehow a form of persecution.
The devs said they were purposefully excluding LGBT lore. Are you saying they were lying?
I've also noticed that this is now the second time my own color, sexuality or personal philosophies have been insulted despite the fact that I've done no such thing to anyone else here for theirs.
I didn't know (nor do I care) about any of those characteristics. For me, you're a username+avatar, and I hardly look at the former. You have no characteristics except those you convey through your actions (writing).
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160823#Comment_2160823
That strikes me as confirmation bias. I doubt you were here monitoring the forums every day since the game's release, looking for people to be upset about heterosexual relationships.
I have the highest post count on the forum. Make of that what you will.
And yes, if the roles were reversed, you'd see the exact same thing.
It's OK to speculate, but at least admit it is speculation. Or do you have some real examples of what you claim?
Aside from the person who briefly appeared and blatantly denied an interest in having LGBT people in the game, who else is calling for their exclusion? Who are the people that are persecuting you? Who here has said "No, I absolutely would quit playing this game if there were gay people in it"?
I had the highest post count at THQ. It didn't make me any more special than you are.
I don't need proof to offer a belief. I said that I believe you would be just as intolerant of straight people wanting their heterosexuality to have "equal representation" in a LGBT game as you claim others are being about your own desire for "inclusion" in this one. I stand by my belief. If I'm wrong, so be it. Like myself, you're nothing more than words, and that's what I have to go by.
I was shown the dev's comment on the matter, I don't recall them saying that they deliberately avoided LGBT sexuality specifically because they were uncomfortable with it or in any way found it negative or unpleasant. If I missed that part, you're free to show me. What I saw was "we wanted people to make up their own minds" which, I'm sorry, is not at all the same thing. You seem to have a habit of inferring attacks where there are none.
And yes, as long as someone takes a shaming or otherwise aggressive stance about something I may happen to otherwise agree with, there will always be a "but". I can agree with the end result of what you want without agreeing with the way that you're going about it.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160836#Comment_2160836
OK good I was getting worried
In all seriousness if I've said something that bothers you, by all means tell me. You're respecting me enough to speak to me without sarcasm and spite, I will gladly do the same in return. I'm not here to insult anybody.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160812#Comment_2160812
I thought we'd made up 😭😭
As far as I was concerned we did, I simply tried to help Orion understand that a user wasn't trying to specifically attack LGBT qualities as a negative thing but he or she seems to want to fight about the subject so we keep spinning our wheels. You've been fine, I have no issue with you. As for me, nothing I've said is new. I just keep getting mocked for it. Not only has my tolerance and integrity been questioned, so now is my ethnicity and sexuality up for criticism.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160801#Comment_2160801
Oddly enough, despite feeling that the devs' writing is bad and having had relationships in lore since the Nurse's release, they're only speaking up now, when it's LGBT people asking for representation. I took that into account when considering the whole context of their comment.
That strikes me as confirmation bias. I doubt you were here monitoring the forums every day since the game's release, looking for people to be upset about heterosexual relationships.
And yes, if the roles were reversed, you'd see the exact same thing. If someone made a game that appeared to cater to LGBT fans and a group of straight people started complaining that their heterosexuality wasn't being fairly represented, that would also be playing identity politics. I have the feeling you would also be far less tolerant of their attitude as you expect others to be of yours.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160786#Comment_2160786
If you were called a homophobe, it's because you equated being LGBT with "identity politics", a term that, oddly enough, only seems to to apply to anything other than cis, white, heterosexual men. Those are never political.
The term "identity politics" means to use what makes oneself unique - be it race, sexuality, whatever - to shame others into forced "tolerance". These things can happen organically, or they can happen because people demand them and call people who don't agree bigots. Or homophobes. Or cis, white, heterosexual men.
I've said about 30 times in this thread that I'm completely open to any character of any sexuality or ethnicity being in this game. I've also pointed out that what I disagree with is the aggressive insistence that if it doesn't happen, it's somehow a form of persecution. That, again, is playing identity politics.
I've also noticed that this is now the second time my own color, sexuality or personal philosophies have been insulted despite the fact that I've done no such thing to anyone else here for theirs. Some of you are a little too defensive about this.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160773#Comment_2160773
Yes, they're saying that, but they're saying that in opposition to users asking for LGBT representation. That's the context of this thread, after all.
Yes and no. He's throwing in his two cents that, while perhaps offensive to someone in support of the LGBT issue at hand, isn't directly attacking it. The full context of his post isn't "LGBT representation has no place in this game", it's "in my history whenever someone asked for representation and the developers agreed, they wound up making the situation worse". It's not unreasonable to say that characters shouldn't have any sexual preferences given because then it's an even playing field anyway. Any character can be gay, straight, trans, whatever.
My point is that you took it as an attack and I don't think it was meant as one. He was making a point, that's all.
-
@Hoodied said:
Oh boy this could go raw really fast
I was called a homophobe for talking about identity politics an hour or so back, you're probably fine now.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160754#Comment_2160754
The person Orion quoted literally said they would rather the already established lore being retconned to not include any heterosexuality instead of LGBTQ+ inclusion..
no strawman.
Context is the key here. He's saying that not applying sexual preferences to the characters would make things less complicated because then each one could be whatever anyone wanted them to be. I won't speak for him but I doubt he literally meant "gay lore is inherently bad and I would rather have no lore at all than be forced to suffer it".
-
I don't understand the typical complaint that working on generators "rushes the round". That's the survivor's entire objective. What are they supposed to do, lap the map a few times before they get started?
I mean, what IS the correct time that a survivor is supposed to wait before a killer decides to pay them back by preventing one of them from playing the game?
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160698#Comment_2160698
I still think the devs should just retcon their terrible writing and not mention any of that stuff at all, that way you can imagine them to be anything you want them to be.
Nuke the lore because it's better than having LGBT characters? Really?
This is why I think discussions like this lead to so many problems.
The user never said "Nuke the lore, it's better than having LGBT characters". That's a strawman. What he or she said was "when people demanded certain identities in another game the developers went overboard in trying to represent said identity correctly and it caused even more problems".
