This discourse was going around twitter today apparently and im curious takes from here.
Which is it for you?
For me i prefer playersexuality. I want to be able to romance any romance option regardless of my charachters gender. I dont want to be stuck with only Arcade Gannon if i want to do m/m
I agree that sexuality can be important to a charachter. But if you wanna do that, seems like the charachter can just not be a romance option.
That said. In RPGs devs can do what they want. You want a charachter to be monosexual and a romance option, have at it. (Unless theyre all straight, then fuck you).
I do kinda hate what The Sims did by adding monosexuality. Felt like such a virtue signal that made the game less fun. All Sims being pansexual was always more fun for me. Especially since i usually play that game as a pansexual slut. Unless i decide my player Sim is mono, but thats on the player's end.
Monosexual townies in the Sims should at least be optional (is it? Idk havent played Sims 4 since this update).
This is one of the few times when the gamers are right and we should just make it playersexual. I play games to do an escapism. I don't want to have every gay romance be an in-depth exploration of trauma and oppression in a hetero-dominant world. I want to go on gay adventures with my polycule of wacky characters, not be constantly reminded why my own life sucks as well.
You can remove the exploration of sexuality in their routes but then you have literally no reason for them to have set sexualities in the first place. It doesn't really come up in the story or have a reason beyond making you choose a different gender next go-around.
Of course if the game is designed to be an exploration of sexuality then that's different.
I don’t see why everything has to be traumatic and dark. Or why it has to be an “exploration” of sexuality. Some people are just gay or straight or pan or whatever and don’t think too deeply about their preferences.
You (a man) hire bank robber to be your partner on heist -> you casually express romantic interest -> put on some rizz -> he becomes your lover and partner in crime
And that’s it. Not every queer character has to be some battered person. It’s definitely not reflective of reality in some areas of the world, but like you said… escapism. Plus it is reality for other people around the world.
Games like Stardew Valley (and recently Corral Island, or something like that?) have some of the most diverse cast of characters set in a rural farm setting lol. Name me a place where Arabs, Indians, Hispanics, East Asians, and white, rural people get along in an isolated, small farming community. I don’t think it does exist. Maybe it is alienating to see such an idealistic portrayal of your inclusion in a world/community that in reality would hate you, but at the same time, not everything has to be revived around those topics.
See the very next line I wrote in my comment where I addressed this.
I don’t see why that’s a bad thing. Maybe you see them holding hands with a same sex partner? Or maybe you try to romance them and learn something new, then you move on (this one should be done quickly to not waste players’ time).
I like Stalker’s A-Life and RDR2’s NPC system. Characters have lives beyond your presence. If expanded to sexuality, then seeing them just going on about their lives and maybe see hints of sexuality is enough for me to be fine with fixed sexuality.
Lots of games don’t have any exploration of gender but still let you choose. Like when was the last time Pokémon games got real deep about lesbian or gay love? Yet you still choose your gender. Would you want it to be all male or female PCs since gender is not explored?
Well, uh, it’s funny you bring up gender, because I would legitimately say that games like Pokémon should probably yeet player gender choices entirely, because they do literally nothing except restrain you
It is funny that you bring up Stardew though since the romance options in that are playersexual. Its actually a good example of that working well.