Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
David's opened the door, is anyone else going to follow?
Comments
-
Effort can be done to roughly equal amounts in both cases, can they not?
2 -
That can be debatable, so can't say too much on that...but ehh maybe
0 -
One is a matter of "How do we develop a character that tastefully tackles the issue?"
The other is a matter of "How do we tastefully tackle the issue through an already established character?"
Assuming it actually is done tastefully in both cases, what shows a lack of effort in one but not the other?
2 -
Simply the fact one wasn't originally intended for it while the other (unknown but still probably) wasn't.
0 -
How? Intentions are allowed to change, are they not?
1 -
Sure, intentions can change, but that doesn't mean the change at the cost of said intention is always good.
0 -
What would make it bad in this case?
1 -
Using a pre existing David. In this case he just wasn't already gay and the devs just decided "let's make him gay just to add representation and tweet about so everyone knows he's gay even before the lore officially released".
That's it's. It may not go that deep and doesn't feel really meaningful just to make someone gay rather than someone who is gay being added in.
1 -
What makes it not feel meaningful if the two scenarios ("make a new character" vs. "use a pre-existing character) end up being roughly equal in content?
2 -
As I've just said. One was always meant to be gay and represent, the other was only made gay for representation.
0 -
How does that make it not meaningful? I could just as easily say "one was made gay for representation" while "the other was only made to be gay for representation." What makes one more valid than the other?
1 -
The new character is a more sincere approach
0 -
What makes it more sincere?
1 -
With David they've essentially just labelled Him as gay for representation.
2 -
Feel free to give any actual real proof of that.
0 -
No, they didn't. They made an entire story out of it.
1 -
I mean...look at the other David posts and their Twitter...
0 -
You can in fact make a character gay and then also make lore for that character to say how they are gay.
0 -
That's not proof, try again. If anything, that is literally proof against you, given the effort they put into it.
3 -
I didn't dispute that. What I disputed was the notion that they simply labeled him gay and that was it. They went beyond that by exploring David's character using new information that was not previously known to us.
4 -
Okay...they made a character gay because they wanted to make a gay character. I think that's the proof. And do note it's been revealed they didn't only look at David..they also looked at the other Survivors to see which they wanted to make gay...they just decided David would become gay.
0 -
Still not hearing a single piece of evidence. Making a gay character because they want to make a gay character does not mean it is tokenism. Try again.
1 -
They weren't going to just say he's gay and move on. That would definitely case more issues.
0 -
It could be called tokenism either way. Tell me how it isnt.
0 -
That means it's not just labeling him gay. It's exploring the character's sexuality.
2 -
Not how it works. Burden of proof is on you to dispute the official claim. But I'll entertain you anyways, since you're struggling with this. BHVR wrote an entire tome's worth of stories for him and his backstory in collaboration with GaymerX to build it into the story.
Anyways, try again.
2 -
While I'm sure I won't really agree with you, I want to try and clear up what your point is so I can better understand
Is your point that, you think BHVR picking a character from their roster instead of creating a new one from scratch was a bad idea because in your opinion that wasn't the intention when the character was conceptualised, so you find it to be insincere as opposed to a new character designed with those characteristics from the start
Is that right or did I miss something?
1 -
Okay so what. You have no point. All they did was make a new story to explain why he's gay. People have also said if they made a new character they'd be tokenism. So what's the difference?
0 -
Still waiting on your evidence.
1 -
I think it's better if they make a new character yes.
0 -
Its clear from even the Peanits response, they looked at every character. David was not always indeed to be gay. Just not much else to say
0 -
That's not what tokenism is.
2 -
Right away its unlikely, if they go with the plan of actually doing it correctly its unlikely to see any until either a new tome or chapter drops but its unlikely to be every time since that would also be seen as the wrong path to take but having some dotted along the way is probable.
1 -
I was just going on another quota than continuing with it since dude wasn't going to answer
0 -
Tokenism is the act of making a minimum, generally obligatory effort of inclusion purely for the sake of fulfilling a perceived quota of diversity with no real intent of going beyond that minimum amount of effort to promote diversity.
2 -
Indeed
0 -
Yes, and the situation regarding David does not constitute tokenism because a fair bit more than the minimum effort was put into developing diversity, and if BHVR is being sincere with their goals (which, to be fair, remains to be seen), it's not the last of this push.
3 -
So far what we've seen them do is make a character gay and make lore to explain how. That is not specifically high effort.
Also...what's the thoughts on the cosmetic?
0 -
That is roughly the standard amount of effort that would be taken when compared to making a new character.
2 -
Possibly. That is something which different people can well see differently.
But also, the cosmetic. I've yet seen any real mention of it besides once.
0 -
I'm not talking about the cosmetic. I'm talking about the decision to make the character in question gay. With regards to David, they:
1) Consulted an external party that is more well-versed in the subject than they to ensure the subject was being treated properly throughout the whole process
2) Went through their catalogue of existing characters and compared them to the goals they were trying to meet to see which would be best suited
3) Worked in lore that developed the character in a way that was still consistent with what was previously established of the character and grew them in new directions
What exactly is missing from here that would constitute effort?
3 -
Stop trying to change the topic and either give actual evidence or understand you have no real point.
0 -
1: they consulted with gaymerx sure who knows how that actually went.
2: they went through there survivors to see who they wanted to make gay.
3: they made lore to explain why he's gay.
But IM asking what YOU think about the cosmetic.
0 -
No one has a real point because bhvr isn't tell us any actual behind the scenes. This is just put opinions on the matter. There is no point in continuing to say the same thing
0 -
I have no opinion of the cosmetic.
You neglected to answer my question about what was missing that would constitute effort. You basically just regurgitated what I wrote.
0 -
David is already a good character with an already fleshed out lore, releasing a new gay character would feel like tokenism because it would feel like that character has no other purpose.
3 -
I hope none as I like the omniverse of people doing fan fiction and deciding for themselves. one of the best things about DBD is the lore that isn't overly backstoried to hell and you can make your own characters out of them. Thats why I'm pretty sad about David "Coming... out by a company" of sorts when it should of been left to the playerbase to decide for their own david.
0 -
You can head canon on your own anyways still. Just doesn’t mean it’s canon.
0 -
What do you mean by that?
0 -
They're saying Yui is probably LGBT because of stereotypes. Pretty yikes.
0
