Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jun 2022
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2022
As far as I recall, romance already is only started by the player.

  • Lae'zel openly wants just sexual pleasure and doesn't matter with whom. If you reject her, she says she will find someone else to satisfy her. So it's not you in particular she wants, anyone will do.
  • Astarion is drinking and in sort of a whatever mood, so he requires specific dialogue options to even suggest wanting to be intimate and if you say the wrong thing it's gone.
  • Shadowheart is in high spirits, but somewhat shy and only indulges in the idea of intimacy if you ask her properly. She even considers the idea of a threesome with Lae'zel, but leaves it for another day as a possibility.
  • Gale is completely uncertain whether he still has any feelings for Mystra or not, as he expresses through his conversations. This will most likely be influenced by the player's choices in the full game and who he ends up truly loving.


When I was playing around all of the possible outcomes, I chose to remain friendly and the conversations remained just friendly banter. So I didn't get the feeling like they're trying so hard to be intimate with me, in fact I had to try hard to be intimate with them... with the exception of Lae'zel, who is as straight as an arrow with her desires.

And yes, they mention after you've apparently chosen someone for intimacy that there might have been something between you, but as I said, they're the inquisitive type just being playful with ideas and thoughts... especially Astarion. And it's honestly not the first time they're poking their noses into your business. Shadowheart does it quite often in the camp with other conversations.

I personally found this thing amazing that they're not just poking their noses into my relationship, but also offering some interesting scenarios too. I was honestly impressed seeing so many different conversations depending on who I chose. To me that is not something that makes me question the story or consistency of the characters, but rather become impressed by how varied the story can become based on my choices.

Joined: Jul 2022
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2022
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by JandK
"Player" sexual is nothing but a meta term. All it does is describe the reasoning behind the decision to make all the companions bisexual.

Bisexual is, of course, the proper term, at least for anyone trying to roleplay and immerse in what's happening. Again, "playersexual" is just meta terminology that has nothing to do with immersion or roleplaying. There's no such thing in universe.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but why? If Tav is female, and gets in a romance with Shadowheart, she's a lesbian, not bi. If Tav's a male, and gets in the same relationship, she's straight. Saying "playersexual is meta" as a way to dismiss the argument, and then relying on meta information to say "they're bi" doesn't do much to support an argument.

I'm all for giving them each their own sexuality, I would prefer it. The problem is, someone is going to be slighted because they didn't get their preferred romance option. Origins had it's gay Alistair and lesbian Morrigan mods, with the hilariously hypocritical argument put forward by one use of the Alistair mod that "ya'll just need to accept people for who they are".

Sorry to stick my oar in but, while I do actually agree with you when using the examples you've given, that isn't the case for Gale or even Wyll. As for Shadowheart, if she's romanced by a female pc but then later reveals she used to love a male then it all goes out the window again. Who knows what characters will say in later Acts?

So, I can't speak for JandK but I stick to my original suggestion. Make romance player initiated only. Better yet, don't have companions talk about previous loves except in vague terms. Example, 'I once loved someone more than my own life, until they betrayed for the Zhentarim'. Stuff like that.

People using the term playersexual (at least some of them anyway) are using it as a term to explain why everyone wants you (sexdolls), regardless of the characters declared or implied sexuality. People are saying that Gale may well be hetero, but when it comes to a male pc he makes an exception because Gale is playersexual. But I doubt that's a term the folk of Faerun would use...

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Crimsomrider
As far as I recall, romance already is only started by the player. [...]
Not exactly. While the player always is the final decider for whether sex happens or not (hopefully this continues to be the case throughout the game o.O), often the companions initiate romance by propositioning the player. And unfortunately, they can all decide to do it on the same night one after the other, which feels weird and super sex-gamey to play through.

Originally Posted by Piff
I do get what you're saying, and I think the ability to opt out of romance should be an option, but you realise that this is the game where we were promised fully rendered and animated sex scenes by the dev team? The over-sexed nature of our companions is 100% intended. No amount of explanation for their actions seems totally believable, because it's not meant to be, the characters aren't that deep.
Why should we want BG3 to be over-sexed, having fully rendered and animated (and often super cringey) sex scenes? Why do we need to concede that this is a good design decision on Larian's part?

At the very least, there should be the option to turn off sex scenes (fade to black or remove them entirely) in the game settings for e.g., youtube streamers, playing with friends or family, to be more ace-friendly, and just anyone who doesn't want them in their game but still wants to initiate a romance with a companion for any extra dialogue/etc.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Mordenkainen
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by JandK
"Player" sexual is nothing but a meta term. All it does is describe the reasoning behind the decision to make all the companions bisexual.

