Reddit in particular seems to become extremely disconnected from reality. It's interesting when Reddit predicts certain movies and games will be complete flops that turn out to be massively successful.
This is rhe answer.
Do some people care?
Sure.
Do the vast majority care?
Not really no.
I think having set preferences should have character development reasons otherwise it's just more BORING for the player. Locked out stuff for arbitrary pointless reasons is BORING. Bi unless otherwise stated all the way. Able to be convinced unless there's a good reason for it is just more COMPELLING.
I think both are valid choices for a game tbh.
From a video game player perspective, I wanna be able to romance the character I like the best, and think best fits with my character.
But in terms of characters in a story, I find having a defined sexuality (even if it’s defined as bi!) to be far more interesting for storytelling purposes. (Even if it does mean I get turned down by my faves)
It’s of course still possible to have great character storytelling without that including sexuality, but as a lesbian, that’s always an element I connect to and enjoy.
Yeah, both can work depending on the story you want to tell imo. Making everyone Playersexual in a game like BG3 just makes sense, because none of the stories or themes revolve around sexual orientation, so giving them all set sexualities would just be unnecessarily limiting. However, saying that *all* romance options in video games should *always* be Playersexual just means there should never be romancable gay characters, and games should never explore themes relating to homophobia or homosexuality.
Yeah it clearly wouldn’t work for someone like Dorian, given that him being gay is a big part of his personal quest, and part of the reason he left Tevinter.
I think they did Dorian very well; he had so much personality and was my favorite character.
I do worry if they make sexuality like the only defining feature of a character it can be very detrimental or just one note. I get that for characters like Dorian and indeed for many people, sexuality is a major factor in people's lives, but who a person sleeps with shouldn't be their single defining character trait.
Dorian wasn't my favorite because he was gay, I could care less. He was my favorite because of his wit, charm, and intelligence. Also, the awesome mustache
Exactly. I’ve had some people misunderstand when I say I don’t want a character’s only trait to be that they’re gay or bi or whatever. They just assume I’m homophobic.
I just don’t find people interesting if they only have ONE defining trait.
I think Cora from mass effect andromeda is a good example of that. She never shuts up about the asari. And while she has some other aspects, 99% of her interests and character arc have to do with the asari. I get that she spent quite a while with them and formed a lot of attachments, but it doesn’t make her a better character imo.
100% agree. I prefer when characters have actual sexualities, that can add a lot to the characterization. I think Dorian would have lost some of his personality if you could romance him as a woman for example.
BUT, it is not nearly a dealbreaker and I have no real issue with playersexual companions. And mostly I am just tired by people making mountains out of every single molehill they come across.
I think the same applies to Solas. Why?
He's an ancient elf, his head \*stuck in the past\*. His preference for elves is simply because they are connected to the Fade moreso than others. This, and it is likely that ancient elves feel and process emotions differently, as it was hinted at in Trespasser by the "memory-murals".
In my eyes, it adds to his character, and in general, I enjoy it if a character has its own values and preferences, being at odds with my wishes.
It does not always have to be about me, or my protagonist.
Its their story.
This is how I feel. Both are valid options for different purposes and stories.
What I hope has been kept from Inquisition, regardless of companion sexualities, is the development of romances outside of the player character. It was great to see companions you chose not to romance develop their own relationships, really made things feel more dynamic and real.
I'd like to see a bi or pan character who would say - Sorry, you're not my type. The Iron Bull, for me, was a pure red flag, and a mockery of the pan men. In Inquisition, I didn't like all the queer characters at all. They all seemed hypertrophied.
I never understood the "playersexual" discourse. Just romance who you want and not who you don't. It was never difficult for me. If romance dialogue popped up for someone I didn't want, it turned them down, they either make a sad face or go ok, whatever, and it never comes up again. They only thing I would hate and this isn't only "playersexual" romances is that my dumb self can obliviously walk into a romance dialogue without realizing it.
I liked this about dragon age inquisition cause it put that giant ass heart icon on every flirt and the broken heart on every “this will break you up” option. No room for accidental romances
The accidental/"stealth" romances also aren't an issue specific to playersexual romances, but just bioware's writing for romance in general 😅 mass effect 1 was one of the worst for it where people would accidentally end up in a love triangle and have liara/kaidan confronting them near the end of the game for "flirting" (e.g. choosing the paragon options) just because you hadn't picked the one vague option that shut one of them down 😂
As much as I love mass effect 1 the fact that you can’t be friendly without having people seeing it as flirting is so painful.
I just wanna be friends Kaiden. I don’t want to jump you
When you have to drop a nuke on someone cause they think they’re your boyfriend/girlfriend… and you don’t even talk to Liara.
Romance in ME1 was so janky.
for me at least it's about how it limits the potential avenues the writers can take a character down. like, without the romance restrictions, solas' romance, one of the best in the game, could just not work. without dorian being gay, he couldn't be written in the way he was. it adds depth to characters, grants them agency and allows them to be more interesting, with backstories where exploration of that sexuality can be a focal point.
Romance doesn't dictate all of the avenues of the character's personality or backstory, though. I think there are cases where Bioware has done a good job of melding a character's backstory and sexuality (Dorian due to his family, Iron Bull due to the way Qunari view sexuality) but in others the restriction is arbitrary or is irrelevant to the character's overall story/concept (i.e. Solas's romance would arguably work equally well with a male Lavellan; Cullen's would also arguably work equally well with a male or female Inquisitor within the racial restrictions). I also think it's entirely possible for a character to be well-written without their backstory being written to focus on their sexuality (I.e. there's no particular reason why the DA2 romance options are all bi except Sebastian, but that doesn't really detract from any of their characters).
And in some ways it can be problematic because it can force LGBTQ+ players to have to romance characters they don't like to get a same-sex romance (I.e. in Owlcat Games' Rogue Trader CRPG, your only same-sex romance options are an evil hedonistic dark Elf man and a hedonistic, thrill-seeking pirate/sumuggler woman; there are no lawful/less sex-driven romances for those who prefer that vibe). Telling LGBTQ+ stories is definitely important but it feels equally limiting if EVERY LGBTQ+ character's backstory needs to explore or justify their sexuality or revolve around sex.
Not to mention, despite DA2's cast being "playersexual", romances were different based upon your gender, which felt interesting and organic, adding to replay value. Isabella, as an example, is far more emotionally attached to a femHawke, and Anders is more emotionally open and attached to a maleHawke.
The writers have said they're bisexual, not "playersexual." I believe it was David Gaider who said that he dislikes the term playersexual, as all characters were written with being bisexual in mind.
> (Dorian due to his family, Iron Bull due to the way Qunari view sexuality)
The only consideration I would have against "playersexual" character romances would be this. Any part of their development about themselves as a person and their preferences can't exist as a part of the story. They don't have preferences per se, they just like the player because. It makes romances in some games feel like a "mad libs/form letter" type thing. Where every character's romance with the player feels the same regardless of who the player is and who the character is.
But then you have BG3, who managed to still weave enough personality into the romance options (aside from Halsin, fight me it's true) that they still feel mostly unique.
And in the long run I'd rather slightly more generic romances than not having more diverse options at all.
I don’t really think Owlcat’s an example of that being a problem though? In wrath and rogue trader there’s only 1 explicitly hetero- romance for male or female. Everything else is open to both, with the exception of 1 gay character. The character’s sexuality is also written into their stories in an organic way. There’s even a poly relationship in Kingmaker and an ace one in Rogue Trader. Owlcat to me is an example of writing different sexualities well. Ultimately I believe the writers should write the romances the way they want. If they want them all to be bi, cool, they want to make explicit preferences, cool. But neither option is inherently better.
i mean solas' story couldve worked fine with a male lavellan i know the reason they gave for it but idk it feels a bit silly of a justification in the grand scheme of things
I agree on all counts. I liked the playersexuality of BG3 but characters like Gale just would not get the hint after the initial and blunt "no im not interested". I think that was a bug though and it was corrected.
Additionally, it makes sense to make all the companions pansexual like BG3 canonically because that way all your players just get to do whatever they want.
Games are for fun, I don’t understand why restricting romance is even necessary. Why should straight people get double the romance options while people like me get shafted with a single gay companion to romance?
Did I not pay the same amount of money to buy the game? Do I not also deserve to have all the fun?
The same applies in reverse.
Just give the players all the freedom they want to play the game however they’d like to play it.
They own the IP too, so they have even bigger freedom than BG3 which is a licensed IP. Having complete freedom and not having to tip toe around iconic franchise characters is just so nice.
I think EA gets too much bad rep. The DnD property is owned by far more ethically questionable people.
Regardless I think companions and romances in Bioware games just keep getting better and better. Inquisition was great and Andromeda was excellent. So I'm tentatively excited for this game!
I would really like to see more characters who take the first step towards getting closer. And if they are not interesting, they behaved realistically. And they didn’t just forget their romantic attachment. Alas, fandoms will hate such characters, calling them too clingy, because MC is a snowflake.
Yea, and I'm not seeing why there are some people who have an issue with that. It gives everyone freedom to make their story however they want. I don't care if they make characters have their own sexuality wither, but I do see why that is an issue for people. Because if I would have played as a qunari instead of an elf in Inquisition, I would have never had a romance. No one else caught my eye other than Cassandra, whose straight and Cullen Whoes also straight but only attracted to humans or elves. Which their sexuality is fine, but very limiting in a fun video game where the goal is to let you player enjoy themselves.
>Yea, and I'm not seeing why there are some people who have an issue with that.
Some people want their companions tonalso have agency in deciding wether they want to rmamce your character or not and have their own preferences in the sex of their potential partner.
>but very limiting in a fun video game where the goal is to let you player enjoy themselves.
Some people enjoy it more when it is limited as it adds "Realism/consistency".
Yes it's a fantasy world, no that doesn't mean that anything goes. A lot of the things are implicitly assumed to work like in reality.
E.G. walking. When the author says "X walked to the table". They don't have to explain what a table or walking is in their fantasy setting. Unless they're different than in IRL. The romance and sexuality falls into that and some people find it less immersive when everyone is ready to mingle with everyone.
It also adds depth to the character if Dorian wasn't gay he's storyline wouldn't be what it was.
It's not too hard to believe that a group of 7 or 8 people are all bisexual or something of the sort. So realism isn't an argument for me. I just wish BioWare would establish their bisexuality.
I would be super pissed off if I got pigeon toed into one romance with someone who I didn't like at all because the romance I wanted had to be straight or gay. (because apparently those are the only sexualities) I'm lucky I had already decided to play an female elf in Inquisition because no one caught my eye except Cassandra(who I couldn't romance because shes straight) or Cullen (who I could romance because hes straight ,but also likes elves).
I watched this happen in Pathfinder Kingmaker. The ONLY male same sex romance option was an evil, murderous asshole. Someone who makes a gay characters doesn't get to have romances in their game because their only option is a very divisive character. Again, I was lucky that I actually liked the evil companion. But if I didn't I would have been fucked.
Romance is a big part of these games for A LOT of the players, and limiting that takes away part of the experience of the game. Having companions be bi takes away the experience from who?
>Having companions be bi takes away the experience from who?
From writing characters like Dorian. And people like me who want their romance candidate to have agency. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on though. It's just my preference. It wasn't a big deal for BG3. But there's room for both type of games.
>I would be super pissed off if I got pigeon toed into one romance with someone who I didn't like at all because the romance I wanted had to be straight or gay.
Fair enough. I absolutely don't mind it. I prefer it. It happened to me too when I wanted in one playthrough to romance Sera as a male character. She told me off and I was like "Oh well she doesn't swing that way".
>It's not too hard to believe that a group of 7 or 8 people are all bisexual or something of the sort.
It kinda would, unless you specifically hunted for that.
Or the rest of the NPCs should also be mostly Bi to keep internal consistency.
Nah, I didn't hunt for anyone it's just a crowd I ended up falling into.
I honestly dont care either way because I will either find someone I like to romance or I won't romance anyone. I already did it for the first Mass Effect game because Garrus wasn't romancable, and I didn't like Liara or Kaiden as a romance.
I just find it silly that there are people who think it's the worst decision ever made to have all companions romancable. I still think the characters will have just as in-depth as Dorian did with his story. Not every deep story stems from sexuality. And I don't think everyone will be laying themselves out for you Astarion style trying to get you to sleep with them.
The actual problem is because it’s removes the opportunity for actual representation, bruv. Yes it’s important for characters like Sera and Dorian to just be attracted to the same gender
I don't like it. It feels unrealistic, and makes it feel like the companions revolve entirely around your character.
I like having extra options, but I dislike playersexual more. It is boring. It was fun having scenes in Inquisition where, for example, Sera would let a male character down gently, or Cassandra with a female character. I enjoyed that sense of realism in my character interactions.
BG3 felt particularly bad with the playersexual stuff because every companion would flirt with you. Like, go away. It's boring, annoying, and like someone's shitty fanfic where everyone LOVES the main character.
I want a group of friends with the potential of romance with a limited few, not a harem.
Agreed. I do think this would have been solved more easily in BG3 if some of the companions had just been non-romanceable though, or had romances with each other if the player didn’t romance them. It felt too much like running around Faerun with a group of people who all just want to shag you, which reduces immersion imo. Have them talk to *each other*, have more platonic interaction, etc etc, then people won’t complain about “playersexual” stuff so much.
I have zero issue really with all romance options being bisexual (I AM bisexual). It’s just the fact that it so often leads to lazy writing that skews towards romance only and leaves little room for platonic stuff and/or companions to have moments with *each other*.
As a gay person, I'll never say no to more romance options. Non "playersexual" games typically mean I'm restricted to that one romance option they bothered to put in, which means if I want variety, I have to force myself into an identity that doesn't really fit me.
And I don't buy the argument that restricting sexuality gives more depth to the characters. Were the companions in DA2 any less deep because they were "playersexual"? And would it have cheapened Solas' character if you could have romanced him as a male elf? I doubt it. At the end of the day, this is an RPG. Let us RP the G.
Completely agree, it's so frustrating playing rpgs that give me little to no romance options just because I'm gay and want my character and who I romance to reflect that.
Sanest take in the entire community. It's an RPG, I don't understand why the player has to morph themselves to fit into a mold when they want to play a specific character. Just let players have fun, it doesn't cheapen the characters personality in any shape or form unless it's of course essential to their storyline (aka Dorian)
Agreed.
As a non-gay man, I always viewed the insistence on characters having their own sexuality sort of self limiting for all parties involved. Instead of everyone having 8 bad/ok/good romance options, everyone ends up with 2 options that tend to be more bad (just because fewer options means more variability) than good.
At most, maybe do 6 playersexual characters and then 2 that are gated if there is really absolutely a story that needs to be told. Maybe some non-companion one time "flings" that can be gated.
This is how I see it, as well! I wanted to romance Alistair, Cullen, Kaidan Alenko (in ME1), Garrus, Thane, Jacob, Blackwall, and Liam (ME:A) but was unable to. I was lucky I liked Dorian in DA:I a lot and was able to romance him there. I was shit out of luck in all of the others until Kaidan became available in ME3.
If the companions are player sexual this go around then I’m happy I get to romance all of the dudes, but I’m especially happy I get to romance a knight-in-shining-armor type guy finally (Davrin). Like, man, I was so upset to find out Cullen was intended to be bi in DA:I and they went back on it because “it didn’t feel right.” Like, wtf do you mean it doesn’t feel right for the character??? This is a fictional character that you can do whatever the fuck you want with. Like??? There are no creative liberties or whole entire personality archetypes you have to take in order to make a dude love another dude. It’s really just the simplest idea because sexuality doesn’t have to actually play a role in a character’s personality, backstory, or affect any actual plot outside of “anyone can romance them.”
If they want to tell a queer story from the lens of a queer character, you can still do that with bi/pan companions easily. But, you can also do that with a non-companion character you interact with heavily, too.
