只是路过

I hear you, and I'm going to answer every point because you clearly put thought into this and deserve a real response. First — Valko was not removed because players didn't like his design. Valko's own promotional content contained a scene where he breaks into a woman's home at night while she lives alone, and says 'what's wrong with inviting the wolf in?' A Chinese prosecutor's office formally characterized this as romanticizing illegal entry into a private residence — a crime carrying up to three years imprisonment under Chinese law. The national women's federation's official newspaper called it a direct threat to women's safety and demanded investigation and legal punishment. The legal system's official newspaper said it crossed a legal red line. These are not player opinions — these are institutional determinations with legal authority. The character wasn't cancelled because CN players threw a tantrum. He was cancelled because his own content was formally classified as promoting illegal behavior and endangering women's safety. This is a legal compliance issue, not an aesthetic preference. On top of that, the 731 reference in the game's human experimentation record — which had been reported to customer service by multiple players long before this crisis and was ignored — was identified by state media and a prosecutor's office as content that harms national sentiment and violates public morality regulations. The company's response of 'it's a random number' was publicly rejected by six state media systems and a national think tank. Second — you're right that Valko himself had nothing to do with 731. Nobody claimed he did. These are two separate issues that exploded at the same time because the Valko controversy triggered a community-wide audit of the entire game. The company had years to quietly fix the 731 content. Players told them about it. They chose to leave it in. Third — you ask why CN players didn't fight to keep Valko. Because for most CN players, the issue was never about one character. It was about a company that went 500 days without updating the main story, couldn't deliver for five existing characters, broke an explicit promise of no new love interests, and then added a sixth whose own promotional material romanticized breaking into a woman's home. Demanding that he stay would have meant accepting both the broken resource model and content that legal authorities had already flagged as problematic. Fourth — the CN players who liked Valko. You're right that they were caught in the crossfire, and that isn't fair. But the people who mistreated them are individuals, not a movement. Just as I won't judge all global players by the ones calling us racist, I'd ask you not to judge all CN players by the ones who attacked Valko fans. Fifth — the developers. Yes, real people worked on him. Their work was wasted. That's a tragedy, and the blame falls entirely on the executives who approved a character launch with content that legal authorities would later classify as promoting illegal behavior. Not on the players who spent six days warning them while they responded with 'look at his shiny eyes.' Sixth — localization. What happened with Love and Deepspace is not normal localization. Renaming Chinese New Year's Eve while keeping Christmas. Erasing Chinese text from animations and re-drawing entire scenes to remove Chinese characters. Removing Chinese food from every date menu — four menus, zero Chinese dishes, in a game made by a Chinese company. Scrubbing calligraphy from character art. Posting a government collaboration promoting Chinese sports culture three times domestically and zero times internationally. A provincial party newspaper — the same level as a state governor's official press — just published an editorial calling this 'diluting Chinese elements and blurring cultural identity.' Normal localization adapts content for local audiences. This systematically erased the game's origin. There is a difference. Seventh — you say global players are 40% of revenue and not irrelevant. You're right. Which is exactly why the company owed you the same honesty it owed us — and gave you a different story instead. The English apology said 'we weren't ready to introduce Valko.' The Chinese apology acknowledged broken promises, failed content delivery, and systemic trust collapse. Same decision, two different explanations, designed so you'd blame us instead of them. That's not respect. That's manipulation. Last — you say this should be company versus players, not CN versus global. I agree completely. But the path to unity isn't asking CN players to defend content that our own legal system has classified as problematic. It's both sides recognizing that the company engineered this conflict — by telling us different stories, stripping your version of cultural context, and making sure you'd never have the information needed to understand our concerns. You want us to help you push back? We already are. Every demand we've made — for accountability, for transparency, for better content standards — benefits you too. The company that lied to us is the same company that lied to you. Start there.