Deathslinger's power is just demo's shred with extra steps

Nope. All you've said in your reply is that different killers can achieve similar results using different mechanics/powers. Using your type of logic to, one could argue that billy and trapper have are very similar - they can instantly down a healthy survivor if they get hit by a chainsaw or step in a trap during a chase. To a reasonable person your comparison sounds as ridiculous to the one I've just made.

To your first point - I'll say this again - just because different killer's power can achieve the same outcome doesn't mean that they play or feel the same, or that they require the same set of skills in order to utilise them.

I'll use your example

• With ghostface you need to use an LoS blocker utilising a small LoS gap in order to be able to stalk. What you need to consider in that situation is: how do I approach so that the survivor doesn't see me; in which direction do they need to run to get to safety if they do spot me or get marked in order to position myself in a way to block that route off and so on. Depending on what the survivor does should I go for a basic hit, or should I keep my stalk and go after someone else as well?
• With deathslinger, in the same scenario where you want to creep up on somebody on a gen there is a different set of factors that you need to be thinking about: what sort of obstacles are there around the survivor that they can use to break my chain; are they going to hear my terror radius and/or see me before I can take aim and based on that, do I need to quickscope them or can I afford to take my time to aim for a guaranteed hit .. and so on. Then the execution of the hit itself is completely different and requires completely different mechanical inputs from you in order to land that hit.

I could go on and do the ambush comparison with pig and wraith or the in-chase comparison with huntress, but this will make the post an even bigger wall of text than it already is, so I'm going to stop here instead. The point is - all of these killers feel and play very differently if you actually try to understand their power and try to use it based on its strengths and limitations.

To your second point - you just supported my point, which is what I expected you to do... The example I gave sounds (and is) ridiculous and you could easily point out the differences between the killers and how they use their power - just like the comparisons you made with huntress, ghostface, pig, wraith or OP's comparison with Demogorgon are as ridiculous and one could easily point out the difference in those examples.

At the end of the day each killer has a unique power and the tools to be played very differently from the others - both in terms of thought process and mechanical input. However, it's up to you to use these tools in order to create that unique experience for yourself. Most of the time when somebody says that Killer X is a version of Killer Y it is not because of their design, but because that person tries to play Killer X the same way they play Killer Y.

Deathslinger is very similar to Plague in that both killers have terrible base kit power and NEED very, very specific niche perk builds to even function at a remotely competitively viable level.

If you don't have Monitor and Abuse, Deathslinger is complete garbage, basically.

I like how OP has no upvotes but the very first comment which was a person disagreeing and just flat out saying "no" has six upvotes.

I think that says it all

Also, this is a pretty weak train of thought. By that logic I can just say that every killer is the same as the other because they all can break pallets, vault windows, regress generators, hit survivors using m1, hook survivors 3 times to sacrifice them, and use an ability to aid them in that process.

In the same way that I guess all shooter games are the same because all you do is pick up a gun or other ranged weapon and shoot someone else from a distance. Etc.

???

Hello?? These are just game mechanics that need to be consistent to work together in cohesion. If you don't like it, I guess don't play video games at all???? Are people just dumb around these parts?

I never said that those statements weren't true. Quite the opposite: I said you're being too narrow minded because that's how most every character in most every game is. You add on enough slight changes and variations on top of each other and eventually you'll end up with a different character. Because at the end of the day each character has the same end goal so unless you're playing an entirely different game there's no reason to be completely different. If you want I can take your original list and take it a step further adding on a few more for you: The Oni is Myers, Hillbilly is Leatherface, The Hag is Nurse, The Wraith is Spirit, Deathslinger is Huntress, etc.

You're also framing it like it's a bad thing when it's not. Rainbow Six Siege does the exact same thing, and I could rattle off plenty of names of operators just like you did: Kaid is Bandit, Wamai is Jager, Kali is glaz, Nokk is just Caveira / Vigil, Zofia is Ash, Iana is Alibi, Clash is Montagne, and so on and so forth. The only difference being Rainbow has been out for a year longer than Dead By Daylight and was made by Ubisoft so they had access to many more resources allowing them to create many, many, many more characters who are the same as previous ones

I can give you another example that League of Legends is a game with over 100+ champions. Do you honestly mean to tell me you expect each and every single one of them to be entirely, completely, and utterly unique in every possible sense? All of them have abilities that revolve around certain trademark mechanics like Knocking enemies up, pulling enemies in, firing a ranged shot, Teleporting, turning invisible, Increasing attack speed, slowing enemies down, and so on and so forth on and on and on.

You know what doesn't change? Each of these games are successful, in their own right, in their own genres. Because at the end of the day the core basic mechanics that make the game what it is, are fun or quality enough that they attract a significant number of persons to sustain the game for years after its initial release. And new content which only makes slight variations or changes to the original concepts are entirely acceptable.

The fact that you couldn't see this bigger picture before is what made that kind of statement a weak train of thought, because it's an obvious statement. So obvious that it becomes a redundant one

It's not a bad thing because it sells. Not just R6 but DBD, and though League is a Free game millions of its playerbase sink actual money into the game for skins for their favorite characters. The implication here is that because it sells it is good, because you wouldn't buy something if it was bad. This logic might have been a bit shaky if it weren't for the fact that all of these are video games. Unlike a movie where ticket sales don't necessarily reflect the quality of a the film, Video games track playerbase numbers, and all three titles of which I mentioned or used as an example of have maintained or increased their playerbase numbers alongside their sales as the years have gone by. Regardless of your personal opinion or anyone's personal opinion for that matter, from a business standpoint all these titles are major success stories.

If you don't like that point (well too bad, numbers don't lie) I can hit you from a different angle:

If your judgement of originality is based solely on gameplay and gameplay mechanics then you are very simply going to have a bad time. Every gameplay mechanic at its core is based on the exact same type of code and software, and are balanced around the exact same circumstances and scenarios, physics, and controls. Gameplay mechanics in their very most basic forms and incarnations are completely unoriginal and hoping for something that departs from the core concept is nothing more than an unrealistic fantasy. Pining for anything more would be completely all for naught.

Where the fun comes from is the characterization. It doesn't matter to me if the Deathslinger's Redeemer is "Demogorgon's power with extra steps" if I see that I'm playing a bad ass Western Cowboy who is shooting a harpoon gun and dragging the resisting bodies of struggling survivors toward me.

To the same token, I don't care if The Oni is Hillbilly V2 if I'm covered in a violently glowing red aura, roaring a bloodthirsty war cry as I thunderously careen across the map and body ######### slam my target into the ground, smashing them into the dirt over and over with a giant wooden club covered in metal.

Originality comes from the characters themselves, not the abilities or powers they are capable of. It is the stories told through the clothes a character wears from a Doctor's uniform with the sleeves torn off, to an ill fitting Ringmaster's outfit that clearly belonged to someone else, their bodies and body types from bear traps and various bits of metal stuck through the shoulder and torso, to cleanly cut and severed limbs suspended in the air still connected by an invisible force, to the theme music that characterizes the individuals from the sharp notes of a piano behind a white emotionless mask, or the synth waves over the heavy footsteps of a faceless creature.

The fact that I can describe each of these characters without providing names and it's likely you would still understand who they were from your own experience proves their individuality and originality. It's about the experience of what it would be like to be a 7 foot Russian throwing axes, vs. a 5 foot teen wielding a knife as a whole, rather than dwelling on the specifics of how, because in truth the specifics of how in most scenarios are extremely underwhelming. Appreciate it for what it is, not trying to micromanage what you think it should be.

...no. to all of those.