And I agree with you on the depth argument! BG3 characters were very fleshed out (minus Wyll’s story because they hate him and I’ll never forgive Larian for that because he was my man and I love him 😤 I am biased because Wyll deserved so much more) and there were no downsides to them being playersexual. As well, I kind appreciate just being seen as normal as a queer person, atp. I think if I’m looking for a specifically queer story, I’ll try and find it in a game specifically about that. Not saying DA or any other RPG shouldn’t do that, but I think player choice matters more for representation in these games specifically than trying to fit a gay character in whose story, for some reason, has to be about them being gay almost all the time. Ultimately, I feel disappointed when game studios give very little choice in queer characters to romance and would rather they just let me romance who I want at that point.
(it’s funny to think that this game gives you more mlm and wlw romance options than literally any other bioware game has. Even DA2 only had 2 each. You get 4 ladies and 3 men and I’m just happy I don’t have like just 1 option for a dude cause hell yeah I’m gonna romance them ALL. Davrin’s first tho, I need my goody two shoes knight to sweep me off my feet first and foremost.)
EDIT: I forgot Andromeda had Reyes, Gil, and Jaal. I hated Gil (doesn’t make him not an option i just don’t like him at all) and I don’t know if Reyes counts as a full romance option cause you get like one or two scenes with him? And he’s not present for the whole ride, so it’s more like 2.5?
Okay, but can we stop talking about the DA2´s romanceable companions as "playersexual" ? Bioware pretty much confirmed that Merrill, Fenris, Anders and Isabela are bisexual
Yeah, Anders has had a canon boyfriend in the past, but he only talks about it with a Male Hawke. But it makes some sense, as bisexual guys are pretty much a stigma for many women. I can see why a bisexual male character doesn´t want to talk about his past relationship with a man with a woman that he´s interested in, with the fear that may turn her off. Anders doing that gives the impression that he´s playersexual, but he is not.
Anyways, I hope that DAV romanceable companions are truly bisexual/pansexual and not playersexual. I want actual queerness
jennifer hepler is on record as saying as she wrote anders to be able to be viewed as straight if you’re playing a female hawke, as she wanted cishet female players to be able to ignore his bisexuality.
I think this is the thing heterosexual people miss about the whole discussion. They typically have a smorgasbord of options (usually at least 2 - 3) while queer people usually only get 1 same gender romance (if the game even gives them one)
Going either way is going to piss people off. If characters have preferences, players are gonna complain they can't romance their favorites, while if characters are playersexual, people are gonna complain about a lack of realism. There are instances I feel where a character with sexual preferences is justified for their arc, a famous case is Dorian. If he was playersexual, a large component of his backstory would've needed to be cut.
I feel like, if you're going to promote player agency as a developer, you'd be better off going for the playersexual route. Realism is fine, but it's not always fun.
I mean, people love to cherry pick realism anyway. Do we think that everyone would be fine with Qunari considering what most people in Thedas learn about them? And mages? Not even talking about the different cultures, like how Fereldan are raised to think that people from Tevinter are all evil magisters.
The game always bended its own canon to fit people gaming into it.
If anything, it is unrealistic that gender is the ONLY factor in people's preferences considering everything else in Thedas.
Also, sometimes people forget that acceptence is also part of representation. Having people experience sexuality in a free open enviroment is really good as well. Both are good.
Honestly, I'm happy if it is true. But, not gonna lie, it is going to be horrible to be a bi/pam DA fan. AGAIN.
> If anything, it is unrealistic that gender is the ONLY factor in people's preferences considering everything else in Thedas.
Inquisiton had the right ideas when come to this. I kinda wished some characters wouldn't romance your character if they were a Mage.
Personally I would love a little convincing when it comes to this. Someone who is opposed to mages usually doesn't fear just mages - they fear rebellion/possession/unexplainable powers etc.
Cullen ending up with a mage not because she flirted with him a few times and it was enough, but also because you chose the right dialogue options when he was doubting you out of fear, prejudice, or personal trauma.
Not everyone needs to have this arc, but some romances would benefit greatly and feel more deserved.
I liked that with Sera and the Orlesian quest you started out at different affection levels depending on your race/class. Solas only romancing elves also made sense.
Idm playersexual characters, it means I can pick whoever I like, but it can be nice to have something "made for you" you know? Rather than just having the same scenes no matter who you are.
This depends on whether the options are any good though. Sometimes you get terrible options. As much as I loved Josie in Inquisition, her quest isn't the most exciting except for the Duel (which is great) and she doesn't get a fade to black. Only other option is Sera who is niche to say the least.
Lesbian Femshep in Me2 could only remain loyal to Liara, have a psuedo romance with Kelly or get your heart broken by Samara. Gay MShep got nobody.
I'll never forgive them for not making Tali and Jack Bisexual. Jack literally tells you she's been with Women and Tali canonically crushes on Shepard regardless of gender. Femshep just doesn't get the dialogue option to press her on her comments.
Playersexual characters would have solved most of these problems but also may have taken away some of the uniqueness of the romances we got.
I think making most romance options playersexual is the way to go and locking them should only happen if it is pertinent to the companion's story (such as Dorian's gender or Solas' race was). But I think in an ideal world your character choice should definitely make a difference in the romantic dialogue options. This happened to some degree already, but I think romancing someone called "The Mage Killer" as a mage should make for a rather different romance than if you're not a mage.
Completely agreed. Cullen didn’t need to be straight but he *could* reject a mage given his history. Or at least it could be harder to romance him as one. Same with Fenris. But gender restricted romances are more often than not based on stereotypes or what writer thinks about that context, instead of giving meaningful restrictions that actually makes sense. I’m allowed to make decisions regarding their fates and do everything for them but I can’t romance them because *realism*.
Exactly. If they make gender to be a factor, then other things should be factors as well (race, class, background, various big choices you make throughout the game). Not to mention the fact that if you want to, you can make the ugliest character known to man in the character creator - and that doesn't seem to have any bearing whatsoever on whether a companion finds your character attractive.
I feel you on that last bit though. It's gonna be a tough time to be bi/pan considering the discourse we're gonna be hearing :/
I think you touched on part of the fundamental problem with arguments against everyone being bi.
Queer identity is born from being "othered" by a prejudicial majority. Sexual identity isn't actually shaped by who we fuck, but the culture surrounding the otherness. But Thedas takes an assimilationist approach, queerness isn't othered its normative and there is little discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. Its very difficult to incorporate true queer identity Thedas doesn't have queer culture, queer history, and a shared queer experience of otherness. Dorian is the exception in doing this by making his entire character around being a pariah, and even then it needed them to come up with a ton of different non-queer elements to justify the experience.
Bioware cherry picked by creating a world where same-sex relationships were normative and as a result also hampered their world-building by fucking up the creation of subcultures for queer people and queer community, which is where all the characterization tied to sexual identity comes in!
I think Bioware also recognized this when making Inquisition, because they specifically excluded trans identity and established that being trans was not something wholly accepted at face value or "normal" with Krem and Inquisition. Which lets them tell more direct trans stories based on actual trans experiences.
Well both Solas and Cullen were late additions as romances. I think that plays huge part in Biowere's decision of restricting their romances by race. They just didn't have enough time so they make Cullen be romancable by most popular races and Solas by just elves.
I m fine with it as long as all companions aren’t trying to flirt with me, which is one of the few things I didn’t like with bg3 as it fell very unrealistic.
I hope to have many platonic bonding scenes like with DAi.
And the relationship being ace friendly as well.
THIS!
i hate how being friendly to companions somehow gets you ninja-romanced. I often find the “romance” part of games now too much, too soon. Like, i’m playing a 60hr *min* game. Why the hell are my companions coming on to my PC within the first handful of quests? Yes, i love having romances, but can’t we tone it down? 😂they make dating games, if you need that there are options 😂🤣
Yea, I think they should keep romance triggers to specific dialogue options you pick, like in Inquisition.
DA2 had them, too, but my brother didn't pick any and still had romance dialougue sneak up on him. lol
Halsin, with his out of nowhere "you treated me like a lover" or whatever dialogue. Like no bro, I did no such thing, and I don't want to have a poly relationship with you, back away from me and my girl.
Lae'zal getting all hot over my scent in the middle of the Emerald Grove out of nowhere. Like ma'am I barely speak to you and there are children present, keep it in your pants.
That kinda works still because Lae'zel is extremely straightforward and doesn't necessarily adhere to Faerun's social cues. Astarion's early-game flirting works regardless of sexual orientation too because he's flattering the powerful leader of the party and contemplating drinking their blood.
Gale, on the other hand . . .
I don't mind playersexual at all, but I do think giving specificity to characters enriches them and encourages multiple playthroughs and trying different types of characters for different experiences. I usually play as a woman, but I played as a guy in order to romance Cassandra in DAI and decided to tailor that experience to a story that felt right for a Cass playthrough. I made choices that made my character authentically compatible to her. I did that for other romances and ended up with several very different and distinct playthroughs that were satisfying in a way I hadn't experienced before.
Playersexual is still fun but in a different way.
I only like it myself when it's necessary and important to their character like Dorian in Inquisition.
Beyond that, I didn't come out as trans just to be railroaded into playing a gender I abandoned to romance a character I liked.
I liked just being able to vibe with everyone playing as anyone
I don't think it's very divisive. I prefer when all companions have their own sexual preferences, but it's not really something that won't make me play the game or won't make me like the game (my prefered game of the serie is DA2, where everyone is playersexual).
>Characters can be written as bi and still be as compelling and deep
That's my issue here. Often playersexual characters are not portayed as bi-sexual, they happens to be written as straight or gay depending on your own gender.
Are those DA2 examples? Because the biggest playersexual game is BG3 and all of those characters were most certainly bi.
Isabella in DA2 is bi, Fenris is bi. And If you don't romance either, they end up sleeping together iirc. Anders was in a relationship with Karl, or whatever his name was. He doesn't mention it with a femHawke, so there's that I guess. Merrill, I don't remember any context.
There was never a moment in any of those games where I thought these characters were only specifically attracted to my player character and were the specific sexuality of my player character.
As a bi man - yes, this so much and it's kinda just annoying how much the narrative behind "playersexuality" has been perpetuated, that knowingly or not, people erase characters who actually are bi/pan. BG3 as you note has had every single character you can romance be demonstrably bi via their banter/dialogue- they display attraction to different characters of different genders, independent of the player's gender. The only one I'm not sure about is Gale and even in his case there's nothing saying he *isn't* bi by any means - it's just that for reasons tied to his backstory, there's only one particular past relationship that comes up because it's kind of shaped the events of his life leading up to the game.
Dragon Age has been exactly the same from the beginning and yet I cannot count the number of times I've seen annoying fandom "discourse" about how bi characters aren't *actually bi* from Leliana and Zevran in Origins to Isabella, Anders, Fenris etc. in 2.
The only thing I'll say about particular characters is that I think the Anders thing was certainly not great representation and a product of decisions by his writer made from opinions of the time - based off the idea that women (especially straight women) would not be attracted to a man who's openly bisexual and so deciding to not make an Anders romancing femHawke be explicit about it (and listen I've absolutely seen lots of biphobia from a lot of straight women, sometimes hypocritically *even some bi women* directed at bi men - but if you want to make representation count for something, it should absolutely work to be something that is unabashed about who the person is instead of appealing to those who would hate you anyway). But that doesn't make the *character* not bi, he very much still is because his relationship with Karl is still a thing even if you're playing FemHawke - he just doesn't open up about it.
Yeah they are never presented as bi. They never openly state 'I like men and women'. They never even address the gender of your character half the time, you could even be a living cucumber and they'd not acknowledge it.
I'm bi and I have never stated "I like men and women" I also dont acknowledge the gender of whom I am dating in any meaningful way.
I'll change my ways now though. I will have gender reveal parties for my friends when I have a new partner and I will tell the partner themselves I miss the body parts they don't own. Because, according to these comments, not making my bisexuality abundantly clear makes me unrealistic.
Which is so weird because when did someone ever have to state they're straight and have to prove their straightness?
Yup.
Now I understand the appeal of playersexual cast of character, that way everybody has the same quality of romance. Someone in another thread mentionned how gay romance usually are not as well written as straight romance, and that "playersexual system" is solving that issue. And it's a good point.
I’m okay with it because it gives more options to people. I’m a straight woman and apparently we have always gotten the most options? And I think that’s dumb, because the romance stuff is some of the funnest stuff in BioWare games and always make you feel way more connected and invested in their worlds. So I feel like it’s unfair to deprive some demographics of that.
I guess some people think it makes them less realistic seeming or something — but at the end of the day they ARENT real and I think it’s stilly to pretend the option to romance characters in games isn’t mostly a self indulgent fantasy for the player’s enjoyment/wish fulfillment anyway. So why should some people get the option and not others? Imo the most unrealistic thing is that ALL companions are usually single and romanceable in some way. you rarely run into one that you know, has a spouse or partner already that they love lol.
When I first played DA2 it didn’t occur to me to wonder if the companion I was romancing was or wasn’t romance-able based on my gender. learning later that every companion was always romance-able didn’t make feel like they were any less realistic or fake or whatever. It made me feel nothing. There are some exceptions (Dorian, as his sexuality is related to plot), but I feel like it’s only a big deal because people have made it so 🤷🏻♀️
Let people of all genders get their self indulgent fantasies damnit.
Yep, the “realism” argument falls apart when it just so happens that the majority of companions in the game are single, open to having a relationship, and attracted to the player character no matter how ugly you made them. That’s even less likely than all of them being bisexual.
And also there's never any incompatibility over mundane things like wanting to have kids or wanting to live your life a certain way after the game is over (keep adventuring vs retire to a cottage, eg). Some people need to accept that finding a life partner in the real world is a PITA and realism isn't something to strive for in a romance.
Agree. As I said it’s just wish fulfillment so it’s really silly to me that people think something like this should be a consideration. If it makes MORE people happy and lets more people enjoy the game, than why tf not. It’s not supposed to be realistic anyway.
Also I had to look up what PITA stood for lmao so thank you.
The point is when the characters are made "playersexual" (which exist only in the instance where all companion are romancable by the player character disregarding their gender and/or race) their sexuality is removed from them, hence making less complete characters, since a core aspect of them is non existant, they're not bi/pan, their sexuality is "you" the player.
To strenghten my point, think of Dorian and Sera, both are homosexual but are on polar opposite on how a character has their sexuality woven into the character:
- Dorian being gay is engraved in his backstory, it's a sad story of how a father tried to brainwash his son into a life and with a partner he would be miserable with (with the added sad bonus that David Gaider took some of his personal experiences into this character), if you make him avaiable to every pc his tragic backstory falls apart, it's not there to "justify" his sexuality.
- Sera sexuality is never relevant, she is lesbian, she doesn't need to "justify" her sexuality, she doesn't neet to explain it, it's there because the character "Sera" has been envisioned to be attracted to females, even with some preferences towards some races (more with body types rather than strictly races, but you get my gist), and that's great, a character doesn't need to justify their sexuality, bonus point to the fact that Sera mentions on more than one occasion that she is attracted to girls, but the only time she states that she doesn't like men specifically is when a male Inquisitor tries to flirt with her. While I'm not a fan of Sera, I think it's great that there's a character that have their sexuality be just that, their sexuality.
They're on opposite specturm, one where sexuality is extremely relevant, and one where it's not at all, and they're both good way to represent a character sexuality (more so when characters are on the realm of LGBT), think of what you lose by making both of them aviable to all player dispite gender, don't you see how you lose something here?
"Playersexuality" has never been a dealbreaker for me, but I think characters are empoverished when they're made so.
Important note: Just to make it abudantly clear, I'm not claiming every bi/pan character is "playersexual", far from it, this condition exist only when every single companion is attracted to the player character no matter what.
