To Konmehn,
I think the part we're not seeing eye to eye on is the definition of what we're characterising as flipping of sexualities. From my perspective, they don't. From my perspective, in each individual instance of the world, each character that is romanceable has a set of preferences, and short of any in-universe, story-related events of conversations that deal with the possibility of those tastes changing or expanding, they are fixed and don't change, and are consistent throughout, within that specific world space.
I am not the sort of person who is going to judge and decide in advance what those preferences are based on external behaviour or mannerisms. No conscientious person ever should be. It may be because I am myself bisexual, but I don't buy into or read 'sexuality coding' in writing - if someone behaves and acts in a particular way externally, and that's something that's usually used in media to portray a particular sexuality, but they turn out to be open to more than that, I'm not put off and I don't care, because I didn't judge them to be that way to begin with. I strongly feel that no-one should, or at the very least they should not get worked up, put out or upset by discovering those assumptions to be incorrect... Making assumptions about someone's sexual preferences based on their external behaviour or way of talking is poor behaviour; it's othering and it can ultimately be harmful. Don't do it... or if you do make basic assumptions, as many people always will, be prepared to be mistaken about that, and don't get upset or worked up if you are - and most definitely don't blame or direct ire towards the person you made the assumption about.
So, as I see it, in each individual instance of the world, each romancable character's sexual preferences are consistent and fixed, short of actual story-driven shifts. We don't necessarily know all about them from the outset, but they don't magically change... we just learn more.
At a more macro level, the 'rules of the world space' including how various characters exist, are defined from the external perspective to create a world that is able to best cater to the player's experience.... and that means that, by happy coincidence, whichever character that they feel like their character might be interested in, will, conveniently, be at the minimum compatible with their tastes, and a romance attainable, provided the other elements of their character match up well enough. That's not flipping either, because it's defining something from the outset, in my mind - and I don't view the exact configuration of squishy bits that a person prefer to be an element that should have any real impact on the rest of their character or characterisation, short of dedicated story elements that relate to that, if such a thing is written. It shouldn't. You mention "rewriting the character's history" at one point - I'd really, very much, like you to give me an example of where the game currently rewrites any part of any character's history, based on your player character's sexy bits. It does not do that, at any point, ever, at least as far as I am aware. Tell me where you've seen this happen - and not where you've just made assumptions about the character that later turn out to be incorrect assumptions.
((There is also the distinct possibility that Larian characters aren't playersexual at all - They've literally just made them all openly bisexual, a fact that you may or may not discover, base don your interactions. Who knows? We certainly don't have any confirming evidence one way or the other yet.))
You asked what the satisfaction in it was, and you were given a detailed answer... I'm not sure how much more I can say when you just ask again. My previous post explains where the satisfaction in this is, and why it is relevant, in short bullet point form. If you won't address or respond to that (either by accepting it or objecting), I can't really continue trying to answer your repetition of the question.
Would I prefer to have the characters being far better written than they are right now? Of course I would. No-one's denying that... But from my perspective, playing a male character and flirting with Gale works fine.... it's not great, it could be better, but it's... fine, if that's the best we can hope for. I don't experience any dissonance in his character or characterisation, personally, with the fact that he's interested in bunking with me... I flirted with him during the weave scene and he seemed receptive, and that was a feeler - me checking if he was game, and being pleasantly surprised when he was. I was pleased to learn that he was open to males as well as females. It was not a problem. (Rag makes a good point, in that Lae'zel propositioning creatures that the githyanki usually consider slave races, like gnomes and halflings, created far more dissonance with me than any genital preference)
The romance as it is built in the game right now is laughably stupid, unimersive and generally terrible - the whole party scene where everyone wants a piece of you is a train wreck of poorly written, badly-handled design. I don't think there are many people who disagree with that. that's an issue of design and writing, though, and it's got nothing to do with all companions being romance capable for the player. Yes, absolutely, I, and most others interested in romance, I think, would much prefer a more organic progression with build ups that happen in varied and different ways for different characters, and which are better written to suit the tone and style of those characters.... and more pointedly, should provide some way for the player to flag to the game who they are interested in, without stepping on the toes of good characterisation.
You talk about characters being made to be something they are clearly not - once again, I'm just going to point out that your conception of this conflict is flawed: you are making assumptions about what you think or expect characters to be, and are taking issue with them when those assumptions turn out to be false. That's mostly on you (partially on the bad writing and design, sure, but mostly on the person making the assumptions and then being disconcerted when they assumed wrong), not the game.