Bisexual is, of course, the proper term, at least for anyone trying to roleplay and immerse in what's happening. Again, "playersexual" is just meta terminology that has nothing to do with immersion or roleplaying. There's no such thing in universe.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but why? If Tav is female, and gets in a romance with Shadowheart, she's a lesbian, not bi. If Tav's a male, and gets in the same relationship, she's straight. Saying "playersexual is meta" as a way to dismiss the argument, and then relying on meta information to say "they're bi" doesn't do much to support an argument.

I'm all for giving them each their own sexuality, I would prefer it. The problem is, someone is going to be slighted because they didn't get their preferred romance option. Origins had it's gay Alistair and lesbian Morrigan mods, with the hilariously hypocritical argument put forward by one use of the Alistair mod that "ya'll just need to accept people for who they are".

Sorry to stick my oar in but, while I do actually agree with you when using the examples you've given, that isn't the case for Gale or even Wyll. As for Shadowheart, if she's romanced by a female pc but then later reveals she used to love a male then it all goes out the window again. Who knows what characters will say in later Acts?

So, I can't speak for JandK but I stick to my original suggestion. Make romance player initiated only. Better yet, don't have companions talk about previous loves except in vague terms. Example, 'I once loved someone more than my own life, until they betrayed for the Zhentarim'. Stuff like that.

People using the term playersexual (at least some of them anyway) are using it as a term to explain why everyone wants you (sexdolls), regardless of the characters declared or implied sexuality. People are saying that Gale may well be hetero, but when it comes to a male pc he makes an exception because Gale is playersexual. But I doubt that's a term the folk of Faerun would use...

I doubt they would as well, but the term isn't meant for them, it's meant for us, which is exactly what my argument is in that post. It's seeming like people are trying to have it both ways here, they want to use the meta to say they're bi, when they'll romance either Tav, but dismiss the meta when it's pointed out that they're only attracted to that particular Tav. Even with Gale, or Wyll. Especially Gale, given the nature of that relationship... As was pointed out in another post above, most of these relationships actually require you to pick the right dialog options to get some sexy time. If you pick those, then you are initiating the encounter. It's not hard to accidentally get someone interested in you, I had a girl over for a dinner date, where I cooked, and the next day, I got 47 text messages before lunch, while I was trying to climb really tall ladders, and install siding on a new house. I guess I picked the wrong dialog option, or did something else right...

Joined: Jul 2022
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2022
Originally Posted by Crimsomrider
And yes, they mention after you've apparently chosen someone for intimacy that there might have been something between you, but as I said, they're the inquisitive type just being playful with ideas and thoughts...

Like I said, we can explain and reason things as suits our desires/beliefs.

Here, in your sentence, you say that they will suggest they were interested in the player. I found that all/several of them doing that at once was immersion breaking and de-valued them as characters. You chose to interpret it as inquisitive and playful...as is your right I might add smile I'm glad you like it!

However, how many will see it my way and how many your way? I have no idea, tbh. That will be one of the tests of how the romance side of this game will be received when fully released.

As I've said a few times, this potential negativity towards the romance could be avoided by simply letting the romances be more wholly initiated by the player. Maybe not in Astarion's and Lae'zel's case since it suits them, but for the others, I think it would work better.

When I went to Gale after accepting Lae'zel's offer, the last thing I expected was the Mystra loving mage to make a pass at me when all I wanted was a chat over a mug of ale...and then when I politely let Gale down, I didn't escape to go talk to someone else just to have them also express desire for me wink

I'm very curious to see how later romance-able companions are handled and whether they play hard to get or have stricter standards. I mean, I really didn't feel that my character had behaved towards the companions in such an amazing way as to warrant that much attention from so many. I'd even argue that Lae'zel and Astarion should be the only ones willing to sleep with the pc that early in the game, based on their character. But yeah, I might be in a minority.

Joined: Nov 2020
P
addict
Online Content
addict
P
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Why should we want BG3 to be over-sexed, having fully rendered and animated (and often super cringey) sex scenes? Why do we need to concede that this is a good design decision on Larian's part?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said that you should want it, or that it's good design. It is, however, the design that Larian has chosen, love it or hate it, and that's unlikely to change given that over-sexed games seem to be a trend with them.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3
At the very least, there should be the option to turn off sex scenes (fade to black or remove them entirely) in the game settings for e.g., youtube streamers, playing with friends or family, to be more ace-friendly, and just anyone who doesn't want them in their game but still wants to initiate a romance with a companion for any extra dialogue/etc.

