What's wrong what an LGBTQ+ character in Dead by Daylight?
Comments
-
There are 2 or 3 identical ongoing threads, and this one is therefore spam. Don't duplicate posts for no reason.
0 -
Just to be clear to everyone here, BHVR intention is not to make a token purely defined by their sexuality, I want to be perfectly clear here, so I'm going to post this clip of Not_Queen explaining what their intentions are:
Please keep in mind that people are not trying to force an idea on you, they want much needed representation and they shouldn't be attacked for wanting it.
8 -
They're different threads. Just because they mention LGBT doesn't make them the same.
0 -
Two of them are precisely the same with same people making identical replies.
I assume my comment was removed? Peculiar.
0 -
No, they're not. As far as I know there are three:
- Mine, with a CMV format, where the purpose of the discussion is for people to challenge my view.
- This one, asking what the problem is with LGBT characters.
- A third using the "[statement], but" format.
0 -
Your post is more of a stand alone iirc, while 2 is an answer to 3 rather than a separate post (or vice versa, if we disregard the dates).
I tend to see this stuff as flooding. De jure it is not spam/dup posting, but de facto it is.
2 -
Nothing. Bring em in. Just don't rewrite existing characters to fit the 'quota.' That's a reason why I really dislike what movies and such are doing nowadays. Rewriting characters to pander to others. Just make a new character to fill the role you want. It's not going to stop me from slapping them on hook just because they're gay.
1 -
I agree but WHY would they be added is the thing, do you want a character thats just gay or just trans? I want actual characters not just ones that have only one trait.
0 -
Many existing characters haven't had their orientation revealed yet, just FYI. It wouldn't be "rewriting" if, say, Claudette was revealed to be asexual.
2 -
Why wouldn't they be added? Are any of the heterosexual characters defined by their orientation? So why would the non-heterosexual ones?
I suppose it's a matter of perspective. I think they're separate threads, though clearly 2 and 3 were prompted (directly or indirectly) by mine.
0 -
Why does it even matter? Why do we HAVE to know the orientation? What importance does it have?
2 -
Look at what Rizzo90 has just posted in this thread. It won’t be a character with only one single trait, nobody would want that.
personally, I don’t care which letter gets added first or at all. I just don’t want to see everything LGBT completely excluded just because.
i would be okay if they revealed Kate as having had a relationship with another woman or if they introduced a drag queen that lives in relationship with an asexual woman. I don’t want any quota filled, I don’t want them going down a list adding L, G, B and so on. Just don’t exclude for exclusions sake.
4 -
It matters to some people. We didn't have to know the Nurse had a husband, but it's still there on her lore.
0 -
Also the orientation doesn’t have to be explicitly stated and shouldn’t for every individual character. Just a mention of a same sex partner would be enough to acknowledge the existence of non-straight people.
2 -
There's absolutely nothing wrong with it but it somehow gets under the skin of certain people.
3 -
I dont want it and I honestly cannot stand people like you or even understand for that matter.
Race/ethnicity whatever is not the same as sexual preferences/orientations stop comparing them. There is absolutely no reason to have one because you are not just asking for someone who might be queer to be added to the game, you want a mascot. Im sure its not enough for you if Nea had a fling with another girl once. Race however is a large part of a character and there background. It literally determines what they look like. Sexual preference is not the main focus in designing new characters maybe you could give a new character a tragic backstory on not being accepted because of their sexuality but forcing it as the main trait of said character does not work in terms of cosmetics and perks. Occupation and ethnic background are the two things im sure the devs look at for new survivors. They also want to introduce a diverse cast appearance wise but again sexuality is not a factor in that. Specifically adding a "lgbtq+' character is just pandering to you guys specifically and Bhvr has never made a character with that intent.
Post edited by Gay Myers (Luzi) on2 -
A lot of assumptions there. Why don't you ask people what they want instead of assuming they want a "mascot" or whatever? Also, do you take issue to BHVR pandering to you?
1 -
you don’t need to understand it though.
we will get a char that is LGBT and it will not be their only trait.
that’s a fact, BHVR WANTS to add such a character. Not to pander but because they realized there is no reason for exclusion at all especially with their growing focus on lore (backstories are getting longer and deeper and tomes also bring additional character backstories)
1 -
I already explained this in my previous post and please go watch that clip.
BHVR doesn't want to make a mascot, they want to give people the representation they ask for, which means giving a character a trait that can represent them, but not define said character by just that trait.
