It's shorter this time, I promise! Well, shorter than the last big one, anyway!
Why do I think it's a reasonable expectation to have... It's a good question. I think because I am a roleplayer, first and foremost. Regardless of the game, it is the emotional impact of them that most catches me up and draws me in. In particular, in roleplaying games where I have the ability to define my character and play them to the personality that I feel they have, and as the impact of the game itself seeks to shift or alter that outlook... it is the way that character feels, about everything, and the head-space that I, as their player, drop into while playing as them. I never play as “myself”; I create characters, and I play them, and I occupy their head-space, and their outlook, and their feelings and their emotional states. That is what roleplaying games are to me.
I play a lot of other games too, but when it comes to roleplaying games, when I have a say in exactly who it is that I am playing, that is what draws me and holds me.
So... why do I feel that it's reasonable to expect romance options to accompany the story? Well... because those are important feelings; there are few reasonable situations where the sorts of stories we go through do not evoke bonds of feeling between the characters involved, and in a good story those bonds are varied and different in nature, but they are sure, in most cases, to be fierce... and feelings of attraction, feelings of love and care, of devotion and desperation... these are the very essence of stories... the surrounding epic events are what forge them, sure, and those events and their outcomes have shattering effects on the world around us, perhaps, but they are not, not truly, what the stories we tell are really about, in the end... because usually, the stories are about bonds, at their core.
So yes... bonds of closeness, intimacy and romance are, I feel, integral in many ways to compelling story-telling... and a natural, normal and expected part of what happens over the course of an adventure.
I play a lot of D&D, and though some of my characters come quicker to it than others, and some put more value on physical entertainment while others are more interested in closeness, trust or other feelings of bonds... my characters always have some outlook on the romantic side of their life, and it plays a part in their journey, in some fashion.
I'd go so far as to say that D&d without attention to the bonds between characters, including love and romance, where and when it occurs, would barely feel like playing D&D to me. I've no idea how those adventure league, no RP, power-gamers do it, really... different mindsets.
In a video game, you're absolutely right: if it's done poorly, it feels forced in, slap-dash, throw away, and worse, disconnected from the story of the game itself. As for how I play romances in my video games... I play as my characters would, and I hope... In PF:K I was really very sad that Linzi was not available in the end – she moons after other females, but won't get involved with a female PC at all, and it felt off-putting and unfair. I was sad, also, that Jubi didn't want to flirt between the intellectual banter, though light knows I tried, and with a different character, I was sad that I wasn't allowed to be there for Ekun, or support him in the healing he needed... while a random NPC could be. These things downright spoiled my enjoyment of the game, at least to a certain extent.
In earlier games, they controlled who you could flirt at, at all – take original Neverwinter Nights: No gays allowed. That was not, in my opinion, okay. Everyone had a locked sexuality: they were all hetero, including the PC, and you didn't get a choice in the matter. Made it simpler on their coding, sure, but it was also very unsatisfying for non heterosexual players, or those who like to play non-hetero characters.
More importantly, returning to the crux of this... I can't talk about DA:I in depth, because I haven't played it (I refuse, Absolutely, to have anything to do with Origin, thank you very much, so, unfortunately, that means I can't play that series), but the same rough parallel applies to Kingmaker – it has a large roster of companions, with locked preferences, and it's quite possible to play a character that has one single, deeply dissatisfying option that you have to be an arsehole to even pursue in the first place... and it's not good. I do not like that the new Pf game is sticking to that formula, even though I've been hearing wonderful things about the characters and characterisation of them. I'm far less inclined to play it, knowing that I'm likely to face far more disappointment than anything else.
In Kingmaker, those upsets that I mentioned could have been otherwise. It would not have been harmful to the game, at all, for it to be so, so long as it was handled well. The writing would have needed to account for it – dialogue and long conversations could have ensued, as is the game's wont, to feel out new or uncertain relationships and work them out together. It would have made the game better if that had been an option. For a game that was so open-minded in many ways (you can pursue a poly relationship... and with a little, okay a lot, of work, care and good communication, you can even make it a mature and healthy one), it also ended up being remarkably narrow-minded and closed down in others (small races cannot be romanced under any condition, and the writing of the game romances always assumes that you are not a small race, even if you are), which was disappointing.
