I agree. From a writing standpoint...this "trendy" thing where we make all our characters open to anything because we are so evolved and hip....just make for a bunch of undefined, and ambiguous characters. There's no drama. No connection..nor relatability. Majority of people are straight. Plain and simple. So makeing every character so ambiguous...just makes them more unrelatable and weaker as characters. You can make them whatever orientation you want...just give them some definition.
This is true only if you are a firm believer in sexual preferences is what defines people and that you are your group identity. What you perceive as the "trendy" thing is the rational response from developers who see beyond gender tribalism; inclusivity without using lots of resources on making token characters that revolve around their sexual preference.
DA:I's Dorian was one such character. Lots of drama, muh oppression! But less relatability due to the ham-fisted insert of present-day navel-gazing identity politics in a world burning with very real issues that broke the spell of immersion and suspension of disbelief like nobody's business. Your ideal character if we follow the extent of your logic. On the other hand, they also made Bull, which was made into an all-eating sexual tyrannosaurus. Not many would accuse Bull of being a bland character without flair let me tell you. Not really relatable either though.
A gay character that forms a deep heterosexual connection with the main character, and the struggles that come with such a relationship, would make for a more interesting character then the single sentence of definition. "Im open to anything.". People are diverse. They are not all the same. Making companions all the same is just weak writing. I really felt that all the companion characters were actually written by an angtsy teenage goth girl from the 90s.
...or, much, much, more likely given the prevailing political winds, a heterosexual character that forms a deep gay connection with the main character. The other thing would be "sexual conversion therapy". See where this is going?
Instead of a selection of two males and two females, you get one woman who likes men, one woman who likes women, one man who likes women, one man who likes men. One choice for most. Or we could crawl further down the rabbit hole...by making more of them! With the unavoidable consequence that each is given less resources to flesh out because resources are finite. More is better, right? Now you're not really getting more real choices, and have pretty much guaranteed each being more bland. Congratulations.
I have long been a strong proponent for romances as a deeper, more personal motivation than killing the baddie, stealing his loot and saving the world. But this is the kind of thing that makes me want to go Josh Sawyer/Aliens and nuke the site from orbit.
https://external-preview.redd.it/73...a99ddf5f9171edd1fd88def3154cc3732a5aaaa2
