I believe there are both down and upsides to playersexuality and the lack of it. I generally trust developers to make a choice that fits their game best. I do expect everyone to be limited roughly equally when it's not in the game, however. At least when the cast is sizeable. There being good and bad sides to either does not mean thoughtfulness of implementation isn't a factor.
Playersexuality in a game such as Bg3, hypothetically:
-- means Devs don't have to design a cast around romance. This works best if you don't want to center their content around a relationship.
-- allows players to decide spontaneously hours into the game.
Bg3 will probably not make the list of top 10 "playersexuality done right" clickbait articles. My issues are mainly that:
1) a system with a core strength of simplicity is made complex through unstable romance pathing.
(The *far* worse half being down to bugs. The other, choices people made without knowing it opens the romance path)
2) not enough options for friendships.
3) like with the prior point, the extra time wasn't harnessed to give every companion a satisfying ending, either. This leads to the question of "but then *why*?"
Not to be unfair to Larian, but I suspect their initial goal was too ambitious. Cut content, unrealized, yet much hinted at endings, the hints are plentiful. That the design errors make the romance system itself seem insufficiently playtested just tops it off.
Ironically, I *am* sceptical that removing the mechanic would not just create a different kind of bad. It's not within my power to say if it would be worse, or better, or even a mixture. It's within my power to say that removing it would solve none of the problems I have with the game. As an individual. As of now I'm not even aware if Larian is satisfied with this end result or not.
