My issue with "playersexual" party members/video game relationships is that I feel like it erases certain kinds of non-romantic relationships that people can have. An example is Garrus from ME...
My issue with "playersexual" party members/video game relationships is that I feel like it erases certain kinds of non-romantic relationships that people can have. An example is Garrus from ME with male shepard - there's a "bromance' relationship, that is distinctly different than the female shepard, and also distinctly different from what a gay relationship would be like.
A lot of games get around this by basically having a branch where you can friendzone people, but again, I feel like that's not the same thing, and it doesn't feel like the same thing, as one where neither party was ever sexually or romantically interested in each other.
That's one of my problems with BG3, so much of the character bonding is tinged with "we'll bang, ok?" and the NPCs get pouty when you shut them down (Gale is the worst offender in this regard) The...
That's one of my problems with BG3, so much of the character bonding is tinged with "we'll bang, ok?" and the NPCs get pouty when you shut them down (Gale is the worst offender in this regard) The cast comes across as chronically, terminally horny and I just want platonic relationships most of the time.
Gale is strangely easy to accidentally romance, it apparently used to be worse until they patched it but it's still quite fickle. I still don't know how I managed to romance him last run when I...
Gale is strangely easy to accidentally romance, it apparently used to be worse until they patched it but it's still quite fickle. I still don't know how I managed to romance him last run when I was explicitly going for a different romance. He didn't pout quite as much when I officially chose another character over him, though, so maybe that got patched at least?
Wyll and Karlach at least don't push anything romantic on you, you pretty much have to initiate their romances yourself. They're the two characters who were designed latest, so I wonder if that was a deliberate choice on the part of the devs because they'd already made the rest of the cast so horny. I think the game's romance writing best for Astarion, since his characterization and the early stages of his character arc kind of play into the expectations of playersexuality in a way that the other romances don't really. Plus, him dumping you in Act 2 based on the decisions you make also serves as good character development, and I think "playersexuality" is at its weakest when it's not super responsive to how you play your character.
In my current run I've been playing a character who I'm roleplaying as 100% gay, and it's kind of funny to fend off all the women the game throws at you. The weirdest was definitely Mizora, though. I assume the game must offer that option to everyone, because I do not think I did anything that would imply my character was remotely interested in that. The constant horniness has to be deliberate with stuff like that in there, though.
I have played two runs of BG3 with Gale in my party and I am not sure what you mean by pouty. His relationship opens up with some sharing of magic that you can route toward platonic or romantic...
I have played two runs of BG3 with Gale in my party and I am not sure what you mean by pouty. His relationship opens up with some sharing of magic that you can route toward platonic or romantic and he seems totally fine with both. Later on there is another scene under the stars where he makes a night more magical where (in my platonic relationship) he was never really pouty or anything, he just wants someone to hang out with him while he thinks.
Laezel is horny though, she skips straight to jumping you.
Early on there was a bug that made Gale's romance extremely easy to trigger accidentally, and he does get a little salty if you reject him for someone else when you're also romancing him, which...
Early on there was a bug that made Gale's romance extremely easy to trigger accidentally, and he does get a little salty if you reject him for someone else when you're also romancing him, which probably had lead to many people having that impression. The lines make sense for what they were intended for but when you haven't been attempting to romance Gale at all and he's acting like a jilted lover, it comes on a little strong. I think this has been improved in patches.
Fun story about this: When I first started Mass Effect, I played Maleshep with the intention to romance Kaidan. Over the course of the game I learned four important things: Kaidan isn't actually...
An example is Garrus from ME with male shepard - there's a "bromance' relationship, that is distinctly different than the female shepard, and also distinctly different from what a gay relationship would be like.
Fun story about this:
When I first started Mass Effect, I played Maleshep with the intention to romance Kaidan.
Over the course of the game I learned four important things:
Kaidan isn't actually romanceable by Maleshep.
Kaidan is boring.
Garrus had immaculate and magnetic bro-chemistry with Shep.
Garrus is also not romanceable by Maleshep.
So, when I started Mass Effect 2, I wanted to cash in on that chemistry.
I wanted to get with Garrus.
So, instead of carrying over my previous save from the first game, I started fresh and changed to Femshep for the second.
Without getting too spoilery about what happens story-wise between the first and second games, this ended up unintentionally working out canonically. I was thinking changing genders would have to be a retcon, or I'd just have to consider my ME2 game as a separate story from my ME1 playthrough. Nope! The story worked out to the point that I was still able to link them.
Thus, I started calling my new player character Transfemshep.
This, of course, meant that the second game would finally let me romance Garrus and his glorious mandibles.
So, despite it being a nominally "straight" relationship, my Transfemshep x Reptilian Alien pairing remains the queerest game romance I've ever taken part in.
I think DA2 was a specific kind of lazy rushedness to it where the playersexuality really feels like it's the same relationship regardless of the gender of the protagonist. It's difficult to have...
I think DA2 was a specific kind of lazy rushedness to it where the playersexuality really feels like it's the same relationship regardless of the gender of the protagonist. It's difficult to have nuanced relationships when the story arcs aren't really worked on. I think there are a few games out there which have fantastic takes on this- cyberpunk is another that comes to mind where there are relationships which are clearly designed to be a specific sexuality and relationship type. Judy, for example, reads very sapphic and the relationship feels like it was written by someone who has experience with those kinds of relationships in a similar way that Garrus's bromance felt like it was written with a specific viewpoint in mind. There's certainly a subcomponent of depth to consider here - some games go deep on the relationship angle and write some fantastic stories and other's don't. When you bother to spend the time to write compelling stories, I think there's less of a focus on playersexuality in general because a lack of availability is made up for with an increase in depth (although it is wonderful when you get both, such as in ME as you mentioned).
Shortly before I opened this article, my husband and I were watching GDQ. We were discussing one of the upcoming runs: Fallout: New Vegas all romances. We talked about the logistics of it. Was the...
Exemplary
Shortly before I opened this article, my husband and I were watching GDQ. We were discussing one of the upcoming runs: Fallout: New Vegas all romances.
We talked about the logistics of it. Was the runner going to have to do two different runs -- one as a male courier and one as a female courier -- to be able to get everyone? Or is there some combination of perks that could make it happen in one go?
I brought up Arcade Gannon. I mentioned to my husband that he's only romanceable by a male courier that takes the Confirmed Bachelor perk.
My husband countered, saying Arcade was romanceable by either gender (i.e. playersexual).
I don't know the word for what I felt when he said that, but the feeling itself was significant. It wasn't a casual "oh, nevermind he's bi" it was sort of like a heavy "wait... Arcade isn't gay?" An erasure, rather than a reframing.
It turns out I was actually right (Arcade is gay), but the important part is that the idea brought up by my husband -- that Arcade might be playersexual -- generated a significant, non-negligible emotional response in me.
Furthermore, it did this despite me not having played New Vegas in over a decade.
I think that speaks to why people feel so strongly about this topic. Arcade was one of the first gay characters I encountered in a game. Despite him being entirely fictional, I still connected with his story, enjoyed flirting with him (and having it reciprocated), and navigating the wasteland with him by my side. I'm not holding a torch for him or anything, but it was cool to be gay together with Arcade -- not in a romantic sense, but in the sense of solidarity and recognition.
I could see myself in Arcade (not like that), so finding out, for that brief moment, that he might be playersexual instead of gay, changed the dynamic of the connection I, a gay guy, felt with him.
So, with that in mind, I can see why people feel that playersexuality is limiting or a copout. I don't think I would have had the same response to his character had he also been romanceable with a female character. Some of his dialogue about being different and not fitting in wouldn't have landed the same way if that were the case.
On the other hand, I can see the utility of playersexuality, particularly from the standpoint of inclusion. I think, in most cases, more is gained by adding options than lost by doing so. Also, if we're keeping score on playersexuality, it's only fair that we acknowledge that it came about as a shift away from almost exclusively straight relationships in games. It's not like we were drowning in gay romance options at the time and playersexuality robbed those options of their queerness by diluting it. Instead, they were the queer option against the predominantly hetero backdrop.
Furthermore, I think the controversy over this on the queer side is a product of that specific longstanding issue: limited queer representation in general.
Roll back the clock to the time when I was wandering around the wasteland with Arcade by my side, and you could list the number of canonically gay characters in games on just a few hands. Back then the discourse was over whether those specific individuals were "good" representation. If there was a femme gay guy, he was a stereotype. If there was a masc gay guy, he was made that way to be non-threatening to straight audiences. We nitpicked their presentations to death no matter what.
Why? Well, because we gave those characters an unfair shake in the first place. Because our representation was so limited, we insisted that those few men carry the weight of our entire community on their shoulders. They had to be everything to everyone -- an impossible task.
The solution to this wasn't to make Arcade a "better" gay character. It was to, broadly, have more diverse gay representation. This is a point that I think often gets lost when we talk about diverse rep in media, which usually gets turned into identity box-checking. It's not diverse for media to have gay characters -- it's diverse for media to show lots of different types of gay characters.
Furthermore, just as it's not any one gay character's responsibility to shoulder the entire weight of gay identity, it's not any one game's responsibility to represent the entire weight of all identities. Diverse rep isn't about Arcade himself or New Vegas on its own, but the entire landscape of stories. I want media with masc gay characters and femme gay characters. I want media with characters who aren't yet sure if they're gay or not. I want media with gay characters who are flawed or unlikable or sheepish or chubby or cyborgs. I want the gay characters available to me to reflect the broad diversity of gay men in general. With games that imagine worlds beyond our own, I want gay characters that go beyond as well.
I've been talking about gay men specifically, but of course this concept extends to other queer (and even non-queer) identities. If we had more explicitly bi and pan characters, I think we'd see less frustration over playersexual characters. I think the issue isn't that playersexual characters are fundamentally bad, but that we overfit our expectations of bi/pan representation onto them. This is a product of an absence, and I think the solution is to fill that space up with more characters rather than take away or detract from the few that are already in it.
Essentially, I think this is more of a growing pain than anything else. The good news, to me, is that there has never been a better time to find queer rep in gaming, and that trend is only increasing. I can go on Steam right now and find dozens of games with canonically queer characters in seconds -- a luxury I could only dream of back when Arcade and I were hanging out.
