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!
Things I Personally Dislike About Skull Merchant
Fun Intro
Just like all my posts, this is my opinion. Feel free to have yours in the comments. I always love hearing from everyone else. I have made some of these points in the past, but I wanted to make a nice organized post on it. As terribly as the gameplay was, and I still hate it, I'm gonna try and keep this to the lore.
She's Hot
The awkward thing about SM being hot is that she's conventionally attractive, and yet she's less appealing than characters the fans already thirst over. It takes no effort to make a character hot, and the appeal people feel for SM IMO is shallow. It does take effort to make a character interesting and fit DBD, and look at the love simps have for Myers, Huntress, Ghostface, Wesker, and even Oni. These characters get far more love even from thristy fans. Almost no one has a problem with hot characters, the problem with SM is she doesn't fit in with the other killers, and she doesn't fit DBD. It almost feels like they are trying to bring in more fans who will chase the next hot character, instead of being true to the loyal fanbase.
You may be saying "Trickster is also hot. Why aren't you making this about him?" if it applies to him it is about him too. You seldomly see me praise Trickster. I have a lot of the same problems with Trickster.
You may also be saying "So, you complain about SM and Trickster, but why do you like the Legion then?" I certainly don't like all of Legion's lore and I might make a post about that, but aside from a few cosmetics, I still think they fit pretty well. They are certainly among the more human survivors, but I think they fit in the same way Billy Loomis would fit if he was Ghostface in DBD.
She's Tacky
I said before she looks like a modded Fallout 4 raider, and I stand by that. I think BHVR totally missed the genre with their character design. She has this Karen haircut. She's got this shiny mask that gives the eyes no break. For some reason, her outfit is green and white, which doesn't match the mask. What can you tell about SM by looking at her design? Can't tell she's rich, she looks the opposite based on the outfit, except for the fact her equipment looks expensive, but given she's from the future that can be ignored. Can't tell she likes anime or manga. I'm not saying you should know everything about a character based on how they look, but at least something should stand out because apart from her weapon she looks random.
Her Backstory
There isn't really anything to like about her in her backstory. Her dad wrote a manga. She was a meanie at school. She wrote a manga. She went to the library and became a millionaire. She kills people of high status and gets away with it. She kills all the big bad CEOS without a trace. She's so outlandish and gets everything handed to her. Her tome didn't do anything to make her more interesting.
BHVR has already done rich person bad. Nea's story and Trapper's come to mind. Nea's story went into depth on this. Actually come to think of it Dwight's story was also about this. I am now very tired and have got that off my chest. What do you guys think of my opinion? What's your opinion?
Comments
-
I think my main issue is just her gameplay. I really dont care if she is attractive or not, I want them to be fun to play as/against.
2 -
Trickster fits dbd way more than SM does in every single way and even then i wouldn't say she doesn't fit dbd.
Also there's nothing wrong with having human/conventional looking killers or even hot looking human killers, not every killer needs to be a masked axed wielding murder or some monsterous abomination, best thing to have is variety and there's room for it all.
2 -
In another genre I'd agree, but not for horror. More human killers like Legion and even Plague are fair enough, but SM and Trickster IMO don't work.
1 -
i think trickster fits pretty well and one of dbd's most creative designs
a kpop artist who leads a double life but his second life is that of a serial killer? that's brilliant
he's the killer you never notice who shows you something but is entirely another thing
he doesn't hide behind a mask he thrives for attention he even leaves clues for the police for fun. arrogant but smart.
i think trickster's lore was handled very well and is so underrated.
dull merchant tho is the worse design bhvr ever made in every way possible.
3 -
It does work, because this game has evolved past it's grim dark aesthetic and slasher + supernatural horror direction a long time ago, it has branched out into other horror types and niches, it's now more of an amalgamation of all types of horror to exist in the same space, such as the Bubblegum horror niche Trickster is part of.
Horror in of itself is incredibly diversed and comes in all shapes and forms, including hot conventional horror villains or even mediocre everyday normal looking humans.
Also if we only judge by appearance, then Legion, Deathslinger, Chucky, Wesker & Huntress doesn't work either.
This isn't old dbd anymore, and the game isn't restricted to conventional horror.
1 -
It's not a bad idea, but it's not scary. If he showed up in the realm looking more like Doctor or even Trapper that would work better IMO. Even then it kinda screams of trying to appeal to the K-pop community cuz that's popular rn. He seems like he'd be more in place in an anime-style dating sim, you know, like the ones where an innocent girl falls in love with some homicidal but charming man?
