Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Was BG3 overly sexualized?

Did you even have to ask? There are meme competitions on youtube, called 'BG3 sex%' where competitors enter the game and try to get laid as quickly as possible (basically romance speedrunning)... and they do it mostly with Lae'zel... and they were saddened when Larian announced that they'd reshuffle Lae'zel's romance so it happens at the party and prior to it you have to impress her. When that got revoked in one of the patches they rejoiced, lol. Now I wonder, if Lae'zel was no longer an option, who would they move on to next? Hmm, likely Minthara or Astarion.

Also, while Minthara and Halsin's "love making" scenes are pretty graphic, Ascended Astarion continuously gets more and more censored, that tactically placed candle gets thicker and thicker.

But yeah, just like yourself whenever I see these scenes I generally laugh, cause I really do not need to see all the graphic details to know what's going on. I actually miss the days when games employed massive walls of text with very tasteful and vague descriptions of the deed. If you ask me, BG3 should've went the Mass Effect route, where you might see some nudity before it fades to black. But that's just my opinion, and I have been called a prude before (I don't mind it really lol).

I voted 'no', but I had to think about it for a bit. I've never done anything with Minthara (except kill her) so I can't comment on that. The only time I ran into something(s) which felt weird and uncomfortable sex-wise was in Act III when the Emperor and Mizora both propositioned my obviously-uninterested-and-quite-hostile Tav. But that sort of makes sense for Mizora. No excuse for the Emperor.

Never did much with Haarlep or in the brothel. I'm generally uninterested in that sort of side content (I'm asexual and a bit sex-repulsed). Fortunately I could just... ignore it. And I did. Never had a problem with how or when any of the companions hit on my characters, it all seemed to fit the circumstances and their personalities - I think I somehow avoided a few of the more common and annoying bugs.

I was here for EA and remember it being much more awkward at the tiefling party back then. They've done a pretty good job of smoothing that out, in my opinion. So, overall, I'd say no, it's not overly sexualized. But keep in mind that I play a lot of "romance" games, or at least games with romance included, so my perspective is probably a bit skewed.

To be fair, Karlach would probably do that for anyone she considered a friend. Not necessarily just for lovers or BFFs.

If we consider how long she's been alone and how passionate she is.

Which is one of the problems with this sort of thing, most gimmick additions for things to occur in combat would also make sense for people who are just friends. Rather than being qualitative of a deep relationship. People don't like bad things happening to their friends...

Really, when it comes down to implementing relationships into games one needs to take into consideration how and why relationships function in real life and see how (If at all) this can transpose into a game.

Like, for friendships, this usually in real life ends up being people you talk to and hang out with on occasion. But in a video game setting this isn't optional, companions are with you because that's how the game is (Unless you perma-death them or otherwise make them leave) and you talk to them because... It's an RPG you talk to literally everyone...

For relationships, you share more intimate moments (Often including, but not exhaustively being sex) and spend more time together. But this is just done with companions anyway by opting to have your preferred character(s) in your party anyway.

So often the only real way of showing relationships deepening in a game is by adding more dialogue options to find out more about a character (But there's only so much one can write about a single character, especially in such a flat scenario as a static face to face conversation dictated by a handful of prompts) or allowing the relationship to take an additional form (I.e. Intimate acts like kissing and sex) - Both often feel pretty shallow.

Perhaps RPG designers need to look into Dating Sims (The good ones, not the harem ero ones) and that new trend of AI Girlfriends to see how they might better implement deepening relationships in their games. Since surely the goal is to emulate that sort of thing? Where you feel like you've created a bond with someone.

With the secondary aspect being to better think about how to implement a deepening relationship because the constant iteration of "Attitude bar" always feels awkward. Though, I suppose internally that's how it has to work. It can however be implemented in a less overt way, so instead of just "Heres a gift for +20 attitude" or "Selecting this dialogue option gives +5 attitude" it's more nuanced than that. For example, if it's the first character you talk to when you enter camp. If you always exhaust all their dialogue options when you talk to them. Etc. Smaller details that show you appreciate them that build over the course of gameplay rather than static "Do this dialogue option" stuff.