Instead of rewinding time like we did earlier, let's jump forward. Imagine years from now, when we have a decade’s worth of games featuring robust queer characters and narratives. We'll have so many that we'll be spoiled for choice, and the discussion of whether playersexual characters "count" won't carry weight because there won't be a need for such scorekeeping in the first place.
The broad solution here isn't to give every specific character a rigidly defined identity: the solution is to have characters at large inhabit all the vast and different planes of identity together.
Obviously this is very off-topic re: the bulk of your comment (which was really great and resonated with me a lot), but for anyone interested in this, I recently watched tomatoanus's non-live...
We talked about the logistics of it. Was the runner going to have to do two different runs -- one as a male courier and one as a female courier -- to be able to get everyone? Or is there some combination of perks that could make it happen in one go?
Obviously this is very off-topic re: the bulk of your comment (which was really great and resonated with me a lot), but for anyone interested in this, I recently watched tomatoanus's non-live video explaining the current methods used in this run (I'm not sure if he's the one running it at GDQ but I wouldn't be surprised if he was). It's a really cool run in a lot of ways, lots of interesting tricks involved. It is possible to do it as all one run, but there's no combination of perks that overrides the gender preferences -- you need to change your gender partway through the run. Those curious about how that's possible should watch the run!
I'm totally out of the loop, though my coworker's partner actually did his run on Monday or Tuesday before I got here. I have no idea who anyone is, just very obviously a gaming convention is in...
I'm totally out of the loop, though my coworker's partner actually did his run on Monday or Tuesday before I got here. I have no idea who anyone is, just very obviously a gaming convention is in town ya know :D
I speak from experience - it is very normal to find a group of 4 - 10 ridiculously dressed bisexuals attempting outlandish tasks that they are probably not equipped for.
I speak from experience - it is very normal to find a group of 4 - 10 ridiculously dressed bisexuals attempting outlandish tasks that they are probably not equipped for.
We do tend to travel in packs. It's always been the least likely thing about shows with one gay friend. My partner is often the token straight guy in our games
We do tend to travel in packs. It's always been the least likely thing about shows with one gay friend.
My partner is often the token straight guy in our games
I think this experience - a bi surrounded by lots of bis - has sort of blinded me to playersexuality. I knew about Veilguard because I saw an article about it before it came out, but I didn't...
I think this experience - a bi surrounded by lots of bis - has sort of blinded me to playersexuality. I knew about Veilguard because I saw an article about it before it came out, but I didn't notice it at all in Dragon Age II until I read the OP article. I just romanced who I wanted and it worked out. I did love Dorian's storyline, (and Zevran and Leliana's in Dragon Age Origin - who were explicitly bisexual and addressed it) and I don't want stories like that to go away, but I don't think stories with playersexual companions have to threaten that. They're just different ways of telling different stories.
Huh? This argument doesn't make much sense to me. I can grasp the idea of queerness as being distinct from non-heteronormative sexuality and non-cis gender identity, but there's an extra element...
...some queer players also view playersexuality as empty inclusion. Playersexuality gets derided as a lazy shortcut by game writers and developers who can’t be bothered to write properly queer (or straight) characters. For these players, playersexuality is not representation—it allows the player to pursue queer relationships, but without queer characterization.
Huh? This argument doesn't make much sense to me. I can grasp the idea of queerness as being distinct from non-heteronormative sexuality and non-cis gender identity, but there's an extra element here that eludes me. I guess my question is, "how queer is queer enough?"
There's also an odd framing of romanceable characters as being bi- or pansexual that I think misses the mark a bit as well. I never saw characters that can be romanced by the PC regardless of which gender they choose to present as being implicitly bi or pan, because I don't consider different playthroughs of the same game as being continuous.
For instance, when Imelda, my lesbian farmer character in Stardew Valley, romanced Abigail, I didn't think it was the same Abigail that previously had married Spard, my cis-het self-insert PC from the previous playthrough. I thought of them as almost like parallel universes, one in which Abi was likely cis-het and a parallel one in which she was at least attracted to other women (though to be honest, I think I thought of her as also being a lesbian). The important point is that I had taken it as read that in each discrete playthrough, Abigail identified with the sexual orientation congruent with my PC romancing her successfully, and in her continuity, she always had.
In truth, romance and sexuality were always things I imposed on them by my gameplay choices. I'm pretty sure all the eligible NPCs in the Valley would have continued happily on in celibacy had that been my choice, and the same is true for most of the romanceable characters in games with that feature. Sexuality doesn't have to be a feature of the game if you don't want it to be, which is certainly a choice made by the developer. I suppose you could choose to see that as problematic in its way, but I think it would take some gymnastics to accomplish.
Back to "how queer is queer enough?" To my recollection, I've never seen a romanceable character with a backstory like, "when Abi was a kid, we treated her like a boy because she was born with male genitalia, but then when she hit adolescence, she told us that she was actually a girl and that we should call her Abigail instead." If the absence of that sort of backstory is the complaint here, then I suppose that's fair enough. I think characterizing CA as a "lazy writer" for not doing so is a bit uncharitable though, since I think it would take an extremely deft hand to write a character element like that into Stardew Valley while maintaining the tone. The NPCs in the Valley seem much more interested in talking about how much they just love truffle oil than they do relating their juvenile struggles with gender identity.
Having said that, the game does approach some serious themes like alcoholism, houselessness, and combat-related PTSD, so maybe gender dysphoria, transsexuality, and other forms of queerness wouldn't be too out of place, provided the writing didn't get to maudlin or pandering. Then again, the point of romancing NPCs seems to me to be a collaborative effort at story building between the dev and player, so if you wanted to just play the game with Abi's teenage gender transition as your headcanon, I think Concerned Ape would probably approve. He certainly left that possibility open in how he wrote her character, and that should probably count for something.
Representation in media is certainly a complex subject, and I'm not here to shut down anyone's concerns or objections regarding it. I do think it's worth considering the relative ease of criticizing others' creative choices when compared to crafting something oneself, and I think you can only criticize so far the stories a creator doesn't choose to tell. The desire for greater representation is noble enough, but if it comes to an insistence on inclusion, there's also the risk that marginalized identities might be misrepresented as well. If a creator doesn't understand or experience the sort of marginalization they feel some motivation to represent, are they even really capable of representing it properly? At the very least, it seems like there are some serious pitfalls along that path that could be hard to weave through.
This has all been stream of consciousness rambling, and it's gotten pretty confused and jumbled as a result. I found that particular passage I quoted up top to be thought-provoking by virtue of not making much sense, and I kind of let the thought take me where it would.
I feel like you've answered your own confusion a few times there. When every romance option is "Schrodinger's sexuality" there can be no representation of minority experience because there's no...
I feel like you've answered your own confusion a few times there. When every romance option is "Schrodinger's sexuality" there can be no representation of minority experience because there's no difference between the character as a gay/bi/trans/pan person and the character as a cis-het person. Especially when taken with your interpretation of different playthroughs representing different universes' versions of the character rather than said character having a set bi or pan identity.
And to your point, in some settings that might be fine? As an extreme example, I expect most every character to be some flavor of bisexual in hedonistic, sexual games with self-insert...
And to your point, in some settings that might be fine? As an extreme example, I expect most every character to be some flavor of bisexual in hedonistic, sexual games with self-insert protagonists. If a Sci-Fi setting says that gender and sex are never a concern and science babies are the norm, everyone being player sexual feels natural.
Fantasy is often a form of escapism after all. It doesn't have to reflect every part of our world.
In some settings it would absolutely be fine, in others it makes for shallower characterisation, which can also be fine if players getting to romance their favourite is a higher priority. I see it...
In some settings it would absolutely be fine, in others it makes for shallower characterisation, which can also be fine if players getting to romance their favourite is a higher priority. I see it as a choice with trade-offs, not something inherently good or bad, I just don't want it to be standard that no game ever explores that facet of character in its setting. And I do sometimes wish for a platonic middle-ground between "let's do the sex" and "ew, no" in dialogue options, but that's neither here nor there.
Maybe that's down to my own conception of queerness. I think there's something of a paradox in how people conceptualize queerness: on the one hand, to be queer is to follow your own dictates as to...
Maybe that's down to my own conception of queerness. I think there's something of a paradox in how people conceptualize queerness: on the one hand, to be queer is to follow your own dictates as to what actions are fulfilling to your self (in a sort of metaphysical sense) regardless of the expectations others impose. That seems to me to be an important facet of the concept, though I admit that my own relationship to queerness is not something I've felt much pressure to explore, though perhaps I should.
On the other, a lot of people find that adoption of a recognized queer identity is part of that path of fulfillment. It seems to me that fulfilling a role is a big part of the conception of queerness to many people, which is at least in tension with the notion that a person should follow their own dictates of behavior and self-identity, and often is in direct conflict with it.
As an example, I've heard many people identifying as bisexual express frustration at how their identities and sexualities are received by gay and lesbian communities. I have a friend who has more than once expressed anxiety at the thought of openly acknowledging his attraction to some women to his male partner. To him it felt like acknowledging that side of himself and his sexuality would be perceived as a betrayal of the role his partner expected him to play. That in itself is a breed of the imposition of social expectations, the rejection of which defines queerness, at least to my mind. Perhaps he felt more comfortable expressing this to me because I knew him before he met his partner, or possibly because I am myself a cis-het male. It might even be that this wasn't actually an anxiety he felt, but he thought that I expected it in him. I can only contemplate what he told me about it; the truth of the matter belongs to him in the end.
So when I conceive of someone having a non-normative sexual or gender identity, what role they fit into seems less important to me than the actions they choose to take while striving to reach self-actualization, and how they conceive their own identity.
To bring it back to the Schrodinger's Sexuality problem and my Stardew example, if by my gameplay choices Abigail consents to adopt a non-normative lifestyle with my character, to me that makes her de facto queer, regardless of what other outcomes might've been possible. In a metatextual sense even that doesn't really bear upon the issue, because "she" isn't herself queer or straight, she's a kind of gestalt of code that lacks her own independent agency entirely. It's my interactions with her programming that dictates how queer or straight she becomes, which again, is its own sort of problematic if you choose to consider it that way.