0 -
I would agree that yes, perhaps it has branched out, but in doing that they have kind of backtracked on what made the game popular in the first place. I would argue it's less horror now, and more Fortnite. I'm kind of over "horror isn't supposed to be scary. Think of all the monsters walking around in day-to-day life" and BHVR already did a good job portraying characters like this, while changing them to look like they fit the aesthetic in the realm. I think of Herman Carter, Danny Johnson, some innocent characters driven to immoral actions. I would argue a lot of "bubble gum horror" doesn't fit in alongside Chucky, Myers, Hag, and Spirit. Characters like Trickster and SM are skirting the line of thriller and action. At this point, Harley Quinn might as well be a horror character.
I wouldn't compare any of these characters to SM or Trickster. Legion, some of their cosmetics do them no favours but their defaults are fine. Huntress is this isolated homicidal woman who wears an eerie bunny mask, that's the type of thing I think bubble gum horror should mean. Slinger and Chucky are both creepy af. None of these characters look like Hag, Twins, or Doctor, but they work and some are horror icons.
0 -
I would agree that yes, perhaps it has branched out, but in doing that they have kind of backtracked on what made the game popular in the first place. I would argue it's less horror now, and more Fortnite.
Compared to all the other things that made dbd popular, the aesthetic probably the aspect that has affected the game's popularity the least.
Just because it's branched out, does not mean it's less horror now, if anything it's still just as much horror as it was before, it's just not one type of horror like it used to be.
Also it's been labeled by people and the devs themselves as titles such as (Fortnite for horror, The Smash Bros of Horror & The Hall of Fame of Horror) Last one by the devs themselves, the reason they call it that is exactly because it has branched into other types of horror, including the niche and unconventional ones that Trickster & SM is part of. You not thinking such things counts as horror does not change that it is still seen as being part of the horror genre.
I'm kind of over "horror isn't supposed to be scary. Think of all the monsters walking around in day-to-day life" and BHVR already did a good job portraying characters like this, while changing them to look like they fit the aesthetic in the realm. I think of Herman Carter, Danny Johnson, some innocent characters driven to immoral actions.
Horror is universal, scary is subjective.
Again, just because you don't find some parts of the horror genre scary does not mean it isn't horror, since other people might find it more scary than what parts of horror you consider to be scary. I'd advice you not to play gatekeeper on what is or isn't horror, it is gonna make you look like a snobby elitist who thinks that the only parts of the horror genre he thinks of as being horror is the only correct one.
The fitting the realm argument doesn't work because again, this isn't old dbd, the realms isn't dark and grim and Slasher horror isn't the only type of horror in this game anymore
Also funny how you focus on lore or personality for characters like The Doctor & Ghostface, yet when it comes to Trickster it's just a surface level reason of ''hurr durr killer bad because k-pop and bright aesthetic''
Lastly there is nothing innocent over Doctor or Ghostface, Danny killed his dad in a fit of rage and decided to keep killing for fame in secrecy. Doctor downright believes himself superior to his peers, thinks morality is for the weak minded and will torture others to his heart's content. Claiming that Trickster (Who probably have just as much of an evil lore as those two) is less of a killer because he doesn't dress all dark and spooky like ghostface or has damaged skin with electricity running through his body like Doctor comes off as a really superficial reason.
I would argue a lot of "bubble gum horror" doesn't fit in alongside Chucky, Myers, Hag, and Spirit. Characters like Trickster and SM are skirting the line of thriller and action. At this point, Harley Quinn might as well be a horror character.
Harley Quinn & Trickster differs from each other in character, something that is more important than their visuals.
Also alot of Batman villains have some horror elements over them visually without being horror characters, that however still doesn't compare to Trickster because he is written as a horror character while Batman villains are not.
I wouldn't compare any of these characters to SM or Trickster. Legion, some of their cosmetics do them no favours but their defaults are fine. Huntress is this isolated homicidal woman who wears an eerie bunny mask, that's the type of thing I think bubble gum horror should mean. Slinger and Chucky are both creepy af. None of these characters look like Hag, Twins, or Doctor, but they work and some are horror icons.
Again, if you're gonna judge characters, at least do it fairly across the board, otherwise i can just do the exact same thing you do, here just watch.
Huntress is just a big woman in a mask, Deathslinger is literally just a cowboy & Chucky is just a soul in a doll. None of them are even remotely scary.