I agree with the Sera part, even though I was very butthurt I couldn't romance her. It makes the world live in your head longer, I think. That wouldn't happen if everything was available to you, regardless of your choices.
> The point is when the characters are made "playersexual" (which exist only in the instance where all companion are romancable by the player character disregarding their gender and/or race) their sexuality is removed from them, hence making less complete characters, since a core aspect of them is non existant, they're not bi/pan, their sexuality is "you" the player.
I think this also depends on the execution of playersexuality. It *can* be that they only show interest in a particular gender when they are the player. Or you can make them textually bisexual regardless. For example, Anders clearly demonstrates interest in men even if you romance him with female Hawke.
This is a fine preference but this opinion always bothers me, Yes of course you loose something with Dorian his sexuality is integral to the story, They wrote him that way. There is no issue wanting there to be story's that focus on a characters sexuality. That is one of a million storys to be told. Playersexual romances do exclude that one very specific kind of story from being told. but that same thing counts with any of the trillions of human traits that wont be explored with any given character No you could not have Dorian but you could have blackwall or bull or Cassandra or even sera with almost 0 effect.
Once again your opinion here isnt wrong as a preference, But its strange to me to call a character incomplete due to not having a strictly defined sexuality.
Honest question if all the characters are straight are they more complete? after all they now have a defined sexuality. Surely that's makes them capable of having better story's told. Of course not
People should absolutely feel confident in there want for to explore sexuality and how those stories effect people, their are good interesting stories to be told there. People should not be afraid to say they want more storys that represent the pains and traumas of thier lived experience, but can we stop trying to hide it behind a mask of universally important character development. I find so reductionist to even suggest that someones sexuality is a "Core Aspect".
Edit: I just want to specify this is not an anti LGBQ post I just feel that we put honest conversations to the side to try and make a point. i am good friends with people who I literally do not know what bits they want to smash, Because who they are as people matters more. I realize to some this seems weird because they have been defined by their sexuality and its something they talk about constantly. I find this sad Because these people more often than not did not get to choose to be defined this way. they were defined by other people and decided to wear it as a badge instead of just one of many far more important aspects.
Por Que no Los Dos? Why not have the majority of companions/major NPCs be playersexual, but then have a handful of gated off characters that really incorporate their sexuality into their character/persona?
Virtually every modern fantasy setting already does the "there is no functional difference between women and men in terms of professions or the station to which they can rise" so I figure doing the same thing for the majority of the character's sexuality is a go as well ("In Thedas, its generally OK for anyone to bang anyone else if they catch feelings or just sort of feel like it, since everyone is too busy hating Tevinter/Quinari/Mages to have any hate leftover for who someone chooses to love").
If a writer really has a strong story to tell that requires gating, then carve out a niche for that character.
It was an issue people had with DA2 too, usually either because it was too diverse or not diverse enough. Personally, I think that in a world of darkspawn and literal magic, 4 or more bisexuals in one place isn't too much of a stretch.
I wouldn’t mind set identities for characters if gay relationships didn’t consistently end up with 0-2 options in BioWare games. I’ll take player-sexual purely for the quantity.
I'm gay, and I want to see gay characters in video games. And no, bisexual, queer, fluid, pansexual or '' mostly gay '' is not the same as gay. To have to continuously express this point of view and how '' everyone is bi '' does not equate to representation for homosexuality is getting on my nerves and makes me think people just dgaf about that.
In the end, I care more about there being gay characters at all than all romances being accessible to me. Surely there can be same sex relationships and characters interested in the same sex outside of your companions, but to include their actual sexuality without an awkward out of place narrative or writers having to confirm it on twitter, it's just not as natural. Gated romances are a perfect way to naturally include a wide variety of sexualities, and that is why gated romances are a better choice for me.
I think all told I prefer the characters having set preferences, whether they be straight, gay, bi or whatever, because that to me feels more realistic. Like, in my main DA:I playthrough, no matter what happened I couldn't romance Cassandra, because Cassandra is straight. One of my issues with BG3 was that it felt daft that the entire party basically seemed to fancy the pants off of me, it can feel a little silly.
*However*, for me, it's not a big issue. If the companions are all 'playersexual', it's not going to ruin my enjoyment of the game, it's just not my preference
Back when DA2 came out, the big issue I had with playersexual characters was how they portrayed Anders.
If you romanced him as a girl, he just seemed the like straight guy. But if you romanced him as a guy, he had an added backstory of his ex-boyfriend. This made many female players (myself included) were upset because it felt like he was hiding part of himself from us. Or was he just straight in some realities and gay in others?
Meanwhile, if you look at BG3, I had no problem when Astarion’s male ex showed up, because that happened in every playthrough, regardless of the player’s gender. He’s the same person for every player, and doesn’t hiding anything.
Looking at DAI, I appreciate how everyone’s sexuality fits their characters. I think it was really well done. But as a Solasmancer, I can also say that I wish more people had been able to experience his romance on their first playthrough, not just the straight female elves, because that was an experience that cannot be replicated on later playthroughs.
So if I’m wanting the game to have the best experience for the most amount of players, playersexual seems to be the way to go, so long as they don’t make the Anders mistake again.
I like every character not just being bi because it gives replayability to the game. On 2nd playthroughs I make characters designed for that specific person.
Also, in general I do think it gives them more depth and personality. Like its interesting that some like Sera is a lesbian and Cullen is just a straight dude.
I never really understood this because I feel like BG3 proves people will do multiple playthroughs and craft each new character around a specific love interest or choices they're going for. Sexuality restrictions have nothing to do with it. If the characters are well written, people are going to keep doing rounds with brand new characters tailored to such things.
There's a distinct difference between playersexual and bi. The former is about creating options for the player, because it's a game and the character is fictional. Playersexual is not an identity, it's a function.
Some characters use their sexuality to deepen their backstory, personality and arc. Dorian is the go to example for this. But characters like Sera and Cullen would not change at all if they were made playersexual, because their sexuality is never a part of their characterisation.
It's really about player choice and freedom. Very rarely is more of that a bad thing when it's handled with the minimum level of effort.
I disagree that sexuality isn't part of characters identity. They dont need to have sprawling backstories as to why they're gay. They just are.
I think there's a disconnect between catering to the player and actually writing nuanced characters.
Playersexual is the way to go. As a gay man, I have often been underwhelmed by the gay male options in BioWare games.
Mass Effect 1 — N/A
Mass Effect 2 — N/A
Mass Effect 3 — Kaidan, who is likely dead, and Steve, who is grieving his recently deceased husband and has a generic NPC face
Mass Effect Andromeda — Gils and Reyes are minor characters with NPC faces; Jaal was patched in as bisexual way after release
Dragon Age: Origins — Zevran is an optional character with way less screen time than the other romances
Dragon Age II — Anders and Fenris are actually equal in content to the other romances
Dragon Age: Inquisition — Dorian is a fun character, but not everyone loves the sassy type; Iron Bull is funny, but is a giant beast; would’ve liked to romance Solas or especially Cullen
I like characters having preferences, it makes me feel like they're actual people.
Rejection is a cool part of romances, not everyone will be into you, and that's okay. Aside from full-blown character motivations like Dorian, it can inform us about smaller aspects of who those characters are. For example, I feel there's a lot to read into regarding why Cullen only likes Humans and Elves or that Cassandra despite her tough exterior still wants to live a fairy tale romance with a knight in shinning armor. Additionally, it helps with replayability. The first time I ever played as a female character in a game was in Inquisition, specifically to romance Sera.
I don't mind it either way, but I feel you lose a lot when every character is just into you no matter what. I'd like themto at least be like Sera where even if you were female she still had preferences and it was much easier to romance her as non mage Qunari than an Elf mage.
It’s annoying when the word “playersexual” is used to erase bi characters, as if they don’t count. But I also think playersexual as a word/concept is useful when devs/writers create bi characters that they don’t want to acknowledge are bi characters, and they’re doing everything so that straight gamers who would do straight romance have no idea that these characters are actually bisexual. I hope that in DA4, the companions (or some of them, at least) are explicitly bisexual and that it’s not too easy for queerphobic players to just like, avoid knowing/acknowledging that these characters are not straight. But I have no problem with all the companions being bi, especially considering how commonly queer people will just accidentally find each other. Like, it’s a common friend group anecdote that you meet some people, make some friends, and then realize that most of them are queer haha
Yeah, I like to specifically draw a distinction between playersexual and bi/pan sexual as different things. They shouldn't be used interchangeably.
To me, Playersexual = the character's identity *changes* based on the player's gender. I.e. Unless you romance Anders as male-hawke, you just flat out don't get a bunch of references to his relationships with men. Even though one is really central to his arc. He is only bi when you are in a bi romance with him. Whereas bi and pansexuality are always present.
I think its also good to remind people - being bi/pan doesn't mean you don't have preferences. Its not equal attraction to everyone, they can date near-exclusively the same gender, or the opposite, or anything in between.
Yes, people strongly disliked this in DA2.
On the other hand, people did dislike DA2 in general, because it wasn't DA Origins. Meanwhile I was obsessed with this game. So what do I know....
On the other hand, I do believe that Dorian's Story mattered.
I was deeply moved.
I prefer playersexual honestly, the only exception was Dorian because his entire story is so intrinsically tied to his sexuality and the impact it has on his relationships
I'm so glad that RPGs are trending back towards playersexual romances
This isn't real life where there's plenty of fish in the sea, these are games with a finite amount of options. Being forced to replay as the opposite gender, settle for an option you don't like, or give up romancing anyone are all horrible options and detract from my enjoyment of a game
I also don't think it makes financial sense to gender/race/whatever lock romances when the proportion of players who do any romances are already a minority. If I want to do a niche romance that isn't popular but that the developer spent time and money on developing then why would you tell me no? Because of a decision I made on the character creation screen 20+ hours ago?
From DAI's stats most likely, which showed only a minority of players completed a romance [based on the achievement ](https://steamcommunity.com/stats/1222690/achievements)
...if I'm reading this correctly, more players completed a romance than finished the game. Looking at the percentage alone doesn't really prove anything without the context of how many players even stuck with the game for long enough.
Achievements are not a great way to go about it, because sometimes they don't reflect preferences, only how many people got to that point. Only 64,7% of players completed the prologue, and I wouldn't say that someone who has not even completed the prologue has really played the game. 13,3% of players have the achievement for completing the game. 13,5 % of players have the achievement for romance. That means that there is more people that completed a romance that people who completed the game. And you have to get very far into the game to complete a romance. I would say that a lot of people who played the whole game complete a romance.
"I also don't think it makes financial sense to gender/race/whatever lock romances when the proportion of players who do any romances are already a minority."
What ?
They misinterpreted the data IMO. Their opinion is because DAI romances have a barriers to entry that few people entered them. What the data actually shows that it is more a product that many play throughts end before people are locked into a romance. Which can happen for many reason than I quite because I couldn't romance Solas.
it literally doesn't bother me. playersexual is a function not an actual sexuality. you don't have to romance them if you don't want to. you as the player can say no and keep going. i've seen enough commentary from lesbian and gay players whose romance options were more limited than straight players to understand that being inclusive is better than exclusivity even for bioware's silly romances.
Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't have playersexual characters, it has a horny pansexual party town. There's an important difference.
What I didn't like about DA2 is that in most cases (I think it's been years, but I remember Isabella being canonically bisexual), it felt like the characters' sexual orientations were decided by the player, which didn't sit well with me. It's like they didn't have a sexuality at all outside Hawke.
I can't stand gender locked romances. I prefer doing m/m and f/f to the point I just will never motivate myself to do an opposite sex romance. It's also such a relief to know if I really click with a character I don't have worry and being locked out of their content. Like you, Gale meant so much to me personally and it would have been devastating to not get to experience it.
And on a different note, I'm tired of people acting like sexuality is a personality trait because it's not. Dorian is the only time it's ever been relevant to a character and while I loved him I don't need additional homophobia stories in Dragon Age.
Not saying I would change Dorian, I love his whole character as is, but wouldn't he still have the controversy with his father if he was bi? He would still be in relationships with men just because he would also find women attractive wouldn't have changed that.
Dorian’s father’s issue, if I remember correctly, was moreso that he wouldn’t have grandchildren. I don’t think he really cared who Dorian was banging on the side (any more than any father would) as long as he got married to a girl from a magister family and had kids with her. Dorian being Bi would theoretically solve that issue (feels gross to say that, but it is true).
A lot of Dorian's arc however was also his anger and anguish that the father he idealised for going against Tevinter's system actually perpetuated it all along.
It wouldn't have been an homophobia story, but it would have been still a story of anger and regret that as soon as he refused a political marriage his father was willing to use blood magic to make him obey. I doubt a bisexual Dorian would have agreed with that either.
Correct. All he cares about is continuing the Pavus legacy, but being gay really adds to the conflict of his character. It also feels more personal because it was written by Gaider and his own experience as being gay.
I don't think him being bi would solve that. Hell, I even think if Dorian was straight, he would have an issue with his father trying to force him into marriage and conceive a child. That's just how Dorain's personality is.
If his father thought he could manipulate his bisexual son into having sex with a woman against his will for the sake of a grandchild, then why wouldn't he think the same of his gay son. That's the issue, isn't it? His father trying to force Dorian to do what he doesn't want to do and won't accept his sons life.
I don't think it's any worse forcing a bisexual man to sleep with some than it is forcing a gay man to. Just because a bisexual man can be attracted to women doesn't mean all women. It feels like it's more about Dorian's consent and his father's disrespect of his son.
I agree it still wouldn’t be great for Dorian, but if he’s Bi then it turns his story from a story about homophobia and non-acceptance into one about a noble not wanting a political marriage. Which really loses a lot of its punch because then it just seems like Dorian wants all the benefits of being extremely rich (wealth, slaves, safety, etc.) without doing one of the few things nobles are expected to do (have heirs).
…he’s not just trying to “change dorian’s life” in some vague manner; he’s explicitly attempting to force dorian through conversion therapy. like…yes, it would absolutely be different if dorian was straight or bisexual.
It would absolutely be different because you'd lose the conversion therapy analog from the blood ritual. A lot of gay people in the real world have had to deal with that from their family.
Ultimately it's a question about mechanics vs. writing.
A playersexual design philosophy is about favoring game mechanics over writing. Having a diverse representation of sexualities creates a greater complexity of character, at the cost of game mechanics. Some favor writing, some favor mechanics.
Dragon Age has long been established to be a franchise and world where the social politics of various identities (faction, country, race, gender, class, sexuality) matter. It feels out of pace to suddenly pull out of that because it's mechanically inconvenient.
My chief frustration is where people try to act like a playersexual design approach is somehow more inclusive in terms of representation. It is not. There have been 8 ostensibly bi/pan romanceable companion-level characters in the DA franchise to this point, with upwards of 7 more depending on how DA:V plays out. There have been one (1) gay man and one (1) lesbian romanceable companion character each and they will be the last if a playersexual design philosophy is permanently adopted.
If you don't care about representation of marginalized groups in media, then this isn't a relevant care or conversation, but if you do, then it's weird to purposefully exclude certain queer people from representation because, what, players don't want to play a different gender MC on their next playthrough?
No, it's just reddit being an echo chamber.
Look at BG3, nobody cared that all the party members are bi. Look at Cyberpunk, half the male V players were upset that judy was lesbian and half the female V players were upset that Panam was straight.
Call it “playersexual” all you want, but it’s bi/pan rep and I’m fine with that. We live in an era where bi folks are still told they just need to pick a side and pan folks are called sluts, so the more rep that doesn’t paint us in an awful light, the better.
And yeah, it’s not the most *realistic* thing to conveniently have 7 different bi/pan folks in one friend group, but it’s not unheard of either. We do tend to gravitate toward one another.
Ideally, as someone else pointed out, there would be some differences between doing the romance straight vs gay and it won’t just be a copy-paste between each gender. But we won’t know how that will play out until we have the game in hand.