I guess the upshot I'm clumsily trying to get to here is that my conception of queerness is distinct from the roles people inhabit (though it can certainly be related), and criticism that a game character doesn't meet any expectations of identity seems to conflict in a sense with the individual self-actualization that is central to my understanding of queerness.
So my response to criticisms of Schrodinger's Sexuality being erasure is that it's at least incomplete. It's not that queerness is itself erased by the lack of identifiable queer characteristics, because queerness can itself be performed by the actions a player chooses, and crucially, this possibility is explicitly defined by the developer. The objection should be that certain characteristics associated with some queer identities aren't represented, which is a totally valid criticism, insofar as that's relevant to a conception of self-identity as 'other.' If that self-identity relies upon enacting a role expected by a minority in-group, that's certainly their prerogative and it's not my place to question, but I can't help but feel that is in tension with the individualism that I feel–perhaps wrongly, I don't know–to be integral to what "being queer" means.
I don't know if this elucidates or confuses the ideas I'm trying to tackle, but I gave it a shot.
If the argument is "it's all just code, anyway" then the conversation is meaningless, as a) there's then no such thing as character and b) it only makes sense in the context of the generally...
If the argument is "it's all just code, anyway" then the conversation is meaningless, as a) there's then no such thing as character and b) it only makes sense in the context of the generally passive Stardew Valley romance paths, unlike e.g. Baldur's Gate 3 which has all the various party members explicitly hit on the player at certain points. Which is a concrete display of an allosexual identity at the very least (as opposed to asexual), and as an asexual player was definitely not something I wanted to perform.
The topic of the roles and expectations of queerness I don't think I can weigh in on, not identifying as queer myself. I just don't think it's possible for something as integral to understanding oneself as sexuality (or lack thereof) to leave zero trace on a person's character. Maybe it was othering to be queer, maybe by a quirk of social circle or fantasy setting it was othering to be straight, maybe it was confusing to start experiencing attraction at all, maybe the relationship dynamics they were raised with affected their feelings toward one gender and created tension in their experience of attraction. There are myriad possibilities, so to declare it doesn't matter makes for shallower characterisation.
fwiw, there is at least one Stardew Valley romance path that is influenced by the player's gender. It doesn't change your ability to go down that romance path but at least with Alex specifically,...
fwiw, there is at least one Stardew Valley romance path that is influenced by the player's gender. It doesn't change your ability to go down that romance path but at least with Alex specifically, being male does change some of the dialogue to reflect that. And honestly, it turns him from one of my least favorite partners in the game to one of my favorites because it does add some depth to the relationship, at least to the extent that's possible in a game where relationships are as limited and transactional as in Stardew. I think this alone is a good argument that, even if you want to make the characters playersexual, there's benefit in having the relationships reflect their queerness when it's present -- especially in games that are set in something approaching our real world.
This sort of ignores so-called queernorm settings. Which some of these games create, intentionally or otherwise. But queernorm settings make little to no distinction between characters of...
This sort of ignores so-called queernorm settings. Which some of these games create, intentionally or otherwise. But queernorm settings make little to no distinction between characters of different sexualities, (usually including the asexuality spectrum) and this usually is an intentional world-building choice to have usually a fully gender and thus sexuality egalitarian world.
In these worlds, to be queer is as normal as straightness and needs as little explanation for why or how one turned out that way. It's often very cathartic for queer folks, because you don't have to justify the impact of your queerness on your identity or the impact of your life experiences on your queerness, something that no one pays on cishetallo folks. There's no trauma for being queer. It's a nice change.
Even in your post, do you hold the same demands for straight characters to have some explanation of their straightness? All of them? Do they have to share how cisgendered they are? Probably not, that isn't a societal expectation at least.
So queernorm (where no there's no othering or issues with inheritance or judgement for their attraction shifting or remaining the same) matters because it's part of the queer fantasy as much as saving the day from villains or having a happy cozy farm is
Considering my default assumption is asexuality and the list of "maybes" I included were intended to get at the idea that straightness also comes under that umbrella of affecting character, yes, I...
Considering my default assumption is asexuality and the list of "maybes" I included were intended to get at the idea that straightness also comes under that umbrella of affecting character, yes, I do expect that straightness has an effect on one's character the same way queerness does.
That's fair, I highlighted it because many folks only apply those standards to queer characters not straight ones. But queernorm settings, especially ace inclusive ones, still wouldn't inherently...
That's fair, I highlighted it because many folks only apply those standards to queer characters not straight ones. But queernorm settings, especially ace inclusive ones, still wouldn't inherently highlight any of that.
I've always had an axe to grind with playersexuality (I love the term, lol). Even in my own recent journey sorting out my own sexuality it always felt weird and shallow to have characters who want...
I've always had an axe to grind with playersexuality (I love the term, lol). Even in my own recent journey sorting out my own sexuality it always felt weird and shallow to have characters who want to jump your bone whichever gender you pick. People clamor about representation and feeling seen, but even figuring out I'm bisexual I don't relate to it at all and it feels like bait dangled in front of me to keep me engaged, not a fulfilling story.
I would prefer realistic representation. I like Parvati Holcomb in The Outer Worlds because even as a lesbian, she wasn't attracted to my female character. She had her own desires, not a desire to be my romantic puppet. Her relationship was sweet to help develop, and the overall experience benefits. It was a tender moment in a pretty good overarching story.
I occasionally feel a disconnect, like Barrett in Starfield. I read him as strictly gay, so it seems weird for me to romancee him as a man in grief, and a charismatic friend to my female character.
Or Stardew Valley. Every eligible bachelor(ette) is bi? I don't feel represented, I feel pandered to.
This doesn't bug me until I think about it, it's really a non-issue, but when I interrogate the concept I would prefer the forbidden character to exist, with a rejection path. It makes them a better character, I think.
I just read @Arlen's comment and they have a strong last point that I agree with, but I want to see some characters be "romanceable" but reject you due to a lack of attraction, I guess, and remain platonic.
I enjoyed this article, and it's a topic I'm interested in. I have been a gamer for several decades and the relationship/romance side of RPGs is something I've always enjoyed. In many cases, it's...
I enjoyed this article, and it's a topic I'm interested in. I have been a gamer for several decades and the relationship/romance side of RPGs is something I've always enjoyed. In many cases, it's my favourite part of an RPG, often more so than the combat. I've also had lots of discussions about this topic on social media, because it's an area that people have very strong opinions about.
In an ideal world. maybe we would have a game where there are dozens of romance options, and the options include all representations of sexuality and identity. This would be somewhat like real life, and everyone would be happy. However, such a game would be very hard to make with well written characters, so who knows if there ever will be one like this. Maybe AI will help take the burden off the devs for creating so many characters (but that's a completely separate topic and can of worms, and not one I necessarily want to encourage. I value real authors and real actors!).
So, for now, devs need to restrict our options. For me, "options" is the important word. I want options, so when I come across a game that essentially gives me one or two romanceable options per character, it's a huge let down and actually fairly unrealistic (considering you are usually a hero and likely very attractive!). Dragon Age Inquisition is a game touted as having 8 options, but this number is misleading because in any one playthrough, most of these options are unavailable to you. For a straight, male human character, for example, which may well be the largest single demographic playing the game, there are only 2 options. Cyberpunk is another example where there are 4 options, but actually there is just 1 option per playthrough unless you play as a bi character.
I get the argument that characters written with a defined sexuality are better, but I wouldn't necessarily say they are that much better written. Currently, games written like this really restrict your options, and it only serves to increase anti-woke sentiment. Yes, it represents everyone, but with so few options, no one really wins. Are lesbians really happy that they only get Judy in Cyberpunk? She's a great character, but we can't say that all lesbians will be attracted to her. For me, Cyberpunk tried for equal representation with its romance system, but ultimately it fails because no one really wins with just 1 option.
So, until a time comes when games can incorporate lots of choices, I'm all for playersexual characters. If they are written well, they offer fulfilling romances and allow anyone to play the game and have multiple romance options. It's the fairest, least controversial way to proceed in my opinion.
I get the complaints about a lack of realism and under-representation, but this is where I would point to the author's comment:
"Your companions abandon their lives, sacrifice their interests, change their ideals to follow you. So why is this player-centric power fantasy only a problem when it comes to sexuality (and not, say, when it comes to the inclusion of dragons)? "
Ultimately, it's a game. We suspend our disbelief in so many areas. Maybe we should relax a little when it comes to romance too and embrace the fact that playersexuality gives everyone as many options as possible. It's a compromise, yes, but the best compromise considering the alternatives.
Arguably games should simply add more choices as you point out, but I think it's also somewhat true to life that you won't always find your idealized waifu or husbando. Often the people you end up...
Currently, games written like this really restrict your options, and it only serves to increase anti-woke sentiment.
Arguably games should simply add more choices as you point out, but I think it's also somewhat true to life that you won't always find your idealized waifu or husbando. Often the people you end up with happen to be in the right time and place. In a hypothetical adventure game with a party of four NPCs and one player character, I wouldn't expect more options unless there are additional NPCs to choose from.
A game can't be everything to everyone. If a player wants to find their perfect match, they're better off looking for visual novels or other romance centric games. I feel that people getting worked up over not having their perfect romance partner would find any other random issue.
It's a delicate balance. If everyone is player-sexual, the romances might feel more flat, but there are more choices? Developers have to pick and choose what kind of features they want to focus on and deliver for players.
I think I agree with you. I’m a lesbian, so naturally I’m usually going to play as a woman and pursue women for romantic interests in games. I appreciated in cyberpunk that all the romance options...
I think I agree with you. I’m a lesbian, so naturally I’m usually going to play as a woman and pursue women for romantic interests in games. I appreciated in cyberpunk that all the romance options have pre-existing sexualities and in some cases that helps shape their character. In cyberpunk’s case, I was not attracted to Judy in the slightest. She’s sweet, but not my type. I was a little salty at the time that I had zero other options. While 99% of the time playing the game isn’t romance, I don’t want to feel left out compared to other gamers, y’know, so I hooked up with Judy anyways.
