Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Is BG3 too sexualized?

Except some of them do bring it up again..?


What do you mean? Are we just making this all up in your opinion?

Based on what op said elsewhere, I have my doubts their real problem is the plentiful sexual harrassment in the game. That is, if you're unlucky. Upon reflecting on their core arguments here (what is too sexual? Too gay, characters getting over racist attitudes, etc, apparently. Anything but the issue at hand) I feel even worse about said probable intentions. They make no mention on how to resolve the game's actual issue (like failsafe on/off switches).

They make plenty of mention of how they'd like characters to be more racist (or perhaps have no arc where they can get over it). Less gay, with only bisexuality being a possible exception and only if there's no risk they can't romance any "good" companions as a consequence. Wouldn't want hot lesbians with a right to say no. I know the type and I have possibly already said too much. I will leave. You might want to be critical of people popping up and smuggling their niche opinions into more broad and existing issues, that's all. You vote yes, they add the "clarification" after people have voted -- congratulations, "you" now endorse 3 new viewpoints.

Okay you may have a point about OP, but a lot of other valid and legitimate concerns have been raised by people that are not OP, and are from people known to be good faith posters.

I’ve “known” Boblawblah for… I guess years at this point, and he’s not frivolous in his complaints. Certainly we should take trusted members of the community seriously?

No it isn't in my opinion, I've enjoyed that aspect (I'm only romancing Astarion, all others I was able to choose dialog options that didn't lead to romance.)

I think Larian decided to give us freedom of choice instead of "realism" on this particular point, like in the D&D paper game maybe, where possibilities are unlimited (depending of your game master).

And in a way, that's respectable.

I can understand that you could eventually feel some discomfort when a character try to seduce you and it's not your kind of partner.

But i also feel like whatever the choice is someone will disagree with it.

Like "Hey ! Why can't we romance this one ?" or "Hey, we should'n be able to romance this one."

Personaly, i appreciate having the choice, and plenty of choice, so that a new run will offer new possibilities to try, or not.

I think something badly needs to be done, but distractions don't achieve that quicker.

It's one ask for Larian to investigate (their responsibility). Another to give players a quality of life feature such as locking advances from certain companions. It's on a whole new level to ask for changes to the existing design philosophy. I find myself asking how much is really needed. Giving people the option to lock companions for whatever reason seems the most efficient strategy across the board. Don't think this companion should be effectively bisexual? Not in your game, then. Bugged? Lock them. Picked something that counted as flirting 40 hours ago? Doesn't matter, because they're locked.

I'm not a programmer. Yet, I have foreseen this problem and asked for it since early access. I desperately wish Larian would at least give us the time of day to gauge feasibility of various hotfixes. They should prioritize solutions that are as effective as possible at addressing every issue at once. It's the wrong time to philosophize for a couple months.

Please more Sex , is Great feeling is real , RP feeling is Now real , Great idea, More Reality. Thanks .

Making it so every dialogue option leads to romance, or you being a dick, with no paths for friendship... is not "freedom of choice"

Players are rporting everywhere that being even slightly nice to companions, Halsin and Gale especially... will essentially turn them into voracious sexual predators, and no dialogue options to exit the romance are working.

You hsouldnt have to worry about saying "hi, you doing okay today" to halsin, for fear that he will be lurking in the bushes creeping on you the rest of the campaign.

This is the opposite of choice...

Not everyone can be WOTR

no.

How does this break immersion? You (as a character) don't know they are bisexual. The people you are with are simply attracted to you. You talk about immersion, but you use information that your character doesn't have to justify it. It's also very easy to anger them so they won't sleep with you, on purpose or not. I know people TRYING to romance and have locked themselves out of everyone except the one they didn't want. I also think you wildly underestimate how many people have experimented

When Wyll constantly flirts with other woman but also hits on you (and only you) male character because you were nice to him once you know he is bisexual.
When the same thing happens with Gale after he talks about his love affair with Mystara you know it, too.

And when the gith hating shar priestess happily and easily sleeps with your gith cleric of selune you run out of excuses why playersexuality is supposedly not hurting immersion.

Okay, I've said it over in the non-poll thread where we've been discussing whether the sexual advances in the game are a bit much, and now I'll say it here. The question of whether companions are too insistent or whether we don't feel we can build satisfying non-romantic/non-sexual relationships with them is separate from the question of the approach to companion sexual orientations in the game, so let's not conflate the two and derail this discussion.