-
If I ignored the balance issues that would arise from such a thing, yes, I would enjoy passive survivor abilities. As the characters are now, with their teachable perks (a system I like, don't get me wrong), the survivors are all basically just different character models that are ultimately completely interchangeable. Same speeds, same amount of hits to bring down, etc etc etc. When you start mixing and matching perks you can turn Claudette into Ash, Jeff into Meg, Dwight into Feng, etc.
Again, I LIKE the perk teaching system, but it serves to highlight the fact that without their unique perks, these characters aren't unique from each other at all. Let Dwight's Bond be his passive power. Let Nea's crouching rush be her passive power, etc. People would have motivation to try out and develop favorites among all the characters instead of just searching out the best perks and applying them to whichever character model they happen to like the most.
-
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160318#Comment_2160318
I think it is sad, that it is a controversial topic, considering what you said about having a conversation with someone who is not straight but also considering the scientific consens on it. But I guess it's not surprising that people who won't believe other people about their own feeling won't believe scientists either.
Regarding your gta example: I think it matters what type of game you are talking about, I think it's fair to ask for diverse option in a game like dead by daylight which has many different characters or a roleplay game like skyrim which lets you design your own. In a story driven game which does not have this many options because you mainly follow one or two characters it's a different story, obviously you can't repesent everyone in this case. I'm a woman and usually I prefer to play female characters, but I wouldn't complain if I play a story driven game with a male characters because I understand they made this choice for story reason. But if the gender is not that important for the gameplay/Story, I like to have the option to chose. (Which I usually have, don't get me wrong, I just used it as example.) So what I'm trying to say is, I understand where you are coming from but it depents on the situation imo.
I don't think we are going to agree on the second part of your comment though. First of, I think cultural differences might play a role here, from the things you mentioned I'm assuming you are from the US. I'm not and there are some significant cultural differences between our countries, from my understanding the US has strong focus on individual freedom. You mentioned freedom of speach, which has limitations in my country. You can get sued for insulting someone (it's not that easy though, not everything counts as an insult there are specific conditions) and you can get sued for incitement of the people. From my understanding it's a lot harder to sue someone for insults in the US due to the first amendment, please correct me, if I'm wrong.
What I'm trying to say is, of course someone should have the right to say their opinion but shouldn't other people also have the right to live their life without being targeted for the way the were born? At this point definitions of freedom collide, it's also related to paradoxon of tolerance.
What I'm trying to say is: Your friend believes people should be tortured for their sexuality, for the way they were born and I think that is an unacceptale opinion.
But, as you will probably mention, forbidding an opinion does not stop people from having it which brings me back to represenation: As far as I know exposure and contact can reduce prejudice, it probably won't sway people like your friend but maybe more representation can lead to a greater acceptance in the population in general.
You make fair points, but near the end you kind of use having a negative opinion on something as equal to actively persecuting something.
I'll give you a 100 percent true example of this. My fundamentalist Christian friend, who believes that all homosexuality is a sin and so forth, and voted against gay rights / gay marriage, has opinions that I don't share. He's a good guy - he's responsible, cares greatly for his family, counsels people in need, etc. But he has opinions that are against the gay community. People are three dimensional and I won't hate him for his feelings on the subject even if I think that they're extremely ignorant and judgmental.
Meanwhile, I also had a friend who I believe was trans. I met both of these people while on the THQ forums where I eventually worked for a while. They didn't talk to each other much, they were two names in a sea of names in a very large community. But I became close online friends with both - the Christian (so named not to shame him, but because I'm withholding real names) and I developed a love / hate heated rivalry with each other because we're extremely opinionated people who disagree on a great many things, but who respect the hell out of each other for other things as well. The trans girl (I never got confirmation but always believed) simply looked up to me a great deal because I was a leader of the forum for a while.
Long story short, she saw some of the comments that the Christian made and was irate about them. She found them hurtful, stopping just short of saying that they were insulting to herself and her lifestyle. I explained that while I understood her position, and agreed with it, it was not our place to tell him that his beliefs were wrong. We didn't live his life, we weren't raised in his household. We didn't read the books that he did, have the experiences that he had. Just because we ourselves agreed that homosexuality is not a sin doesn't mean that he doesn't have an equal right to believe that it is. It's not our place to tell him that he's wrong and has to change his worldview any more than it's his right to do the same to us.
She was flabbergasted. She accused me of taking his side. I argued that no, I'm actually not taking anyone's side. It's a matter of moral relativism. Some people think that masturbation is a sin. Some people thing that certain words are evil. Some people thing that certain books should be banned. Some people think that certain things shouldn't be shown in movies. Who gets to decide these things? What makes someone the arbiter of how everyone else should feel about something? I explained to her that just because I thought the guy was wrong and ignorant in the expression of his beliefs, there is no fact that I am "right" to feel the way I do about mine. Is racism bad? In that it leads to harm, yes. Same with all forms of bigotry. But who am I to tell someone that they can't be racist? What if they spent their whole lives learning firsthand from terrible people that racism is justified? Who am I to tell that person that his beliefs aren't valid, that he has to agree with what I think is right? If someone hates a culture or ethnicity or species or movie or cartoon or color or food or type of car, what gives me the authority to tell them that no, they are wrong, and they have to feel the same way that I do because it's right? Isn't it presumptuous of me to act as if I know what this person's life was like and undermine everything they know just because I think that I'm good and they're bad? If I were to do that, how would I be any different than if he said that I'm a bad person for supporting homosexuality and that I should hate gay people otherwise there's something wrong with me and I'm going to hell?
I feel that it's up to the individual - their upbringing, their home and family life, their formative years of development, their own personal feelings about who they are and what they think is right and wrong - to be shaped by their own lives. I feel that anyone should be allowed to hate who they want to hate, love who they want to love, be neutral to whatever they feel neutral about. It's when people start using their beliefs to hurt other people - to put them down, oppress them, interfere with their happiness, cause them harm, etc. - that the problems begin. In short, people have a profound number of differences, and part of successfully functioning in this world is to learn to accept those differences and not allow them to turn us into horrible people.