On the other hand, I’m currently playing Dragon Age: The Veilguard and while I now have plenty of options, the romance seems considerably… flat(?)… thus far (I have no fucked yet, just flirted, I’m not far enough in). It’s kind of noticeable to me that the characters are playersexual, so even though I am attracted to Neve, the romance thus far hasn’t done a great job of making me feel that Neve is attracted to me, but that she’s programmed to like the player character if they pick the right option on the dialogue wheel.
But then on the other other hand, when romancing Karlach and Lae’Zel in my BG3 playthroughs, I didn’t feel that they were playersexual despite them actually being playersexual. I think the difference was perhaps just the depth and quality of writing? I think I didn’t notice the playersexuality in BG3 compared to Veilguard as the characters seem to be a lot more fleshed out in general and feel more real.
So I think I’m with you in that I would love a game where there are plenty of romancable characters written with a specific sexuality in mind, but that realistically most games can’t have 20 characters that well developed. So I think for the time being I’m okay with playersexuality even if I notice it like in DATV, instead of games like Cyberpunk or Mass Effect where I just don’t have options that I’m attracted to. Though I’d love if everyone could do it as well as BG3, where everyone is playersexual, but I never notice it.
I always kind of thought of "playersexual" NPCs as existing in a quantum state of sexuality. If your player character is of the same gender, they're gay, and if your player character is of the...
I always kind of thought of "playersexual" NPCs as existing in a quantum state of sexuality. If your player character is of the same gender, they're gay, and if your player character is of the opposite gender, they're straight.
There may of course be some cases where characters outright declare themselves to be bi-/pan-sexual, as I admittedly have not played every game, but at least in my recent recollection I can't think of an instance like that for every romanceable character in the games I've played.
Edit for clarity: In most cases, the only relationship that an NPC has that you know about is the one with your character. So in the game universe that exists, there's no reason to expect that the "playersexual" NPCs would be attracted to your character no matter your character's sex/gender/appearance/alignment, because playing a different version of the main character is necessarily a different universe.
This is an interesting subject and I’m reaching for angles on it that I don’t think anyone has discussed yet, because you smart folks have already covered most of the ground that I would’ve, and...
This is an interesting subject and I’m reaching for angles on it that I don’t think anyone has discussed yet, because you smart folks have already covered most of the ground that I would’ve, and I’ve really been enjoying the nuanced conversation here. I agree that there are advantages and disadvantages to playersexuality; there’s not really “right” and “wrong” answers here to advocate for or against.
That said, one new thing that came to mind as I was reading was the relationship between player agency and NPC consent.
In a playersexual game, the player is in charge of the entire “relationship.” You want to “romance” someone? Go for it. If you want someone, you can have them. The romanceable NPCs present themselves in a veritable line-up so you choose your favorite, like shopping at the grocery store. When you start a new playthrough, often one of the big decisions is who you’re gonna hook up with this time. The desires of those characters never factor into the decision, really.
I’m not trying to moralize here, but something about that feels icky to me. Even when all the playersexual NPCs are written as enthusiastically consenting, it’s still usually you driving everything forward. This is a video game conceit that I guess necessarily needs to be different from reality. Players expect to be able to see all the “content” in a game but of course in real life you can’t just see a woman and take the woman like El Guapo. Games are escapism but escaping to a world of characters who exist only to satisfy your whims still gives me pause. It’s a bit of the ethics of Westworld, I guess, and I’m not sure how that reflects on us as gamers.
@Soggy observed that the party members in BG3 all come across as rampantly horny, and I got that vibe too. It’s interesting because the characters aren’t written as promiscuous, and if you only did one playthough you might not pick up on it. But through multiple runs (and/or wiki dives, YT vids, etc.) it becomes apparent that all of these characters are ready and willing to hop into bed with the player. In my mind that canonically defines all of those characters as perpetually DTF even if it’s not overtly expressed that way. Sometimes I feel like my band of adventurers is just as much a wandering (potential) orgy, and I don’t think that was Larian’s intent.
But if the alternative is limiting possibilities and choices from the player, is that an improvement? I’d love to see a game with a cast of characters who all have their own desires and agency, whose relationships to the player have a push and pull that amounts to more than just another branch of a storyline to navigate for that 100% completion. These would feel more like real, honest, fleshed-out characters instead of sexual objects to be collected.
Maybe the problem is completionism. Maybe we need to abandon the idea of 100%ing a game and “seeing all the content.” That might make games less satisfying, but more immersive. This conversation does feel like an indicator of growing pains as @kfwyre pointed out. The industry has progressed a long way in how it portrays romance and sexuality, but I think it’s still a long way from its final form.
In these games the characters may be open to exploring something with you from the beginning, but I can think of examples in each of them where an NPC will decline to continue the relationship...
The desires of those characters never factor into the decision, really.
In these games the characters may be open to exploring something with you from the beginning, but I can think of examples in each of them where an NPC will decline to continue the relationship because of something that the player does. Not the player rejecting them, something else. For example, in Veilguard, the person from the city that you choose not to save from a dragon will not be romanceable after that point. It doesn't completely erase the weirdness of a relationship with a fictional person who literally lacks agency, but I do think it makes a difference.
The rampant horniness in BG3 is actually not all that unrealistic to me. Two real-world examples come to mind: The Olympic Village, and The Villages retirement communities. Every four years a bunch of young, extremely physically fit people get together and have a ton of sex. They also compete in a bunch of games. It's not surprising that these super hot people doing a bunch of adrenaline surging activities would be down to clown with each other. In BG3 you're a bunch of extremely physically fit people doing a bunch of adrenaline surging activities. It follows that your party would want to release that tension. The Villages retirement communities are, by contrast, full of older people with lots of free time, but what they have is peace of mind. None of them have to worry about getting pregnant. As a result, their STD rates are quite high. If you assume that there is a magical or alchemical contraceptive and prophylactic in the world of BG3, you've just added the peace of mind of a retirement community to the attractiveness and tension of the Olympic Village. It makes total sense that there would be a lot of sex there. The fact that all of them want to fuck you, specifically, may or may not be realistic depending on your choices as a player, but the fact that sex drives are generally high is easy to believe for me.
Maybe we need to abandon the idea of 100%ing a game and “seeing all the content.” That might make games less satisfying, but more immersive.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't there be games where we can see everything, and games where we can't? We can tell all different kinds of stories and play all different kinds of games! I don't always want the games that I'm playing to feel like reality. In reality I'm not very physically fit, I can't do magic, and dragons aren't real.
The comparison to Olympic village is an apt one I think. You have magic, power, and literal stats that indicate you're hot. You're the person that other people look at and go "they could step on...
The comparison to Olympic village is an apt one I think. You have magic, power, and literal stats that indicate you're hot. You're the person that other people look at and go "they could step on me and I'd like it"
I must be playing it wrong then, lol! I keep making hulking ugly half-orc barbarians with bad attitudes! Seriously though, I agree. In BG3 you’ve got a group of powerful people in their prime,...
I must be playing it wrong then, lol! I keep making hulking ugly half-orc barbarians with bad attitudes!
Seriously though, I agree. In BG3 you’ve got a group of powerful people in their prime, bonded by circumstance and with a common goal, supporting each other through stressful and dangerous situations, camping together every night… it does make plot sense that they’d hook up.
I don't mean this to come off as derisive, but it inevitably will. Sometimes I feel like people on the Internet really go deeply searching for things to overanalyze and be upset about. Like, I...
I don't mean this to come off as derisive, but it inevitably will.
Sometimes I feel like people on the Internet really go deeply searching for things to overanalyze and be upset about. Like, I don't know if it ever even crossed my mind to be upset about the fact that in some games, a character will potentially be attracted to my character regardless of what gender my character is.
Aren't there just plain more interesting and less tedious things to get worked up over? I get that writers have quotas to meet and all, but damn, talk about really dredging the bottom of the lakebed.
"Overanalyze and be upset about" was not my takeaway from this article at all. It felt much more like a rumination on a cultural phenomenon, an examination of what forces were acting on the...
"Overanalyze and be upset about" was not my takeaway from this article at all. It felt much more like a rumination on a cultural phenomenon, an examination of what forces were acting on the various sides of the debate, a short history on gaming and specifically romance arcs in games, and some light commentary on queerphobia in the gaming world. It didn't feel to me like the author was worked up at all, in fact a lot of the writing felt explicitly separated from emotion in an attempt to objectively look at the situation and remove as much bias as possible - they rarely insert themselves in the conversation and often refer to camps of players pro and con the issue in the 3rd person.
Sorry, I didn't mean that the author was upset, I'm talking about the various groups and people the author profiled who were upset about it; ie conservatives who were upset because there were gay...
Sorry, I didn't mean that the author was upset, I'm talking about the various groups and people the author profiled who were upset about it; ie conservatives who were upset because there were gay relationships in games, and queer activists who were upset because the game didn't have the right kind of representation.
The whole thing is just exhausting and I can't imagine having so few other pressing concerns in your life that this is what you choose to expend your limited time and emotional energy on. Just expending the mental energy trying to concieve of and empathize with that mindset makes me want to take a nap.
I'm certainly not going to chastise you for not being interested or wanting to take limited mental energy elsewhere, but perhaps this is a sign that you might be overextended and need to take on...
I'm certainly not going to chastise you for not being interested or wanting to take limited mental energy elsewhere, but perhaps this is a sign that you might be overextended and need to take on some self care? I can't speak for others, but it didn't feel emotionally or mentally draining for me to read through the article. I do happen to find discussions on societal values and human behavior to be fascinating, however, so I might have some level of bias to how I viewed this article.
Well I'd be the first to admit you might be right about that. I don't think it was quite reading the article that exhausted me, it was moreso considering the perspective of someone that spends...
Well I'd be the first to admit you might be right about that.
I don't think it was quite reading the article that exhausted me, it was moreso considering the perspective of someone that spends extended amounts of time arguing about it on the internet.
It just feels like a really tedious, pointless activity to engage in, although I guess you could make the same argument about all internet discourse at the end of the day.
