Which Crossover Chapter Do You Want To Be In Dbd?

Alien!

Terminator would be cool but I guess it would open the gates to other non-horror licenses and I actually don’t want that…

the others listed I wouldn’t mind but don’t have any connection to

Uhh didn’t know that!

sounds great and Bhvr was already in contact and got the license for Deathgarden!

I picked Pinhead because that has potential to be really ######### up and actually scary.

Pinhead and i'm honestly kinda surprised he isn't in yet, i don't think Alien or Predator would make it, we they're perhaps a little to 'high fantasy" allmost every killer is just a deranjed psychotic human being (xpt demo pupper but every family needs a pet ;) ).

Can also see the Wendigo's from Untill Dawn make an apearance.

Also Josef Heiter just because i'd like to see how they'd dance around THAT mechanically speaking....

I love the idea of some awesome original Killers(like a Scarecrow or Werewolf), but between The Twins and Trickster I would much rather see some tried and true already beloved characters.

I want Arnold and not the T-800 skeleton, but I guess that could be cool too.

Bring me that nasty green rabbit!

Xenomorph undoubtedly. There is no question.

On a separate note though, I personally think that the T-1000 fits the Dead By Daylight thematic and style more than the T-800. The T-800 already got it's time in the spotlight and found it's home in mortal kombat where I think it fits there more than it fits here. The T-1000 on the other hand is so much more flexible in terms of what kind of powers and abilities it could possess, and liquid metal would look so much more visually interesting as far as animations go than just the basic T-800 endoskeleton.

Hell, the T-1000 can canonically separate itself and operate independent parts of it's body from great distances away. You could be looking at incorporating some mechanics or similar concept ideas from the Twins in this killer at the same time. There are so many things you could do with the T-1000 it's insane people don't talk about it as much.

Maniac Cop or some werewolf movie.

I forgot that you love getting deep into these, so I'll join and entertain you once again. Firstly, don't see how his lack of attention in Deathgarden is a factor. Even if they added a Predator or another licensed skin for the hunter, it would've still flopped due to a number of core gameplay and communication issues. The game was marketed more towards the already existing asymmetrical community aka DBD. So in other words, somewhat doomed already. Regardless, the T-800 did well as a DLC in Gears and Ghost Recon Breakpoint. That should be enough proof to show that it would not correlate.

Regarding Saw, how do you know they even had to option to select the characters and were not restricted by the license holders? I'd also argue that choosing the #1 most iconic survivor(s), while still being important, is a lot less important than choosing the most iconic killer in the series. It's like choosing Valtiel instead of Pyramid Head for the Silent Hill chapter, Leatherface's brother for TCM., etc. It would be a lot easier to implement survivors who are not as popular as long as they are somewhat known however, i.e Detective Tapp, Quentin Smith.

Do you think Hoffman is more popular than Amanda Young as one of John's apprentices? Genuine question, just wanna know. I think they are very very interchangable as there was a point where the Saw movies started to decline and so did its fanbase. Some movie series have a "peak" of popularity, whether it be one movie or a trilogy. Now as for John/Jigsaw, that's a whole different story. Not only was he an old man dying of disease, but he also had somewhat of a standard of morality. He did not kill people, not directly anyway like the killers do in DBD, and that tied in with his way of thinking/actions. There was no possible way of him being chosen. Overall, the iconic killer rule still stands, hence why this game is called the "hall of fame" of horror per the game director.

Horror is subjective to the individual, sure. But overall, if it is offically tagged as horror then it's horror. If it's not, it's not. Simple as that and there is no way of getting around it. If this company went by your logic, them I'm sure we'd have Darth Vader from Star Wars(scary and thrilling to some, right? Consider Rogue One scene for ex) as a killer or any other non-horror character that is remotely creepy.

Hey, you don't have to consider Stranger Things as thoroughbred horror. The fact still remains that it is indeed horror and is tagged as horror regardless if the sci-fi elements are heavier than the horror ones. Whenever you need to tell if a piece of media is horror or not, just type in "___ genre" on Google. That space being any film, game, etc and see which tags pop up.

So far, every license that they have added has the horror tag. As long as this remains, T2 and the T-1000 will axiomatically never have a chance of making it in. It may fit to you, but that won't matter. As long as this game continues being the hall of fame of horror, we will no doubt either get T1/T-800 or nothing at all. I obviously would prefer the former, but if we get nothing then it is what it is.

Last point is all subjective. I'm sorry, but the reality is that T2 will not be selected for the reasons above. It doesn't have to be the Schwarzenegger look either, just as long as it's based off the only movie that is tagged as horror and was inspired by the Halloween franchise by its director, James Cameron. And even that might not happen either even though we are missing a killer robot anyway. Be happy with what you'll get.

All of them!