In other words, as I've often said - what two consenting adults want to do behind closed doors doesn't raise my taxes, doesn't make my wait at McDonalds longer, doesn't cause me any physical harm. So why should I be bothered by it? But I have to be fair: At the same time, if someone hates those same people but doesn't otherwise cause them, or me, or anyone else any actual problems in life other than upset feelings and disagreement, why should I let that bother me either? I can't determine what's right for everybody, these are choices that they have to make for themselves. And two people who feel strongly opposed on various issues probably have reasons that, to them, make just as much sense as the other person's reasons make to them, too.
The trans girl quit talking to me, which is a shame but it's her right. She decided that because I didn't fully oppose the Christian's right to have beliefs that differed from hers, and looked down upon her, then I must be as "bad" as he is. I simply tried to explain that I don't share his beliefs, I'm just not going to presume to tell him, or anyone else, that he has no right to have them.
-
@RoboMojo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160335#Comment_2160335
60 is definitely fine sure. It definitely couldn’t hurt to uncap the fps I say. It’s fairly easy. Obviously up to you though.
What's involved, editing the ini? I play to have fun and don't care too greatly if I win or lose, so if a higher FR is basically to gain an advantage I'm fine with 60.
-
The Switch Lite runs at a surprisingly smooth 30 FPS (in my opinion at least, it seems that a lot of other Switch users have less positive things to say. I've had zero problems with the game). It should be noted that the docked performance of the Switch is actually supposed to be worse than handheld.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160333#Comment_2160333
That's pretty much what I follow, except I try to be a little more supportive.
My grandparents are very devout Catholics and they are both that way as well.
I almost died at a few days old, and my mom developed a staunch belief in God (I was saved by a Jewish doctor, so you could say that I learned to see people as basically just "people" at a very young age. That's why I consider what my understanding of "identity politics" to be offensive. I think that differences should be acknowledged, but not weaponized, and too many people out there these days are doing just that). Anyway on the other hand my dad had horribly abusive parents who used religion as an excuse to horribly mistreat him. For that reason I've always had kind of a middle ground position on a lot of things, including religion. Again I'm agnostic, and probably always will be. To me (to ME), trying to understand the existence or intentions of God are like an ant trying to understand the existence or intentions of the internet. We're just not equipped for it.
Again though that's just my own philosophy. That's all I'll really say about it though, I told the mods that I agree with the stance of "no politics, no religion" and don't want to walk back on that.
-
@Itooshie said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160318#Comment_2160318
To be fair they will never do a flamboyant queer character because that is the definition of stereotyping which is what they are trying to avoid for the character.
I can totally see Ace as a dragqueen tho, the dang silverfox 🤪
To be perfectly honest I find the John Waters type of gay to be the coolest kind. My mom's best friend Raoul used to call everyone honey, including myself. I was exposed to gay people at a relatively young age, I thought they were fun people. Once I was at his house visiting his (straight) brother and Raoul took a phone call. As I sat on the couch Raoul made it very obvious that he was speaking to both me AND the caller when he said "oh, my friend's son Mike is here visiting. Yep, I'm gonna marry him one day". I laughed. What could I do? It was funny.
That said, though it's a stereotype fully embraced by some, it IS still a stereotype, so you're probably right.
-
@RoboMojo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160139#Comment_2160139
I don’t think it does make a difference. My PC uses windows 10 and while I do experience issues with stuttering occasionally, generally speaking the game is fine. I can usually get around 80-90 FPS on Ultra but I typically play on Low because the better fps feels better. Out of curiosity, did you un-cap your FPS?
I heard that Win10 was worse for some games, but that was when it was first released so I didn't know if it was still a point of contention or not.
EDIT: Almost forgot, no, I don't uncap my FPS. At least not knowingly. I had horrible screen-tearing when I played with VSync on so I turned THAT off, but that's about the only adjustment I recall making to the game. I also record all my matches so I'm always playing with Bandicam on, so it's hard to know if I'd get more than 60 without it. That said I find 60 perfectly suitable, I have no desire to try to get higher frames that that. So I couldn't say.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160246#Comment_2160246
Religion is what conflicts me about this, but I think I've made peace with it and found my own path.
I know a very good woman - she's my GAD therapist, actually - who is a very committed Catholic. She's highly intelligent, introspective and open-minded. We've had a lot of discussions about life and any number of deeper subjects. I've asked her how she feels about gay marriage. She said that, in accordance with her own religion, it's not something that she personally approves of or would take part in. But, she also said, she understands that everyone is different and that her own personal feelings about something shouldn't hold someone else's feelings on the matter hostage. She waved it off by saying "let people marry whomever they want, as long as they understand that I'm going to stick with my husband".
It's a healthy attitude.
-
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160185#Comment_2160185
Some people have already said it, but sexuality and race are not really comparable to religion and political opinions because the latter are (mostly) a choice, the former is not. (Yui's and Jane's lore does have political undertones though.)
Also I think there is a difference in wanting super specific characters and wanting a diverse cast. Obviously super specific is hard: There have been discussions about characters from a specific country and while there is nothing wrong with making a suggestion, the Devs obviously can't include all 194 countries of the world. But a diverse cast is a different story, it's about having many characters from many different backgrounds so that there is a higher chance that different people will feel represented. And Behaviour is already doing it, the characters are not just one race and one gender. Does it identy the characters? I think that depends on the player, some might play a character just because the like the look, some because they like the backstory and some because they identify with the character. And I think that would be the same with sexuality, for some it would be the most important thing about the character and some wouldn't care.
On the topic of sexualtity the Devs have only mentioned heterosexuell relationship in the lore though and this is not a 194 countries situation, it is just heterosexuell or not heterosexuell, so it shouldn't be to hard to include it. And as you probably know, the Devs have already said, that they want to do it. And as @GoodBoyKaru has mentioned it's not like we expect more than a few sentences in the lore. And about the topic of a token character: There is always a possibility of doing something wrong so if you follow the argument "don't do it, it might turn out bad" than nothing would ever be done.
On the identify politics thing: I'm straight, so I have no personal interest and an LGBTQ character would not make me feel more represented, I think it is just a question of fairness.
This is a controversial topic but I personally agree, homosexuality is not a choice. Again, I've known several and am still friends with / related to several who are, and I feel that anyone who's spent any time with someone who isn't straight can pretty easily understand that it's an inherent feeling, not a choice that they made after waking up one day.
