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

You are both engaging in a straw-man claim that has been refuted multiple times within this thread. So one might ask if you are the ones trolling here. None of us critics have ever said we have a problem with the sex in the game or have objected to any specific instance of sexual representation in the game. The issue being discussed is the purpose and value of the sex in the game, which you would know if you bothered to read through the whole thread.

Is it a "Strawman argument" though? I've read through all of your posts in this thread and I can't say with any precision what it is you object to. Other than repeated assertions that BG3 is "oversexualized" your criticisms lack specifics. You do mention once or twice your theory that Larian included the content to appeal to "younger people" who want sexual content because ...well I'm not sure where you were going with that point.

You also mention more than once that people are attracted to the BG3 sexual content because they can "interact" with the characters in a sexual way. Why is this a problem in regards to sexual content? Isn't the goal of an RPG to make the player feel like they are interacting with the game? It's the same reason people want combat, exploring, decision-making, quests, etc etc. Players want to "role play" and imagine they're in the world with the characters.

So what is it exactly that you don't like about the sexual content in BG3? What leads you to believe it is "oversexualized"? How much sex should there have been? Since you insist more than once to be open to sexual content in games (ie the basis of your "Strawman" claim) what would have been a more appropriate amount?

How would Kanisatha have implemented sex in BG3?

Asked in honest curiosity.

Just re-iterating my previous post. Yes, it was oversexualized. The vast majority of the marketing focused on the sexy sex. And everyone trying to gaslight others into thinking they're the crazy ones for noticing it is ridiculous. Grow up. if you don't like the topic of this thread, move on.

I can't answer for Kanisatha... but I would have just left it out. Porn is extremely easy to find on the internet these days. I don't need it in my video games. Put that time and energy to work on more important game systems.

Exactly.
Larian put sex front and center during marketing and development.

- Marketing took off with the bear sex scene, displayed at a prominent event.
- Nudity and genital customization was part of marketing despite not being really needed considering the outcome.
- Sexual encounters were set quite early so even EA players got teased by them (see also the sex speedrun)
- Established characters were rewritten because they were not likeable and romanceable enough in EA
- Halsin was made into a companion purely because people started thirsting for him. But because of the time pressure the only content he got was sex as that was apparently the most important thing.
- The vast majority of new content after release was about sex and romance.

Its quite obvious that Larian considers romance and sex one of the main draws of BG3 and marketed it that way to the detriment of rpg content as companions were filed down to visual novel level to make them "sexable".
Thats in addition to Larians decision of not only make everyone Bi but to also have everyone romanceable, no matter the circumstances. Compare that to Owlcat rpgs, for example.

Just compare the marketing and content/companions to other rpgs.
Not even Bioware focuses so much on sex as Larian does and they invented that trend.
The closest ones were Witcher 1 and they reduced sex once they became successful instead of doubling down on it.

Yes, I would've left it out entirely. I don't at all see it contributing anything to the game in any way. However, if they were going to have it, then just do it the way it's done in many other games: fade to black without showing anything explicit.

The point about oversexualization is to say that Larian intentioanlly included unecessary sexually explicit scenes in the game as a way to attract a bigger audience to their game. Nothing further needs be said here. It's a very straightforward point that requires no further elaboration.

And the point about interactivity was my way of explaining why in an age of porn aplenty young people would want this rather tame version of virtual sex. The interactivity point was not criticism of the game, but rather explaining that even though far more explicit porn exists out there, and even for free, all of that porn has to be consumed passively, whereas in this game a player can interact within the sexual material. And this can make a big difference for some people.

Too add to that, this wouldn't be quite as bad if BG3 were not so lacking in other parts.
All this sex focus wasted resources that were desperately needed elsewhere.

- Instead of sex scenes (which in comparison are rather complex) they could have spend the animation budget on making the main character not look like an idiot in most dialogues (especially the nonhuman ones)
- Instead of forcing in Halsin (another elf druid) they could have made a companion of one of the missing classes and races (which tend to be less attractive)
- Instead of mellowing out all companions to make them easy to get and sex up, they could have had really evil characters (Shadowheart) with a more interesting story than "just misunderstood" or "actually nice".
For someone to be even considered to become a justicar, Shadowheart behaves nothing like a Sharr follower.

As far as I can tell, this strongly depends on how much she likes you. In usual runs, it starts with you rescuing her and she telling you that she won’t forget that. That’s what makes the friendliness plausible.

From that point on she travels towards a crossroad: either abandon Shar or becoming a Dark Justiciar. And if she chooses the latter, she’s no longer nice.
And many of her dialogues are not just mildly unsettling, if you expect a stereotypical nice and friendly lady.