Yup it Was.. haha
theres no Need to Say More..
Just Play the Game and yu will understand.

(and i kinda Fell in Love with Shadow Becouse of that.. she was the Only one that didant Try to Jump on me without show her that i wanted to be with her..)
i Had to Gave her a Opening for her to actually Start to Treat me Diferent in the Game..
The Rest. Jesus..
Only Laezel Try to actually ask what i want from her.. and i do respect her a lot more just becouse of that.
i start to see her like my Crazy Sister after That.. 100% respect for her.
(i can even Take on Vlakith for her if she asked me.. haha)

(Gale, Astarion, Karlach, Halsin all get Jealous for no reason when i didnt even show interest on then.. really bad.)

Let me illustrate it this way. What is the difference between a sexualized/objectified character, and a sex-positive character?

The answer is agency.

Is the sex on their terms? Are they an active participant? Do they make choices? Are their wants and needs, considered important? Or are they a prize/reward to be won? Are their bodies used primarily for audience titillation, with little regard for the person?

A character who engages with sex because they want to is sex-positive. A character who has sex because the writer wants to have sex with them, or wants the players to be jerking off to them, or because some other character wants to have sex with them, is a sexual object.

If the origin characters, narratively, function fine without any romance or sex. And if their romances do not take away from that. Then these characters are not objectified, no matter how horny they may be.

I feel as though you are trying to make a point, and accidentally making the counter case to what you intend. Your post suggests to me that, by your metric, these characters are very much over-sexualised and objectified.

The characters in question do not have agency.
They are characters controlled by their writers to respond in particular ways to particular flags, no matter what else outside their flag tree (and those flag trees are being revealed to be extremely narrow) the character does. Their agency, as digital constructs, is zero.

The characters you can bed in BG3 are absolutely treated like prizes to be won and the sex is a 'reward' for doing the things they like. Their bodies are absolutely used, in this sense, purely for audience titillation, with No regard for the theoretical person.

They all have sex scenes written for them and gratuitously choreographed (even if said scenes don't land well), because the writers wanted to put sex in the game; there is no reasonable way to deny that and still retain intellectual integrity. The question was never "What is appropriate for the progression of this character", and always "Where and when can we put the sex, so it works?" (and they weren't too fussy about that second question, most of the time, either). Those scenes exist not to further the characters in any tangible way outside of the scenes themselves (they don't), but to deliver sex to the viewing audience as a 'pay off', using the character as a vehicle. That is absolutely sexual objectification, even before we step back from it and take into account that there are no 'people' here - only a video game that pitches digital dolls (sexual objects) at you for your gratification.

If we think only internally to the game space, and consider the characters as people... it doesn't get much better. The relationships you build with them are one dimensional where one direction is "I hate you and want to kill you" and the other is "Lets bang, okay?" and there is no nuance and no in-between (aside from non-interactive non-existence) and no alternative; sex is very much equated with winning in the game of character relationships.

The short answers for your questions above:

"Is the sex on their terms?" - If it were not on agreed terms, there would be no properly informed consent and we'd be talking about rape. You're not saying anything of value here. If you're trying to imply that them making the first move as opposed to the player, somehow makes them less objectified, then no, as written constructs pitched to a viewing audience, it does not.
"Are they an active participant?" - As above.
"Do they make choices?" - For the most part, no, they don't. Once you get to the "guess it's sex time now" gate, choice vanishes for the most part. But... You know who gets to make even fewer choices about how they want the sex to be? The player character; in almost every case they have to numbly accept sex as delivered by their prize-giver, or opt out entirely. That isn't a point in favour of 'not overly sexualised content'.
"Are their wants and needs, considered important?" - As above, no, they aren't, not really... but the player character's needs and wants are considered Even Less. They have to accept the scene and behaviour that the writers wanted to deliver this sex scene in, and be an acting doll in the writer's porn shoot, as directed, or they can cancel it entirely; their actual personal character wants or desires are not considered in virtually every case (and indeed as has been demonstrated, the character is forced to such a soulless stand-in doll that their physical anatomy and gender is not considered for the scene, behind their physical build).
"Or are they a prize/reward to be won? Are their bodies used primarily for audience titillation, with little regard for the person?" Yes, 100% absolutely they completely are, in almost every case.