I agree with you that the author isn't sounding upset at all. But @papasquat has a point about the topic in general, and the author does address this. People do get upset about playersexuality and...
I agree with you that the author isn't sounding upset at all. But @papasquat has a point about the topic in general, and the author does address this. People do get upset about playersexuality and romance in games, and I interpreted the article as the author championing playersexuality as a way to solve a very challenging problem = providing every player with game romance fulfillment, regardless of sexuality and identity.
After playing Cyberpunk 2077, I've started to dislike playersexual NPC's. A big part of what makes the relationships in CP2077 so compelling is that the sexuality of the characters is coded into...
After playing Cyberpunk 2077, I've started to dislike playersexual NPC's. A big part of what makes the relationships in CP2077 so compelling is that the sexuality of the characters is coded into them from the start. If male V could also date Judy, it would feel inconsistent with how her character is portrayed up until the point that becomes and option.
It's not a thing to get worked up or angry over, just pointing out how opinionated art is often far more rich and impactful than art that tries so hard to make everyone happy. That in itself is very much worth discussion and analysis.
I tend to agree with you. In settings where there is an acknowledgement of sexuality and gender differences, it feels strange when the game seemingly ignores its own world building to make...
I tend to agree with you. In settings where there is an acknowledgement of sexuality and gender differences, it feels strange when the game seemingly ignores its own world building to make relationships simpler and sadly more one-dimensional.
Fire Emblem Three Houses is a good example where only some characters are bisexual, and they all feel appropriate. They're knowingly flouting some of the settings' cultural norms around royal lineages, and that reflects in the characters' personalities as they usually break traditions in other ways too.
I don’t think the article meant to make any culture war comments, I think they were just trying to discuss the topic of story writing and character building inside of games. Out of that context,...
I don’t think the article meant to make any culture war comments, I think they were just trying to discuss the topic of story writing and character building inside of games.
Out of that context, yeah, I’m tired of hearing about it too.
FYI: Spoilers for DAII in case of very patient gamers I think tone's important when making this call; it's one thing to enjoy discussing matters of great interest but little importance, but it's...
FYI: Spoilers for DAII in case of very patient gamers
I think tone's important when making this call; it's one thing to enjoy discussing matters of great interest but little importance, but it's something else to become genuinely bothered by said unimportant matters. This article feels more like an exploration of the topic as opposed to an articulate rant.
With that said, since I love talking about matters of great interest but little importance: I personally consider concerns about playersexuality a meta issue that should be ignored for immersion's sake. Each playthrough is its own universe. They're not linked, meta knowledge isn't held in-universe (unless it's written in, such as Starfield's multiverse mechanic). In Dragon Age II, you won't know anything about Anders starting off--you referring to the version of Hawke being played. When I replay DA:O, I know full well that going to Redcliffe first will result in certain outcomes that could be prevented if I went to the Circle Tower first. But my characters don't know that.
The same goes for sexuality. I as Hawke have no idea Anders even exists when I'm fending off Darkspawn in Lothering, let alone his sexuality. In that playthrough-universe he might be gay, straight or bisexual. Hell, if not for his dialogue having a portion where he initiates flirting, he could even be asexual.
If anything, I genuinely believe that an inability to ignore metaknowledge is what's a persistent problem with RPGs, specifically their players, than playersexuality. With that said, I do acknowledge it can water down dialogue since you won't know the gender of the character's romantic interested. Personally, I'm somewhat against playersexuality, but it's hardly a strong viewpoint. I'm more against unwarranted flirting unless it's done in an appropriate moment, i.e. not after my character's mother was just hacked apart and sewn into a Frankenstein's monster-bride.
My issue with "playersexual" party members/video game relationships is that I feel like it erases certain kinds of non-romantic relationships that people can have. An example is Garrus from ME with male shepard - there's a "bromance' relationship, that is distinctly different than the female shepard, and also distinctly different from what a gay relationship would be like.
A lot of games get around this by basically having a branch where you can friendzone people, but again, I feel like that's not the same thing, and it doesn't feel like the same thing, as one where neither party was ever sexually or romantically interested in each other.
That's one of my problems with BG3, so much of the character bonding is tinged with "we'll bang, ok?" and the NPCs get pouty when you shut them down (Gale is the worst offender in this regard) The cast comes across as chronically, terminally horny and I just want platonic relationships most of the time.
Gale is strangely easy to accidentally romance, it apparently used to be worse until they patched it but it's still quite fickle. I still don't know how I managed to romance him last run when I was explicitly going for a different romance. He didn't pout quite as much when I officially chose another character over him, though, so maybe that got patched at least?
Wyll and Karlach at least don't push anything romantic on you, you pretty much have to initiate their romances yourself. They're the two characters who were designed latest, so I wonder if that was a deliberate choice on the part of the devs because they'd already made the rest of the cast so horny. I think the game's romance writing best for Astarion, since his characterization and the early stages of his character arc kind of play into the expectations of playersexuality in a way that the other romances don't really. Plus, him dumping you in Act 2 based on the decisions you make also serves as good character development, and I think "playersexuality" is at its weakest when it's not super responsive to how you play your character.
In my current run I've been playing a character who I'm roleplaying as 100% gay, and it's kind of funny to fend off all the women the game throws at you. The weirdest was definitely Mizora, though. I assume the game must offer that option to everyone, because I do not think I did anything that would imply my character was remotely interested in that. The constant horniness has to be deliberate with stuff like that in there, though.
I have played two runs of BG3 with Gale in my party and I am not sure what you mean by pouty. His relationship opens up with some sharing of magic that you can route toward platonic or romantic and he seems totally fine with both. Later on there is another scene under the stars where he makes a night more magical where (in my platonic relationship) he was never really pouty or anything, he just wants someone to hang out with him while he thinks.
Laezel is horny though, she skips straight to jumping you.
Early on there was a bug that made Gale's romance extremely easy to trigger accidentally, and he does get a little salty if you reject him for someone else when you're also romancing him, which probably had lead to many people having that impression. The lines make sense for what they were intended for but when you haven't been attempting to romance Gale at all and he's acting like a jilted lover, it comes on a little strong. I think this has been improved in patches.
Fun story about this:
When I first started Mass Effect, I played Maleshep with the intention to romance Kaidan.
Over the course of the game I learned four important things:
So, when I started Mass Effect 2, I wanted to cash in on that chemistry.
I wanted to get with Garrus.
So, instead of carrying over my previous save from the first game, I started fresh and changed to Femshep for the second.
Without getting too spoilery about what happens story-wise between the first and second games, this ended up unintentionally working out canonically. I was thinking changing genders would have to be a retcon, or I'd just have to consider my ME2 game as a separate story from my ME1 playthrough. Nope! The story worked out to the point that I was still able to link them.
Thus, I started calling my new player character Transfemshep.
This, of course, meant that the second game would finally let me romance Garrus and his glorious mandibles.
So, despite it being a nominally "straight" relationship, my Transfemshep x Reptilian Alien pairing remains the queerest game romance I've ever taken part in.
I think DA2 was a specific kind of lazy rushedness to it where the playersexuality really feels like it's the same relationship regardless of the gender of the protagonist. It's difficult to have nuanced relationships when the story arcs aren't really worked on. I think there are a few games out there which have fantastic takes on this- cyberpunk is another that comes to mind where there are relationships which are clearly designed to be a specific sexuality and relationship type. Judy, for example, reads very sapphic and the relationship feels like it was written by someone who has experience with those kinds of relationships in a similar way that Garrus's bromance felt like it was written with a specific viewpoint in mind. There's certainly a subcomponent of depth to consider here - some games go deep on the relationship angle and write some fantastic stories and other's don't. When you bother to spend the time to write compelling stories, I think there's less of a focus on playersexuality in general because a lack of availability is made up for with an increase in depth (although it is wonderful when you get both, such as in ME as you mentioned).
Shortly before I opened this article, my husband and I were watching GDQ. We were discussing one of the upcoming runs: Fallout: New Vegas all romances.
We talked about the logistics of it. Was the runner going to have to do two different runs -- one as a male courier and one as a female courier -- to be able to get everyone? Or is there some combination of perks that could make it happen in one go?
I brought up Arcade Gannon. I mentioned to my husband that he's only romanceable by a male courier that takes the Confirmed Bachelor perk.
My husband countered, saying Arcade was romanceable by either gender (i.e. playersexual).
I don't know the word for what I felt when he said that, but the feeling itself was significant. It wasn't a casual "oh, nevermind he's bi" it was sort of like a heavy "wait... Arcade isn't gay?" An erasure, rather than a reframing.
It turns out I was actually right (Arcade is gay), but the important part is that the idea brought up by my husband -- that Arcade might be playersexual -- generated a significant, non-negligible emotional response in me.
Furthermore, it did this despite me not having played New Vegas in over a decade.
I think that speaks to why people feel so strongly about this topic. Arcade was one of the first gay characters I encountered in a game. Despite him being entirely fictional, I still connected with his story, enjoyed flirting with him (and having it reciprocated), and navigating the wasteland with him by my side. I'm not holding a torch for him or anything, but it was cool to be gay together with Arcade -- not in a romantic sense, but in the sense of solidarity and recognition.
I could see myself in Arcade (not like that), so finding out, for that brief moment, that he might be playersexual instead of gay, changed the dynamic of the connection I, a gay guy, felt with him.
So, with that in mind, I can see why people feel that playersexuality is limiting or a copout. I don't think I would have had the same response to his character had he also been romanceable with a female character. Some of his dialogue about being different and not fitting in wouldn't have landed the same way if that were the case.
On the other hand, I can see the utility of playersexuality, particularly from the standpoint of inclusion. I think, in most cases, more is gained by adding options than lost by doing so. Also, if we're keeping score on playersexuality, it's only fair that we acknowledge that it came about as a shift away from almost exclusively straight relationships in games. It's not like we were drowning in gay romance options at the time and playersexuality robbed those options of their queerness by diluting it. Instead, they were the queer option against the predominantly hetero backdrop.
Furthermore, I think the controversy over this on the queer side is a product of that specific longstanding issue: limited queer representation in general.