2 -
Thank you for bringing that up, I never cared about the backstory of a character. Bhvr has given characters from what I know is of their own creation, it was not fueled by fan requests except for maybe Elodie as I did see a lot of people wondering when then next black female would comet to the game. Also im very aware of the assumption I made which was for the original poster. Is it enough for a pre-existing character or future character to have a same sex relationship in the past? My assumptions is no and im allowed to assume so.
0 -
Thank you for bringing that up, I never cared about the backstory of a character.
That's fine, a lot of people don't mind the lore. However, the lore is where it will be mentioned.
Bhvr has given characters from what I know is of their own creation, it was not fueled by fan requests except for maybe Elodie as I did see a lot of people wondering when then next black female would comet to the game.
And it is the same with the first LGBT character. The devs are the ones who decided to do so.
Also im very aware of the assumption I made which was for the original poster. Is it enough for a pre-existing character or future character to have a same sex relationship in the past? My assumptions is no and im allowed to assume so.
My assumption is yes because heterosexual characters are the same way. You are allowed to assume whatever you want, of course, but to have a better understanding of what other people want, it's always better to ask instead of assuming.
1 -
Its ok if it has already been stated to add a LGBT character. but my point is that doesnt matter and it shouldnt. I also gave an example of how they could incorporate someone's sexual orientation into their backstory the problem is their is little to nothing that suggests the sexual orientation of previous characters. Though now based on what you said they are actively looking for some way to incorporate a characters sexuality into it.
I was hoping they dont make a mascot but one things for sure they wont please every lgbt member I've seen this with cyberpunk you cant please everybody not even the people you set out to please. Also from what I read "want to give people the representation they ask for" im sorry is that not pandering? like im only trying to make sense of this pc "inclusive" phenomena to the best of my ability
1 -
im allowed to assume until the person I directed the response to responds. I made an assumptions not force my opinion on to someone let it go
1 -
We have several confirmed heterosexual relationships with implied sexuality:
Nurse was married to a man she deeply loved
Felix was married to a woman, she was pregnant
David had a girlfriend at some point.
Frank and Julie shoved us their sexuality down our throats in their tome
Ace is described as a womanizer in some cosmetic descriptions.
all of those could of course be bisexual or even gay/lesbian/asexual, but everything mentioned is definitely same sex.
1 -
Just for context the original tweet where BHVR devs stated that LGBT+ will be included in the future
2 -
Sexual orientation has no connection with how people will fight for their lives. We also hope it doesn't connect with them becoming serial killer servants of some eldritch power. Any of our characters could already be LGBT. It wouldn't show. Gays, Bisexual, Trans, etc. people all don't want to be hooked and devoured.
1 -
My bad I should have worded that differently. I guess you also have to take into account the times certain characters were born in. This alone would drastically decrease any chance of a non heterosocial relationship. Like realistically if they weren't born this century it would make sense for them to be heterosexual for the most part. I do understand what you mean by "Frank and Julie shoved us their sexuality down our throats in their tome". Like I said before it doesnt matter to me and I never asked for it. So when people complain to the point where the Devs will infect do as they say not when it comes to game health or balance but sex I just dont get it.
1 -
I am rather neutral. Also, a person can ignore the orientation of the character or come up with their own orientation or their own story for the character. Fantasy))
1 -
Also the tweet that you showed further proves that they are pandering though and proves my other point about sexuality being excluded from lore so you wouldnt know about their sexual past. If they want to please people fine but they have to start actively making multiple characters from the lgbtq+ because its called the lgbtq+ for a reason. There is also different levels to it. Will it be subtle? obvious? how will they portray trans men and women? Will anything they do please people?
3 -
The thing is it will not affect game health or balance in the slightest. The people that write the lore would write it either way, but now they are not restricted to explicitly exclude anything LGBT+. It actually makes this easier imo.
almost all survivors and many killers are from modern ages, plus only because people in the past had to hide their identity or relationship doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. This can be integral parts for many people and totally worth noting in the lore.
1 -
Never said they didnt exist and modern ages isnt 21st century America.
Also why would you say restricted? Is there something else Bhvr said about not feeling like they could incorporate a same sex marriage etc?
I already said that sexual orientation could play a part in lore but an "integral" part? why, I thought the point was their sex to be a trait not the main thing about the character
1 -
See the tweet that I posted, they have restricted themselves to not include any sexuality or gender identity etc.
yes, integral. For legion the sexuality is kind of integral for their lore and their whole being. Nurse only snapped because her loved one died. Felix whole lore with expecting a child and having lost his father etc. It’s not only about sexuality after all but love, relationships, friendships, identity, struggles life (coming out, being politically persecuted). Only because it’s integral doesn’t mean it has to be the one and only trait.