Meanwhile you have Trickster, someone who is just as much of an evil person as Doctor & Ghostface are and is the person you least expect to take an average person to an abandoned warehouse, tie them down and torture you fpr hours before killing you off to further his work, he still fits the bill as being a cold blooded serial killer and is the closest to a real life one we have.
See? It's not that hard to do.
-
Just because you're biased towards conventional horror, does not change the fact that it is not the only valid type of horror and DBD is no longer that kind of horror only, the game not being coventional horror only anymore does not make it less horror just because you don't like it.
Post edited by Smoe on2 -
It's hard to say. I think if it wasn't a dark scary asymmetrical horror it wouldn't have gotten this far. Aesthetic matters a lot when world building. I think now that it's gotten this far they can get away with changing up the original aesthetic, but I don't think it's a smart move in the long term and I don't think its good for the people who liked DBD for what it is.
Again, what are we gonna consider horror? Intense action movies are scary to some people. Murder is scary to people. Is the joker and Harley Quinn horror villains? Is Die Hard a horror movie? Sure, I don't wanna sit here and dictate what people do or don't find scary, but DBD was built on a certain vibe that honestly, I don't think is scary, but I would still call horror.
The fans called it Smash Bros of horror to roast them, at least that's the impression I got from the community. If the devs are doing it I'm assuming it's taking a joke the community made and owning it, like "pretty good job so far"
Scary is subjective. Horror is a genre.
Eh, gatekeeping is a non-issue 95% of the time. I agree snoppy elitist behaviour like saying "you can't be a real fan unless you know these facts, or look like me, or aren't an icky girl!" is really cringe, but original fans making points about how the game is changing in ways that don't fit isn't gatekeeping IMO.
Didn't I make a post about missing old DBD and wanting to see it come back as a game mode for the people who would want that, and you commented something like I must be blinded by nostalgia, then you changed it to say OPTIONAL OR NOT you never wanna see old DBD again? That's a respectable opinion, but don't then turn around and say I'm coming off as a gatekeeper.
But maybe the realm should still be dark and grim. I agree that it isn't anymore, but I think it's worse for it.
The Trickster is a pretty k-pop murderer man. Maybe that's scary, but I think he would fit in an anime style dating sim about a girl who falls in love with a charming psychopath than a horror game. That's just me and I know I'm not alone, but I understand a lot of people really like Trickster.
Danny and Doctor aren't innocent, that's not what I meant. I meant they come off as functional and even successful people like Trickster does, but done well IMO.
A few horror elements shouldn't qualify you to be in a horror game IMO. You might as well make Joker a killer.
Huntress is not a big woman in a mask, some would call her a feral woman with a sadistic childlike mind in a creepy mask. Slinger doesn't look normal at all, he looks deformed and nothing about him is appealing. Again, killers can be appealing but it should still fit the original aesthetic IMO. I never liked Chucky, but I still think he's a creepy doll.
0 -
It's hard to say. I think if it wasn't a dark scary asymmetrical horror it wouldn't have gotten this far. Aesthetic matters a lot when world building. I think now that it's gotten this far they can get away with changing up the original aesthetic, but I don't think it's a smart move in the long term and I don't think its good for the people who liked DBD for what it is.
I have never seen a single person praise or note the old graphics for being an aspect they like the most about dbd, most people didn't even talk about it until the realm beyond happened.
I think the game would have been the same regardless if the game started out with the reworked graphics since most people play the game for the gameplay and the licenses.
Again, what are we gonna consider horror? Intense action movies are scary to some people. Murder is scary to people. Is the joker and Harley Quinn horror villains? Is Die Hard a horror movie? Sure, I don't wanna sit here and dictate what people do or don't find scary, but DBD was built on a certain vibe that honestly, I don't think is scary, but I would still call horror.
The intend is what matters, what is intended as horror is what is considered to be horror.
Trickster is a horror character because he was made with the intend as a horror character.
Joker & Harley Quinn is intended as supervillains for a comic series that isn't horror intended, therefore they are not horror characters despite doing bad stuff.
My previous point was that things which are intended as horror will always be horror no matter what, regardless if people don't like those parts of the horror genre or think it's not valid in comparison to the conventional horror parts of the genre.
DBD may have been built on a certain vibe, but they have clearly built more onto that foundation that there's room for more than that.