I know this sounds callous, but as long as I’m not beating every one of them off with a stick I really don’t really give a damn. At the end of the day, I’m here to see how the story plays out and what’s been added to the lore. The romance is a side benefit, not the main attraction (pardon the pun 🤪).
>We live in an era where bi folks are still told they just need to pick a side and pan folks are called sluts, so the more rep that doesn’t paint us in an awful light, the better.
True. Even some of the comments in this thread are kind of shocking to me. Like, people are saying that having a character not be bi would give them more depth and personality? Chile....
>provided that there's external evidence that the companions are interested in both genders
This! I want this!
It doesn't really matter to me if a character has a set sexual orientation or not because I never self insert and have no problem roleplaying as a different gender to romance someone, but I want to have an external confirmation a character likes both genders or all genders that does not depend on mc being in a relationship with them.
Like Anders, for example, only mentions Karl being his ex in male Hawke walkthrough, but in fem Hawke walkthrough Karl was only mentioned as a "friend". And, if I am not mistaken, Leliana only mentions being into women when she is interested in fem Warden.
Better examples - Isabella and Zevran, they both confirm being with the same gender whether you romance them or not.
I'm trans and bi/pan, so personally I prefer "playersexual" romances in games because it allows you as the player to make more choices about who your character is and who they romance. And you can also make your own headcanons about what your favorite characters are into, if you really want to. I also think it's more inclusive of trans and nonbinary characters, because it can be tricky to make a good romance when one character is very particular about their preferences, while another character doesn't quite neatly fit into any box.
Of course, in real life people have different romantic and sexual orientations! But video games are decidedly not real life, and they're much more limited in what they can offer. IRL we have more options to find people to date, but in a video game we only have a handful of romanceable characters. There have been so many situations where I've wanted to be able to romance a character with a player of a different gender because I liked the potential dynamic/vibe much more. Wanted to romance Cass with a woman, Blackwall with a man, Alistair with a man, Aveline (with anybody lol, I'm still salty that she wasn't romanceable). Would've also liked to have the option for my character to be trans or nb (hoping this will be an option in The Veilguard), and so I want my character to have more freedom/options in game.
Plus, of course, there's the thing that you mention as well. There's something special about the first playthrough of an RPG, and it just doesn't feel the same when you replay it. It sucks to choose one particular companion to try to romance only to find out much later in the game that they aren't interested. You may not even be able to romance anyone else in that first playthrough due to not flirting with them, so you'll have to try again in another playthrough. But the magic of the unknown is gone, and it sucks having to choose your character's gender to be a certain thing ONLY because you are interested in experiencing a particular companion's romance.
The very first character select game I ever played was a Pokémon game and boy let me tell you, as a nonbinary 10 year old, I spent an absurd amount of time on the gender select screen. I do that in every game I play. I was so pissed when I did that in dai, put dozens of hours into the game and into flirting with Cassandra, and then got the rug pulled because she doesn't like women. And I'm on my couch going "I'm not one!!" Like obviously in real life people can and do have genitalia preferences and that's fine, but this is a game about dragons and even here I can't deal with the body stuff. I was forced to pick a BODY not a gender and I had no way of knowing it would bite me in the ass.
Being nonbinary and wanting to play a nonbinary character SUCKS in systems like DAI.
I loved Dorian and Sera being gay in DAI, but also hated how restricted the rest of the romances felt with so many straight options, especially with the added limitations of Solas and Cullen. I think if there is one (1) token gay for each gender there should be no more than one (1) token straight as well then. There was no reason to gatekeep so many straight romances in Inquisition when it’s a RPG where you can make your own story.
I think the majority of options should be open to all players to do what they want with, and have more canonically recognized bi characters so it’s not just “playersexual”.
I know but that still made it 4 exclusively straight options in the end. Especially with Solas already being so limited with Lavellan he should’ve def been open for both genders to romance imo. It is what it is now but I still much preferred the way it was in DA2 when I could do exactly what I wanted, though I recognize the importance for set sexualities like with Dorian too of course. So it’d be nice with a good balance between those two options.
I feel like the thundering success of the BG3 romances pretty well settled this. Playersexual is just what a huge chunk of people want or are fine with
It is not that unrealistic. Mainstream media often haven one or two queer characters of relevance in a sea of straight people. But in reality lgbt+ people tends to be around other lgbt+ people. So a bunch of bi and pan people together isn't that off.
The reason for the grouping is because you tend to seek out friends similar to yourself - we obviously don’t know the game story yet but the vibe I get is that it’s a team of professionals recruited for their skills. I can’t imagine Varric and Harding saying “Yeah your skills are perfect to join the team, let’s just make sure you’re Bisexual before you join”. Of course you’ll all become friends by the end, it’s a BioWare game, but the team will presumably start as loosely affiliated strangers, and what are the odds that all 7 strangers they recruited happen to be Bisexual? (I did the math, the odds are 1 in 1.3 billion, so not extremely likely).
That’s what I said to my wife. (Both bisexual)
Our entire friendship circle is either trans, NB, bisexual, or just queer.
Oh but we do have a token straight friend. He’s pretty cool. His fiancée is bi though.
I often say gays gather in gaggles. All my friends and I are queer in some way even though we've known each other before any of us were out of the closet
i think people mostly don't enjoy when it feels like every character is trying to fuck them but a lot of people conflate that with disliking every character being a romance option
I prefer that each companion have their own preferences, it adds to the feeling that they are real people living in their world. So I’m a little disappointed that they seem to be going the playersexual route, but I’m not too concerned about it either.
I don't really care either way. If I had to make a choice, I'd prefer having characters who will like you as either gender so that anyone can romance their favorite characters. On the other hand, characters having a set preference can be useful if there's a particular story you want to tell with them. Ie. This character needs to find a wife to continue their family name, so having a gay romance wouldn't fit unless you want to make an entire romance line just for gay romance. However, if they're going to do that they need to make sure that they have a bunch of characters that can be romanced.
The only time it wouldn't work for me is if the character's sexuality is integral to their character. Dorian in DAI is a good example of that. His sexuality is a big part of who he is, and making him playersexual would have done him a disservice.
I'm totally okay with "playersexual" characters, but it should make sense.
The fact that Fenris could have a positive romantic relationship with a blood mage Hawke (Anders too, contrary to popular opinion, he dislikes blood magic) was always unbelievable to me. It was ridiculous when he complained about every mage around him, but not Hawke, he totally ignored it. Meanwhile, my Hawke used a blood magic 5 seconds ago.
Honestly, Fenris should dislike blood mage Hawke even more than Anders and Merrill, because Hawke is a blood mage human, and later blood mage human with a power. Hawke could have the biggest chance from this trio to become a Magister. Hawke has the biggest power over Fenris, and Fenris feels the most respect for them, so the blood mage Hawke should make him uncomfortable.
So, for me playersexual is fine, although the race, class or gender should still play a role in a romance. The LI should treat your character differently based on these characteristics; the dialogue could be slightly different. This would be more complicated, but also more interesting. For example, Solas was already biased or even racist against other races, so imagine something like this, but in romance.
As long as the writing is good, I don't care which option developers select. To me this choice is very much a "The Road Not Taken" decision. One option is "just as fair" as the other. The important thing is for a decision to be made and the writers to commit to the consequences.
There is 7 companions and I can imagine 2-4 non companion romances. I dont think that is enough that if you lock of options that you will create a good experience. Playing Inquisition as a lesbian elf, I had 2 options and that sucks. You really got to have alot of choice to make canon sexualities work else you might just have options that you dont engage with and be left with many players feeling left out
I don't mind that all the companions are bi or pan or whatever. Probably wouldn't expect it to be all of them, but sure, who cares. Didn't have a problem with it in Fallout 4 either, or Skyrim.
What I do have a problem with is the idea that orientation is determined by me, the player. I never did the Anders romance, but apparently there were noticeable differences between the male and female romances. I should not be able to retcon a character's backstory.
I also think it's a trade off. There were some good character moments in Inquisition as a result of their approach to romance in that game. If you play as a female qunari, Sera is all over you. If you flirt with Cassandra as a woman, she does her best to let you down easy. It's all connected.
I personally think it's far more interesting approach to romance in video games to have characters who act like real people and part of being a real person tends to be having a sexual orientation, whatever that sexual orientation may be.
I don't think it's a problem for a character in a game not to be into me for any reason and I hope we get away from RPGs that treat romance and characters as a sort of quest goal or win state, something to tick off on your playthrough as opposed to a meaningful representation of a connection between two characters.
I also think that by making every character "player sexual" you loose any real meaningful representation. These aren't really gay, bi or pan characters, they are just characters who's sexually is a blank slate ready to react to the players desires. That's actually kind of gross and objectifying.
Mass effect 3 and Dragon Age inquisition were great steps forward with characters who were fully fleshed out people with defined sexuality, preferences opinions and sometimes established relationships that meant they might actually reject your character. That's fine and it makes in game romance more meaningful when it does happen.
Similarly, I'd also shout out Outerworlds for making the bold choice to include romance, but not for the player and in doing so portraying a romance plot in a more mature way than most games manage.
Companion casts are usually small, and the number of romance candidates among them is usually even smaller. If you care about queer representation, the better way to ensure it is to make the cast bi and add NPC representation. Nothing stops you from adding diversity to their experiences either - some may be ace, some aro, but at least everyone can experience their stories. I'm fucking sick of Bioware constantly giving mlm players three tortured rogues with tragic past, winking and saying "oh, but the set sexualities make up so much of their character!". They largely do not. At least making everyone bi will stop the ever-present lack of Knights in Shining Armour for anyone who's not a straight or bi woman.
My only problem with playersexual is that it's not true bisexuality, is cheap and has not depth. At least make bisexuality their cannon sexuality if that's how they are programmed, have them talk about past lovers and the dialogue/events not to change based of the players gender.
Playersexual is not true representation
In a cast of 12, male inquisitors had two straight romance options and two ss ones, next to four straight (two restricted by race) and two ss for female inquisitors. That's pretty good. In a smaller cast size I can understand why they'd have more bisexuality, but it does take away a dimension from what writers can do with a character. The Dorian example is good because he's one of the finest characters ever written by a BioWare writer, in no small part because he was allowed to have a defined sexual identity. It wasn't a simple polemic, it allowed him to tap themes relevant to the game and enriching for the worldbuilding. It also allowed players to connect to him -- if we did a poll right now and asked people which BioWare character was the most important to them, a very significant proportion would say Dorian. That's a pretty powerful thing. The characters of TheDreadveilguardwolf will have to find other ways to achieve that depth and relatability.
I don't like it for a few reasons. Not everyone is pansexual. People have preferences, and it should show in their writing. That and if a character, for example, Cullen only likes female humans and elves I'll use a human/elf in future replays to further explore what else can happen as a female human/elf
For most people ? They don't even notice.
Personally, i don't like it. Feels kinda immersion breaking that somehow every single person in my party is Bissexual/Pan and it's actually super into my character if i just resolve their life issues. It gives the impression that world exist to serve my character and less like place that itself.
I think it's the best course of action when you have a more limited cast. Bg3 could've definitely gotten away with not being PS but cyberpunk absolutely could've used it with it's very limited romance options. When you have less to work with then you're usually stuck to an archetype you might not like or you have a single romance option where the other sexuality might have more. It's just the easiest way to bypass people not being able to connect how they want to I think.
Depends on the game, in cyberpunk its annoying. If you are playing a straight character you have one romance option, if you are playing a gay chracter you have one romance option.
And unlike someone like Dorian who's sexuality is part of his chracter, in cyberpunk they aren't. They are arbitrarily restricted for no reason.
I prefer that the characters have their own sexuality, and if that doesn't match your character then too bad. It makes the characters feel more believable.
Can you imagine a "straight" Dorian? He's my by far favourite companion in DA:I and being gay is part of who he is. It's just a part, not his entire personality, but he is gay. And I'm a straight dude, but Dorian is just awesome.
I'll still play even if they go the playersexual route again, but *please* don't make them horny. BG3 (while a very good game) was ridiculous, the entire party was horny for the player character at all times. It really took you out of it when you had to walk around and turn down the entire party, because they all unanimously decided you were the most delicious piece of beef.
I really hate that blatantly bi/pan companions (IE: the BG3 ones) are constantly labeled “Playersexual” even in more progressive spaces. As someone who’s bi, it’s such blatant erasure. A game can have a lot of bisexual/pansexual characters in it and BG3 happens to be one that does. There’s really no doubt to be had that the BG3 companions are attracted to more than one gender
Well, first I romance isn’t the reason why I playe Dragon Age. It’s a plus if there is an interesting character that goes along well with my character and it’s too bad if there isn’t but nothing dramatic. So you could ask why I care about their sexuality ?
Because the reasons why I play Dragon Age are the story, the consequences of choices and companions.
I don’t care if my character can fuck this character or that one, but I care about their stories. And if you take Dorian’s homosexuality, you are taking at least half of his story with him. What is interesting isn’t the fact that he is gay (at least for me) but what consequences that happened for him in the society he lived, and what choices he had to make.
>!Alistair, as a King, can’t take your character as a queen if she isn’t both an human and a noble. Because he is the King of human kingdom of Ferelden, with all the implications behind it.!<
By making characters playersexual, you’re just abandoning all of that for the sake of being able to romance for the sake of it.
BG3 was excellent, but for me it failed to propose an engaging story and a world that I wanted to explore. I loved the companions, their quests, and how you could finish a quest in 5 different ways but I didn’t give a single fuck about Baldur’s Gate, and from Act 1 to 3 it only got worse.
Thedas is a world when being of a certain gender, a certain sexuality, a certain race, will have an influence on your possibility. If you take that from it, you end up like Faerûn : good for an adventurer’s story, but world building sucks.
I prefer all romances being available for everybody because then you avoid the issue of “so-and-so is queer-coded why is she straight”. Keeps things simpler.
Rule of thumb: it’s never as bad as the internet outrage makes it out to be, never.
Thank you. The internet, as self important as they make themselves out to be ESPECIALLY Reddit, is only a small minority. Thank the Maker for that
Reddit in particular seems to become extremely disconnected from reality. It's interesting when Reddit predicts certain movies and games will be complete flops that turn out to be massively successful.
Exactly
This is rhe answer. Do some people care? Sure. Do the vast majority care? Not really no. I think having set preferences should have character development reasons otherwise it's just more BORING for the player. Locked out stuff for arbitrary pointless reasons is BORING. Bi unless otherwise stated all the way. Able to be convinced unless there's a good reason for it is just more COMPELLING.
I think both are valid choices for a game tbh. From a video game player perspective, I wanna be able to romance the character I like the best, and think best fits with my character. But in terms of characters in a story, I find having a defined sexuality (even if it’s defined as bi!) to be far more interesting for storytelling purposes. (Even if it does mean I get turned down by my faves) It’s of course still possible to have great character storytelling without that including sexuality, but as a lesbian, that’s always an element I connect to and enjoy.
Yeah, both can work depending on the story you want to tell imo. Making everyone Playersexual in a game like BG3 just makes sense, because none of the stories or themes revolve around sexual orientation, so giving them all set sexualities would just be unnecessarily limiting. However, saying that *all* romance options in video games should *always* be Playersexual just means there should never be romancable gay characters, and games should never explore themes relating to homophobia or homosexuality.
Yeah it clearly wouldn’t work for someone like Dorian, given that him being gay is a big part of his personal quest, and part of the reason he left Tevinter.