Roll back the clock to the time when I was wandering around the wasteland with Arcade by my side, and you could list the number of canonically gay characters in games on just a few hands. Back then the discourse was over whether those specific individuals were "good" representation. If there was a femme gay guy, he was a stereotype. If there was a masc gay guy, he was made that way to be non-threatening to straight audiences. We nitpicked their presentations to death no matter what.
Why? Well, because we gave those characters an unfair shake in the first place. Because our representation was so limited, we insisted that those few men carry the weight of our entire community on their shoulders. They had to be everything to everyone -- an impossible task.
The solution to this wasn't to make Arcade a "better" gay character. It was to, broadly, have more diverse gay representation. This is a point that I think often gets lost when we talk about diverse rep in media, which usually gets turned into identity box-checking. It's not diverse for media to have gay characters -- it's diverse for media to show lots of different types of gay characters.
Furthermore, just as it's not any one gay character's responsibility to shoulder the entire weight of gay identity, it's not any one game's responsibility to represent the entire weight of all identities. Diverse rep isn't about Arcade himself or New Vegas on its own, but the entire landscape of stories. I want media with masc gay characters and femme gay characters. I want media with characters who aren't yet sure if they're gay or not. I want media with gay characters who are flawed or unlikable or sheepish or chubby or cyborgs. I want the gay characters available to me to reflect the broad diversity of gay men in general. With games that imagine worlds beyond our own, I want gay characters that go beyond as well.
I've been talking about gay men specifically, but of course this concept extends to other queer (and even non-queer) identities. If we had more explicitly bi and pan characters, I think we'd see less frustration over playersexual characters. I think the issue isn't that playersexual characters are fundamentally bad, but that we overfit our expectations of bi/pan representation onto them. This is a product of an absence, and I think the solution is to fill that space up with more characters rather than take away or detract from the few that are already in it.
Essentially, I think this is more of a growing pain than anything else. The good news, to me, is that there has never been a better time to find queer rep in gaming, and that trend is only increasing. I can go on Steam right now and find dozens of games with canonically queer characters in seconds -- a luxury I could only dream of back when Arcade and I were hanging out.
Instead of rewinding time like we did earlier, let's jump forward. Imagine years from now, when we have a decade’s worth of games featuring robust queer characters and narratives. We'll have so many that we'll be spoiled for choice, and the discussion of whether playersexual characters "count" won't carry weight because there won't be a need for such scorekeeping in the first place.
The broad solution here isn't to give every specific character a rigidly defined identity: the solution is to have characters at large inhabit all the vast and different planes of identity together.
Obviously this is very off-topic re: the bulk of your comment (which was really great and resonated with me a lot), but for anyone interested in this, I recently watched tomatoanus's non-live video explaining the current methods used in this run (I'm not sure if he's the one running it at GDQ but I wouldn't be surprised if he was). It's a really cool run in a lot of ways, lots of interesting tricks involved. It is possible to do it as all one run, but there's no combination of perks that overrides the gender preferences -- you need to change your gender partway through the run. Those curious about how that's possible should watch the run!
Completely random, but I'm currently at the hotel GDQ is at. They seem fun :D
Ah that's awesome! I would recognise so many people from various speedrunning communities I watch on YT and Twitch! I'd be star struck, haha
I'm totally out of the loop, though my coworker's partner actually did his run on Monday or Tuesday before I got here. I have no idea who anyone is, just very obviously a gaming convention is in town ya know :D
I speak from experience - it is very normal to find a group of 4 - 10 ridiculously dressed bisexuals attempting outlandish tasks that they are probably not equipped for.
Sounds like my discord friend group tbh
We do tend to travel in packs. It's always been the least likely thing about shows with one gay friend.
My partner is often the token straight guy in our games
I think this experience - a bi surrounded by lots of bis - has sort of blinded me to playersexuality. I knew about Veilguard because I saw an article about it before it came out, but I didn't notice it at all in Dragon Age II until I read the OP article. I just romanced who I wanted and it worked out. I did love Dorian's storyline, (and Zevran and Leliana's in Dragon Age Origin - who were explicitly bisexual and addressed it) and I don't want stories like that to go away, but I don't think stories with playersexual companions have to threaten that. They're just different ways of telling different stories.
Huh? This argument doesn't make much sense to me. I can grasp the idea of queerness as being distinct from non-heteronormative sexuality and non-cis gender identity, but there's an extra element here that eludes me. I guess my question is, "how queer is queer enough?"
There's also an odd framing of romanceable characters as being bi- or pansexual that I think misses the mark a bit as well. I never saw characters that can be romanced by the PC regardless of which gender they choose to present as being implicitly bi or pan, because I don't consider different playthroughs of the same game as being continuous.
For instance, when Imelda, my lesbian farmer character in Stardew Valley, romanced Abigail, I didn't think it was the same Abigail that previously had married Spard, my cis-het self-insert PC from the previous playthrough. I thought of them as almost like parallel universes, one in which Abi was likely cis-het and a parallel one in which she was at least attracted to other women (though to be honest, I think I thought of her as also being a lesbian). The important point is that I had taken it as read that in each discrete playthrough, Abigail identified with the sexual orientation congruent with my PC romancing her successfully, and in her continuity, she always had.
In truth, romance and sexuality were always things I imposed on them by my gameplay choices. I'm pretty sure all the eligible NPCs in the Valley would have continued happily on in celibacy had that been my choice, and the same is true for most of the romanceable characters in games with that feature. Sexuality doesn't have to be a feature of the game if you don't want it to be, which is certainly a choice made by the developer. I suppose you could choose to see that as problematic in its way, but I think it would take some gymnastics to accomplish.
Back to "how queer is queer enough?" To my recollection, I've never seen a romanceable character with a backstory like, "when Abi was a kid, we treated her like a boy because she was born with male genitalia, but then when she hit adolescence, she told us that she was actually a girl and that we should call her Abigail instead." If the absence of that sort of backstory is the complaint here, then I suppose that's fair enough. I think characterizing CA as a "lazy writer" for not doing so is a bit uncharitable though, since I think it would take an extremely deft hand to write a character element like that into Stardew Valley while maintaining the tone. The NPCs in the Valley seem much more interested in talking about how much they just love truffle oil than they do relating their juvenile struggles with gender identity.
Having said that, the game does approach some serious themes like alcoholism, houselessness, and combat-related PTSD, so maybe gender dysphoria, transsexuality, and other forms of queerness wouldn't be too out of place, provided the writing didn't get to maudlin or pandering. Then again, the point of romancing NPCs seems to me to be a collaborative effort at story building between the dev and player, so if you wanted to just play the game with Abi's teenage gender transition as your headcanon, I think Concerned Ape would probably approve. He certainly left that possibility open in how he wrote her character, and that should probably count for something.
Representation in media is certainly a complex subject, and I'm not here to shut down anyone's concerns or objections regarding it. I do think it's worth considering the relative ease of criticizing others' creative choices when compared to crafting something oneself, and I think you can only criticize so far the stories a creator doesn't choose to tell. The desire for greater representation is noble enough, but if it comes to an insistence on inclusion, there's also the risk that marginalized identities might be misrepresented as well. If a creator doesn't understand or experience the sort of marginalization they feel some motivation to represent, are they even really capable of representing it properly? At the very least, it seems like there are some serious pitfalls along that path that could be hard to weave through.
This has all been stream of consciousness rambling, and it's gotten pretty confused and jumbled as a result. I found that particular passage I quoted up top to be thought-provoking by virtue of not making much sense, and I kind of let the thought take me where it would.
I feel like you've answered your own confusion a few times there. When every romance option is "Schrodinger's sexuality" there can be no representation of minority experience because there's no difference between the character as a gay/bi/trans/pan person and the character as a cis-het person. Especially when taken with your interpretation of different playthroughs representing different universes' versions of the character rather than said character having a set bi or pan identity.
And to your point, in some settings that might be fine? As an extreme example, I expect most every character to be some flavor of bisexual in hedonistic, sexual games with self-insert protagonists. If a Sci-Fi setting says that gender and sex are never a concern and science babies are the norm, everyone being player sexual feels natural.
Fantasy is often a form of escapism after all. It doesn't have to reflect every part of our world.
In some settings it would absolutely be fine, in others it makes for shallower characterisation, which can also be fine if players getting to romance their favourite is a higher priority. I see it as a choice with trade-offs, not something inherently good or bad, I just don't want it to be standard that no game ever explores that facet of character in its setting. And I do sometimes wish for a platonic middle-ground between "let's do the sex" and "ew, no" in dialogue options, but that's neither here nor there.
Maybe that's down to my own conception of queerness. I think there's something of a paradox in how people conceptualize queerness: on the one hand, to be queer is to follow your own dictates as to what actions are fulfilling to your self (in a sort of metaphysical sense) regardless of the expectations others impose. That seems to me to be an important facet of the concept, though I admit that my own relationship to queerness is not something I've felt much pressure to explore, though perhaps I should.
On the other, a lot of people find that adoption of a recognized queer identity is part of that path of fulfillment. It seems to me that fulfilling a role is a big part of the conception of queerness to many people, which is at least in tension with the notion that a person should follow their own dictates of behavior and self-identity, and often is in direct conflict with it.
As an example, I've heard many people identifying as bisexual express frustration at how their identities and sexualities are received by gay and lesbian communities. I have a friend who has more than once expressed anxiety at the thought of openly acknowledging his attraction to some women to his male partner. To him it felt like acknowledging that side of himself and his sexuality would be perceived as a betrayal of the role his partner expected him to play. That in itself is a breed of the imposition of social expectations, the rejection of which defines queerness, at least to my mind. Perhaps he felt more comfortable expressing this to me because I knew him before he met his partner, or possibly because I am myself a cis-het male. It might even be that this wasn't actually an anxiety he felt, but he thought that I expected it in him. I can only contemplate what he told me about it; the truth of the matter belongs to him in the end.
So when I conceive of someone having a non-normative sexual or gender identity, what role they fit into seems less important to me than the actions they choose to take while striving to reach self-actualization, and how they conceive their own identity.