The fans called it Smash Bros of horror to roast them, at least that's the impression I got from the community. If the devs are doing it I'm assuming it's taking a joke the community made and owning it, like "pretty good job so far"
I'm pretty sure the people in the community calling the game the smash bros of horror is not meant as a roast since most people say it in a positive manner whenever there's a topic about how big dbd has become with all it's collection of licenses.
In fact, i have not seen a single soul so far in this community use any of those titles i mentioned in a negative way until now.
Eh, gatekeeping is a non-issue 95% of the time. I agree snoppy elitist behaviour like saying "you can't be a real fan unless you know these facts, or look like me, or aren't an icky girl!" is really cringe, but original fans making points about how the game is changing in ways that don't fit isn't gatekeeping IMO.
I see it as gatekeeping when people reject other parts of the horror genre to be added into the game
Also you're writing with an original fan who don't think the game is changing in ways that don't fit.
Didn't I make a post about missing old DBD and wanting to see it come back as a game mode for the people who would want that, and you commented something like I must be blinded by nostalgia, then you changed it to say OPTIONAL OR NOT you never wanna see old DBD again? That's a respectable opinion, but don't then turn around and say I'm coming off as a gatekeeper.
Me saying that i don't want old dbd regardless if it's optional or not is not meant as gatekeeping, it just means i won't support the idea no matter what, however that does not mean you're not entitled have that opinion and if some old dbd thing does get added to the game, i'll simply just accept it's existence and just not touch it.
I can't find anything from your previous threads of me saying to you specifically you're blinded by nostalgia, so i'm not sure what you're referering to.
But maybe the realm should still be dark and grim. I agree that it isn't anymore, but I think it's worse for it.
I think it's for the better, variety is better than having all maps have a consistent grim dark theme across the board, it would make it all feel very samey and imo boring.
I personally always found the old graphics really ugly with props that basically had no shadow and was too bright in a dark night setting that had some badly colored filters.
The Trickster is a pretty k-pop murderer man. Maybe that's scary, but I think he would fit in an anime style dating sim about a girl who falls in love with a charming psychopath than a horror game. That's just me and I know I'm not alone, but I understand a lot of people really like Trickster.
You're entitled to your opinion, but your reasoning behind why you think that is something i find to be just very shallow.
Danny and Doctor aren't innocent, that's not what I meant. I meant they come off as functional and even successful people like Trickster does, but done well IMO.
I wouldn't qualify Doctor in that regard.
I'd also say Trickster is done better than Ghostface IMO.
A few horror elements shouldn't qualify you to be in a horror game IMO. You might as well make Joker a killer.
Except there's still more than enough horror elements in the game.
There might have been some that have disappeared as the game have evolved, but it's far from few.
Also all horror games stops being scary eventually, especially multiplayer ones.
Huntress is not a big woman in a mask, some would call her a feral woman with a sadistic childlike mind in a creepy mask. Slinger doesn't look normal at all, he looks deformed and nothing about him is appealing. Again, killers can be appealing but it should still fit the original aesthetic IMO. I never liked Chucky, but I still think he's a creepy doll.
I know but this is what i mean, if you're gonna compare characters, at least do it equally cross all characters you're comparing to each other, instead of going ''this killer doesn't fit because of his aesthetic, he's hot and is k-pop related'' while with other characters, you go into more details for why they fit such as parts of their character, lore or personality, instead of just surface level stuff only.
At least that's what it comes off as.
Post edited by Smoe on0 -
She belongs in fortnite.
1 -
I didn't say they would like it "most" I said it was an important aspect of DBD becoming popular in the first place. Aesthetic is important for media, but I think most people would say that gameplay is more important. Anyways, the most common opinion I've seen about the aesthetics in my experience is most players miss the old look.
Halloween really let DBD take off, and Idk if they would have gotten the license if they didn't play their cards with horror.
I think there has to be more than intent involved, otherwise, no one would fail at art and storytelling.
Trickster IMO is a failed attempt at horror. He doesn't belong in the category.
So if the DC universe stayed the same, but the writers came out and said their intention was to be scary, or horror, by your logic Joker would be a horror villain. Since we can't read minds and good writers don't tell you how to interpret their characters, they let you figure them out for yourself by their writing skills, I'm gonna be honest and say Trickster is just as horror as Joker IMO.
In my experience, calling it Smash Bros was a roast but okay, I can believe some people say it as a positive thing.