@behave_pt somehow the quote didn’t work
1 -
It’s been mentioned that relationships etc will only be part of the backstories and never between the chars.
but even then, Wraith and Nurse have been heavily hinted to be a couple. But I guess since this is man and woman there is no problem with it?
1 -
They have not restricted themselves they were just doing normal things. If Felix was gay he wouldnt be expecting a child from his pregnant wife, maybe expecting a child from a surrogate but then where is the conflict, maybe with his husband or maybe even the surrogate wants to keep the baby idk I just have to think more outside the box now. I've already mentioned that the best and easiest background story for an lgbt character is not being accepted by family or/and society. Though I brought up another thing which is character design and perks. They would have to think about that first then tac on same sex relationships or identify as trans. Its their characters I guess they can do whatever they want but its no longer whatever THEY want. Again which is pandering and still I dont know to what extent but this has been happening to much in media.
1 -
It is what they want. They could have decided to not include further same sex relations in the future and thus no LGBT+ whatsoever or another way to deal with it.
they said they want it. There is no reason to assume otherwise.
my assumption is, they would have decided to include LGBT+ and same sex relationships either way, because they already have well established characters and the lore gets more and more detailed. It does not make sense to exclude any relationship mentions at this point.
and yes they have restricted themselves. Not for Felix. Felix was always created with wife and child and father in mind. But for other characters they had to be careful not to mention any same sex relations. And they have confirmed that there has been at least one character created with being LGBT+ in mind, but they just didn’t add it in the in-game lore. And that char was created before the requests started.
1 -
Okay I haven’t seen this post until now.
If you really get the feeling that this post means they only do it because of pandering then there is no ground for argumentation. You only see what you want to see, even if the opposite was directly stated.
1 -
I literally agreed that you can assume whatever you wanted.
Is it really that unbelievable that game developers - some of whom are LGBT themselves - would want to add an LGBT character?
1 -
Its not of their own accord its based on community feedback as well this is pandering however you want to twist it.
ok... Even though the tweet and post by the mod both incorporate the dbd playerbase in the decision to be more inclusive.
I keep saying it doesn't matter that doesn't mean it cant happen I just do not care for the way it is happening. People are obviously complaining on here and twitter about "inclusion". The devs had to put out a public statement regarding the current roaster and the UNINTENTIONAL exclusion of character who is officially lgbt. What the hell when have they ever had to issue a statement regarding saying they will incorporate a trait into a character of their creation. We dont even get to know these things up until release. It goes to show that the community of people have definitely gotten to the devs because they dont have to let us know and they never have.
Like I said before if it happens fine I just dont want it to happen this way like this is for some greater good.
1 -
Its not of their own accord its based on community feedback as well this is pandering however you want to twist it.
Is pandering bad in every instance?
0 -
Survivor DLC Frank N. Furter confirmed
0 -
The whole game exists just because there is a community that want to play it. Every added license panders to those fans. How is it problematic when it is regarding LGBT?
and they still decided on their own that they want to add LGBT. The community asks for many many different things but in the end the devs only add what they actually want to add and nothing more.
2 -
u have my upvote
1 -
First it wasnt pandering then I just disproved it and now we're on "well whats the problem with it?"
Then you generalize my point, They have NEVER done this with a character. Im ok with proof but they have never disclosed in a public message any major lore involved with a character until now when it just so happens debates like the ones we are having now are going on HMMMMM.... odd isnt it. Also yes its true its still up to the devs to make the decision but that doesnt mean it isnt pandering.
I think thats about it for the discussion since it went from me having to prove that its pandering to now you two being like so what?
My original post anyways was for the op in the way they worded their feelings I found annoying, you two probably do not share the exact same interests in this matter so besides the pandering and assumptions debates there is really nothing left to say. I just cant wait to see how this unfolds because although you two are ok with whatever comes of this you cant speak for everyone else apart of the lgbt and even outside of it.
1 -
I don’t See it as pandering. But I clearly have different definition for pandering than you. But by your definition, everything that was asked for by the community and then got added just got added because of pandering. I don’t see it like that. You do. I just accepted you definition for this argumentation. But you only have a problem with it when it’s LGBT it seems.
and we did never say we were okay with however it will go. And of course there will be LGBT people that won’t be okay with it, they are all different individuals after all. Still no reason for exclusion.
also the debates started mostly after their announcement.