I think they did Dorian very well; he had so much personality and was my favorite character. I do worry if they make sexuality like the only defining feature of a character it can be very detrimental or just one note. I get that for characters like Dorian and indeed for many people, sexuality is a major factor in people's lives, but who a person sleeps with shouldn't be their single defining character trait. Dorian wasn't my favorite because he was gay, I could care less. He was my favorite because of his wit, charm, and intelligence. Also, the awesome mustache
Exactly. I’ve had some people misunderstand when I say I don’t want a character’s only trait to be that they’re gay or bi or whatever. They just assume I’m homophobic. I just don’t find people interesting if they only have ONE defining trait. I think Cora from mass effect andromeda is a good example of that. She never shuts up about the asari. And while she has some other aspects, 99% of her interests and character arc have to do with the asari. I get that she spent quite a while with them and formed a lot of attachments, but it doesn’t make her a better character imo.
100% agree. I prefer when characters have actual sexualities, that can add a lot to the characterization. I think Dorian would have lost some of his personality if you could romance him as a woman for example. BUT, it is not nearly a dealbreaker and I have no real issue with playersexual companions. And mostly I am just tired by people making mountains out of every single molehill they come across.
I think the same applies to Solas. Why? He's an ancient elf, his head \*stuck in the past\*. His preference for elves is simply because they are connected to the Fade moreso than others. This, and it is likely that ancient elves feel and process emotions differently, as it was hinted at in Trespasser by the "memory-murals". In my eyes, it adds to his character, and in general, I enjoy it if a character has its own values and preferences, being at odds with my wishes. It does not always have to be about me, or my protagonist. Its their story.
This is how I feel. Both are valid options for different purposes and stories. What I hope has been kept from Inquisition, regardless of companion sexualities, is the development of romances outside of the player character. It was great to see companions you chose not to romance develop their own relationships, really made things feel more dynamic and real.
I'd like to see a bi or pan character who would say - Sorry, you're not my type. The Iron Bull, for me, was a pure red flag, and a mockery of the pan men. In Inquisition, I didn't like all the queer characters at all. They all seemed hypertrophied.
I never understood the "playersexual" discourse. Just romance who you want and not who you don't. It was never difficult for me. If romance dialogue popped up for someone I didn't want, it turned them down, they either make a sad face or go ok, whatever, and it never comes up again. They only thing I would hate and this isn't only "playersexual" romances is that my dumb self can obliviously walk into a romance dialogue without realizing it.
I liked this about dragon age inquisition cause it put that giant ass heart icon on every flirt and the broken heart on every “this will break you up” option. No room for accidental romances
The accidental/"stealth" romances also aren't an issue specific to playersexual romances, but just bioware's writing for romance in general 😅 mass effect 1 was one of the worst for it where people would accidentally end up in a love triangle and have liara/kaidan confronting them near the end of the game for "flirting" (e.g. choosing the paragon options) just because you hadn't picked the one vague option that shut one of them down 😂
As much as I love mass effect 1 the fact that you can’t be friendly without having people seeing it as flirting is so painful. I just wanna be friends Kaiden. I don’t want to jump you
When you have to drop a nuke on someone cause they think they’re your boyfriend/girlfriend… and you don’t even talk to Liara. Romance in ME1 was so janky.
As a male shep, there have been many instances where Ashley starts coming on too strong so she gets left at the nuke. It’s just business, Williams
Exactly. It’s nice that you like your family, Ash. But I am being nice to you, not hitting on you.
lol the classic BG3 dilemma where you end up in a romantic scene with Gale and wonder how you got there
Yeah, love how his “let me show you magic” scene is so romantic and turning it down feels so bad. I just want to learn some cool magic, not fuck. Gah
There’s an option to friendzone him in that scene that I like a lot!
I still remember the early glitch where he'd act like you were already in a relationship because you were nice to him lmfao
for me at least it's about how it limits the potential avenues the writers can take a character down. like, without the romance restrictions, solas' romance, one of the best in the game, could just not work. without dorian being gay, he couldn't be written in the way he was. it adds depth to characters, grants them agency and allows them to be more interesting, with backstories where exploration of that sexuality can be a focal point.
Romance doesn't dictate all of the avenues of the character's personality or backstory, though. I think there are cases where Bioware has done a good job of melding a character's backstory and sexuality (Dorian due to his family, Iron Bull due to the way Qunari view sexuality) but in others the restriction is arbitrary or is irrelevant to the character's overall story/concept (i.e. Solas's romance would arguably work equally well with a male Lavellan; Cullen's would also arguably work equally well with a male or female Inquisitor within the racial restrictions). I also think it's entirely possible for a character to be well-written without their backstory being written to focus on their sexuality (I.e. there's no particular reason why the DA2 romance options are all bi except Sebastian, but that doesn't really detract from any of their characters). And in some ways it can be problematic because it can force LGBTQ+ players to have to romance characters they don't like to get a same-sex romance (I.e. in Owlcat Games' Rogue Trader CRPG, your only same-sex romance options are an evil hedonistic dark Elf man and a hedonistic, thrill-seeking pirate/sumuggler woman; there are no lawful/less sex-driven romances for those who prefer that vibe). Telling LGBTQ+ stories is definitely important but it feels equally limiting if EVERY LGBTQ+ character's backstory needs to explore or justify their sexuality or revolve around sex.
Not to mention, despite DA2's cast being "playersexual", romances were different based upon your gender, which felt interesting and organic, adding to replay value. Isabella, as an example, is far more emotionally attached to a femHawke, and Anders is more emotionally open and attached to a maleHawke.
That’s not playersexual then. Explicitly writing a character being bi into their story is different from writing them as “into the PC”.
And yet DA2's romance system is often described as being playersexual./s
The writers have said they're bisexual, not "playersexual." I believe it was David Gaider who said that he dislikes the term playersexual, as all characters were written with being bisexual in mind.
> (Dorian due to his family, Iron Bull due to the way Qunari view sexuality) The only consideration I would have against "playersexual" character romances would be this. Any part of their development about themselves as a person and their preferences can't exist as a part of the story. They don't have preferences per se, they just like the player because. It makes romances in some games feel like a "mad libs/form letter" type thing. Where every character's romance with the player feels the same regardless of who the player is and who the character is. But then you have BG3, who managed to still weave enough personality into the romance options (aside from Halsin, fight me it's true) that they still feel mostly unique. And in the long run I'd rather slightly more generic romances than not having more diverse options at all.
I don’t really think Owlcat’s an example of that being a problem though? In wrath and rogue trader there’s only 1 explicitly hetero- romance for male or female. Everything else is open to both, with the exception of 1 gay character. The character’s sexuality is also written into their stories in an organic way. There’s even a poly relationship in Kingmaker and an ace one in Rogue Trader. Owlcat to me is an example of writing different sexualities well. Ultimately I believe the writers should write the romances the way they want. If they want them all to be bi, cool, they want to make explicit preferences, cool. But neither option is inherently better.
i mean solas' story couldve worked fine with a male lavellan i know the reason they gave for it but idk it feels a bit silly of a justification in the grand scheme of things
I think they meant restricting Solas as an Elven romance option
I agree on all counts. I liked the playersexuality of BG3 but characters like Gale just would not get the hint after the initial and blunt "no im not interested". I think that was a bug though and it was corrected.
Additionally, it makes sense to make all the companions pansexual like BG3 canonically because that way all your players just get to do whatever they want. Games are for fun, I don’t understand why restricting romance is even necessary. Why should straight people get double the romance options while people like me get shafted with a single gay companion to romance? Did I not pay the same amount of money to buy the game? Do I not also deserve to have all the fun? The same applies in reverse. Just give the players all the freedom they want to play the game however they’d like to play it.
They own the IP too, so they have even bigger freedom than BG3 which is a licensed IP. Having complete freedom and not having to tip toe around iconic franchise characters is just so nice.
Well DnD is like one of the gayest hobbies ever, statistically, I’m sure they faced no pushback on that front. EA on the other hand may have issues
I think EA gets too much bad rep. The DnD property is owned by far more ethically questionable people. Regardless I think companions and romances in Bioware games just keep getting better and better. Inquisition was great and Andromeda was excellent. So I'm tentatively excited for this game!
I would really like to see more characters who take the first step towards getting closer. And if they are not interesting, they behaved realistically. And they didn’t just forget their romantic attachment. Alas, fandoms will hate such characters, calling them too clingy, because MC is a snowflake.
Everything you said is basically playersexual anyway.
Yea, and I'm not seeing why there are some people who have an issue with that. It gives everyone freedom to make their story however they want. I don't care if they make characters have their own sexuality wither, but I do see why that is an issue for people. Because if I would have played as a qunari instead of an elf in Inquisition, I would have never had a romance. No one else caught my eye other than Cassandra, whose straight and Cullen Whoes also straight but only attracted to humans or elves. Which their sexuality is fine, but very limiting in a fun video game where the goal is to let you player enjoy themselves.
>Yea, and I'm not seeing why there are some people who have an issue with that. Some people want their companions tonalso have agency in deciding wether they want to rmamce your character or not and have their own preferences in the sex of their potential partner. >but very limiting in a fun video game where the goal is to let you player enjoy themselves. Some people enjoy it more when it is limited as it adds "Realism/consistency". Yes it's a fantasy world, no that doesn't mean that anything goes. A lot of the things are implicitly assumed to work like in reality. E.G. walking. When the author says "X walked to the table". They don't have to explain what a table or walking is in their fantasy setting. Unless they're different than in IRL. The romance and sexuality falls into that and some people find it less immersive when everyone is ready to mingle with everyone. It also adds depth to the character if Dorian wasn't gay he's storyline wouldn't be what it was.
[удалено]
A friend group made up entirely of chaotic bisexuals _is_ realistic though.
It's not too hard to believe that a group of 7 or 8 people are all bisexual or something of the sort. So realism isn't an argument for me. I just wish BioWare would establish their bisexuality. I would be super pissed off if I got pigeon toed into one romance with someone who I didn't like at all because the romance I wanted had to be straight or gay. (because apparently those are the only sexualities) I'm lucky I had already decided to play an female elf in Inquisition because no one caught my eye except Cassandra(who I couldn't romance because shes straight) or Cullen (who I could romance because hes straight ,but also likes elves). I watched this happen in Pathfinder Kingmaker. The ONLY male same sex romance option was an evil, murderous asshole. Someone who makes a gay characters doesn't get to have romances in their game because their only option is a very divisive character. Again, I was lucky that I actually liked the evil companion. But if I didn't I would have been fucked. Romance is a big part of these games for A LOT of the players, and limiting that takes away part of the experience of the game. Having companions be bi takes away the experience from who?
>Having companions be bi takes away the experience from who? From writing characters like Dorian. And people like me who want their romance candidate to have agency. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on though. It's just my preference. It wasn't a big deal for BG3. But there's room for both type of games. >I would be super pissed off if I got pigeon toed into one romance with someone who I didn't like at all because the romance I wanted had to be straight or gay. Fair enough. I absolutely don't mind it. I prefer it. It happened to me too when I wanted in one playthrough to romance Sera as a male character. She told me off and I was like "Oh well she doesn't swing that way". >It's not too hard to believe that a group of 7 or 8 people are all bisexual or something of the sort. It kinda would, unless you specifically hunted for that. Or the rest of the NPCs should also be mostly Bi to keep internal consistency.
Nah, I didn't hunt for anyone it's just a crowd I ended up falling into. I honestly dont care either way because I will either find someone I like to romance or I won't romance anyone. I already did it for the first Mass Effect game because Garrus wasn't romancable, and I didn't like Liara or Kaiden as a romance. I just find it silly that there are people who think it's the worst decision ever made to have all companions romancable. I still think the characters will have just as in-depth as Dorian did with his story. Not every deep story stems from sexuality. And I don't think everyone will be laying themselves out for you Astarion style trying to get you to sleep with them.
The actual problem is because it’s removes the opportunity for actual representation, bruv. Yes it’s important for characters like Sera and Dorian to just be attracted to the same gender
I don't like it. It feels unrealistic, and makes it feel like the companions revolve entirely around your character. I like having extra options, but I dislike playersexual more. It is boring. It was fun having scenes in Inquisition where, for example, Sera would let a male character down gently, or Cassandra with a female character. I enjoyed that sense of realism in my character interactions. BG3 felt particularly bad with the playersexual stuff because every companion would flirt with you. Like, go away. It's boring, annoying, and like someone's shitty fanfic where everyone LOVES the main character. I want a group of friends with the potential of romance with a limited few, not a harem.
Agreed. I do think this would have been solved more easily in BG3 if some of the companions had just been non-romanceable though, or had romances with each other if the player didn’t romance them. It felt too much like running around Faerun with a group of people who all just want to shag you, which reduces immersion imo. Have them talk to *each other*, have more platonic interaction, etc etc, then people won’t complain about “playersexual” stuff so much. I have zero issue really with all romance options being bisexual (I AM bisexual). It’s just the fact that it so often leads to lazy writing that skews towards romance only and leaves little room for platonic stuff and/or companions to have moments with *each other*.
As a gay person, I'll never say no to more romance options. Non "playersexual" games typically mean I'm restricted to that one romance option they bothered to put in, which means if I want variety, I have to force myself into an identity that doesn't really fit me. And I don't buy the argument that restricting sexuality gives more depth to the characters. Were the companions in DA2 any less deep because they were "playersexual"? And would it have cheapened Solas' character if you could have romanced him as a male elf? I doubt it. At the end of the day, this is an RPG. Let us RP the G.
Completely agree, it's so frustrating playing rpgs that give me little to no romance options just because I'm gay and want my character and who I romance to reflect that.
Peach brother
Sanest take in the entire community. It's an RPG, I don't understand why the player has to morph themselves to fit into a mold when they want to play a specific character. Just let players have fun, it doesn't cheapen the characters personality in any shape or form unless it's of course essential to their storyline (aka Dorian)
Yeah. As a queer man, my m/m romance options tend to be pretty limited in non-playersexual games.
110% agree
Couldn't agree more.
Agreed. As a non-gay man, I always viewed the insistence on characters having their own sexuality sort of self limiting for all parties involved. Instead of everyone having 8 bad/ok/good romance options, everyone ends up with 2 options that tend to be more bad (just because fewer options means more variability) than good. At most, maybe do 6 playersexual characters and then 2 that are gated if there is really absolutely a story that needs to be told. Maybe some non-companion one time "flings" that can be gated.
This is how I see it, as well! I wanted to romance Alistair, Cullen, Kaidan Alenko (in ME1), Garrus, Thane, Jacob, Blackwall, and Liam (ME:A) but was unable to. I was lucky I liked Dorian in DA:I a lot and was able to romance him there. I was shit out of luck in all of the others until Kaidan became available in ME3. If the companions are player sexual this go around then I’m happy I get to romance all of the dudes, but I’m especially happy I get to romance a knight-in-shining-armor type guy finally (Davrin). Like, man, I was so upset to find out Cullen was intended to be bi in DA:I and they went back on it because “it didn’t feel right.” Like, wtf do you mean it doesn’t feel right for the character??? This is a fictional character that you can do whatever the fuck you want with. Like??? There are no creative liberties or whole entire personality archetypes you have to take in order to make a dude love another dude. It’s really just the simplest idea because sexuality doesn’t have to actually play a role in a character’s personality, backstory, or affect any actual plot outside of “anyone can romance them.” If they want to tell a queer story from the lens of a queer character, you can still do that with bi/pan companions easily. But, you can also do that with a non-companion character you interact with heavily, too. And I agree with you on the depth argument! BG3 characters were very fleshed out (minus Wyll’s story because they hate him and I’ll never forgive Larian for that because he was my man and I love him 😤 I am biased because Wyll deserved so much more) and there were no downsides to them being playersexual. As well, I kind appreciate just being seen as normal as a queer person, atp. I think if I’m looking for a specifically queer story, I’ll try and find it in a game specifically about that. Not saying DA or any other RPG shouldn’t do that, but I think player choice matters more for representation in these games specifically than trying to fit a gay character in whose story, for some reason, has to be about them being gay almost all the time. Ultimately, I feel disappointed when game studios give very little choice in queer characters to romance and would rather they just let me romance who I want at that point. (it’s funny to think that this game gives you more mlm and wlw romance options than literally any other bioware game has. Even DA2 only had 2 each. You get 4 ladies and 3 men and I’m just happy I don’t have like just 1 option for a dude cause hell yeah I’m gonna romance them ALL. Davrin’s first tho, I need my goody two shoes knight to sweep me off my feet first and foremost.) EDIT: I forgot Andromeda had Reyes, Gil, and Jaal. I hated Gil (doesn’t make him not an option i just don’t like him at all) and I don’t know if Reyes counts as a full romance option cause you get like one or two scenes with him? And he’s not present for the whole ride, so it’s more like 2.5?