But then again, where does it end? Don't gatekeep what's scary. I think the ghost house music in old school Mario is terrifying, and some of those ghosts were unreasonably creepy. Should Mario be a DBD survivor? Is having standards gatekeeping? I do like some niche horror movies, doesn't mean I think they should be involved with DBD.
I'm not arguing all old fans liked DBD the way it was, but the ones who disagree with you and are speaking out aren't gatekeeping.
It's reasonable that you don't wanna see old DBD come back, but then I could turn around and say "You're gatekeeping what the best version of DBD is and not supporting people who want the option!" sharing opinions on what is and isn't horror isn't gatekeeping any more than that is.
You edited it. It says on the comment when you edit things. I saw what you put before you edited it.
I think it would make sense, not for all of them to look the exact same, but to have a dark and hopeless feeling. This is a game called "Dead BY Daylight" and the entity feeds off your suffering. Mostly I don't like the looks of corn maps, Eyre, or Ormond. Ormond looked so dark and cool. The graphics look better, sure, but the actual aesthetic is kinda gross.
They could update the graphics, but to make maps so peaceful and bright IMO is too far.
Fair enough. I would still say if Trickster is horror, Joker may as well be.
In the game from years ago. Dredge is alright tho. I look at Knight, SM, Trickster, and I don't think "horror genre!" I think "Fantasy RPG? Fallout? Dating sim?"
DBD was never scary IMO, but the aesthetic was still horror. Scary doesn't = horror.
I would say after looking at aesthetics and lore my points still stand. Huntress was my example. Was it a bad one?
0 -
I didn't say they would like it "most" I said it was an important aspect of DBD becoming popular in the first place. Aesthetic is important for media, but I think most people would say that gameplay is more important. Anyways, the most common opinion I've seen about the aesthetics in my experience is most players miss the old look.
Of course the people who miss the old aesthetic are the most vocal ones, the people who already enjoys the current aesthetic have no reason to speak up.
It looks to me to be more of a vocal minority.
Halloween really let DBD take off, and Idk if they would have gotten the license if they didn't play their cards with horror.
If dbd wasn't horror, they most likely would have gone for a different license that fitted the genre the game would be in instead.
I think there has to be more than intent involved, otherwise, no one would fail at art and storytelling.
That's why you have the story itself to back that intend up with, Trickster's story is no more horror than ghostface's is.
Trickster IMO is a failed attempt at horror. He doesn't belong in the category.
and IMO, Trickster is more horror than Ghostface is, if a story is solid, it can back the design up, something Trickster's story very much is.
So if the DC universe stayed the same, but the writers came out and said their intention was to be scary, or horror, by your logic Joker would be a horror villain. Since we can't read minds and good writers don't tell you how to interpret their characters, they let you figure them out for yourself by their writing skills, I'm gonna be honest and say Trickster is just as horror as Joker IMO.
Thing is, you can have the writers come out and say their intention, you can have a scary batman horror story, but that wouldn't change Batman IP from a superhero franchise into a horror franchise all of the sudden.
Same way that Dead by Daylight doesn't suddenly stop being a horror IP since that is what it is officially established and classified as despite making something like Hooked on You or bringing in non-horror related cosmetics.
But then again, where does it end? Don't gatekeep what's scary. I think the ghost house music in old school Mario is terrifying, and some of those ghosts were unreasonably creepy. Should Mario be a DBD survivor? Is having standards gatekeeping? I do like some niche horror movies, doesn't mean I think they should be involved with DBD.
I've haven't gatekept what's scary, but there is still a difference in something that is classified as a horror IP and something that isn't.
You can have horror theme'd things in a non-horror IP, but that wouldn't make it into a horror IP all of the sudden.
Dead by Daylight is officially classified and labeled as a horror IP while Batman is not. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Having a niche horror movie added to an officially classified horror game such as dbd still fit better because they're both officially classified as horror.
It's reasonable that you don't wanna see old DBD come back, but then I could turn around and say "You're gatekeeping what the best version of DBD is and not supporting people who want the option!" sharing opinions on what is and isn't horror isn't gatekeeping any more than that is.
It may not be gatekeeping, but thinking something that has an officially recognized title within the horror genre as not being horror wouldn't make it any less part of the horror genre.
You edited it. It says on the comment when you edit things. I saw what you put before you edited it.
Fine, that one is on me.