Yes, an opt out feature should be added, as I said.

Joined: Jun 2022
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2022
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Why should we want BG3 to be over-sexed, having fully rendered and animated (and often super cringey) sex scenes? Why do we need to concede that this is a good design decision on Larian's part?

At the very least, there should be the option to turn off sex scenes (fade to black or remove them entirely) in the game settings for e.g., youtube streamers, playing with friends or family, to be more ace-friendly, and just anyone who doesn't want them in their game but still wants to initiate a romance with a companion for any extra dialogue/etc.

The real question is why should we have a problem if there is sex? laugh

The game isn't oversexualized for having sex scenes, it's a minor part of the game, the characters and personal stories. And sex is the most natural thing in the world and the reason we as a human race still exist. It is also the pinnacle of love between two souls. People act as if sex is a vile hideous thing to witness, when actually it's mother nature at its core, especially when it involves two loving partners.

If someone is sensitive about it, first of all this is a mature game and as such comes with different varieties of mature content. Luckily for such people though there is a SKIP button and the scenes are completely avoidable. And anyone playing this around kids and such is highly irresponsible and entirely at fault. Just like people shouldn't watch R rated horror movies in front of kids. As for streamers... sex is allowed in games to be broadcasted as long as it's not the main focus of the stream.

Joined: Jul 2022
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2022
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I doubt they would as well, but the term isn't meant for them, it's meant for us, which is exactly what my argument is in that post. It's seeming like people are trying to have it both ways here, they want to use the meta to say they're bi, when they'll romance either Tav, but dismiss the meta when it's pointed out that they're only attracted to that particular Tav. Even with Gale, or Wyll. Especially Gale, given the nature of that relationship... As was pointed out in another post above, most of these relationships actually require you to pick the right dialog options to get some sexy time. If you pick those, then you are initiating the encounter. It's not hard to accidentally get someone interested in you, I had a girl over for a dinner date, where I cooked, and the next day, I got 47 text messages before lunch, while I was trying to climb really tall ladders, and install siding on a new house. I guess I picked the wrong dialog option, or did something else right...

Well, I didn't feel for one moment I'd led anyone on except Lae'zel because her approval was the only one I was focusing on but I guess some of the dialogue options will be interpreted differently by players, which is fair enough. Or maybe I just got 'lucky' with my choices. I mean, I guess some people could interpret 'being nice' as meaning you're up for a relationship but in this case it's like the IRL situation you gave happening to you from several people you recently met on the same day.

Speaking of which, thanks for that example, it gave me a chuckle!

Joined: Jun 2022
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2022
Originally Posted by Mordenkainen
When I went to Gale after accepting Lae'zel's offer, the last thing I expected was the Mystra loving mage to make a pass at me when all I wanted was a chat over a mug of ale...and then when I politely let Gale down, I didn't escape to go talk to someone else just to have them also express desire for me wink

I'm very curious to see how later romance-able companions are handled and whether they play hard to get or have stricter standards. I mean, I really didn't feel that my character had behaved towards the companions in such an amazing way as to warrant that much attention from so many. I'd even argue that Lae'zel and Astarion should be the only ones willing to sleep with the pc that early in the game, based on their character. But yeah, I might be in a minority.

Ah I see what you mean. To me it was quite interesting and something to explore even further, but I see how odd that might seem to someone else.

I completely understand why they did it, because they wanted to give the player the ultimate freedom of choice and to let the player know they don't have to choose just one. I think that there might be even a multi-romance in the game, since Shadowheart doesn't reject the idea of a threesome with Lae'zel, but rather leaves it as a possibility for another night. So perhaps that is why they all chime in at once, due to the fact that there might be a possibility of several companions romantically involved.

I think immersion vise regarding all of them expressing it at once, they could have made it so that companions talk to you in a friendly way after choosing a romance, but in order to learn they're a bit hurt and jealous, you'd actually have to pass a Wisdom check to peer into their thoughts. I think that would work better than the way it is now. Similar to how Shadowheart has a Wisdom check in which you find out she is attracted to you.

So lets say you chose Lae'zel. Now when you talk to a companion they're all friendly, but a bit reserved on their true thoughts. So then you get a choice to peer into their true thoughts with a Wisdom check in order to romance more than one companion at the same time, if the player decides to do so.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Mordenkainen
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I doubt they would as well, but the term isn't meant for them, it's meant for us, which is exactly what my argument is in that post. It's seeming like people are trying to have it both ways here, they want to use the meta to say they're bi, when they'll romance either Tav, but dismiss the meta when it's pointed out that they're only attracted to that particular Tav. Even with Gale, or Wyll. Especially Gale, given the nature of that relationship... As was pointed out in another post above, most of these relationships actually require you to pick the right dialog options to get some sexy time. If you pick those, then you are initiating the encounter. It's not hard to accidentally get someone interested in you, I had a girl over for a dinner date, where I cooked, and the next day, I got 47 text messages before lunch, while I was trying to climb really tall ladders, and install siding on a new house. I guess I picked the wrong dialog option, or did something else right...