==

To be clear for myself, I'm not saying that having heavily sexualised content or characters is bad; to me, it's not! It's just a matter of how it's handled and how well it blends with the world and space it's in; how well it fits meaningfully into the space and the characters. I like it when the characters I'm interacting with are able to be acknowledged as sexual beings, and for each of my characters, in all spaces I roleplay in - be it forum-based, D&D tabletop, or other video games, I generally know what their tastes and preferences are, even if it never really comes up; for me, that's an important facet of their identity and who they are, and it can impact and influence things, and it matters. I appreciate games that take the same degree of fullness to their character design.

What I've found in BG3, however, doesn't do that. The sex is a prize, and a milestone; it never escapes feeing disconnected from anything outside itself, placed purely to reward the player. Anyone who knows me knows I've put a great deal of work into feedback on how to write and choreograph intimate sequences in ways that work, and that it's an area of interest to me, to see sex and intimacy present in a game to give it a real, breathing-world feel... to be able to explore that with my character, and define what they like or want to the game, and have the game pick that up and respond to it... but my interest is in it being done well, and what we have been given in BG3 is not that.

I voted yes.

My reasoning is as follows:

All of the main companions are young, fit and interested in you. Yes, even the racist alien. And the guy whose romantic entanglement with a literal goddess is part of his story. No loyal widow/SO back home/married to their duty/asexual/just not that into you, etc allowed. That already felt dodgy before you find out everyone makes the first move and have to be turned down. Everyone.

Platonic relationships got shafted hard and obviously. I should not feel like actually getting to know one of my companions is the reward for pursuing them. That's backwards AF.

The romances exist in a bubble. WAY more effort was put into the reactivity of taking LIs to see some twins than to their LI literally dying in front of them. Hello?

There are SEVERAL occasions where the developers compromised their own characters in favor of sex/romance. A prime example being Shadowheart. Her initial stance is one of reservation. She will tell the player that Shar discouraged relationships so flings were indulged in secret. Cue Act 3, where you can discover any number of fascinating things, like how apparently Shar has multiple personalities and actually does encourage flings so the brothel thing is fine. Or double fine if you brought Halsin since SH has been thirsting over him for a while. Or how Shadowheart is an amnesiac commenting on how relationship drama is so last century fr fr ong.

Halsin's everything is the second example.

Ever noticed how much less a romance with non-Ascended Astarion gets? A friend of mine certainly did. How weird!

Marketing.

I still have no idea what purpose customizing genitalia serves.

Same goes for the sex scenes. They are not done particularly well animation wise, nor tastefully content wise and Larian appears to have buyer's remorse with some of what they launched with. So what was the point?

Honestly, I think what people are getting angry it is the fandom focusing on sex, and then reacting as though it was the game itself sexualizing something.

The game is fine. Sexual, but no more than any other game that has adult content. The fandom is extremely horny (which I like) but if you don't, you're not going to have a good time.

Yes. The horniness and oversexualisation is actively hurting the game.
And the massive success BG3 has means other publishers will now also sacrifice a good game in favor of a horny game even more. If you are horny buy porn and let RPGs be good RPGs with well written characters and story instead of what BG3 offers.

I do lean into yes: But frankly I have more issues with what game doesn’t have (coherent plot line, satisfying character arcs, interesting character choices) than what is has. I am conceptually against turning what used to be teen property into crude R rated sex romp, it could have worked in a narrative with more substance to it.

But I am again, complaining about narrative side, which simply didn’t seem to be priority nor focus. If BG3 was less sexualised, I don’t think it would become any better. While I always found digital dolls awkwardly rubbing against each other plainly weird, there seem to be an audience for it.

