|
| 17 Oct 2015 04:31 PM |
Now I know what majority of you are thinking:"OMG ROBLOX WOULD NEVER DO THAT, YOU'RE STUPID, ETC", but hear me out on this.
Though many people tend to deny that OD'ing has nothing to do with appearance, they are simply attempting to be politically correct. It has EVERYTHING to do with appearance. Think about it. These children tend to 'date' others because of their virtual look. If everyone was just blocks, why would they have a reason to do that?
Besides OD'ing, ROBLOX is supposed to be a building game. It's a world that's separate from real life. Why should we be dressing like real human beings? I mean, literally more than 50% of individuals who wear 2.0/3.0 use it for OD'ing purposes.
I'm positive the only reason ROBLOX still has it up despite a massive majority of the community being OD'ers is simply because they make money off these squeakers.
3.0 is HIDEOUS as many can agree, and really make the community look ugly as a whole due to the vast majority of new players looking like that.
Furthermore, I seem to recall a certain instance where ROBLOX was sued for having lego-like studs on parts. And now, this 3.0 package. The hands are exactly the same as a lego toy character's. So are the arms and legs. So not only is this promoting online OD'ing, it's also unoriginal.
That's all I really have to say. Post your thoughts below and let me know what you think.
Too long didn't read - It promotes OD'ing heavily, is unoriginal and makes a virtual building game look like real life which is un-necessary.
raise ur hams |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 04:35 PM |
WNTS
Congrats OP! You got a F- for making this suggestion. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 04:45 PM |
| sorry to say but roblox is evolving whether you like it or not |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 04:48 PM |
ROBLOX is evolving, but it shouldn't be evolving into an eyesore.
Making the 2.0 package was probably the biggest mistake right alongside the price floors.
It shouldn't be evolving into online dater paradise.
We don't need that crap.
raise ur hams |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
AMkidd408
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Nov 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1187 |
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 04:48 PM |
| let em wear whatever they like |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 04:50 PM |
Well, Rip the opportunity to reverse the effects of that horrible day in which this package was released.
I give up, I quit.
The hideous new players will overflow the site, and the already existing OD'ers will continue to rot it from the inside.
gg
raise ur hams |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 05:08 PM |
| i would like very much but its wnts |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 05:10 PM |
2012'er posted this 2.0 came out in 2009 or 2010
gr8 b8 m8 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 11:00 PM |
hello fellow 2011'er
Hey guys, this time I saved the dragon from the princess |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 11:25 PM |
2.0 is more acceptable than 3.0... 3.0 is completely terrible and un-original, but some things I disagree with. ROBLOX is evolving into a more professional game developing platform (and thank god, it draws away the 5 year old's). 3.0 just looks ugly, but 2.0 is not that bad. Yeah, it supports OD'ers, but why take it away from everyone? Anyways, ROBLOX is getting graphically better almost every update, and it only makes it more realistic. ROBLOX is an easy to work with platform, and I would be glad if it gets more features and capibilities.
To make a long story short: 3.0 BAD, 2.0 OK. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Oct 2015 11:42 PM |
| Even without 2.0/3.0s they will still OD. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 12:56 AM |
Kids OD'ing is not necessarily a problem. > Quit going to those games > Stop prohibiting other peoples rights > Don't judge, their parents are failing |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
rex2856
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3145 |
|
| |
|
CPRAHQ
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Feb 2012 |
| Total Posts: 3511 |
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 02:09 AM |
| No, 2.0 isn't linked to ODing in anyway. Its the person who chooses to get it, and not everyone who wears it is an ODer. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
CPRAHQ
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Feb 2012 |
| Total Posts: 3511 |
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 02:11 AM |
| OP is a 9 year old who thinks every package is for ODing. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 02:24 AM |
No, all people can wear what they want its they'r opinion
And join my group |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 02:42 AM |
| Online Dating is a action not a look. OP get rekt by 3.0 girls who have woman face. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 03:26 AM |
WNTS much? People have the freedom to choose what they want to wear. I have seen COUNTLESS 1.0's OD. ODing is an action, not a look.[2]
~I'm not racist |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 04:12 AM |
| ODing is an action, not a look. [3] |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 04:17 AM |
Theres a difference between "Oding" and "Oder".
"ODing" is an action and "Oder" is a look. Get your facts right.
how can we live on a world without jontron? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Oct 2015 04:18 AM |
Wasn't addressing you OP, addressing those who think "oder" is an action.
how can we live on a world without jontron? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|