I related it to something like race / ethnicity, which is something else that a person can't change. I use the Doctor in this game, he's black (or at least African-American). I like the character a lot, I think that he's one of the more interesting characters in the game. As mentioned my favorite games in the GTA series heavily (or exclusively) required me to play as a young black man. I didn't think anything of it because the game was good. It's not as if I didn't notice - there are obvious cultural and ethnic differences - I just didn't care, and when I say I didn't care what I mean is "it did nothing to worsen my experience".
To that extent, as a straight male maybe it IS difficult to understand why some people who are not feel that a game or film (or what have you) isn't complete until someone more like themselves is included. To me it's not about representation or inclusion, I have nothing wrong with any of that. I just don't like modern society's highly politicized atmosphere which fosters the belief that if you DON'T go out of your way to tick all the boxes and include someone who represents all possible types of people, you are in fact a bigot and must make amends. This is painting with a broad brush, but this is also currently the world (at least the country) that I live in. As another example, the actress Ashley Judd once said that she couldn't stand hearing pro-Trump rhetoric at a basketball game (or something) and unironically advocated for the existence of "safe spaces" where people don't have to listen to anyone who feels differently about something than they do. That's the kind of dividing line where freedom of speech becomes an evil, the ability to have different opinions seen as something negative. One side wants to determine what's best for everyone. THAT is what I don't agree with. Not inclusion, not diversity, but those who feel that anyone who opposes such things are bad, wrong, intolerant, bigoted, evil, etc.
I'm not saying that this was the prevailing attitude of the thread before I made my comment. That said, my comment was informed by having had many negative experiences with other people, away from this forum, who feel that "tolerance" and "inclusion" is something that must be forced in all walks of life, and if someone dares to find that attitude uncomfortable, then that person is inherently, morally "wrong". That is the slippery slope that makes me uncomfortable, and was exemplified, in my opinion, by my having been called a bigot for trying to express this viewpoint.
TL;DR: I have a hyper-conservative friend who thinks that homosexuality is a sin that should be cured by shock therapy. I have gay relatives who live happier, more productive, more positive lives than this other guy could ever hope to achieve. My point? They've all lived their own individual lives, they've all had their own individual experiences, They all have the right to believe what they do, based on a set of morals and ethics that, for various reasons, feel right to THEM. I have no problem with them all existing. It's when one tries to force those morals and ethics on others, to make others think the way that they do lest they be shamed for not doing so, that is a slippery slope that I find uncomfortable. That is basically all I was trying to say.
Bottom line, if BHVR creates a flamboyantly gay trans character (just as a hypothetical example), so be it. I'll still play the game. If they don't, so be it, I'll still play the game. I don't hold it against people for wanting to see someone close to themselves represented in their chosen form of media, I just don't share the opinion that it's a necessity for enjoying said media. If a LBQT game is a lot of fun, I'll still play it. But my moral compass doesn't have to be everyone else's.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160206#Comment_2160206
That’s a fair enough standpoint for sure. If you don’t care you don’t care. But others do care. Others may need representation to get away from oppression/discrimination/hate/violence because of their identity or sexual orientation in real life. It wouldn’t hurt you but representation helps to normalize these topics and help letting feel people included when they struggle with this in other areas.
and you have to agree people can take offense when you are using terms like „crap“ „feeling sick dealing with it“ etc. when talking about it. And it certainly doesn’t feel like you don’t care when using such a language.
and just for the record, I don’t apologize because I never accused you of being homophobic to begin with. I explicitly stated that before actually. And I didn’t feel attacked or insulted personally as well, I just pointed out that others may feel insulted by it. Overall it seems you were trying to accuse me of being too emotional about this topic when it felt like you were way more emotional.
No, I wasn't referring to you. I know that you're not the person who said it.
-
@BlindMole said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160246#Comment_2160246
I don't want to add anything, maybe i agree with you, maybe not but you getting called a homophobe was a pretty ######### mood
Thank you. I have various philosophies on most things, I've been around long enough and have spoken to enough people to have learned that looking at both sides and playing devil's advocate is a useful way of having a discussion. I enjoy objectivity. Go back and look at any of my posts here and you'll see that I don't take the survivor's side (even though that's my main) than I take the killer's side. As for the gay thing, I wish that the trans person I befriended from this site several weeks ago would be able to pop in and make it clear that I'm anything but a homophobe (I won't mention this person's name as outing someone without their consent is a horrible thing to do).
I understand that the person who called me a homophobe doesn't know me. But I felt that they were basing their conclusion off of very little - they either deliberately or unintentionally ignored the greater point that I was trying to make and chose instead to feel that I was attacking them, or perhaps someone they care about, for essentially no reason. They were of course welcome to think that, even if it would have been incorrect. But to label me a bigot for having a difference of opinion is, to me, just about the lowest thing that you can call someone - and it was doubly offensive since it isn't even correct. Again, they don't KNOW that, but that's a good reason why they shouldn't have said it.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160231#Comment_2160231
I agree, we should start over. Hey, I'm GoodBoyKaru (or Karu_TC if it's easier)! Nice to meet you Mike- I can call you Mike, right?
I think we're arguing for the same thing done in the same way, so allow me to gain your trust with a picture of a small koala
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/TVX5BLTI2U17/received-1450289808670612.jpeg
Edit: yeah I hope I didn't come across as too confrontational when I started, idk if you could tell but it's kinda an important topic to me lol
Good to meet you Karu. I respect that you're passionate about what you believe in. That's a good thing. I am too. When two passionate people don't necessarily see things exactly the same way they can often get started off on the wrong foot, which is a shame.
And yep, you're free to call me Mike. It's ma name. The "Rat guy" part came from the fact that I used to bring my domesticated rats to a local park and people got to know me as "the rat guy".
Feel free to disregard the tacky shirt, it was my "at the park with rats crawling on me" shirt.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160227#Comment_2160227
I just treat everyone as human beings.
Religiously, I'm told to love everyone, so I try my best to do so.
I'm agnostic and I feel the same. This is as it should be.