Well, I didn't feel for one moment I'd led anyone on except Lae'zel because her approval was the only one I was focusing on but I guess some of the dialogue options will be interpreted differently by players, which is fair enough. Or maybe I just got 'lucky' with my choices. I mean, I guess some people could interpret 'being nice' as meaning you're up for a relationship but in this case it's like the IRL situation you gave happening to you from several people you recently met on the same day.

Speaking of which, thanks for that example, it gave me a chuckle!

It's not hard, a smile at the right/wrong time, listening to what someone has to say, being polite. Hell, just being reliable can have them lining up, if you're in a position where you meet lots of random people at around the same time. We don't have any control over what someone else finds attractive. As I said previously, I'd prefer clearly defined preferences for the comps. I understand why a team may go this route though, having seen the backlash from both design choices. Someone will want to romance one of them, and find out that they're not set up for that particular character, and raise hell about it, throwing out all kinds of accusations. I've seen it.

Yeah, I was laughing while I typed it, because it's funny now. Then, however, I was like "gee, I hope she isn't going to go all Fatal Attraction on me...".

Joined: Jul 2022
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2022
Originally Posted by robertthebard
As I said previously, I'd prefer clearly defined preferences for the comps. I understand why a team may go this route though, having seen the backlash from both design choices. Someone will want to romance one of them, and find out that they're not set up for that particular character, and raise hell about it, throwing out all kinds of accusations. I've seen it.

Defined comps would be my preference too and it would avoid one part of what I've complained about but I also understand the decision. Or at least I think I do. I mean, couldn't players choose sexuality in the character creation? How hard would that be to program? I wouldn't have a clue.

I remember playing Cyberpunk and there was a male character who invited me, in this case a male pc, to the top of a water tower or some such. Now, before I go further, I want to point out that my brother had completed the game by that time and he told me that there'd come a moment when a character was revealed, unexpectedly, to be gay.

So, this npc (River? Can't be arsed to google it, heh) and I are sharing a bottle of whiskey and chatting about life and whatnot. Then, out of the blue, the game asks me if I want to lean in for a kiss. I thought, 'Eh? I wasn't getting any vibes from the npc - oooh, this must be the moment my brother was talking about'. I reloaded after making a save doing the 'canon roleplay' and chose the option to see how it plays out but he momentarily freaks out and is not interested. It's all chill though and it works out fine. Now, several thoughts popped into my head.

1: Cool, he actually has his own personality, he's not just there to indulge me. I thought the same thing later on when I tried to romance a female character but she turned out to be a lesbian.

2: It was funny how my brother, presumably unused to the notion of romance-able npc's not being solely for player gratification, assumed he was gay automatically because the option was (seemingly) there.

3: I wondered how many player's enjoyment may have been spoiled because their romance never happened and how worthwhile it was to have the option, just for them to get turned down anyway.

I'm guessing that's the kind of thing you've seen people 'raising hell' about...ah, the life of game developer. Doesn't seem easy when it comes to these kind of design decisions but, like I said, would selecting this stuff at character creation really be that tough?

Last edited by Mordenkainen; 12/07/22 05:31 AM.
Joined: Jul 2022
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2022
Originally Posted by Crimsomrider
I think immersion vise regarding all of them expressing it at once, they could have made it so that companions talk to you in a friendly way after choosing a romance, but in order to learn they're a bit hurt and jealous, you'd actually have to pass a Wisdom check to peer into their thoughts. I think that would work better than the way it is now. Similar to how Shadowheart has a Wisdom check in which you find out she is attracted to you.

So lets say you chose Lae'zel. Now when you talk to a companion they're all friendly, but a bit reserved on their true thoughts. So then you get a choice to peer into their true thoughts with a Wisdom check in order to romance more than one companion at the same time, if the player decides to do so.

I think that's a great idea smile Not only does it help with immersion, it involves gameplay mechanics.

That's the kind of thinking behind the design decisions that should be going on. A bit of smoke and mirrors, a bit of subtlety. To me, things as they are now feel more like a sledgehammer.

