I don't think even a little that romance is the root of any of the problems of this game, including the lack of companion variety. I am of the opinion tha tpeople blow the romance and sex aspects of this game way out of proportion. I think the real problem that lads to our lack of racial variety in this game is the fact that Larian really doesn't seem to have respect for the short races. Anytime they talk about halflings they seemingly have to mention how throwable they are, that seems to be their main takeaway for the race, at least that's the one they want it to seem like they have. They also don't seem to have much opinion or consideration for dwarves, it seems like they find dwarves boring. So that leaves tieflings, humans and leves for a little variety.
I think what people are seeing when they look at the treatment of sex in this game is that Larian did actually put thought into sex and how various characters would approach/treat it. One thing I'll say in praise of the game (actually it's more than oen thing, I do think the game is good overall) is that they don't do what a lot of media does, which is to divorce sex from character entirely. Bywhich I mean, when sex starts, they don't replacethe characters with action figures that just go through the motions. There's thought behind it. (except with Halsin, he's a mess) It's been pointed out that a lot of media has been pushing sex out in recent years. There's plenty of beautiful people in states of undress, but actual sex and sexuality depicted on screen has been on a decline. I'm actually generally in favor of this, but I think BG3 is going against that trend and it makes it seem inordinately "focused" on sex when really it's not actually central to anything.
...not really? I'm an asexual player. I literally don't care about romances at all, but in games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect or other CRPGs like Pillars or Pathfinder, those options never annoyed me. It does in this game. And the reason why has nothing to do with sex scenes existing or how explicit or not they are.
It was that fact that close platonic content seemed almost non-existent. It felt like every option to be interested in the companion as a person was a flirt. Options to comfort them after a rough time were either tied to being in a romance or absent altogether. Romances aren't an optional way to interact with a character or an alternate path of development. It feels like it's the ONLY path the devs put any real effort into. And I don't know if it was a bug or not, but on release after Act 1, interactions between companions with people not me got very anemic. When you have something like Wyll and Karlach being super close, but it feels like it came from nowhere because they've been together in my party for the last 20 hours without saying a word to each other? They don't feel like three dimensional people anymore even without the weird immersion breaking moments that felt solely romance related. Shadowheart forgetting she has amnesia happens to make a quip about relationships or her information on what being a Sharran is like from her contradicts itself to justify the player's romantic decisions. Halsin's everything. Don't romance Astarion, get very little and even then, I've heard 'wholesome support' route has less relationship content than vampire BDSM route.
Why?
And if they don't feel like people, and the only depth they get is through a romance, and there are quite a few times where the writers prove willing to break their own characterization in favor of a romance/sex thing, then my perception is going to be that BG3's focused on romance to its own detriment.