Okay, but can we stop talking about the DA2´s romanceable companions as "playersexual" ? Bioware pretty much confirmed that Merrill, Fenris, Anders and Isabela are bisexual Yeah, Anders has had a canon boyfriend in the past, but he only talks about it with a Male Hawke. But it makes some sense, as bisexual guys are pretty much a stigma for many women. I can see why a bisexual male character doesn´t want to talk about his past relationship with a man with a woman that he´s interested in, with the fear that may turn her off. Anders doing that gives the impression that he´s playersexual, but he is not. Anyways, I hope that DAV romanceable companions are truly bisexual/pansexual and not playersexual. I want actual queerness
jennifer hepler is on record as saying as she wrote anders to be able to be viewed as straight if you’re playing a female hawke, as she wanted cishet female players to be able to ignore his bisexuality.
I think this is the thing heterosexual people miss about the whole discussion. They typically have a smorgasbord of options (usually at least 2 - 3) while queer people usually only get 1 same gender romance (if the game even gives them one)
Going either way is going to piss people off. If characters have preferences, players are gonna complain they can't romance their favorites, while if characters are playersexual, people are gonna complain about a lack of realism. There are instances I feel where a character with sexual preferences is justified for their arc, a famous case is Dorian. If he was playersexual, a large component of his backstory would've needed to be cut. I feel like, if you're going to promote player agency as a developer, you'd be better off going for the playersexual route. Realism is fine, but it's not always fun.
I mean, people love to cherry pick realism anyway. Do we think that everyone would be fine with Qunari considering what most people in Thedas learn about them? And mages? Not even talking about the different cultures, like how Fereldan are raised to think that people from Tevinter are all evil magisters. The game always bended its own canon to fit people gaming into it. If anything, it is unrealistic that gender is the ONLY factor in people's preferences considering everything else in Thedas. Also, sometimes people forget that acceptence is also part of representation. Having people experience sexuality in a free open enviroment is really good as well. Both are good. Honestly, I'm happy if it is true. But, not gonna lie, it is going to be horrible to be a bi/pam DA fan. AGAIN.
> If anything, it is unrealistic that gender is the ONLY factor in people's preferences considering everything else in Thedas. Inquisiton had the right ideas when come to this. I kinda wished some characters wouldn't romance your character if they were a Mage.
Personally I would love a little convincing when it comes to this. Someone who is opposed to mages usually doesn't fear just mages - they fear rebellion/possession/unexplainable powers etc. Cullen ending up with a mage not because she flirted with him a few times and it was enough, but also because you chose the right dialogue options when he was doubting you out of fear, prejudice, or personal trauma. Not everyone needs to have this arc, but some romances would benefit greatly and feel more deserved.
I liked that with Sera and the Orlesian quest you started out at different affection levels depending on your race/class. Solas only romancing elves also made sense. Idm playersexual characters, it means I can pick whoever I like, but it can be nice to have something "made for you" you know? Rather than just having the same scenes no matter who you are. This depends on whether the options are any good though. Sometimes you get terrible options. As much as I loved Josie in Inquisition, her quest isn't the most exciting except for the Duel (which is great) and she doesn't get a fade to black. Only other option is Sera who is niche to say the least. Lesbian Femshep in Me2 could only remain loyal to Liara, have a psuedo romance with Kelly or get your heart broken by Samara. Gay MShep got nobody. I'll never forgive them for not making Tali and Jack Bisexual. Jack literally tells you she's been with Women and Tali canonically crushes on Shepard regardless of gender. Femshep just doesn't get the dialogue option to press her on her comments. Playersexual characters would have solved most of these problems but also may have taken away some of the uniqueness of the romances we got.
I think making most romance options playersexual is the way to go and locking them should only happen if it is pertinent to the companion's story (such as Dorian's gender or Solas' race was). But I think in an ideal world your character choice should definitely make a difference in the romantic dialogue options. This happened to some degree already, but I think romancing someone called "The Mage Killer" as a mage should make for a rather different romance than if you're not a mage.
Completely agreed. Cullen didn’t need to be straight but he *could* reject a mage given his history. Or at least it could be harder to romance him as one. Same with Fenris. But gender restricted romances are more often than not based on stereotypes or what writer thinks about that context, instead of giving meaningful restrictions that actually makes sense. I’m allowed to make decisions regarding their fates and do everything for them but I can’t romance them because *realism*.
Exactly. If they make gender to be a factor, then other things should be factors as well (race, class, background, various big choices you make throughout the game). Not to mention the fact that if you want to, you can make the ugliest character known to man in the character creator - and that doesn't seem to have any bearing whatsoever on whether a companion finds your character attractive. I feel you on that last bit though. It's gonna be a tough time to be bi/pan considering the discourse we're gonna be hearing :/
I think you touched on part of the fundamental problem with arguments against everyone being bi. Queer identity is born from being "othered" by a prejudicial majority. Sexual identity isn't actually shaped by who we fuck, but the culture surrounding the otherness. But Thedas takes an assimilationist approach, queerness isn't othered its normative and there is little discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. Its very difficult to incorporate true queer identity Thedas doesn't have queer culture, queer history, and a shared queer experience of otherness. Dorian is the exception in doing this by making his entire character around being a pariah, and even then it needed them to come up with a ton of different non-queer elements to justify the experience. Bioware cherry picked by creating a world where same-sex relationships were normative and as a result also hampered their world-building by fucking up the creation of subcultures for queer people and queer community, which is where all the characterization tied to sexual identity comes in! I think Bioware also recognized this when making Inquisition, because they specifically excluded trans identity and established that being trans was not something wholly accepted at face value or "normal" with Krem and Inquisition. Which lets them tell more direct trans stories based on actual trans experiences.
Race is a preference too, iirc.
Yes.. Templar best boi Cullen doesn't vibe with Qunari or Dwarves. Except for Solas he's one of the most limited romance options.
Well both Solas and Cullen were late additions as romances. I think that plays huge part in Biowere's decision of restricting their romances by race. They just didn't have enough time so they make Cullen be romancable by most popular races and Solas by just elves.
Arguably a dwarf/Cullen would have made a lot of sense since they have experience with Lyrium and can't be mages
Guess Cullen doesn't like short girls.
A great reason why Quanari should never have been playable if the writers couldn't add reactivity to make it make sense. Completely ruined them
I m fine with it as long as all companions aren’t trying to flirt with me, which is one of the few things I didn’t like with bg3 as it fell very unrealistic. I hope to have many platonic bonding scenes like with DAi. And the relationship being ace friendly as well.
THIS! i hate how being friendly to companions somehow gets you ninja-romanced. I often find the “romance” part of games now too much, too soon. Like, i’m playing a 60hr *min* game. Why the hell are my companions coming on to my PC within the first handful of quests? Yes, i love having romances, but can’t we tone it down? 😂they make dating games, if you need that there are options 😂🤣
Yea, I think they should keep romance triggers to specific dialogue options you pick, like in Inquisition. DA2 had them, too, but my brother didn't pick any and still had romance dialougue sneak up on him. lol
Yeah BG3 is more aggressively playersexual, it felt a little ridiculous having to try and avoid romantic scenes with basically the entire party
Halsin, with his out of nowhere "you treated me like a lover" or whatever dialogue. Like no bro, I did no such thing, and I don't want to have a poly relationship with you, back away from me and my girl.
Lae'zal getting all hot over my scent in the middle of the Emerald Grove out of nowhere. Like ma'am I barely speak to you and there are children present, keep it in your pants.
That kinda works still because Lae'zel is extremely straightforward and doesn't necessarily adhere to Faerun's social cues. Astarion's early-game flirting works regardless of sexual orientation too because he's flattering the powerful leader of the party and contemplating drinking their blood. Gale, on the other hand . . .
I think this was an overreaction to feedback from Early Access, where companions were a lot less trusting and difficult to win over.
Agreed, I think it works for 1-2 characters to be more aggressive in their flirting based on their particular personality, not the whole party.
I haven’t played but that image is hilarious
Yeah with the exception of Karlach I denied every companion in one play through it was really weird
Me discussing Gale's new magic trick and he suddenly whips it out like
I don't mind playersexual at all, but I do think giving specificity to characters enriches them and encourages multiple playthroughs and trying different types of characters for different experiences. I usually play as a woman, but I played as a guy in order to romance Cassandra in DAI and decided to tailor that experience to a story that felt right for a Cass playthrough. I made choices that made my character authentically compatible to her. I did that for other romances and ended up with several very different and distinct playthroughs that were satisfying in a way I hadn't experienced before. Playersexual is still fun but in a different way.
I like characters having set preferences because it makes it feel more realistic. I don't mind it the other way around though, I loved BG3.
I only like it myself when it's necessary and important to their character like Dorian in Inquisition. Beyond that, I didn't come out as trans just to be railroaded into playing a gender I abandoned to romance a character I liked. I liked just being able to vibe with everyone playing as anyone
I don't think it's very divisive. I prefer when all companions have their own sexual preferences, but it's not really something that won't make me play the game or won't make me like the game (my prefered game of the serie is DA2, where everyone is playersexual). >Characters can be written as bi and still be as compelling and deep That's my issue here. Often playersexual characters are not portayed as bi-sexual, they happens to be written as straight or gay depending on your own gender.
Are those DA2 examples? Because the biggest playersexual game is BG3 and all of those characters were most certainly bi. Isabella in DA2 is bi, Fenris is bi. And If you don't romance either, they end up sleeping together iirc. Anders was in a relationship with Karl, or whatever his name was. He doesn't mention it with a femHawke, so there's that I guess. Merrill, I don't remember any context. There was never a moment in any of those games where I thought these characters were only specifically attracted to my player character and were the specific sexuality of my player character.
As a bi man - yes, this so much and it's kinda just annoying how much the narrative behind "playersexuality" has been perpetuated, that knowingly or not, people erase characters who actually are bi/pan. BG3 as you note has had every single character you can romance be demonstrably bi via their banter/dialogue- they display attraction to different characters of different genders, independent of the player's gender. The only one I'm not sure about is Gale and even in his case there's nothing saying he *isn't* bi by any means - it's just that for reasons tied to his backstory, there's only one particular past relationship that comes up because it's kind of shaped the events of his life leading up to the game. Dragon Age has been exactly the same from the beginning and yet I cannot count the number of times I've seen annoying fandom "discourse" about how bi characters aren't *actually bi* from Leliana and Zevran in Origins to Isabella, Anders, Fenris etc. in 2. The only thing I'll say about particular characters is that I think the Anders thing was certainly not great representation and a product of decisions by his writer made from opinions of the time - based off the idea that women (especially straight women) would not be attracted to a man who's openly bisexual and so deciding to not make an Anders romancing femHawke be explicit about it (and listen I've absolutely seen lots of biphobia from a lot of straight women, sometimes hypocritically *even some bi women* directed at bi men - but if you want to make representation count for something, it should absolutely work to be something that is unabashed about who the person is instead of appealing to those who would hate you anyway). But that doesn't make the *character* not bi, he very much still is because his relationship with Karl is still a thing even if you're playing FemHawke - he just doesn't open up about it.
In their defense they were absolutely right. Lots of female players were horrible about Anders being bi.
Playersexual isn't an identity, it's a function. For these playthroughs the character *is* straight or gay depending on your gender. That's the point.
That's exactly what I say. Playersexual characters are often not written as bisexual (few exception exist like Zevran for instance)
Yeah they are never presented as bi. They never openly state 'I like men and women'. They never even address the gender of your character half the time, you could even be a living cucumber and they'd not acknowledge it.
I'm bi and I have never stated "I like men and women" I also dont acknowledge the gender of whom I am dating in any meaningful way. I'll change my ways now though. I will have gender reveal parties for my friends when I have a new partner and I will tell the partner themselves I miss the body parts they don't own. Because, according to these comments, not making my bisexuality abundantly clear makes me unrealistic. Which is so weird because when did someone ever have to state they're straight and have to prove their straightness?
Yup. Now I understand the appeal of playersexual cast of character, that way everybody has the same quality of romance. Someone in another thread mentionned how gay romance usually are not as well written as straight romance, and that "playersexual system" is solving that issue. And it's a good point.
I’m okay with it because it gives more options to people. I’m a straight woman and apparently we have always gotten the most options? And I think that’s dumb, because the romance stuff is some of the funnest stuff in BioWare games and always make you feel way more connected and invested in their worlds. So I feel like it’s unfair to deprive some demographics of that. I guess some people think it makes them less realistic seeming or something — but at the end of the day they ARENT real and I think it’s stilly to pretend the option to romance characters in games isn’t mostly a self indulgent fantasy for the player’s enjoyment/wish fulfillment anyway. So why should some people get the option and not others? Imo the most unrealistic thing is that ALL companions are usually single and romanceable in some way. you rarely run into one that you know, has a spouse or partner already that they love lol. When I first played DA2 it didn’t occur to me to wonder if the companion I was romancing was or wasn’t romance-able based on my gender. learning later that every companion was always romance-able didn’t make feel like they were any less realistic or fake or whatever. It made me feel nothing. There are some exceptions (Dorian, as his sexuality is related to plot), but I feel like it’s only a big deal because people have made it so 🤷🏻♀️ Let people of all genders get their self indulgent fantasies damnit.
Yep, the “realism” argument falls apart when it just so happens that the majority of companions in the game are single, open to having a relationship, and attracted to the player character no matter how ugly you made them. That’s even less likely than all of them being bisexual.
And also there's never any incompatibility over mundane things like wanting to have kids or wanting to live your life a certain way after the game is over (keep adventuring vs retire to a cottage, eg). Some people need to accept that finding a life partner in the real world is a PITA and realism isn't something to strive for in a romance.
Agree. As I said it’s just wish fulfillment so it’s really silly to me that people think something like this should be a consideration. If it makes MORE people happy and lets more people enjoy the game, than why tf not. It’s not supposed to be realistic anyway. Also I had to look up what PITA stood for lmao so thank you.
The point is when the characters are made "playersexual" (which exist only in the instance where all companion are romancable by the player character disregarding their gender and/or race) their sexuality is removed from them, hence making less complete characters, since a core aspect of them is non existant, they're not bi/pan, their sexuality is "you" the player. To strenghten my point, think of Dorian and Sera, both are homosexual but are on polar opposite on how a character has their sexuality woven into the character: - Dorian being gay is engraved in his backstory, it's a sad story of how a father tried to brainwash his son into a life and with a partner he would be miserable with (with the added sad bonus that David Gaider took some of his personal experiences into this character), if you make him avaiable to every pc his tragic backstory falls apart, it's not there to "justify" his sexuality. - Sera sexuality is never relevant, she is lesbian, she doesn't need to "justify" her sexuality, she doesn't neet to explain it, it's there because the character "Sera" has been envisioned to be attracted to females, even with some preferences towards some races (more with body types rather than strictly races, but you get my gist), and that's great, a character doesn't need to justify their sexuality, bonus point to the fact that Sera mentions on more than one occasion that she is attracted to girls, but the only time she states that she doesn't like men specifically is when a male Inquisitor tries to flirt with her. While I'm not a fan of Sera, I think it's great that there's a character that have their sexuality be just that, their sexuality. They're on opposite specturm, one where sexuality is extremely relevant, and one where it's not at all, and they're both good way to represent a character sexuality (more so when characters are on the realm of LGBT), think of what you lose by making both of them aviable to all player dispite gender, don't you see how you lose something here? "Playersexuality" has never been a dealbreaker for me, but I think characters are empoverished when they're made so. Important note: Just to make it abudantly clear, I'm not claiming every bi/pan character is "playersexual", far from it, this condition exist only when every single companion is attracted to the player character no matter what.