This flows into the next part of what you were saying... and it seems to come with a bit of cross-talk, so to be clear:
It was my impression that many folks here are saying that having a player-sexual character automatically and innately waters the character down, lessens them, makes them fuzzy and/or stops them from being fully fleshed out, interesting ,engaging and impactful characters. The way a lot of people in this thread have spun arguments and made points, this contention seems to lie at the core of their complaint.
My reaction against that was to say that while a character's sexuality does have an impact on many aspects of their life, character and attitudes, it generally only ends up touching aspects of them that are already close in within the sphere of romance-related topics and dialogue... and that romance and romance-related interactions only, themselves, make up a very small part of the overall character. To say that one part of one part of a character's personality being varied by game somehow undermines their entire character, unmakes them into bland flat, non-engaging putty and prevents proper characterisation that is compelling and believable, is a ridiculous, unmerited statement... but it is the statement that someone must necessarily make, if they are pushing forward these arguments, which several folks here have been doing.
Otherwise, they Must accept that good characters, compelling, impactful, believable, engaging, exciting, interesting, fully formed and well developed characters, are NOT, at all, contingent upon having a fixed and locked in sexuality between games.
You ask, in the other linked threads, if a character that is written to potentially be gay, straight, bi or ace can believably be any of them: the answer is Yes. Undeniably and absolutely they can be. Not all at once, but in individual iterations, one at a time, they absolutely can be. Each different iteration will have a small lotus blossom of ripple effects that alter their character in small ways and affect how things play out, within – and almost solely confined to – the topics focused on and revolving around their romantic inclinations... and can do so in believable, engaging ways that do not, in any way, undermine or detract from their overall characterisation or believable presence in the story.
If it is done well... and that's the big if, I know... but as long as it's done well, It's not confusing – they're solid and definite and clear, within the space of each game. It's not distracting, because they are solid and fixed, within the space of the game you're playing right now.
If you are the sort of player that absolutely Cannot drop yourself into the space of a game, and immerse yourself in it, and it alone, without thinking above the game too much, or blurring and blending the events of the present game with the events of a different game that was played at another time, and/or with the meta-knowledge you have from those other games, then of course, the concept of player-sexuality is never going to seem like it makes any sense at all or does any good for anyone... if that's you, then I can absolutely understand why it wouldn't appeal to you at all. But... if that's you, then that largely means that the very idea of roleplay, itself, is alien to you, and not something you ever do or experience... and that doesn't sound like other things you've said.
On the topic of choice: It's a video game. The characters do not have agency, free will or sentience at all. None of them can say no, ever. You plug in the right variables, they spit out the intended responses, nothing more, nothing else.
Getting past that, however, who a person is is far more important than the bits they've got underneath their fusion-welded undergarments... Gale can and will, absolutely, say no to me if I am not the sort of person that he likes. That's what matters. That's where good characterisation comes in, even within the romance sector of the game. If I'm not the sort of person he'll accept and advance from, or go for himself, then he won't – and if he doesn't want to, there isn't a thing I can do to try to convince him. The PC has absolute, unflinching respect for the origin character's boundaries. The fact that, y convenience, in any given iteration of the game, they are Open to individuals of your sex does not, in any way, mean that they will be forcefully compelled to leap on your hind quarters the moment you bend over the altar. If you have not proven yourself to be the sort of person they'd choose to bed with, they Won't. At least... as long as it's written well and the writing is skilfully executed.
The flexibility is there to give you a Chance to be who you are, but hopefully maybe o be the sort of person they'd like to be with, if you do want to be with them too, without having your hopes dashed by something that you (as immersed in your character) didn't have any control over (i.e. genital configuration), unlike your behaviour, speech and ethical choices, which you do.
(Thanks for the birthday wishes, my partners made me mint chocolate cake and it was good ^.^)