No-one, I don't think, disagrees that the party scene right now is an abomination - It's awkward, uncomfortable and feels very out of place, for the most part. It's bad for any kind of immersion, and in generally it's a pretty rotten design. Having everyone come at you all at once, at the same time, to jump at your unfortunately wet cardboard, empty, soulless and undefined character who has felt mostly like a hanger-on to the story due to the writing design, is just silly. It really is. No-one's disputing that. that's not related to the characters all being applicable romance targets, though. What we have right now are not, for the most part, romances - if anything, Gale and Shadow come closest because they have the most personal scenes, the focus of which are potentials for interpersonal relationships, more than the other companions. They're also the most fiddly to trigger, which is an issue of poor design - though shadow's take priority over everyone else, making hers easier to track to track down... None of that is a detraction form having playersexual characters in the first place though, nor an argument against it.
As others have said, multiple times now, playersexual characters are not the most ideal situation - they aren't, I'm not disputing that. However, this is a fantasy rolepalying game, and for those interested in romance, the draw is being able to build a romance with a character that they, or their character, depending, would like to build a relationship with. An idea situation presents enough individual characters to meet a broad spectrum of character archetypes and personalities, such that odds are good for any given player finding a character that matches what they want and being able to pursue them. We don't have that situation, and we won't have that situation. What wee have and, all we will have, is an extremely
limited and short roster of characters, and alongside that, we still have the
goal of having a situation where most players interested in building a relationship with a character that matches what either they, or the character they are playing, is interested in, will have the opportunity and potential to do that. The only way to achieve that with such a
short roster of available characters is if, by coincidental good fortune and convenience, it turns at that the character that any given player wishes to build a relationship with is also open to that prospect.
Games have tried it the other way, with locked sexualities and even locked racial preferences - the result was simply that some character combinations were left entirely in the lurch, and players who wished to build a relationship over the course of their game were simply given the shaft. It's not a satisfying way to design that aspect of the game if you can't provide a broad enough spread to ensure it works - and even if you try to do that, you end up having to compromise on the depth of characterisation and that each individual character is afforded. In many ways, it works better with a shorter roster of characters, who can each then be given much deeper, fuller and more fleshed out characterisation and personality, and their personal sexuality does not need to be a relevant aspect of that. It can be, yes, but it don't need to be, if making it so would cause dissonance. Others have spoken in detail about other writing tools you can use in this situation - you can have characters with established limited sexualities, and still leave a potential for romance open through dialogue and conversation, effectively lamp-shading their normal limitations and why they might consider testing the waters with you, in a way that they normally would not be inclined to, and so on... and that
Can be written well and convincingly. I'll requote Composer here, though I think Rag has expounded on ways of doing this too, at various points, as have I in other threads, and probably others I'm forgetting:
While expressed poorly, I've said before that I'd have preferred to see a middle-ground of solutions. With everyone being into everyone, it gets so untied with reality that I wouldn't think even those wanting representation feels represented; Or becomes a mockery of it. I think it'd be good for the game and its players to have some companions heavily preferring men, others women, and some going both ways. That's more tied with reality and thus is more believable. If everyone's into everyone, no one matters, in a way. If Wyll was mostly into women, yet I was really into him, I'd appreciate having both a bromance path and a harder to achieve romance path where Wyll's appreciation changes because of me, not because everyone's into everyone because inclusion. I think you can be inclusive *and* be within a believable reality as well.
This is a writing tool for having defined, or semi-defined sexualities for characters, while still avoiding hard lock-outs, and it can be a very good solution, if done well.
I've also played games with relationship locks and exclusions and generally, I just find them awkward or dissatisfying. The last one I played presented only one character with whom I wanted to build a relationship - I didn't really think of anyone else that way, and this character was the only one I genuinely liked spending time with, talking to, and was the only one I really wanted to become intimate with. I did not enjoy being locked out from them. I don't care if it's not realistic; I'm playing a video game, one of the elements of which is character romance. I did not find it to be a
satisfying or
enjoyable experience or outcome, and so the game *failed*, for me.
End of the day, I don't think anyone is disputing that right now, the way Larian are handling 'romance', is pretty bad, and pretty dissatisfying.