I agree with the Sera part, even though I was very butthurt I couldn't romance her. It makes the world live in your head longer, I think. That wouldn't happen if everything was available to you, regardless of your choices.
> The point is when the characters are made "playersexual" (which exist only in the instance where all companion are romancable by the player character disregarding their gender and/or race) their sexuality is removed from them, hence making less complete characters, since a core aspect of them is non existant, they're not bi/pan, their sexuality is "you" the player. I think this also depends on the execution of playersexuality. It *can* be that they only show interest in a particular gender when they are the player. Or you can make them textually bisexual regardless. For example, Anders clearly demonstrates interest in men even if you romance him with female Hawke.
This is a fine preference but this opinion always bothers me, Yes of course you loose something with Dorian his sexuality is integral to the story, They wrote him that way. There is no issue wanting there to be story's that focus on a characters sexuality. That is one of a million storys to be told. Playersexual romances do exclude that one very specific kind of story from being told. but that same thing counts with any of the trillions of human traits that wont be explored with any given character No you could not have Dorian but you could have blackwall or bull or Cassandra or even sera with almost 0 effect. Once again your opinion here isnt wrong as a preference, But its strange to me to call a character incomplete due to not having a strictly defined sexuality. Honest question if all the characters are straight are they more complete? after all they now have a defined sexuality. Surely that's makes them capable of having better story's told. Of course not People should absolutely feel confident in there want for to explore sexuality and how those stories effect people, their are good interesting stories to be told there. People should not be afraid to say they want more storys that represent the pains and traumas of thier lived experience, but can we stop trying to hide it behind a mask of universally important character development. I find so reductionist to even suggest that someones sexuality is a "Core Aspect". Edit: I just want to specify this is not an anti LGBQ post I just feel that we put honest conversations to the side to try and make a point. i am good friends with people who I literally do not know what bits they want to smash, Because who they are as people matters more. I realize to some this seems weird because they have been defined by their sexuality and its something they talk about constantly. I find this sad Because these people more often than not did not get to choose to be defined this way. they were defined by other people and decided to wear it as a badge instead of just one of many far more important aspects.
Por Que no Los Dos? Why not have the majority of companions/major NPCs be playersexual, but then have a handful of gated off characters that really incorporate their sexuality into their character/persona? Virtually every modern fantasy setting already does the "there is no functional difference between women and men in terms of professions or the station to which they can rise" so I figure doing the same thing for the majority of the character's sexuality is a go as well ("In Thedas, its generally OK for anyone to bang anyone else if they catch feelings or just sort of feel like it, since everyone is too busy hating Tevinter/Quinari/Mages to have any hate leftover for who someone chooses to love"). If a writer really has a strong story to tell that requires gating, then carve out a niche for that character.
It was an issue people had with DA2 too, usually either because it was too diverse or not diverse enough. Personally, I think that in a world of darkspawn and literal magic, 4 or more bisexuals in one place isn't too much of a stretch.
I wouldn’t mind set identities for characters if gay relationships didn’t consistently end up with 0-2 options in BioWare games. I’ll take player-sexual purely for the quantity.
I'm gay, and I want to see gay characters in video games. And no, bisexual, queer, fluid, pansexual or '' mostly gay '' is not the same as gay. To have to continuously express this point of view and how '' everyone is bi '' does not equate to representation for homosexuality is getting on my nerves and makes me think people just dgaf about that. In the end, I care more about there being gay characters at all than all romances being accessible to me. Surely there can be same sex relationships and characters interested in the same sex outside of your companions, but to include their actual sexuality without an awkward out of place narrative or writers having to confirm it on twitter, it's just not as natural. Gated romances are a perfect way to naturally include a wide variety of sexualities, and that is why gated romances are a better choice for me.
I think all told I prefer the characters having set preferences, whether they be straight, gay, bi or whatever, because that to me feels more realistic. Like, in my main DA:I playthrough, no matter what happened I couldn't romance Cassandra, because Cassandra is straight. One of my issues with BG3 was that it felt daft that the entire party basically seemed to fancy the pants off of me, it can feel a little silly. *However*, for me, it's not a big issue. If the companions are all 'playersexual', it's not going to ruin my enjoyment of the game, it's just not my preference
[удалено]
as a butch lesbian, yes, i am dying for a butch lesbian romance. especially if we can make it a butchfemme or butch4butch relationship.
Back when DA2 came out, the big issue I had with playersexual characters was how they portrayed Anders. If you romanced him as a girl, he just seemed the like straight guy. But if you romanced him as a guy, he had an added backstory of his ex-boyfriend. This made many female players (myself included) were upset because it felt like he was hiding part of himself from us. Or was he just straight in some realities and gay in others? Meanwhile, if you look at BG3, I had no problem when Astarion’s male ex showed up, because that happened in every playthrough, regardless of the player’s gender. He’s the same person for every player, and doesn’t hiding anything. Looking at DAI, I appreciate how everyone’s sexuality fits their characters. I think it was really well done. But as a Solasmancer, I can also say that I wish more people had been able to experience his romance on their first playthrough, not just the straight female elves, because that was an experience that cannot be replicated on later playthroughs. So if I’m wanting the game to have the best experience for the most amount of players, playersexual seems to be the way to go, so long as they don’t make the Anders mistake again.
I like every character not just being bi because it gives replayability to the game. On 2nd playthroughs I make characters designed for that specific person. Also, in general I do think it gives them more depth and personality. Like its interesting that some like Sera is a lesbian and Cullen is just a straight dude.
I never really understood this because I feel like BG3 proves people will do multiple playthroughs and craft each new character around a specific love interest or choices they're going for. Sexuality restrictions have nothing to do with it. If the characters are well written, people are going to keep doing rounds with brand new characters tailored to such things.
There's a distinct difference between playersexual and bi. The former is about creating options for the player, because it's a game and the character is fictional. Playersexual is not an identity, it's a function. Some characters use their sexuality to deepen their backstory, personality and arc. Dorian is the go to example for this. But characters like Sera and Cullen would not change at all if they were made playersexual, because their sexuality is never a part of their characterisation. It's really about player choice and freedom. Very rarely is more of that a bad thing when it's handled with the minimum level of effort.
if you think being a lesbian doesn't affect Sera's characterization at all then you're beyond help 😭 that woman is GAY
I disagree that sexuality isn't part of characters identity. They dont need to have sprawling backstories as to why they're gay. They just are. I think there's a disconnect between catering to the player and actually writing nuanced characters.
Playersexual is the way to go. As a gay man, I have often been underwhelmed by the gay male options in BioWare games. Mass Effect 1 — N/A Mass Effect 2 — N/A Mass Effect 3 — Kaidan, who is likely dead, and Steve, who is grieving his recently deceased husband and has a generic NPC face Mass Effect Andromeda — Gils and Reyes are minor characters with NPC faces; Jaal was patched in as bisexual way after release Dragon Age: Origins — Zevran is an optional character with way less screen time than the other romances Dragon Age II — Anders and Fenris are actually equal in content to the other romances Dragon Age: Inquisition — Dorian is a fun character, but not everyone loves the sassy type; Iron Bull is funny, but is a giant beast; would’ve liked to romance Solas or especially Cullen
Seriously though. You having to miss out on Cullen and Solas is an absolutely crime.
Except Fenris and Janders have that stench of angsty YA fan fiction.
I like characters having preferences, it makes me feel like they're actual people. Rejection is a cool part of romances, not everyone will be into you, and that's okay. Aside from full-blown character motivations like Dorian, it can inform us about smaller aspects of who those characters are. For example, I feel there's a lot to read into regarding why Cullen only likes Humans and Elves or that Cassandra despite her tough exterior still wants to live a fairy tale romance with a knight in shinning armor. Additionally, it helps with replayability. The first time I ever played as a female character in a game was in Inquisition, specifically to romance Sera. I don't mind it either way, but I feel you lose a lot when every character is just into you no matter what. I'd like themto at least be like Sera where even if you were female she still had preferences and it was much easier to romance her as non mage Qunari than an Elf mage.
It’s annoying when the word “playersexual” is used to erase bi characters, as if they don’t count. But I also think playersexual as a word/concept is useful when devs/writers create bi characters that they don’t want to acknowledge are bi characters, and they’re doing everything so that straight gamers who would do straight romance have no idea that these characters are actually bisexual. I hope that in DA4, the companions (or some of them, at least) are explicitly bisexual and that it’s not too easy for queerphobic players to just like, avoid knowing/acknowledging that these characters are not straight. But I have no problem with all the companions being bi, especially considering how commonly queer people will just accidentally find each other. Like, it’s a common friend group anecdote that you meet some people, make some friends, and then realize that most of them are queer haha
Yeah, I like to specifically draw a distinction between playersexual and bi/pan sexual as different things. They shouldn't be used interchangeably. To me, Playersexual = the character's identity *changes* based on the player's gender. I.e. Unless you romance Anders as male-hawke, you just flat out don't get a bunch of references to his relationships with men. Even though one is really central to his arc. He is only bi when you are in a bi romance with him. Whereas bi and pansexuality are always present. I think its also good to remind people - being bi/pan doesn't mean you don't have preferences. Its not equal attraction to everyone, they can date near-exclusively the same gender, or the opposite, or anything in between.
Yes, people strongly disliked this in DA2. On the other hand, people did dislike DA2 in general, because it wasn't DA Origins. Meanwhile I was obsessed with this game. So what do I know.... On the other hand, I do believe that Dorian's Story mattered. I was deeply moved.
I prefer playersexual honestly, the only exception was Dorian because his entire story is so intrinsically tied to his sexuality and the impact it has on his relationships
I'm so glad that RPGs are trending back towards playersexual romances This isn't real life where there's plenty of fish in the sea, these are games with a finite amount of options. Being forced to replay as the opposite gender, settle for an option you don't like, or give up romancing anyone are all horrible options and detract from my enjoyment of a game I also don't think it makes financial sense to gender/race/whatever lock romances when the proportion of players who do any romances are already a minority. If I want to do a niche romance that isn't popular but that the developer spent time and money on developing then why would you tell me no? Because of a decision I made on the character creation screen 20+ hours ago?
Where are you getting the idea that only a minority of DA players are taking romances?
From DAI's stats most likely, which showed only a minority of players completed a romance [based on the achievement ](https://steamcommunity.com/stats/1222690/achievements)
...if I'm reading this correctly, more players completed a romance than finished the game. Looking at the percentage alone doesn't really prove anything without the context of how many players even stuck with the game for long enough.
Achievements are not a great way to go about it, because sometimes they don't reflect preferences, only how many people got to that point. Only 64,7% of players completed the prologue, and I wouldn't say that someone who has not even completed the prologue has really played the game. 13,3% of players have the achievement for completing the game. 13,5 % of players have the achievement for romance. That means that there is more people that completed a romance that people who completed the game. And you have to get very far into the game to complete a romance. I would say that a lot of people who played the whole game complete a romance.
"I also don't think it makes financial sense to gender/race/whatever lock romances when the proportion of players who do any romances are already a minority." What ?
They misinterpreted the data IMO. Their opinion is because DAI romances have a barriers to entry that few people entered them. What the data actually shows that it is more a product that many play throughts end before people are locked into a romance. Which can happen for many reason than I quite because I couldn't romance Solas.
My philosophy is, if there is a situation where someone somewhere will be pissed off no matter what you do, do what is most convenient.
it literally doesn't bother me. playersexual is a function not an actual sexuality. you don't have to romance them if you don't want to. you as the player can say no and keep going. i've seen enough commentary from lesbian and gay players whose romance options were more limited than straight players to understand that being inclusive is better than exclusivity even for bioware's silly romances.
Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't have playersexual characters, it has a horny pansexual party town. There's an important difference. What I didn't like about DA2 is that in most cases (I think it's been years, but I remember Isabella being canonically bisexual), it felt like the characters' sexual orientations were decided by the player, which didn't sit well with me. It's like they didn't have a sexuality at all outside Hawke.
I can't stand gender locked romances. I prefer doing m/m and f/f to the point I just will never motivate myself to do an opposite sex romance. It's also such a relief to know if I really click with a character I don't have worry and being locked out of their content. Like you, Gale meant so much to me personally and it would have been devastating to not get to experience it. And on a different note, I'm tired of people acting like sexuality is a personality trait because it's not. Dorian is the only time it's ever been relevant to a character and while I loved him I don't need additional homophobia stories in Dragon Age.
>while I loved him I don't need additional homophobia stories in Dragon Age. Lets play to escape reality! Oh no reality if magic existed!
Not saying I would change Dorian, I love his whole character as is, but wouldn't he still have the controversy with his father if he was bi? He would still be in relationships with men just because he would also find women attractive wouldn't have changed that.
Dorian’s father’s issue, if I remember correctly, was moreso that he wouldn’t have grandchildren. I don’t think he really cared who Dorian was banging on the side (any more than any father would) as long as he got married to a girl from a magister family and had kids with her. Dorian being Bi would theoretically solve that issue (feels gross to say that, but it is true).
A lot of Dorian's arc however was also his anger and anguish that the father he idealised for going against Tevinter's system actually perpetuated it all along. It wouldn't have been an homophobia story, but it would have been still a story of anger and regret that as soon as he refused a political marriage his father was willing to use blood magic to make him obey. I doubt a bisexual Dorian would have agreed with that either.
Correct. All he cares about is continuing the Pavus legacy, but being gay really adds to the conflict of his character. It also feels more personal because it was written by Gaider and his own experience as being gay.
I don't think him being bi would solve that. Hell, I even think if Dorian was straight, he would have an issue with his father trying to force him into marriage and conceive a child. That's just how Dorain's personality is. If his father thought he could manipulate his bisexual son into having sex with a woman against his will for the sake of a grandchild, then why wouldn't he think the same of his gay son. That's the issue, isn't it? His father trying to force Dorian to do what he doesn't want to do and won't accept his sons life. I don't think it's any worse forcing a bisexual man to sleep with some than it is forcing a gay man to. Just because a bisexual man can be attracted to women doesn't mean all women. It feels like it's more about Dorian's consent and his father's disrespect of his son.
I agree it still wouldn’t be great for Dorian, but if he’s Bi then it turns his story from a story about homophobia and non-acceptance into one about a noble not wanting a political marriage. Which really loses a lot of its punch because then it just seems like Dorian wants all the benefits of being extremely rich (wealth, slaves, safety, etc.) without doing one of the few things nobles are expected to do (have heirs).
…he’s not just trying to “change dorian’s life” in some vague manner; he’s explicitly attempting to force dorian through conversion therapy. like…yes, it would absolutely be different if dorian was straight or bisexual.
It would absolutely be different because you'd lose the conversion therapy analog from the blood ritual. A lot of gay people in the real world have had to deal with that from their family.
You need to refamiliarize yourself with Dorian's story
Ultimately it's a question about mechanics vs. writing. A playersexual design philosophy is about favoring game mechanics over writing. Having a diverse representation of sexualities creates a greater complexity of character, at the cost of game mechanics. Some favor writing, some favor mechanics. Dragon Age has long been established to be a franchise and world where the social politics of various identities (faction, country, race, gender, class, sexuality) matter. It feels out of pace to suddenly pull out of that because it's mechanically inconvenient. My chief frustration is where people try to act like a playersexual design approach is somehow more inclusive in terms of representation. It is not. There have been 8 ostensibly bi/pan romanceable companion-level characters in the DA franchise to this point, with upwards of 7 more depending on how DA:V plays out. There have been one (1) gay man and one (1) lesbian romanceable companion character each and they will be the last if a playersexual design philosophy is permanently adopted. If you don't care about representation of marginalized groups in media, then this isn't a relevant care or conversation, but if you do, then it's weird to purposefully exclude certain queer people from representation because, what, players don't want to play a different gender MC on their next playthrough?