Love who you love. Be who you are. But accept that everyone's different and that's okay.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160210#Comment_2160210
Uh, word for word it's this:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/JSOW3Q4PGAYF/screenshot-20210504-094514.jpg
Which can obviously be taken whatever way you want. I like to take it as a "We forgot about you guys, our bad, we've changed our plans you're gonna be included as well". Other people could see it as more malicious, of course.
Like I said, I'm really bad with words so my point probably didn't come across as I wanted it to
I take it as "we don't want to take any sides on this particular issue and will leave it up to the players to come to their own conclusions".
Others might agree but I think that that's a perfectly fine way of approaching it. Again, I play Meg all the time. If they add lore that defines her as a post-op transsexual female, that won't make me any less likely to use her. My own philosophy is that it doesn't matter because the character's identity (or, if you would rather, specific details of her personal life) has no effect on my ability to enjoy the game as it currently exists.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160192#Comment_2160192
"Yes, As a straight while male I have been represented and "included" in most walks of life. You're not incorrect about this. Implying that this is somehow a wrong that I should be held responsible for, as some of the rhetoric in this thread has done, isn't quite fair."
I wasn't trying to blame you for it! Oh my God, I'm so sorry if it came across like that, it really wasn't my intention! I'm really, really not good with words, and again I'm really sorry!
It's not that it's wrong and you should be responsible for it, it's moreso that if you don't go through a struggle your opinion on something should be taken with less value, if that makes sense?? I'm not trying to say "Meh, you didn't go through this so I'm morally superior" or anything like that, I don't wanna make an Oppression Olympics.
"But the fact is that I don't care if the game has gays, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, etc etc etc etc etc etc."
If you don't care, great. Let the people who do, for either side, have the discussions because if you truly don't care you'll just vibe on the sidelines (until you do, which from your next point is if they're just used to tick boxes).
"The only person I've seen here who seems to have an objective and neutral understanding of this discussion is Pulsar. My argument can be summarized in one sentence, which he did very eloquently (and I paraphrase) : I have nothing against certain types of characters being in this game. I just don't want them there to check boxes."
But we've seen how BHVR have handled straight relationships in the lore- for the most part subtly. Felix gets one line. David gets one word. Nurse has a couple of entries but it's still on her and her descent into madness. We don't talk about the Frank and Julie tome, like, ever.
+ with the CryptTV skins they've just ticked the boxes. Technically. So they wouldn't have to do anything else, I just hope they will. And that they'll do it right, which I think we're agreeing upon wanting it done right yet arguing with each other on it??
"As for the comment that I am homophobic, based on nothing about me other than the argument that I don't agree with using aggression and insults to shame someone into "diversity" and "inclusion" (a comment which I see has been deleted, by the way), that was absolutely uncalled for. Tell me: Did I use the "f" word to describe any of you, simply because I didn't like the points I thought YOU were making?"
I have a feeling this comment is more directed at the thread than at me so I'll leave this as my only answer to it
Let's just start over. I don't know you, you don't know me, there's no reason for us to be at each other's throats about it. There have obviously been misunderstandings and I would like to dial it back. I have nothing personal against you.
I came in with an opinion already quite well-formed from other walks of life, NOT this forum, and in doing so I likely came across as more combative than I intended to. I stand by my philosophy, but it appears as if this wasn't the proper time and venue in which to express it the way that I did.
I became more irritated as multiple arguments against me basically skipped past what I was trying to say and instead focused on the mere fact that I was in any way disagreeing, and yes, I was (and still am) absolutely incensed that I was called a homophobe. I take GREAT offense to that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I didn't intentionally insult anybody for having the views that they did. I never called anyone a lesser person, a hateful person, a "wrong" person, for having beliefs that differed than mine. And the funny thing is that our beliefs don't even differ. The only thing that differs is the way in which they're argued. Some see it as a kind request, others see it as an entitled demand. My point is that I see the latter far, FAR too often. And not just about sexuality, about EVERYTHING. I've been on this Earth for 43 years and this is the most miserably tribal political landscape I've ever had the displeasure of experiencing. Everyone has to argue. Everyone has to hate. Everyone else is the enemy.
I'm not saying that this describes you specifically. I didn't mean for it to be taken that way.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160190#Comment_2160190
It's- not really the same.
It's like excluding white people from having an opinion on black struggles.
It's like excluding men from having opinions on what you can/can't do with your body if you're a woman.
It's like excluding, forgive the extreme example, someone who's never been sexually assaulted from the discussion of #########.
Your opinions can still be valid but honestly they don't hold as much sway as the people who actually experience things.
Black people have a much bigger voice on black struggles because they go through them. Women have a much bigger voice on women's struggles because they go through them, etc.
If you've been represented by default your entire life, you don't really get an opinion on why it's important. You can still talk about it, but your opinion should be held with a lot less importance than, say, trans women on the topic of representing trans women.
Did they say that were excluded out of the intentional desire to do so because they didn't like the idea, or did they say that they were excluded because it just wasn't something that they happened to think about? There's a big difference.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160185#Comment_2160185
The fact that you are accusing me for something „one of us“ did just tells me a lot about yourself. I am an individual person.
and you may have not insulted someone directly but you insulted people nonetheless.
even though the term „identity politics“ exists you were the one labeling it that in this case. We already know how the devs see it and the majority of people (including me) just want equal treatment or not explicit exclusion just for exclusions sake. No one should have a problem with that, but somehow, you found a way to label it something you think is bad. There was no pushing here, the devs decided on their own. You were trying to push against inclusion though. But it seems like that is okay in your mind..
There's a world of difference between directly insulting someone and being unable to control whether someone feels insulted by another person's philosophy.
Though I don't expect to get any sort of apology for being called a homophobe, I will apologize if you felt offended by my argument. That was not my intent.
To again be clear, without aggression or sarcasm, here is where I stand: This game can include anybody. I don't care. It doesn't bother me BECAUSE I don't care. I don't choose Meg because she in any way reminds me of myself, or play as a male because I feel like that's the only way I can feel "represented". I don't CARE. I don't think of a person's color, sexuality, gender, appearance, or political alignment when choosing a character because it's a video game and, as I said earlier, I play video games to get AWAY from that kind of crap in real life. Now, before you get upset, am I saying that inclusion and representation is crap? No. I'm saying that divisive subjects that, as they did tonight, usually boil down to one side insulting the other one due to an emotional disagreement is the kind of stress that I don't need in my life any more than I'm already forced to deal with it. I deal with it work, I deal with it when I watch the news, when I come home to play a video game I'm happy to know that such concerns don't matter.
