Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Right because wondering if there will be controversy over Visitors possibly having real deformities then suggesting to use that sort of thing as a papers please style mechanic sounds like something a "SJW" would say. I swear, if I wasn't focused on CA, I'd probably make a game like that just to prove my point. Maybe I still could.
Anyway I don’t think people will necessarily be upset by anything in this game, especially since it actually kinda seems the opposite of ableist; just because someone has something different about their appearance doesn’t inherently mean anything.
How is it unhealthy to think that some idiots might accuse the game of abelism, then think Visitors resembling humans with feasible deformities would make the game harder? If this was papers please, would you be saying the same crap then?
I'm not concerning myself with "negativity" I just asked if any of the visitor signs are physically feasible, said that somebody's probably gonna accuse the devs of abelism, then I said it was a good idea for the actual game because it would make things harder.
Yo do kinda make up problems that won't exist