I think it would make sense, not for all of them to look the exact same, but to have a dark and hopeless feeling. This is a game called "Dead BY Daylight" and the entity feeds off your suffering. Mostly I don't like the looks of corn maps, Eyre, or Ormond. Ormond looked so dark and cool. The graphics look better, sure, but the actual aesthetic is kinda gross.
Okay, and all the maps are made out of the memories, which means the time of day doesn't matter to the Entity when it feeds on more than just the suffering of both the killer & survivors.
Dead by Daylight is no different than Dead by Dawn, which is just a saying and not an actual literal meaning.
The sun on daytime maps isn't real
Ormond looked just as awful as old MacMillan did, Coldwind is a vast improvement as now it actually feels like something from Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Eyrie is still a better looking map than any of the old maps did.
The current aesthetic is 10x better than the old washed out boring ps2 graphics that was disgustingly ugly to look at, especially the blue tint on MacMillan maps.
They could update the graphics, but to make maps so peaceful and bright IMO is too far.
The maps are no more peaceful than what they were before.
IMO bright maps are still fine because it adds variety to the game, if it stood to some people, they take it a step further and add different times of day to each map.
Fair enough. I would still say if Trickster is horror, Joker may as well be.
And i would still say that Trickster is a horror character while joker isn't.
In the game from years ago. Dredge is alright tho. I look at Knight, SM, Trickster, and I don't think "horror genre!" I think "Fantasy RPG? Fallout? Dating sim?"
No more than i look at Deathslinger or Legion and don't think ''horror genre'' I think Red Dead Redemption & Payday 2.
DBD was never scary IMO, but the aesthetic was still horror. Scary doesn't = horror.
Never said it did, that's why i called horror universal and scary is subjective, because they're not one and the same.
The new aesthetic is also still horror, just a more vast and expanded one.
I would say after looking at aesthetics and lore my points still stand. Huntress was my example. Was it a bad one?
Kinda, because the people saying Huntress has the mind of a child is incorrect.
The original aesthetic is too limiting for how vast and diversed the horror genre is and how many different types of horror that can be added to the game, the new aesthetic support the inclusion of them easier, which is a good thing.
Post edited by Smoe on0 -
"The awkward thing about SM being hot is that she's conventionally attractive"
"I said before she looks like a modded Fallout 4 raider, and I stand by that."
"For some reason, her outfit is green and white"
the hot modded christmas raider lol
1 -
Sorry for late reply.
It could be, but I kinda doubt it. There are a ton of videos on YT talking about how they liked the old aesthetic better, and they get tons of likes and comments. I don't think it's always something people who miss old DBD go searching for either.
DBD is still horror IMO, but less horror, and I don't like the path its going down and I don't think they are meeting the horror genre with some killers, as mentioned before. If they don't play their cards right
Agree to disagree on that.
Okay but again, if Trickster is horror I don't see why Joker isn't. He has a higher kill count, more evil ideas, and I'm sure some of these were meant to be scary, but again, we should be able to understand genre aside from creators coming out and stating their intentions with their story. It's a principal called show don't tell. If you didn't tell me DBD was a horror game, I'd have no idea Trickster, Skull Merchant, and in some ways Knight and Artist are horror characters. So to me, they are simply failed attempts at horror even with their backstories.
The time of day would matter more to the killer and their memories, survivors would be more scared in the dark. Besides, Billy lived in Coldwind, he saw it dark. I don't like the verity. Coldwind, Ormond, Toba Landing, Garden of Joy, Eyre, SM's MacMillan I think none of these feel like horror. Like yeah, "scary the inside of main is upside-down" and "cow tree has big dead animals" but throwing in a few horror elements doesn't make the whole map scary.
I can't argue too much about the graphics. As charming as they were in many ways they were ugly and I can understand why they changed, but it's not just the graphics, it's the whole map design. I still prefer a muddy dark Coldwind than a sunny peaceful one.
I think that's an unpopular opinion, that it's no more peaceful but to each their own.
Slinger would be like an urban legend in RDR2 that you do to do a ritual to summon. He would be very out of place. I guess you have a point with Legion tho. Legion to me feels like a 1999 Ghostface so I can forgive them, I still can't forgive how the new killers have a pattern of drifting away from horror.
This conversation proves horror is subjective, but there is still something to be said about the version of horror DBD built it's legacy on, and how many fans don't like this new direction it's going.
I totally disagree that the new aesthetic is horror.
Unsocialized people can be quite child-like even if she is sadistic and great with survival.
I'm gonna be honest I don't think it should be vast and diverse. If I wanted to play Fortnite I would.