IT (Pennywise)

Yeah you do it quite a lot. You'd make a fantastic author. :P

Deathgarden tried to incorporate a lot of "back-up" methods to try and keep the game alive. The Terminator add-on and the Bloodharvest relaunch were examples of that. Anyhow, the film distribution company that licensed out the T-800 to other game developing companies was StudioCanal S.A.S from what I remember(not sure if the rights have been bought out to someone else since then). They aren't protective at all from what I can see when it comes to lending out the rights to the T-800 endoskeleton, as long as it's being requested by a decently sized company. Another reason I say it's a non-factor is because I have been told that the Terminator's chances of being in DBD is not affected by its inclusion in Deathgarden at all by a certain bhvr higher up. Now, I know this is annectodal and with no evidence, but you don't need to believe it if you choose not to. I think we can both come to a consesus that it would a non-factor.

Wonder what happened internally that made them choose Tapp over Matthews. Could it have had something to do with Lion's Gate decisions and our folks over at bhvr having no say in the matter? Something you, as a consumer would not know about? I'm sure if the devs had the power to choose any character from any series on their own, they would always choose the more popular characters. But once again, it's not as important for survivors as it is with killers.

The fact that Amanda vs Hoffman in terms of popularity is arguable already shows that they can be interchangeable. We don't need to go into the nitty gritty of the character's hubris and downfall. We see in SAW 3 that Amanda Young is vulnerable to going her own way as well. Only held back by John Kramer himself. They were both iconic candidates to be chosen into the realm of the Entity unlike Terminator where the T-1000 is nowhere near iconic as the T-800, and thus can't be debated. Simple as that.

The "hall of fame of horror" title helps my case a lot, fortunately. We first have to establish that Mr.Cote is the game director who is involved in the licensing department and negotiations. Note: DBD can only choose one killer at a time for the chapter reveal. Who is more beloved in the Terminator franchise? Who is more widely recognized? Who would sell more? Who comes from a movie that's offically, and I repeat officially, tagged as a horror film regardless of your subjective opinion? If you answered the T-1000 to any of these, then you are simply in denial and bias. There is only one iconic candidate that every Terminator DLC includes.

But Seiko, my friend, who are you to state that the T-1000 is objectively a horror character and Darth Vader isn't? What would you tell someone who is terrified of Darth Vader and says he is a horror character since you're doing the same thing with the T-1000? And then what would you say to me and many others who would tell you to your face that T2 is not a horror movie and the T-1000 is not a horror character/ not scary? My point being, you are going based off a subjective, unofficial viewpoint. I however, am not as I have google and James Cameron to determine that the T-800 is indeed, axiomatically a horror character. You saying "it is horror" doesn't make it horror. "The world doesn't revolve around you" as the old saying goes.

It's only undeniably horror to YOU. You seem to somehow equate violence to horror with your pics and clips which completely invalidates your point.

Wow, look at Vader. Chopping off limbs, causing bodily harm, brutally killing people and just being an unstoppable force just like a T-1000. That's pretty scary, even more so than merely intimidating while being a Disney character at the same time. I guess he can be added to DBD right? Violence does not equal horror. The T-1000 is not a horror character. Burden of proof is on you to convice me that he is. Which you have no way of doing because he is in fact not a horror character. That is axiomatic.

Now, let me show you something even cooler, Seiko. You ready? You see this:

Funny thing is I don't even need to go beyond a simple google search to determine what is oficially horror. It tells me straightforward. Your denial of the truth does not change anything. That is what shows up for Terminator 1. You see that nice tag, smack dab in the center. Yeah... the T-800 comes from that. Now, do the same for Terminator 2:

What do you see? No horror tag found in sight. And as far as I'm concerned, no character in DBD comes from a series that is only tagged as a thriller. T2 has no chance, I'm sorry.

Why did you send me two links to a subjective article and podcast? Someone like you could've wrote that and made an opinionated "psychoanalysis" (that is hilarious btw). I looked at the article only. This is like something Buzzfeed would send me lol. Just because some nobody says T2 is like horror, doesn't make it horror.

"...the T-1000 is a fundamentally more interesting and thought provoking addition to the Dead by Daylight cast of killers than the T-800" Firstly, subjective opinion again. And secondly, I can find hundreds of other non-horror characters that would make for a better addition than the T-1000. I just know there is no point, because DBD only chooses movies that are horror-tagged. Like T1 and not T2. Ouch, that's gotta sting!

Didn't I tell you in the last debate we had like a year or two ago that the T-800 doesn't need guns? Want me to pull up a dozen decent T-800 killer concepts on Reddit that are very unique and don't feature guns? Your lack of creativity is not mutual with others. And we have multiple killers with knives too. Or a chainsaw. Play the Family Feud buzzer for me on this one.

You personally know BHVR higher ups????