Yes, non-Ascended Astarion's my fav but at the same time I did notice how lacking in content he is after dealing with Cazador in general. And this is my personal hot take that might offend some people, but I feel like Ascended Astarion was the writers' favorite pet while also wanting the player to feel bad for giving into that whole power fantasy at the same time and even punishing players for it, fucking wild!

But yeah, I agree with your entire reply, very well thought out arguments, but this part really struck me like lightning!

I noticed that too.

The guy tells you he wants to be seen as a person, not as a sex object, and then you get to Act 3 and the "hot vampire dom" version gets more content and more personality.

I agree. BG3's indisputable oversexualization is the least of the game's many, many glaring problems and weaknesses. But I have to wonder if that is the very reason Larian chose to add in all of the oversexualization. As others have pointed out, absolutely NOTHING would have been lost or changed in the game, especially with respect to roleplaying, if every single bit of nudity and sex in the game had been left out. So maybe all of that is there precisely for the purpose of getting people to either be distracted from the game's many very real shortcomings or not care about any of those shortcomings because ... SEX!

I honestly thought of writing a longer post but after reading Naira's and Rahaya's I decided against it seeing how well they described one of my issues with the game. But yeah, the answer is yes. Larian did an amazing job at distracting people (to an extent myself included) with companions and sex.

Might come of as an ass by saying this but I think this game has attracted a lot of lonely sex starved individuals that are getting overly attached to these characters (ignoring the writing and just focusing on whom they can have sex with and what kinky situations they can get into) and despite it being a great thing business and marketing wise I don't want to think how it might influence the future development of other RPGs.

So to answer the OPs question. Yes, I do think that BG3 is overly sexualized seeing how in multiple cases within the game the writing and its consistency had to take a back seat to provide the player with some sexual hijinks.

Thats exactly the case. There is a sizable customer segment out there who want waifus (see the success of Genshin Impact and other Hoyoverse games). Larian decided, sadly correctly, thats more profitable to reach out to them instead of focusing on hardcore RPG gamers who are less forgiving about story holes and bad mechanics.

Me reading this post scrolling up from the bottom of the page and not seeing the name of the poster:



Realizing it's a Niara post:



Jesting aside though, Niara as usual has put it better than I would ever have the energy/time/ability to. That said, as the subreddit shows, imo, a lot of people don't really like BG3 for the narrative, they like it because it's fun/co-op/sexy.

I wonder who these hardcore RPG gamers are, if they find the small amount of sex in this game disturbing. (Sex which you can entirely ignore if you want to) I don't think they care much for the heroic fantasy genre on which their games are based.

Let's have a look at Conan the Barbarian, which was orignally a series of 5 short stories written by Robert E. Howard.
Below are the covers of the magazines where they were published. Sex and Heroic Fantasy/Sword and sorcery has always gone together. Even in the old myths on which the fantasy genre is based is it omnipresentr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Colossus_WT.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weird_Tales_April_1934.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weird_Tales_1934-12_-_A_Witch_Shall_be_Born.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weird_Tales_1934-08_-_The_Devil_in_Iron.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weird_Tales_1935-11_-_Shadows_in_Zamboula.jpg

If Larian had really planned to cater for gamers looking for sex visuals and scenes, they did a poor job.

Strawmen! Strawmen everywhere!

I'm sorry but this argument always makes me laugh. If you close your eyes it doesn't exist lmao.

Weak reply.

In the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide on page 192, city adventures, you can actually encounter a harlot. Oh the drama ! All our childrens' souls will go to hell if they see this.
Gygax even let you roll a percentile dice to find out what kind of harlot you had:

00 – 10 Slovenly trull
11 – 25 Brazen strumpet
26 – 35 Cheap trollop
36 – 50 Typical streetwalker
51 – 65 Saucy tart
66 – 75 Wanton wench
76 – 85 Expensive doxy
86 – 90 Haughty courtesan
91 – 92 Aged madam
93 – 94 Wealthy procuress
95 – 98 Sly pimp
99 – 00 Rich panderer

Looks like today's gamer public really has become exceptionally prude and humorless compared to the 1970's - 1980's.
Un unfortunate evolution IMO.
Maybe Larian should make a censored version for the US public.