2 -
First it wasnt pandering then I just disproved it and now we're on "well whats the problem with it?"
Personally I moved past that because whether or not it's pandering is irrelevant to the overall point. It's like debating whether water can be found on Mars when the problem is that you need to put out a fire.
I notice that you haven't answered whether you think pandering is good or bad, though.
Then you generalize my point, They have NEVER done this with a character. Im ok with proof but they have never disclosed in a public message any major lore involved with a character until now when it just so happens debates like the ones we are having now are going on HMMMMM.... odd isnt it. Also yes its true its still up to the devs to make the decision but that doesnt mean it isnt pandering.
Whether or not it's pandering is irrelevant. See above.
I think thats about it for the discussion since it went from me having to prove that its pandering to now you two being like so what?
Because "so what" is the main point.
My original post anyways was for the op in the way they worded their feelings I found annoying, you two probably do not share the exact same interests in this matter so besides the pandering and assumptions debates there is really nothing left to say. I just cant wait to see how this unfolds because although you two are ok with whatever comes of this you cant speak for everyone else apart of the lgbt and even outside of it.
My guess is, certain people are going to throw a tantrum over it while everyone else goes "Neat, new character".
1 -
It is pestering in the same sense that a kid pesters a parent to go to McDonald's after they already said they would go. We know it will happen, so why keep talking about it? Especially when threads have already been made about the subject?
1 -
As some one who is LGBT him self I don't like the idea cause I know no matter what they'll be a token character since they'll be our only established lgbt character which I don't want
3 -
I wrote a big long thing. No one would have read it. Here are the spark notes, I mean this calmly.
-The reality is that the majority of the people arguing have no issue with an LGBT character.
-The issue lies with past harassment and unfair assumptions.
-The For side is unfairly pushing their anger at legitimate homophobes onto to people who are frustrated because...
-The Against side isn't actually against it but rather feel constantly attacked and harassed by people who outwardly identify with your arguments. They are unfairly projecting those feeling onto the very concept, when it's the ignorant sh1theads who hurt us that should be held accountable but...
-Because the For side rarely acknowledges or even advocates extremely pre-emptively hostile people. Whether you care or not a lot of people get pissed when you make blanket "the white men does this" comments. A lot of these people have to tolerate being treated like crap or being labeled as part of a hate group because of their appearance, even when outward behavior indicates the opposite. As much as you don't care or will ignore it happens, it happens, and it's really not uncommon. For example, how many people took that to mean "White men are oppressed" or "white men have it tougher". It doesn't by the by. It means belittling peoples problems and making gross assumptions about them is wrong, stop it.
-The problem then self perpetuates as both people are arguing at someone who isn't even there. I honestly want to believe that no one here wants to push people out, but rather would be fine with more. The problem is the infrequency of when those that do argue to push them out show up many of you stay silent, and it feels like passive approval. I mean this for both sides of the argument.
-People project their feelings of anger and resentment from real abusers onto people who have nothing to do with it, which makes those people more willing to listen to terrible ideas they might not have before.
The reality is we all need to stop. Cool down, and honestly really think of the subject and discuss with clear minds where the anger comes from.
-We won't though.
4 -
Just wanted to clarify because I see myself as one of the ‚For‘ Side:
- while the majority of the ‚Against’ side might not be homophobes, there are still enough homophobes out there and clearly also in this DbD community (I know this because I have seen the Twitter comments, but also on the forums, the mods do a good job of deleting banning those though)
- I don’t push my anger towards anyone and almost always try to argue rational (except for some rare instances where I for example called someone snowflake for not wanting LGBT representation; that wasn’t out of anger but it was meant to be funny/ironic)
- most people against inclusion may argue it’s because they don’t want it because of pandering, devs were forced to, devs may implement them poorly/tokenized, sexuality doesn’t have a place in a horror game but really, those are all empty arguments
- we know they devs want to be inclusive and the recent Q&A shows they care about good representation
- pandering is not very well defined at all and is only described as problematic when it revolves around LGBT
- The horror genre especially the movies have always involved sexuality; DbD has a growing lore/backstory that already includes heterosexual relations; therefore LGBT+ clearly has a place here (only in the lore)
- there are no arguments against inclusion left..
5 -
Just don’t make him/her being gay or whatever, their whole personality. That’s what makes characters suck in every book/movie/game ever created that does just that with an LGTB character. Do it like J.K Rowling did dumbeldore, it was part of his character and it made him even better because he was more dynamic but it wasn’t literally who he was completely.
2