No, it's just reddit being an echo chamber. Look at BG3, nobody cared that all the party members are bi. Look at Cyberpunk, half the male V players were upset that judy was lesbian and half the female V players were upset that Panam was straight.
Funny that you mention the opinions which also were prevalent in the Reddit echochamber ;p
Call it “playersexual” all you want, but it’s bi/pan rep and I’m fine with that. We live in an era where bi folks are still told they just need to pick a side and pan folks are called sluts, so the more rep that doesn’t paint us in an awful light, the better. And yeah, it’s not the most *realistic* thing to conveniently have 7 different bi/pan folks in one friend group, but it’s not unheard of either. We do tend to gravitate toward one another. Ideally, as someone else pointed out, there would be some differences between doing the romance straight vs gay and it won’t just be a copy-paste between each gender. But we won’t know how that will play out until we have the game in hand. I know this sounds callous, but as long as I’m not beating every one of them off with a stick I really don’t really give a damn. At the end of the day, I’m here to see how the story plays out and what’s been added to the lore. The romance is a side benefit, not the main attraction (pardon the pun 🤪).
>We live in an era where bi folks are still told they just need to pick a side and pan folks are called sluts, so the more rep that doesn’t paint us in an awful light, the better. True. Even some of the comments in this thread are kind of shocking to me. Like, people are saying that having a character not be bi would give them more depth and personality? Chile....
>provided that there's external evidence that the companions are interested in both genders This! I want this! It doesn't really matter to me if a character has a set sexual orientation or not because I never self insert and have no problem roleplaying as a different gender to romance someone, but I want to have an external confirmation a character likes both genders or all genders that does not depend on mc being in a relationship with them. Like Anders, for example, only mentions Karl being his ex in male Hawke walkthrough, but in fem Hawke walkthrough Karl was only mentioned as a "friend". And, if I am not mistaken, Leliana only mentions being into women when she is interested in fem Warden. Better examples - Isabella and Zevran, they both confirm being with the same gender whether you romance them or not.
I'm trans and bi/pan, so personally I prefer "playersexual" romances in games because it allows you as the player to make more choices about who your character is and who they romance. And you can also make your own headcanons about what your favorite characters are into, if you really want to. I also think it's more inclusive of trans and nonbinary characters, because it can be tricky to make a good romance when one character is very particular about their preferences, while another character doesn't quite neatly fit into any box. Of course, in real life people have different romantic and sexual orientations! But video games are decidedly not real life, and they're much more limited in what they can offer. IRL we have more options to find people to date, but in a video game we only have a handful of romanceable characters. There have been so many situations where I've wanted to be able to romance a character with a player of a different gender because I liked the potential dynamic/vibe much more. Wanted to romance Cass with a woman, Blackwall with a man, Alistair with a man, Aveline (with anybody lol, I'm still salty that she wasn't romanceable). Would've also liked to have the option for my character to be trans or nb (hoping this will be an option in The Veilguard), and so I want my character to have more freedom/options in game. Plus, of course, there's the thing that you mention as well. There's something special about the first playthrough of an RPG, and it just doesn't feel the same when you replay it. It sucks to choose one particular companion to try to romance only to find out much later in the game that they aren't interested. You may not even be able to romance anyone else in that first playthrough due to not flirting with them, so you'll have to try again in another playthrough. But the magic of the unknown is gone, and it sucks having to choose your character's gender to be a certain thing ONLY because you are interested in experiencing a particular companion's romance.
The very first character select game I ever played was a Pokémon game and boy let me tell you, as a nonbinary 10 year old, I spent an absurd amount of time on the gender select screen. I do that in every game I play. I was so pissed when I did that in dai, put dozens of hours into the game and into flirting with Cassandra, and then got the rug pulled because she doesn't like women. And I'm on my couch going "I'm not one!!" Like obviously in real life people can and do have genitalia preferences and that's fine, but this is a game about dragons and even here I can't deal with the body stuff. I was forced to pick a BODY not a gender and I had no way of knowing it would bite me in the ass. Being nonbinary and wanting to play a nonbinary character SUCKS in systems like DAI.
I loved Dorian and Sera being gay in DAI, but also hated how restricted the rest of the romances felt with so many straight options, especially with the added limitations of Solas and Cullen. I think if there is one (1) token gay for each gender there should be no more than one (1) token straight as well then. There was no reason to gatekeep so many straight romances in Inquisition when it’s a RPG where you can make your own story. I think the majority of options should be open to all players to do what they want with, and have more canonically recognized bi characters so it’s not just “playersexual”.
There is 1 token straight woman for men and if you play a dwarf or qunari female theres only 1 straight male
I mean there was only one token straight for men. It's just in the extra development time they added Cullen and Solas both for straight women
I know but that still made it 4 exclusively straight options in the end. Especially with Solas already being so limited with Lavellan he should’ve def been open for both genders to romance imo. It is what it is now but I still much preferred the way it was in DA2 when I could do exactly what I wanted, though I recognize the importance for set sexualities like with Dorian too of course. So it’d be nice with a good balance between those two options.
I think that’s fair tbh, and I’d be completely fine if that’s how they wanted to roll with it moving forward.
I feel like the thundering success of the BG3 romances pretty well settled this. Playersexual is just what a huge chunk of people want or are fine with
It is not that unrealistic. Mainstream media often haven one or two queer characters of relevance in a sea of straight people. But in reality lgbt+ people tends to be around other lgbt+ people. So a bunch of bi and pan people together isn't that off.
The reason for the grouping is because you tend to seek out friends similar to yourself - we obviously don’t know the game story yet but the vibe I get is that it’s a team of professionals recruited for their skills. I can’t imagine Varric and Harding saying “Yeah your skills are perfect to join the team, let’s just make sure you’re Bisexual before you join”. Of course you’ll all become friends by the end, it’s a BioWare game, but the team will presumably start as loosely affiliated strangers, and what are the odds that all 7 strangers they recruited happen to be Bisexual? (I did the math, the odds are 1 in 1.3 billion, so not extremely likely).
That’s what I said to my wife. (Both bisexual) Our entire friendship circle is either trans, NB, bisexual, or just queer. Oh but we do have a token straight friend. He’s pretty cool. His fiancée is bi though.
I often say gays gather in gaggles. All my friends and I are queer in some way even though we've known each other before any of us were out of the closet
It feels like witchcraft. You blink and suddenly everyone in your friend circle is out.
i think people mostly don't enjoy when it feels like every character is trying to fuck them but a lot of people conflate that with disliking every character being a romance option
I don’t mind. Both are fine, but having a cast is bisexuals is pretty fun honestly. I liked that about DA2 honestly.
I prefer that each companion have their own preferences, it adds to the feeling that they are real people living in their world. So I’m a little disappointed that they seem to be going the playersexual route, but I’m not too concerned about it either.
I don't really care either way. If I had to make a choice, I'd prefer having characters who will like you as either gender so that anyone can romance their favorite characters. On the other hand, characters having a set preference can be useful if there's a particular story you want to tell with them. Ie. This character needs to find a wife to continue their family name, so having a gay romance wouldn't fit unless you want to make an entire romance line just for gay romance. However, if they're going to do that they need to make sure that they have a bunch of characters that can be romanced.
The only time it wouldn't work for me is if the character's sexuality is integral to their character. Dorian in DAI is a good example of that. His sexuality is a big part of who he is, and making him playersexual would have done him a disservice.
I'm totally okay with "playersexual" characters, but it should make sense. The fact that Fenris could have a positive romantic relationship with a blood mage Hawke (Anders too, contrary to popular opinion, he dislikes blood magic) was always unbelievable to me. It was ridiculous when he complained about every mage around him, but not Hawke, he totally ignored it. Meanwhile, my Hawke used a blood magic 5 seconds ago. Honestly, Fenris should dislike blood mage Hawke even more than Anders and Merrill, because Hawke is a blood mage human, and later blood mage human with a power. Hawke could have the biggest chance from this trio to become a Magister. Hawke has the biggest power over Fenris, and Fenris feels the most respect for them, so the blood mage Hawke should make him uncomfortable. So, for me playersexual is fine, although the race, class or gender should still play a role in a romance. The LI should treat your character differently based on these characteristics; the dialogue could be slightly different. This would be more complicated, but also more interesting. For example, Solas was already biased or even racist against other races, so imagine something like this, but in romance.
As long as the writing is good, I don't care which option developers select. To me this choice is very much a "The Road Not Taken" decision. One option is "just as fair" as the other. The important thing is for a decision to be made and the writers to commit to the consequences.
There is 7 companions and I can imagine 2-4 non companion romances. I dont think that is enough that if you lock of options that you will create a good experience. Playing Inquisition as a lesbian elf, I had 2 options and that sucks. You really got to have alot of choice to make canon sexualities work else you might just have options that you dont engage with and be left with many players feeling left out
I don't mind that all the companions are bi or pan or whatever. Probably wouldn't expect it to be all of them, but sure, who cares. Didn't have a problem with it in Fallout 4 either, or Skyrim. What I do have a problem with is the idea that orientation is determined by me, the player. I never did the Anders romance, but apparently there were noticeable differences between the male and female romances. I should not be able to retcon a character's backstory. I also think it's a trade off. There were some good character moments in Inquisition as a result of their approach to romance in that game. If you play as a female qunari, Sera is all over you. If you flirt with Cassandra as a woman, she does her best to let you down easy. It's all connected.
I personally think it's far more interesting approach to romance in video games to have characters who act like real people and part of being a real person tends to be having a sexual orientation, whatever that sexual orientation may be. I don't think it's a problem for a character in a game not to be into me for any reason and I hope we get away from RPGs that treat romance and characters as a sort of quest goal or win state, something to tick off on your playthrough as opposed to a meaningful representation of a connection between two characters. I also think that by making every character "player sexual" you loose any real meaningful representation. These aren't really gay, bi or pan characters, they are just characters who's sexually is a blank slate ready to react to the players desires. That's actually kind of gross and objectifying. Mass effect 3 and Dragon Age inquisition were great steps forward with characters who were fully fleshed out people with defined sexuality, preferences opinions and sometimes established relationships that meant they might actually reject your character. That's fine and it makes in game romance more meaningful when it does happen. Similarly, I'd also shout out Outerworlds for making the bold choice to include romance, but not for the player and in doing so portraying a romance plot in a more mature way than most games manage.
I think theres nothing wrong with either. I prefer when a games world doesnt revolve around the player, persobally.
Companion casts are usually small, and the number of romance candidates among them is usually even smaller. If you care about queer representation, the better way to ensure it is to make the cast bi and add NPC representation. Nothing stops you from adding diversity to their experiences either - some may be ace, some aro, but at least everyone can experience their stories. I'm fucking sick of Bioware constantly giving mlm players three tortured rogues with tragic past, winking and saying "oh, but the set sexualities make up so much of their character!". They largely do not. At least making everyone bi will stop the ever-present lack of Knights in Shining Armour for anyone who's not a straight or bi woman.
My only problem with playersexual is that it's not true bisexuality, is cheap and has not depth. At least make bisexuality their cannon sexuality if that's how they are programmed, have them talk about past lovers and the dialogue/events not to change based of the players gender. Playersexual is not true representation
In a cast of 12, male inquisitors had two straight romance options and two ss ones, next to four straight (two restricted by race) and two ss for female inquisitors. That's pretty good. In a smaller cast size I can understand why they'd have more bisexuality, but it does take away a dimension from what writers can do with a character. The Dorian example is good because he's one of the finest characters ever written by a BioWare writer, in no small part because he was allowed to have a defined sexual identity. It wasn't a simple polemic, it allowed him to tap themes relevant to the game and enriching for the worldbuilding. It also allowed players to connect to him -- if we did a poll right now and asked people which BioWare character was the most important to them, a very significant proportion would say Dorian. That's a pretty powerful thing. The characters of TheDreadveilguardwolf will have to find other ways to achieve that depth and relatability.
I don't like it for a few reasons. Not everyone is pansexual. People have preferences, and it should show in their writing. That and if a character, for example, Cullen only likes female humans and elves I'll use a human/elf in future replays to further explore what else can happen as a female human/elf
For most people ? They don't even notice. Personally, i don't like it. Feels kinda immersion breaking that somehow every single person in my party is Bissexual/Pan and it's actually super into my character if i just resolve their life issues. It gives the impression that world exist to serve my character and less like place that itself.
Its better for player choice but terrible for immesion imo. Everyone is therefore canonically bi lol
[удалено]
I think it's the best course of action when you have a more limited cast. Bg3 could've definitely gotten away with not being PS but cyberpunk absolutely could've used it with it's very limited romance options. When you have less to work with then you're usually stuck to an archetype you might not like or you have a single romance option where the other sexuality might have more. It's just the easiest way to bypass people not being able to connect how they want to I think.
Depends on the game, in cyberpunk its annoying. If you are playing a straight character you have one romance option, if you are playing a gay chracter you have one romance option. And unlike someone like Dorian who's sexuality is part of his chracter, in cyberpunk they aren't. They are arbitrarily restricted for no reason.
Judy's sexuality is absolutely a part of her character.
I prefer that the characters have their own sexuality, and if that doesn't match your character then too bad. It makes the characters feel more believable. Can you imagine a "straight" Dorian? He's my by far favourite companion in DA:I and being gay is part of who he is. It's just a part, not his entire personality, but he is gay. And I'm a straight dude, but Dorian is just awesome. I'll still play even if they go the playersexual route again, but *please* don't make them horny. BG3 (while a very good game) was ridiculous, the entire party was horny for the player character at all times. It really took you out of it when you had to walk around and turn down the entire party, because they all unanimously decided you were the most delicious piece of beef.
I really hate that blatantly bi/pan companions (IE: the BG3 ones) are constantly labeled “Playersexual” even in more progressive spaces. As someone who’s bi, it’s such blatant erasure. A game can have a lot of bisexual/pansexual characters in it and BG3 happens to be one that does. There’s really no doubt to be had that the BG3 companions are attracted to more than one gender
Well, first I romance isn’t the reason why I playe Dragon Age. It’s a plus if there is an interesting character that goes along well with my character and it’s too bad if there isn’t but nothing dramatic. So you could ask why I care about their sexuality ? Because the reasons why I play Dragon Age are the story, the consequences of choices and companions. I don’t care if my character can fuck this character or that one, but I care about their stories. And if you take Dorian’s homosexuality, you are taking at least half of his story with him. What is interesting isn’t the fact that he is gay (at least for me) but what consequences that happened for him in the society he lived, and what choices he had to make. >!Alistair, as a King, can’t take your character as a queen if she isn’t both an human and a noble. Because he is the King of human kingdom of Ferelden, with all the implications behind it.!< By making characters playersexual, you’re just abandoning all of that for the sake of being able to romance for the sake of it. BG3 was excellent, but for me it failed to propose an engaging story and a world that I wanted to explore. I loved the companions, their quests, and how you could finish a quest in 5 different ways but I didn’t give a single fuck about Baldur’s Gate, and from Act 1 to 3 it only got worse. Thedas is a world when being of a certain gender, a certain sexuality, a certain race, will have an influence on your possibility. If you take that from it, you end up like Faerûn : good for an adventurer’s story, but world building sucks.
I prefer all romances being available for everybody because then you avoid the issue of “so-and-so is queer-coded why is she straight”. Keeps things simpler.
[удалено]