No more off-topic discussion of playersexuality here please. If anyone particularly wants to have a conversation about that (again) then they are welcome to start a separate thread, as long as they do their best to make it thoughtful and constructive.

I don't see how this is off topic for the question if BG3 is too sexualized (=places too much emphasis on sex) as it concerns the availability of the companions for sex and what functions they seem to fulfill in the game according to Larian, but ok.

This ad hominem is ridiculous. So's the claim that this would be a "niche" opinion. I think it's been clearly explained by the OP (me) that it's principally about breaking of immersion. When a companion that comes at you and you feel he/she is acting out of character or the approach doesn't feel natural or is completely out of the blue without the proper amount of anticipation that preceded it, then that, to me, breaks immersion.

Yes, the entertainment industry, including the game industry, is predominantly liberal and progressive, and I'm under no illlusions it would be any different with a gaming studio from Ghent, the most liberal city in the country. As someone who's born, bred & buttered in the city of Ghent and still has some respect for the society and worldview of my ancestors, I would know. But can these things even be genuinely discussed without it being boiled down to politics?

You say I "want" racists in the game? Newsflash, the behaviour of some of the companions and a good number of NPCs -is- racist. Bleaching out every racist comment or disposition in the game won't give this world anymore credibility; on the contrary. Shadowheart is overtly racist towards githyanki, justified or not I have no clue. But she'd be completely out of character if she would want to fool around with a githyanki before Act 1 is even over. The companions need, no I would say -must- have the ability to reject a Player Character based on their DNA.

Overall, it wouldn't be a bad idea to just postpone romance options (including the casual ones) until after Act 1 altogether.

Speaking of types, the ones that go dig in a user's comment history to get a measure of things, should perhaps assimilate the concept of objectivity and boundaries.

I played the BG games over 20 years ago and a dozen or so more crpgs ever since. My limited contributions to these forums shouldn't have any bearing on the validity of my content.

Its not sexualization. It's just bad writing.

I want more friendships and less romances in my D&D RPG games. Or how about romances > leading to> friendships?

Again my question :
How is detailed sex dealt with in P&P D&D? Imagine running campaign just like BG3 does romances. Would people how currently just love what BG3 offers in terms of romances/sex be happy of also having it in P&P?
Rolls a D100 for position (DM checks the Kumasutra sex almanac) 100= Auto level up. 1= Auto level down.
Rolls 2D6 + level for time.
Rolls D4 for damage, D12 + level for damage if a druid

No. This is a fantasy RPG, it does not need to be a reflection of society. It's escapism.

I was surprised at how horny everyone was at the tiefling party; I'd barely spoken to most of the party members at that point, and yet I've got Lae'zal talking about how I should have been bedding her, Gale offering to show me something "magical" (presumably meaning his "wizard's staff") and Shadowheart professing her undying devotion, it was just so weird. None of it felt earned or pursued, as like I say, I'd barely spoken to any of these characters I'd only just met that day.

It seems weird when the last game I played was Cyberpunk 2077 which is heavily sexualised (by design, the in-world advertising and such is very sexualised), but its romance arcs are gradual and earned, it's not just something that happens because you long rested that one time.

Plus in BG3 the dialogue options to not pursue people are sometimes a bit weird, I don't recall exactly what Lae'zel's is but it felt insulting rather than in any way diplomatic.

Okay, catching up on this thread and very disappointed to see that my request to avoid discussion of playersexuality here has been ignored or broken by some, and in a way that seems to me unmindful of LGBT+ readers. I'm handing out some timeouts as a result and deleting posts on the topic that came after my ruling.

I am okay with people PMing me to request clarification or challenge my moderation requests, but not with them being ignored or argued with in thread, especially as I won't necessarily see that immediately.

No more of that, and no more discussion of playersexuality here please. It's not a subject on which I've ever seen a high quality, constructive debate that hasn't at times descended into offensive stereotyping or homophobia, and as a result it can derail any topic it's raised in. There are valid concerns in this thread that people will be excluded from engaging with if people don't focus on rather than the tenuously related side-issue of playersexuality.

As I've mentioned, while I don't want the discussion in this thread, it is valid to discuss the approach to companion sexuality in general. Given it seems a topic that many people find difficult to talk about in a friendly and respectful way I'll admit it's not a subject I ever relish seeing brought up here, but if someone really does want to talk about it, then I am willing to moderate a discussion in a separate thread specifically on this topic. As long as it is started constructively, thoughtfully and mindfully that this is a topic that can prompt comments that can be personally hurtful given implications for people's real lives.

Poll results are visible now btw.