To bring it back to the Schrodinger's Sexuality problem and my Stardew example, if by my gameplay choices Abigail consents to adopt a non-normative lifestyle with my character, to me that makes her de facto queer, regardless of what other outcomes might've been possible. In a metatextual sense even that doesn't really bear upon the issue, because "she" isn't herself queer or straight, she's a kind of gestalt of code that lacks her own independent agency entirely. It's my interactions with her programming that dictates how queer or straight she becomes, which again, is its own sort of problematic if you choose to consider it that way.
I guess the upshot I'm clumsily trying to get to here is that my conception of queerness is distinct from the roles people inhabit (though it can certainly be related), and criticism that a game character doesn't meet any expectations of identity seems to conflict in a sense with the individual self-actualization that is central to my understanding of queerness.
So my response to criticisms of Schrodinger's Sexuality being erasure is that it's at least incomplete. It's not that queerness is itself erased by the lack of identifiable queer characteristics, because queerness can itself be performed by the actions a player chooses, and crucially, this possibility is explicitly defined by the developer. The objection should be that certain characteristics associated with some queer identities aren't represented, which is a totally valid criticism, insofar as that's relevant to a conception of self-identity as 'other.' If that self-identity relies upon enacting a role expected by a minority in-group, that's certainly their prerogative and it's not my place to question, but I can't help but feel that is in tension with the individualism that I feel–perhaps wrongly, I don't know–to be integral to what "being queer" means.
I don't know if this elucidates or confuses the ideas I'm trying to tackle, but I gave it a shot.
If the argument is "it's all just code, anyway" then the conversation is meaningless, as a) there's then no such thing as character and b) it only makes sense in the context of the generally passive Stardew Valley romance paths, unlike e.g. Baldur's Gate 3 which has all the various party members explicitly hit on the player at certain points. Which is a concrete display of an allosexual identity at the very least (as opposed to asexual), and as an asexual player was definitely not something I wanted to perform.
The topic of the roles and expectations of queerness I don't think I can weigh in on, not identifying as queer myself. I just don't think it's possible for something as integral to understanding oneself as sexuality (or lack thereof) to leave zero trace on a person's character. Maybe it was othering to be queer, maybe by a quirk of social circle or fantasy setting it was othering to be straight, maybe it was confusing to start experiencing attraction at all, maybe the relationship dynamics they were raised with affected their feelings toward one gender and created tension in their experience of attraction. There are myriad possibilities, so to declare it doesn't matter makes for shallower characterisation.
fwiw, there is at least one Stardew Valley romance path that is influenced by the player's gender. It doesn't change your ability to go down that romance path but at least with Alex specifically, being male does change some of the dialogue to reflect that. And honestly, it turns him from one of my least favorite partners in the game to one of my favorites because it does add some depth to the relationship, at least to the extent that's possible in a game where relationships are as limited and transactional as in Stardew. I think this alone is a good argument that, even if you want to make the characters playersexual, there's benefit in having the relationships reflect their queerness when it's present -- especially in games that are set in something approaching our real world.
This sort of ignores so-called queernorm settings. Which some of these games create, intentionally or otherwise. But queernorm settings make little to no distinction between characters of different sexualities, (usually including the asexuality spectrum) and this usually is an intentional world-building choice to have usually a fully gender and thus sexuality egalitarian world.
In these worlds, to be queer is as normal as straightness and needs as little explanation for why or how one turned out that way. It's often very cathartic for queer folks, because you don't have to justify the impact of your queerness on your identity or the impact of your life experiences on your queerness, something that no one pays on cishetallo folks. There's no trauma for being queer. It's a nice change.
Even in your post, do you hold the same demands for straight characters to have some explanation of their straightness? All of them? Do they have to share how cisgendered they are? Probably not, that isn't a societal expectation at least.
So queernorm (where no there's no othering or issues with inheritance or judgement for their attraction shifting or remaining the same) matters because it's part of the queer fantasy as much as saving the day from villains or having a happy cozy farm is
Considering my default assumption is asexuality and the list of "maybes" I included were intended to get at the idea that straightness also comes under that umbrella of affecting character, yes, I do expect that straightness has an effect on one's character the same way queerness does.
That's fair, I highlighted it because many folks only apply those standards to queer characters not straight ones. But queernorm settings, especially ace inclusive ones, still wouldn't inherently highlight any of that.
I've always had an axe to grind with playersexuality (I love the term, lol). Even in my own recent journey sorting out my own sexuality it always felt weird and shallow to have characters who want to jump your bone whichever gender you pick. People clamor about representation and feeling seen, but even figuring out I'm bisexual I don't relate to it at all and it feels like bait dangled in front of me to keep me engaged, not a fulfilling story.
I would prefer realistic representation. I like Parvati Holcomb in The Outer Worlds because even as a lesbian, she wasn't attracted to my female character. She had her own desires, not a desire to be my romantic puppet. Her relationship was sweet to help develop, and the overall experience benefits. It was a tender moment in a pretty good overarching story.
I occasionally feel a disconnect, like Barrett in Starfield. I read him as strictly gay, so it seems weird for me to romancee him as a man in grief, and a charismatic friend to my female character.
Or Stardew Valley. Every eligible bachelor(ette) is bi? I don't feel represented, I feel pandered to.
This doesn't bug me until I think about it, it's really a non-issue, but when I interrogate the concept I would prefer the forbidden character to exist, with a rejection path. It makes them a better character, I think.
I just read @Arlen's comment and they have a strong last point that I agree with, but I want to see some characters be "romanceable" but reject you due to a lack of attraction, I guess, and remain platonic.
I enjoyed this article, and it's a topic I'm interested in. I have been a gamer for several decades and the relationship/romance side of RPGs is something I've always enjoyed. In many cases, it's my favourite part of an RPG, often more so than the combat. I've also had lots of discussions about this topic on social media, because it's an area that people have very strong opinions about.
In an ideal world. maybe we would have a game where there are dozens of romance options, and the options include all representations of sexuality and identity. This would be somewhat like real life, and everyone would be happy. However, such a game would be very hard to make with well written characters, so who knows if there ever will be one like this. Maybe AI will help take the burden off the devs for creating so many characters (but that's a completely separate topic and can of worms, and not one I necessarily want to encourage. I value real authors and real actors!).
So, for now, devs need to restrict our options. For me, "options" is the important word. I want options, so when I come across a game that essentially gives me one or two romanceable options per character, it's a huge let down and actually fairly unrealistic (considering you are usually a hero and likely very attractive!). Dragon Age Inquisition is a game touted as having 8 options, but this number is misleading because in any one playthrough, most of these options are unavailable to you. For a straight, male human character, for example, which may well be the largest single demographic playing the game, there are only 2 options. Cyberpunk is another example where there are 4 options, but actually there is just 1 option per playthrough unless you play as a bi character.
I get the argument that characters written with a defined sexuality are better, but I wouldn't necessarily say they are that much better written. Currently, games written like this really restrict your options, and it only serves to increase anti-woke sentiment. Yes, it represents everyone, but with so few options, no one really wins. Are lesbians really happy that they only get Judy in Cyberpunk? She's a great character, but we can't say that all lesbians will be attracted to her. For me, Cyberpunk tried for equal representation with its romance system, but ultimately it fails because no one really wins with just 1 option.
So, until a time comes when games can incorporate lots of choices, I'm all for playersexual characters. If they are written well, they offer fulfilling romances and allow anyone to play the game and have multiple romance options. It's the fairest, least controversial way to proceed in my opinion.
I get the complaints about a lack of realism and under-representation, but this is where I would point to the author's comment:
"Your companions abandon their lives, sacrifice their interests, change their ideals to follow you. So why is this player-centric power fantasy only a problem when it comes to sexuality (and not, say, when it comes to the inclusion of dragons)? "
Ultimately, it's a game. We suspend our disbelief in so many areas. Maybe we should relax a little when it comes to romance too and embrace the fact that playersexuality gives everyone as many options as possible. It's a compromise, yes, but the best compromise considering the alternatives.
Arguably games should simply add more choices as you point out, but I think it's also somewhat true to life that you won't always find your idealized waifu or husbando. Often the people you end up with happen to be in the right time and place. In a hypothetical adventure game with a party of four NPCs and one player character, I wouldn't expect more options unless there are additional NPCs to choose from.
A game can't be everything to everyone. If a player wants to find their perfect match, they're better off looking for visual novels or other romance centric games. I feel that people getting worked up over not having their perfect romance partner would find any other random issue.
It's a delicate balance. If everyone is player-sexual, the romances might feel more flat, but there are more choices? Developers have to pick and choose what kind of features they want to focus on and deliver for players.
I think I agree with you. I’m a lesbian, so naturally I’m usually going to play as a woman and pursue women for romantic interests in games. I appreciated in cyberpunk that all the romance options have pre-existing sexualities and in some cases that helps shape their character. In cyberpunk’s case, I was not attracted to Judy in the slightest. She’s sweet, but not my type. I was a little salty at the time that I had zero other options. While 99% of the time playing the game isn’t romance, I don’t want to feel left out compared to other gamers, y’know, so I hooked up with Judy anyways.
On the other hand, I’m currently playing Dragon Age: The Veilguard and while I now have plenty of options, the romance seems considerably… flat(?)… thus far (I have no fucked yet, just flirted, I’m not far enough in). It’s kind of noticeable to me that the characters are playersexual, so even though I am attracted to Neve, the romance thus far hasn’t done a great job of making me feel that Neve is attracted to me, but that she’s programmed to like the player character if they pick the right option on the dialogue wheel.
But then on the other other hand, when romancing Karlach and Lae’Zel in my BG3 playthroughs, I didn’t feel that they were playersexual despite them actually being playersexual. I think the difference was perhaps just the depth and quality of writing? I think I didn’t notice the playersexuality in BG3 compared to Veilguard as the characters seem to be a lot more fleshed out in general and feel more real.
So I think I’m with you in that I would love a game where there are plenty of romancable characters written with a specific sexuality in mind, but that realistically most games can’t have 20 characters that well developed. So I think for the time being I’m okay with playersexuality even if I notice it like in DATV, instead of games like Cyberpunk or Mass Effect where I just don’t have options that I’m attracted to. Though I’d love if everyone could do it as well as BG3, where everyone is playersexual, but I never notice it.