"Something you, as a consumer would not know about?" also applies to you as well, and that brings us straight back to square one in pretty even ground. Equally you yourself don't have much if any insider knowledge about how easy or strict the negotiations with Lionsgate were and whether or not they had the option to pick these more popular characters and deliberately turned down the opportunity.

Saying it doesn't matter with survivors as much is also an just an out / escape so you don't have to argue that front. It's easier to defend the killer side where there are quite literally fewer options to pick as a true killer seeing as the whole franchise is about morality, "cherish your life or be punished for it" and all that. However much more difficult to defend on the survivor side as the issue becomes much more apparent when confronted with the fact that Tapp shows for literally a single movie and could only with great difficulty be argued as a more popular pick than Detective Eric Matthews, Officer Daniel Rigg, or a good 80% of the total cast of the franchise. It's a hole in your argument and you know it, you only make it more obvious when you try to play it off as if "it doesn't matter".

It can be debated because the word iconic is a threshold, not a numerical measure or scale. Once a character has breached the brink and become an icon, they are iconic thus fulfilling your self-imposed "rule" and everything else is just semantics. Because then you can just pit license against license and say which is "more" iconic than the other? Answer this: which is more iconic, Resident Evil or Left 4 Dead? And then tell me which came first to Dead By Daylight?

Even if iconic was a scale measure though, I don't have to stick to SAW either to make this point clear. Another example is the Nightmare on Elm Street license- and while yes, technically it's Freddy Krueger in name, that doesn't change the fact that fans were desperately hoping and waiting for Robert Englund's classic Freddy Krueger. Why? Because the 2010 remake is a completely different character, and would arguably according to your logic be "less iconic" and therefore not worthy of being picked for the game. Yet here he is.

I say objectively because it is displayed through the traits and characteristics of the genre. Not because of a google search, but because how the separate films Star Wars vs. X, Y, Z, horror films present and advertise themselves. X, Y, Z, horror films share many things in common that unites them and creates the genre that they belong to- for example, typically involving a psychopathic killer (in this case, the T-1000) who stalks and murders innocent victims in a typically random, unprovoked fashion (John does not know or understand why he is being hunted down, and that is part of the horror: living your normal life one day, on the run from a killer the next) who uses unconventional weapons such as blades, cleavers, and other sharp slashing instruments (refer to pictures already presented above, the T-1000 and his shape shifting blades) and is able to withstand most or all of his victims' attempts to defend themselves and thus even after being shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, exploded, etc. (The T-1000 continues to be shot and attacked but only reforms more or less unscathed) he is not only alive but able to continue stalking his victims.

These stories are often enveloped in an air of suspense, evoking feelings of apprehension, anticipation, tension, and some form of anxiety in the viewer, elements which develop due to the mysterious, unpredictable, and often frightening events which unfold throughout the narrative. In T2, this comes from the sudden appearance of a murderous, nearly indestructible android who is more or less unstoppable and unceasing in its pursuit to hunt down John Conner, who kills anyone who gets in the way between him and the victim of his obsession, much like your classic slasher villain. The overly dark and gruesome tone of the film gives all the action within it that much more weight, and like within any horror sequel, the stakes and overwhelming odds have been increased in the antagonists favor now that the Terminator Model has been upgraded with superior cognitive abilities that make it a better infiltrator and hunter, which can take more damage absorbing nearly any blow and regenerating itself in the moment, and deal more damage as the shapeshifting body parts allow it to be more dangerous at close ranges even without firearms. And much like any good sequel, the kills overall become more elaborate and gruesome, with more blood and bodies

If you have not gotten it yet, my point here is not to say that the original Terminator is not a horror film, but that in all the ways that the Terminator is a horror film so too does Terminator 2 follow in many if not all of its footsteps. The films were released only a few years apart and both were steeped in an environment which is basically the golden age of slasher films.

And this entire time I've been engaging this discussion on a conscious and critical level with rhetoric to back up my "subjective opinions" all you've mustered so far is a "welp, google doesn't say it. So 🤷‍♂️ ". So no, it doesn't "sting" at all, it's a frankly boring an uninspired approach to the conversation that is uninteresting more than anything else, and is worth less of my time to respond to.

Also, I encourage you to pull up some mock Terminator concepts! If you've got a dozen in your back pocket you should be able to tell me at least one good and unique idea that could make the inclusion work. Not only does it have to work the "burden of proof" as you put it, would be on you to convince me that it'd be better than the myriad of powers and abilities that could be provided for the T-1000. Calling me "not creative enough" to come up with something for the shambling metal skeleton who doesn't use any sharp objects (kind of a critical component for a game based on "slashers") doesn't work to prove your point. That's just an ad hominem.

Also, we had this debate a year ago??? I can't believe you remember that. I don't :P

EDIT: That explains a lot actually.

Although I voted Alien, I'd just like to add it's brilliant to finally see Terminator arise as an option!