Last edited by Mordenkainen; 12/07/22 05:30 AM.
Joined: Jul 2022
apprentice
OP Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jul 2022
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
While the player always is the final decider for whether sex happens or not (hopefully this continues to be the case throughout the game o.O)

Well, I'm not sure it will be - not with Lae'zel hanging around wink

I jest of course...

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Mordenkainen
Sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean. Playersexual? When Gale says he's in love with a woman but also wants to have sex with a male player, then how is that not bi?
Player-sexual refers to design decision to make companions attracted to PC no matter what those characters preferences are. That spawns the very problem you described, where characters goes beyond what seems to be their written sexuality, just to not cut players off from romances they might want to pursue. That’s different from companions to be written as bi, like Takehu from Deadfire who expresses attraction both for PC but also NPC of different genders.

I have no idea how to salvage romances in BG3 - it has all traits I dislike. Party is just such an awkward moment with companions either telling you one by one they want a piece of you, or telling you they would want a piece of you if you pleased them a bit more. Come in, guys, we have UIs to communicate that stuff - we don’t need characters to tell us if we filled their romance bar or not.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Maybe I'm old-school, but I really dislike all this fluidity in NPC sexual preferences.
Nothing against any hetero, homo, bi, something-sexual but having NPC changing who they are to the core (sexuality isn't a superficial thing) is bad for different reasons, in my opinion:

1) Makes the game less believable, since in reality people don't change their sexual preferences to accommodate you;
2) Makes the NPC less defined and, for this, less memorable (even if only by a little). Memorable characters have well-defined characteristics; if those characteristics are fluid and can change on a whim, then the whole concept of the NPC starts to blurry.

And, last but not least:
3) It's good to be rejected, sometimes, it teaches you to deal with things. I will always remember, in ME: Andromeda (probably the only memorable thing of that game) I really wanted to romance the red-haired girl NPC from your crew. I tried my best but, in the end, she revealed to me that she prefered women and was not interested in me. I rejected all the other romances options for her and I was rejected in the end. And you know what? It was amazing. Finally, a well-defined character who doesn't try to accommodate me in every way possible. I just had to accept that not everyone is going to be interested in me (my character). A good lesson from a videogame, who would have thought!
This is also the reason why I really disliked the "washing" of current NPC personalities. People just seem unable to deal with the "NPC disapproves your actions" or "NPC isn't interested in you".

I know that, in the end, we are just talking about a minor aspect of the game, but these are my two cents. In my opinion is just better to have well-defined characters that may not be interested in you, regardless of your orientation, than to have all of them just ready to accommodate your every fantasy sacrificing who they are in the process.

Maybe it's just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Joined: Apr 2021
V
member
Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
*sigh* see my signature


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by VenusP
*sigh* see my signature

I don't think romances are the problem, I think the problem is that, regarding romances, the trend now is to accommodate everyone instead of writing a good storyline for said romances.

And this ends up in poorly characterised NPC who, in turn, are detrimental to the story as a whole.

Not to say that the main story is going to be bad *because* of this, but it certainly is going to be less good.

Joined: Jun 2022
Location: taipei, taiwan
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Jun 2022
Location: taipei, taiwan
Originally Posted by Crimsomrider
As far as I recall, romance already is only started by the player.
[*]Astarion is drinking and in sort of a whatever mood, so he requires specific dialogue options to even suggest wanting to be intimate and if you say the wrong thing it's gone.

if my memory is right, I remember Astarion has the goodnight with Lae'zel.

I do not believe that is because Lae'zel's "intimate", it's Lae'zel's "intimidate".

the two words are too similar, but the meaning are quite different, isn't it? laugh

Last edited by stevelin7; 12/07/22 07:32 AM.
Joined: Jun 2022
Location: taipei, taiwan
S
member
Offline
member
S
Joined: Jun 2022
Location: taipei, taiwan
yes, I think only few companions interesting in both male and female.

mostly, they only love the idea male or female, and sometimes race limit. wink

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Man thats why I miss the old BG2 games...you had romance but not like the sex simulator that are games are aiming for now.
Hard sex in video game sells.
80% people in RPGs now mostly care for porn, what under pants their wear and if they can masturbate to a customized detailed character they made. Usually first mods for any RPG games...how to get everyone naked. lol I mean just look how popular is a recent thread on UNDERPANTS with boobies and how they changed it in the game with patch 8 ROFL.

In any case, romances in BG3 GO WAAAAAY TOO FAST. Its incredibly silly. But hey, for the masturbating daily gamer, I guess its a necessity in 2022??? When I was a teen in the 90s we had less convenient sources for that. And 56k dial-up wasn't really an option.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 12/07/22 08:22 AM.
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5