I always kind of thought of "playersexual" NPCs as existing in a quantum state of sexuality. If your player character is of the same gender, they're gay, and if your player character is of the opposite gender, they're straight.
There may of course be some cases where characters outright declare themselves to be bi-/pan-sexual, as I admittedly have not played every game, but at least in my recent recollection I can't think of an instance like that for every romanceable character in the games I've played.
Edit for clarity: In most cases, the only relationship that an NPC has that you know about is the one with your character. So in the game universe that exists, there's no reason to expect that the "playersexual" NPCs would be attracted to your character no matter your character's sex/gender/appearance/alignment, because playing a different version of the main character is necessarily a different universe.
This is an interesting subject and I’m reaching for angles on it that I don’t think anyone has discussed yet, because you smart folks have already covered most of the ground that I would’ve, and I’ve really been enjoying the nuanced conversation here. I agree that there are advantages and disadvantages to playersexuality; there’s not really “right” and “wrong” answers here to advocate for or against.
That said, one new thing that came to mind as I was reading was the relationship between player agency and NPC consent.
In a playersexual game, the player is in charge of the entire “relationship.” You want to “romance” someone? Go for it. If you want someone, you can have them. The romanceable NPCs present themselves in a veritable line-up so you choose your favorite, like shopping at the grocery store. When you start a new playthrough, often one of the big decisions is who you’re gonna hook up with this time. The desires of those characters never factor into the decision, really.
I’m not trying to moralize here, but something about that feels icky to me. Even when all the playersexual NPCs are written as enthusiastically consenting, it’s still usually you driving everything forward. This is a video game conceit that I guess necessarily needs to be different from reality. Players expect to be able to see all the “content” in a game but of course in real life you can’t just see a woman and take the woman like El Guapo. Games are escapism but escaping to a world of characters who exist only to satisfy your whims still gives me pause. It’s a bit of the ethics of Westworld, I guess, and I’m not sure how that reflects on us as gamers.
@Soggy observed that the party members in BG3 all come across as rampantly horny, and I got that vibe too. It’s interesting because the characters aren’t written as promiscuous, and if you only did one playthough you might not pick up on it. But through multiple runs (and/or wiki dives, YT vids, etc.) it becomes apparent that all of these characters are ready and willing to hop into bed with the player. In my mind that canonically defines all of those characters as perpetually DTF even if it’s not overtly expressed that way. Sometimes I feel like my band of adventurers is just as much a wandering (potential) orgy, and I don’t think that was Larian’s intent.
But if the alternative is limiting possibilities and choices from the player, is that an improvement? I’d love to see a game with a cast of characters who all have their own desires and agency, whose relationships to the player have a push and pull that amounts to more than just another branch of a storyline to navigate for that 100% completion. These would feel more like real, honest, fleshed-out characters instead of sexual objects to be collected.
Maybe the problem is completionism. Maybe we need to abandon the idea of 100%ing a game and “seeing all the content.” That might make games less satisfying, but more immersive. This conversation does feel like an indicator of growing pains as @kfwyre pointed out. The industry has progressed a long way in how it portrays romance and sexuality, but I think it’s still a long way from its final form.
In these games the characters may be open to exploring something with you from the beginning, but I can think of examples in each of them where an NPC will decline to continue the relationship because of something that the player does. Not the player rejecting them, something else. For example, in Veilguard, the person from the city that you choose not to save from a dragon will not be romanceable after that point. It doesn't completely erase the weirdness of a relationship with a fictional person who literally lacks agency, but I do think it makes a difference.
The rampant horniness in BG3 is actually not all that unrealistic to me. Two real-world examples come to mind: The Olympic Village, and The Villages retirement communities. Every four years a bunch of young, extremely physically fit people get together and have a ton of sex. They also compete in a bunch of games. It's not surprising that these super hot people doing a bunch of adrenaline surging activities would be down to clown with each other. In BG3 you're a bunch of extremely physically fit people doing a bunch of adrenaline surging activities. It follows that your party would want to release that tension. The Villages retirement communities are, by contrast, full of older people with lots of free time, but what they have is peace of mind. None of them have to worry about getting pregnant. As a result, their STD rates are quite high. If you assume that there is a magical or alchemical contraceptive and prophylactic in the world of BG3, you've just added the peace of mind of a retirement community to the attractiveness and tension of the Olympic Village. It makes total sense that there would be a lot of sex there. The fact that all of them want to fuck you, specifically, may or may not be realistic depending on your choices as a player, but the fact that sex drives are generally high is easy to believe for me.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't there be games where we can see everything, and games where we can't? We can tell all different kinds of stories and play all different kinds of games! I don't always want the games that I'm playing to feel like reality. In reality I'm not very physically fit, I can't do magic, and dragons aren't real.
The comparison to Olympic village is an apt one I think. You have magic, power, and literal stats that indicate you're hot. You're the person that other people look at and go "they could step on me and I'd like it"
I must be playing it wrong then, lol! I keep making hulking ugly half-orc barbarians with bad attitudes!
Seriously though, I agree. In BG3 you’ve got a group of powerful people in their prime, bonded by circumstance and with a common goal, supporting each other through stressful and dangerous situations, camping together every night… it does make plot sense that they’d hook up.
I have two responses:
But I couldn't decide :D
I don't mean this to come off as derisive, but it inevitably will.
Sometimes I feel like people on the Internet really go deeply searching for things to overanalyze and be upset about. Like, I don't know if it ever even crossed my mind to be upset about the fact that in some games, a character will potentially be attracted to my character regardless of what gender my character is.
Aren't there just plain more interesting and less tedious things to get worked up over? I get that writers have quotas to meet and all, but damn, talk about really dredging the bottom of the lakebed.
"Overanalyze and be upset about" was not my takeaway from this article at all. It felt much more like a rumination on a cultural phenomenon, an examination of what forces were acting on the various sides of the debate, a short history on gaming and specifically romance arcs in games, and some light commentary on queerphobia in the gaming world. It didn't feel to me like the author was worked up at all, in fact a lot of the writing felt explicitly separated from emotion in an attempt to objectively look at the situation and remove as much bias as possible - they rarely insert themselves in the conversation and often refer to camps of players pro and con the issue in the 3rd person.
Sorry, I didn't mean that the author was upset, I'm talking about the various groups and people the author profiled who were upset about it; ie conservatives who were upset because there were gay relationships in games, and queer activists who were upset because the game didn't have the right kind of representation.
The whole thing is just exhausting and I can't imagine having so few other pressing concerns in your life that this is what you choose to expend your limited time and emotional energy on. Just expending the mental energy trying to concieve of and empathize with that mindset makes me want to take a nap.
I'm certainly not going to chastise you for not being interested or wanting to take limited mental energy elsewhere, but perhaps this is a sign that you might be overextended and need to take on some self care? I can't speak for others, but it didn't feel emotionally or mentally draining for me to read through the article. I do happen to find discussions on societal values and human behavior to be fascinating, however, so I might have some level of bias to how I viewed this article.
Well I'd be the first to admit you might be right about that.
I don't think it was quite reading the article that exhausted me, it was moreso considering the perspective of someone that spends extended amounts of time arguing about it on the internet.
It just feels like a really tedious, pointless activity to engage in, although I guess you could make the same argument about all internet discourse at the end of the day.
I agree with you that the author isn't sounding upset at all. But @papasquat has a point about the topic in general, and the author does address this. People do get upset about playersexuality and romance in games, and I interpreted the article as the author championing playersexuality as a way to solve a very challenging problem = providing every player with game romance fulfillment, regardless of sexuality and identity.
After playing Cyberpunk 2077, I've started to dislike playersexual NPC's. A big part of what makes the relationships in CP2077 so compelling is that the sexuality of the characters is coded into them from the start. If male V could also date Judy, it would feel inconsistent with how her character is portrayed up until the point that becomes and option.
It's not a thing to get worked up or angry over, just pointing out how opinionated art is often far more rich and impactful than art that tries so hard to make everyone happy. That in itself is very much worth discussion and analysis.
I tend to agree with you. In settings where there is an acknowledgement of sexuality and gender differences, it feels strange when the game seemingly ignores its own world building to make relationships simpler and sadly more one-dimensional.
Fire Emblem Three Houses is a good example where only some characters are bisexual, and they all feel appropriate. They're knowingly flouting some of the settings' cultural norms around royal lineages, and that reflects in the characters' personalities as they usually break traditions in other ways too.
I don’t think the article meant to make any culture war comments, I think they were just trying to discuss the topic of story writing and character building inside of games.
Out of that context, yeah, I’m tired of hearing about it too.
FYI: Spoilers for DAII in case of very patient gamers
I think tone's important when making this call; it's one thing to enjoy discussing matters of great interest but little importance, but it's something else to become genuinely bothered by said unimportant matters. This article feels more like an exploration of the topic as opposed to an articulate rant.
With that said, since I love talking about matters of great interest but little importance: I personally consider concerns about playersexuality a meta issue that should be ignored for immersion's sake. Each playthrough is its own universe. They're not linked, meta knowledge isn't held in-universe (unless it's written in, such as Starfield's multiverse mechanic). In Dragon Age II, you won't know anything about Anders starting off--you referring to the version of Hawke being played. When I replay DA:O, I know full well that going to Redcliffe first will result in certain outcomes that could be prevented if I went to the Circle Tower first. But my characters don't know that.
The same goes for sexuality. I as Hawke have no idea Anders even exists when I'm fending off Darkspawn in Lothering, let alone his sexuality. In that playthrough-universe he might be gay, straight or bisexual. Hell, if not for his dialogue having a portion where he initiates flirting, he could even be asexual.
If anything, I genuinely believe that an inability to ignore metaknowledge is what's a persistent problem with RPGs, specifically their players, than playersexuality. With that said, I do acknowledge it can water down dialogue since you won't know the gender of the character's romantic interested. Personally, I'm somewhat against playersexuality, but it's hardly a strong viewpoint. I'm more against unwarranted flirting unless it's done in an appropriate moment, i.e. not after my character's mother was just hacked apart and sewn into a Frankenstein's monster-bride.