SO, when I see someone raising a discussion out of it, and resorting rather quickly to the defensive stance that "if you don't like it you're intolerant", I see a logical fallacy that, again, I'm already sick of dealing with everywhere else I go. If I walk down the street and see a gay pride parade, I'll clap and wave and carry on. If I read in the news that because of some city ordinance the gay pride was going to be canceled until its organizers called the city "intolerant homophobic bigots", I'm going to roll my eyes.
I'm all for inclusion. What I don't like is when calls for inclusion start segueing into de facto threats of joining the righteous lest they be condemned as hateful, which is exactly what happened to me.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160132#Comment_2160132
I mean no offence but as a straight, white male you've been represented almost all, if not all, of your life, so it'll be difficult to get why representation is important. Just know that it's not a political agenda, it's a biological fact of people's lives.
And, honestly, I mean this in the nicest possible way but your opinion doesn't hold much sway in this discussion for the facts mentioned above. Because you've been represented your entire life.
Yes, As a straight while male I have been represented and "included" in most walks of life. You're not incorrect about this. Implying that this is somehow a wrong that I should be held responsible for, as some of the rhetoric in this thread has done, isn't quite fair. I also find it unfair to say that as a white male I am only equipped - so limited in my ability for objectivity - that I am unequipped to advocate for someone who isn't.
Let me be perfectly clear here: I have nothing, NOTHING against gays, trans, or anyone else who is not straight. If any of you actually knew me you wouldn't be saying half the things that you are. It's not your obligation to understand, nor my obligation to explain. But the fact is that I don't care if the game has gays, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, etc etc etc etc etc etc.
The only person I've seen here who seems to have an objective and neutral understanding of this discussion is Pulsar. My argument can be summarized in one sentence, which he did very eloquently (and I paraphrase) : I have nothing against certain types of characters being in this game. I just don't want them there to check boxes.
As for the comment that I am homophobic, based on nothing about me other than the argument that I don't agree with using aggression and insults to shame someone into "diversity" and "inclusion" (a comment which I see has been deleted, by the way), that was absolutely uncalled for. Tell me: Did I use the "f" word to describe any of you, simply because I didn't like the points I thought YOU were making?
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160174#Comment_2160174
You insulted people by saying their very existence is a political agenda.
Actually no. If you take your emotion out of the discussion you'll see that my opinion is that a character should not be defined by their sexuality, race, religion, politics, etc. The term "identity politics" exists. I didn't invent it. It defines the pushing of one's own self as something that should take special precedent, something that should be included not as an organic addition but as a way of singling it out.
I called no one anything. I never once said that I was against gays or anyone else being in this game. I said that I don't support the modern trend of forcing such things just so that everyone can feel "included". How identical to oneself does a character have to be to feel included? I even provided examples. I can play as women. Black characters. If some of the characters in this game are gay or trans, I couldn't care less. I met a trans member of this forum and we played plenty of games together. I even complimented him on his ability to appear female. I have two gay cousins. But yes, because I don't like the practice of demanding "equal treatment" (when in fact this would imply that any straight people are demanding inclusion when in fact I doubt most straight players of the game care one way or another), I am essentially called a bigot for having the audacity not to agree.
I don't care what I said. I never once personally attacked ANY of you. The fact that one of you would call me homophobic is a disgusting, knee-jerk reaction that shows that you don't understand nor care to understand my argument, you just want what you want and assume that anyone who finds this to be obnoxious is, again, a selfish bigot.
You should be ashamed of yourselves. I was voting for gay rights before most of you were likely even alive. But hey, I'm the bad guy because I don't like people trying to force their will on others and claiming victimization, oppression, and hate on the side of the enemy for not agreeing. So be it.
-
@Rizzo said:
There's nothing political about people's identity, so please try to be respectful when someone is just asking for representation in a game they love.
The devs want to do this right, as Not_Queen explains well here:
https://www.twitch.tv/deadbydaylight/clip/HyperGloriousSquirrelDeIlluminati
Oh, like the person who called me a homophobe for having my own opinion which insulted nobody. Alright.
-
I have a constant 60 FPS on ultra settings with no major hiccups. That said, I've read from others that they have equal or better rigs who DO have issues. I can't explain why that would be.
I'm also playing on Win7, not Win10, if that makes a difference.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160102#Comment_2160102
Everything has to mean something nowadays.
Most forms of art have some meaning behind them. The greats are usually great precisely because they have deeper meaning than what's on the surface.
Everyone has to "stand" for something or be espousing some kind of personal beliefs.
Nobody "has" to do anything, but it's great that people can do that. It's much better than the alternative, IMO.
If I, as a white male, can play as Meg in this game and enjoy myself, or play as Franklin or CJ in Grand Theft Auto and enjoy myself, it says to me that I don't need a character to represent ME and whatever I may happen to believe in in order to enjoy the game. That's how it should be. It's a video game.
That's fine and all, but other people play this game as well.
Ah. I see. I get "special treatment" because I'm a straight white male, and the only way to change that is to force the game to have an equal amount of everything else. As I said, identity politics and forced diversity. Next time you see me demanding more straight white males, gimme a call.
This is going in a very unpleasant direction. I can't believe that I'm unable to even play a game where killers stalk survivors without having to be lectured about privilege. Be who you want. Celebrate who you are. If you're LBGT, cool. If you're a hardcore Libertarian, cool. If you're a black woman in a wheelchair, cool. But quit making demands of everyone else to cater to your specific identities under the umbrella of "diversity" and "tolerance". This goes for gays, straights, whites, blacks, men, women, everyone. It's a ######### video game. Be happy that exists, play it, and leave politics at the door. This isn't a world demographics simulator.