0 -
It could be, but I kinda doubt it. There are a ton of videos on YT talking about how they liked the old aesthetic better, and they get tons of likes and comments. I don't think it's always something people who miss old DBD go searching for either.
Again, the people who like the new aesthetic have no reason to go search for any videos talking about how much they love the new aesthetic, it's already the current aesthetic. If a new aesthetic were to come, you can bet there would be people doing the same thing as the people who loves the old aesthetic do.
DBD is still horror IMO, but less horror, and I don't like the path its going down and I don't think they are meeting the horror genre with some killers, as mentioned before. If they don't play their cards right
Yes they are, but i suspect purists like yourself don't see that because to you, the old aesthetic is still the only thing that matters, even though it is no longer relevant in any way, shape or form and has not been for some time now, even less once they finally rework swamp and snuff out the last remnants of old dbd.
Okay but again, if Trickster is horror I don't see why Joker isn't. He has a higher kill count, more evil ideas, and I'm sure some of these were meant to be scary, but again, we should be able to understand genre aside from creators coming out and stating their intentions with their story. It's a principal called show don't tell. If you didn't tell me DBD was a horror game, I'd have no idea Trickster, Skull Merchant, and in some ways Knight and Artist are horror characters. So to me, they are simply failed attempts at horror even with their backstories.
Except the context of a character matters, and i can tell that those 4 you just mentioned is horror just by looking at them while joker is not.
The time of day would matter more to the killer and their memories, survivors would be more scared in the dark. Besides, Billy lived in Coldwind, he saw it dark. I don't like the verity. Coldwind, Ormond, Toba Landing, Garden of Joy, Eyre, SM's MacMillan I think none of these feel like horror. Like yeah, "scary the inside of main is upside-down" and "cow tree has big dead animals" but throwing in a few horror elements doesn't make the whole map scary.
None of the maps are scary, it's just your personal preference having maps take place during night time.
Billy has been outside of coldwind during daytime in his lore, so it being day or night for billy is irrelevant.
So you're basically saying that because they're daytime maps, then they're not horror? I guess that means every horror movie that takes place during the day isn't a horror movie then, such as texas chainsaw massacre.
I can't argue too much about the graphics. As charming as they were in many ways they were ugly and I can understand why they changed, but it's not just the graphics, it's the whole map design. I still prefer a muddy dark Coldwind than a sunny peaceful one.
Charming is not the word i'd call them and muddy dark coldwind will always the worst map to look at, thank god they changed the whole map design, can't wait for them to get rid of swamp so i never have to look at that disgusting abomination from old dbd's time.
Slinger would be like an urban legend in RDR2 that you do to do a ritual to summon. He would be very out of place. I guess you have a point with Legion tho. Legion to me feels like a 1999 Ghostface so I can forgive them, I still can't forgive how the new killers have a pattern of drifting away from horror.
Slinger is still normal looking enough apart from the eyes and Legion is just a guy in a mask, nothing scary about them, however they're still horror characters the same way Knight, SM, Trickster & Artist is, just because they're unconventional horror does not mean they're not horror.
Except they aren't drifting away from horror.
This conversation proves horror is subjective, but there is still something to be said about the version of horror DBD built it's legacy on, and how many fans don't like this new direction it's going.
Wrong, scary is subjective, horror is not.
People are scared of different things, horror simply encompasses everything in the horror genre that people is scared of, to say something isn't horror because you don't think it is means that you're disregarding everything within the horror genre that doesn't fit your view on horror and the people who find different things scared from you.
It's honestly no different from other purists that thinks anything horror related that has any levity in it isn't horror.
I totally disagree that the new aesthetic is horror.
Good for you, that still doesn't change the objective fact that an aesthetic like the one we currently have in the game is recognized as horror by other people.
I'm gonna be honest I don't think it should be vast and diverse. If I wanted to play Fortnite I would.
Well too bad, because that's just the way the game is now and it's never going back to how you remember it as.
Also saying dbd is less horror for adding more horror that is from different types of officially recognized horror in the horror genre makes no sense whatsoever.
-
It doesn't matter how much you try to push the narrative that those types of horror isn't horror, when there are medias that uses such horror types and is officially classified and labeled as horror.
Post edited by Smoe on1 -
list of bad things about skull merchant
- everything
0 -
I actually like sm and in my opinion she is a nice character, only thing I disliked abt her was her release gameplay.
0