And Lae’zel, with all the easy sex up part, is also not nice at the start. Mind the descriptions: the narrator tells you that you hurt all over. It’s on you how you react to that, but the description is clear: Lae’zel uses you at the start and does not even notice your pain. This can grow into a bond of deep romance, but it does not have to. You can tell her that it hurt and you don’t want to ever repeat it. She’s arrogant and very much into herself and does not value anything but her duty and her own enjoyment.

Maybe I would agree more with your point if that were what I experienced from the marketing.

But what I experienced first from the marketing was an awesome thirdparty Dragonborn GMV which included some of the scenes from the intro. And later the intro itself. And since I had played Divinity 2 (yes, not original sin), I had high hopes that I could trust Larian to pull it off well. And they did.

I only saw some hints of the bear scene in comments from people on the game, but did not experience it as part of official marketing. Because I just did not see that.

This indicates that for most people Larian actually put too little sex and romance into the game in the beginning — that they did not expect people to be attracted to that as much as they are.

“Fade to black without showing anything explicit”

Doesn’t that completely undermine your “strawman claim”

It seems the nudity is what bothers you. Can’t you just adjust your settings to avoid that?

Or do the sex scenes still play only everyone is clothed? I don’t know the answer because I’ve never checked it out.

+++
Absolutely!

1. The cinematics in the game are very far from porn.
2. Everyone constantly talks about some mythical “resources”; a spherical horse in a vacuum looks more real.
3. Use the censorship options in the game and be completely happy. It has already been implemented.
I want to see a full disclosure of relationships in the game, even sex scenes, but I won’t have the “turn on” feature if it’s not in the game.

Not at all. I'm simply not repeating, in this post or any of my previous posts, the many related things others are writing about in this thread. I fully agree with @Ixal, @dwig and others that there are so many other areas in which those resources could've been used. That is the point. SO it's not that I have an issue with the sex. It is very much that the sex stuff is a total WASTE of resources that could have and should have been used to add/improve so many other areas of the game that are currently lacking. But I don't feel the need to say those things myself because others are saying them very well here. My posting time is very limited, and as you can see over the years I have always kept my posts very short.

It is strange (or perhaps not strange) that there is a thread claiming the game is over sexualized when there appears to be no discussion as to whether the game is too violent or too morally indifferent etc etc.

I suspect this thread has more to do with the well known sexual anxiety of a certain culture that has always been more comfortable with violence than sexuality.

Just sort of spitballing off the top of my head because I haven't given this much thought, but I think it might come down to the idea that violence, as abhorrent as it may be in some situations, can also be used for good. It's a necessary thing. The good must battle the evil and more importantly, it must be seen to help inspire more acts of good.

As opposed to sexuality. Sex can certainly be good, of course. It's what keeps humanity progressing. But it doesn't need to be seen because it's a private matter. Taken to excess, especially outside of a private lens, it becomes and inspires lust which is typically unhealthy for civilization.

That's a question I often find myself asking. Astarion's epilogue quip about murdering people is ok as long as they are the right people, seems a very apt representation of the general rpg morality, if it is an enemy it's ok to kill it. I am quite glad that the game offers some opportunities to avoid violence and has an uncynical stance on mercy.

As for the sex, somehow sex and romance have become pretty muddled in this thread.

It's just the typical prudish nature of society as a whole. Where nudity gets 18+ ratings while violence and gore are okay in 12+ rated media...

Sprinkle in the fact that BG3 isn't any more violent than a majority of games, while it features more nudity than most games and you get a thread discussing the sexualized nature of the game rather than its violence.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this is a terribly myopic position.

The position itself is so convinced it's right that it avoids any intellectual rigor in understanding why there's a cultural difference between the presentation of sex versus violence.

The understanding is that sex has been considered taboo for the last few hundred years thanks to religion and politics. Yet violence has never been subjected to such views (And has instead been continually reinforced by numerous wars as well as violence as a past time, with things like public executions).

Society has not yet managed to evolve beyond this need to "Protect" against some magical evil that is caused by sex and nudity. Which continues to make modern society lag behind ancient societies (Heck, we've only relatively recently accepted homosexuality again...).

I'm well aware of the reasoning behind the sex vs violence dichotomy. Just because I don't jump at the chance to divulge the reasoning doesn't mean I lack the "Intellectual rigor" to understand it. It simply means that I believe it to be blindingly obvious to anyone who cares to look into it for 2 seconds that I don't feel the need to.

Feel free to make one of those thread, but instead, here you are, ironically clutching your pearls about THIS thread.

Interesting...