I'm leaving the discussion now before it gets worse.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160091#Comment_2160091
So.. what’s your opinion of Zarinas and Yuis backstories? Or Neas archive lore?
also why is being LGBTQ+ political at all? No one was asking for an political activist that fights for LGBTQ+ rights, you realize that’s a difference?
Asking for LBQT "representation" is asking to be singled out for one's identity. It's not necessary.
It's no different than a Muslim saying "there should be a positive role model Muslim survivor".
It's no different than saying "there should be a persecuted Mexican border crosser".
It's identity politics. It's not being satisfied with what's on offer unless something is included that caters to one's own specific beliefs, agendas, or personal politics. I reiterate, there's enough of that in this world and most people are sick of it. I couldn't care less if any of the characters in the game are gay, bi, trans, black, brown, white, yellow, Liberal, Conservative, Christian or Atheist. I DON'T CARE. It doesn't effect the game, nor should it. These types of considerations are usually only requested by people who can't be happy unless they force others to include viewpoints that they (the people making the request) happen to align with. It's annoying.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160049#Comment_2160049
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2160054#Comment_2160054
Bubba isn’t trans, he is just wearing different clothes/faces for different occasions.
it’s not even certain that he understands genders at all..
He doesn't. In the films (the original ones, the remakes don't count) it's made clear that he's severely mentally impaired and doesn't understand most things. In the original movie there's a scene of him shown panicking not understanding why random hippies are even showing up at his home. There's nothing deliberately "trans" about Bubba any more than the Three Stooges dressing in drag made them trans.
Everything has to mean something nowadays. Everything has to have a label. Everyone has to "stand" for something or be espousing some kind of personal beliefs. This is a game where killers kill survivors. The lore is great but if it starts going "woke" and politically correct for the sake of making everybody happy it's going to have the opposite effect.
If I, as a white male, can play as Meg in this game and enjoy myself, or play as Franklin or CJ in Grand Theft Auto and enjoy myself, it says to me that I don't need a character to represent ME and whatever I may happen to believe in in order to enjoy the game. That's how it should be. It's a video game.
-
No character should be defined by their sexual orientation. Peoples' personal agendas invade enough of daily life, I like to play video games to get away from them. The Blight may be gay. The Plague may be trans. The Demogorgon may be heavily into amputee porn. I don't care. I don't want to know. It isn't necessary.
I don't want to see a LBQT killer any more than I want to see a BLM killer, a Trump supporter killer, a pro-life killer, a pro-choice killer, a sanctuary city killer, a white supremacist killer, etc etc etc etc etc. I don't want nor need to have divisive modern-day identity politics applied to the characters in my games for the sake of "inclusion" and arbitrary forced "diversity". All I care about is how they were killed and what made the Entity choose them.
-
"I want to be able to down every survivor. If that means that I have to leave some of you on the ground while I leave to go get the ones that are still active, stay where I left you. Got it? You STAY. In fact it would be better if you crawled into a brightly lit spot that makes you easier to find when I come back. That way you don't inconvenience me and my game is easier. No, I don't care whether you'd rather crawl away and try to find a hatch. I don't like that. This is my game. MINE".
-
US Central time:
5 AM to 5 PM: Fast survivor queues. Decent killer queues. Game is essentially as good as it gets. As a solo survivor I have no control who I go against though.
6 PM to Midnight: Queues slow down by like one minute per hour. Get more SWFs.
Midnight to 3 AM: Misery. No point in spending ten minutes waiting for a survivor queue. Just play killer. Most players are also jerks during this time.
3 Am to 5 AM: The queue sloooowly starts to speed up and the game becomes a bit normal again.
-
@DeadHardMan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159427#Comment_2159427
There's no point writing walls of text when it's all subjective in the end. You don't find his design scary? That's fine. You find his design scary? That's also fine.
BUT.... Trickster's flamboyant and neon design, whether you like it or not, is here to stay. Just gotta accept it.
I wouldn't have written walls of text had people just accepted that I don't like the character and tried to understand my reasons for why he fit in instead of continuing to challenge me to make more sense.
I don't like him, I think he sucks, I don't think he fits. The end.
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159283#Comment_2159283
I can understand that. I have a killer gaming rig but I still play 2d platformers, fighting games, and flight-based games on a controller or joystick. There's just some things that don't feel right on a keyboard to me no matter how long I've been a PC main.
Oof. I couldn't even imagine playing a fighting game on the PC.
-
@FrenziedRoach said:
I think some people just fail to get what the issue is because it's not being explained well.
Tricker doesn't fit well into DBD's Aesthetic which has always had a focus on the grotesque with it's killer characters. It's not "he's some guy with a weapon", he just doesn't fit into the game's dark and brooding overall motif. Even the clowns various costume has some level of decay with them
Trickster doesn't match that level of grotesque or decay. While the idea of a handsome monster is fine and dandy, I think the break from the theme is so great with him, it makes him seem really out of place with what the game has presented us so far.
There's nothing wrong with a handsome monster if it fits where he's at. I'm a personal fan of characters like Dextor or Lucien LaCroix that can pass as a normal human but are monsters inside. But I wouldn't ask for them to come to this game because they just don't fit this game's current art aesthetic.
Trickster breaks that aesthetic.
That's basically what I keep saying, but everyone's getting hung up on the mask issue.
Take Wraith, Spirit, Freddy, the Demogorgon, The Twins, The Blight, and Trickster. Put them all together. Does anyone stand out? Does anyone look like they don't belong? Does anyone seem even slightly less threatening, more human, more mundane, less dangerous, than any of the others? Would any of them NOT cause you to run if you saw them walking in your direction? I don't see how this is that hard to comprehend.
In a game full of slashers, the paranormal, the unexplained, and the monstrous, The Trickster is 100 percent regular human being. It's not just that he's a regular human being, he LOOKS like a regular human being. He's 90 pounds in a garish coat. Why would I or anyone else find this frightening? What is it about his powers that make him memorable, special, scary, or in any way better than absolutely anyone else on the roster? He doesn't look like a killer, he looks like the jerk who ruined your cappuccino at Starbucks. His aesthetic, as you specified and which I've been trying to point out, does not match the rest of the game. Hell, even the menu has been turned to synth and hot neon. That's what people think of when they think of Dead by Daylight?
THAT is my point. He doesn't fit. If anyone else wants to continue taking over, they can. I can't make this any clearer.
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159202#Comment_2159202
Deathslinger, Huntress, Myers, Pig, Legion, and Ghostface are all 'just some guy' with a weapon, unless masks are a massive part of this equation.
I don't think you guys are getting this.
Trickster looks like a totally normal person. Mask, no mask, whatever, his character model is what it is. He's a guy. Just a random nobody. Any person you'd see on the street in any number of Asian of Californian cities. He does not look threatening. He does not look weird or unusual. He's a skinny androgynous guy who couldn't whip a tub of butter. What makes him in any way unique, other than how thoroughly average and mundanely human he looks? The fact that he throws knives. Yay. He's not physically imposing. He doesn't have a deeply interesting or twisted backstory. He's just some dude who decided that he'd kill people. The fact that he's Korean and a DJ is just a gimmick. Myers is the boogeyman. He's described as "pure evil" that cannot be reasoned with. Deathslinger is obviously an undead gunslinger. Huntress has an extensive and somewhat understandable backstory that involves equal parts sympathy and insanity. The Pig has an intricate backstory of redemption and vindictiveness to draw upon. As I said before, Legion (and I guess this game's version of Ghostface) are the exceptions, but at least they LOOK like someone who could do you harm, someone you wouldn't want to encounter in a dark alley. Trickster looks like he's attending a posh invite-only red carpet ceremony.
Guys, I've described this half a dozen times. If you don't see my point, I think it may be because you don't want to see it. I don't feel like reiterating this all day. If you like him that's fine. You have as much right to think that he's in some way cool or threatening or scary or interesting or whatever just as I have the same right to think that he's lame in every way from concept to execution. It is what it is, to each their own. No offense intended, I just think that the guy doesn't belong. There's nothing special about him. Nothing threatening about him. Nothing that says "ooh, scary killer" about him. He's "Joe the Raver" with a handful of knives. Big deal.
-
@dnj510 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159186#Comment_2159186
On the contrary, I LOVE the Saloon. I find myself escaping more on that map. I actually like the coloring hues of the map because they remind me of the Coldwin Farm maps.
That's fair, everyone seems to hate The Game (and the other indoor maps) but me so I know what it's like to love everything about a map that other people don't like. My escape rate is probably 50/50 so it's not that, I just don't like that there's not really much to the map (in my opinion). It doesn't have the mazelike qualities of the indoor maps, and for an outdoor map it's extremely straightforward and not that big. The generators are pretty much always in the exact same spot as well, so the killer always knows where to look. The map has a beautiful skybox but the intense orange and weird contrast ("eye adjustment") that goes on when you go behind some objects is also jarring to me.
It obviously suits the Deasthslinger's theme just fine, and as I said in another thread I'm all for variety. There are 20 Coldwind, Autohaven, MacMillan, and Badham maps for just the one saloon. I'm fine that it's there. It's just literally the only one that I don't really enjoy myself on, regardless of who I'm against. I'm glad you like it though.
-
@ShamelessPigMain said:
Zarina looks like a good conversationalist but I bet she drives a Prius. Jane was likable enough to become a talk show host, but she isn't coming 12 feet near me with that god awful pantsuit. Kate and David are bimbos and himbos respectively, which means small talk is going to be either clothes or football. Nobody's going to be able to hear Jeff talk through that unkempt bush over his mouth. Yui seems like a cool chick but she's a motorcycle racer so she can't be that great. Ace would steal your wallet. Feng probably wears a Belle Delphine outfit in public. Jake doesn't talk. Nea is just plain unpleasant.
The lesson is that everybody's in the entity's realm for a reason <3
I wanna party with you.
-
@ThGameIsHardButSoAmI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159239#Comment_2159239
it adds variety, not every killer is going to be a faceless monster. The cool thing about dbd is that you can have a totally believable killer like legion and then have a teleporting corpse. Maybe he's a little too colorful? yeah, but besides that I think he and his lore are cool. His power is kinda boring but that's a gameplay issue not a character one. The killers don't have to be physically threatening. They're mindless monsters who want to kill you. It's good that they explore different tropes besides jason reskins
I agree that variety is good, it's one of the best things about this game. But when you have a lot of variety some characters are going to strike you as cool, some are going to strike you as lame. They can't all be winners, and the reaction that he got suggested that I'm far from the only person who finds the Trickster laughable.
It's all just opinions. It doesn't matter.
-
@Science_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159202#Comment_2159202
Really not seeing your point here.
Nurse isn't faceless. She's just a woman with a pillow case on her head. There are way too many goons in a mask in this game as it is, Trickster's design is way less of a Scooby Doo cliche than the lot of them.
I can't help if people aren't seeing my point or don't want to agree with it.
A floating undead thing with a pillow on its face would get more attention in a crowd than a guy with danger hair, contact lenses and an androgynous style. He's just a modern human being - not an ancient killer, not a famous slasher, not a demon, not a beast, not a spectre or spirit, he's just a human being with absolutely nothing special about him. He wears a yellow coat and has knives. Terrifying.
-
Repairing generators is part of the game. I've never understood the counterargument that I should be throwing myself in front of the killer for free hits instead. My teammates already do enough of that.
I play conservatively and attempt to play unpredictably. I'm often discovered. With the Nurse, rarely so.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2159239#Comment_2159239
We also have an obese clown with lung cancer and a couple of edgy teens who would probably die of asthma before catching you
He fits just fine in the entities realm.
Many people (not myself) are seriously afraid of clowns. He makes a natural fit, yes. There's the Gacy angle as well. Legion is debatable, but again I think that that character was meant to be Ghostface.
Kpop is just that. A regular human being who throws knives. He wouldn't stand out on an Asian street whatsoever. People would be like "Oh hey, it's that one guy, I think I saw him at a club once". Nothing about that screams "Dead By Daylight" to me.
It's cool if you disagree, but nothing's going to change my opinion of him. I think he's lame, uninspired, unthreatening, and doesn't belong with all the rest of the brutal and / or monstrous killers on this list. The guy looks like he works at Hot Topic and seems just as dangerous.