Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 20
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
I will argue strongly for the use of playersexuality in games with romance, for reasons I've stated; most importantly that a character's persona and characterisation should not revolve around their sexuality, and that making it a defining feature of a character is a failure in writing... but I will definitely concede that at the moment, Gale and Wyll do feel a little bit jarring in this respect with male PCs.

The issue is neither their backstories with established romantic female interests, nor with their propensity to be more flirtation with only the females, and definitively not so with males (In running banter, Gale firmly rebuffs Astarion, and can do so before his nature has been revealed); it is the combination of both of these things together that make their accepting of your interest - or in Wyll's case, his expressing interest to you - feel a bit out of place.

Because the significant female figures are important parts of their back stories, I'd strongly recommend that there be some dialogue to counterbalance this when starting a romance with them, as a male PC. Something to acknowledge their past while affirming their openness to this in a way that makes smoother sense. Gale currently reads (to me) as the sort that likely *hasn't* had a same-sex relationship before; his dialogue could include references to his surprise at how he's feeling about this development, and perhaps even some witty intellectual banter about new experiences. Wyll, on the other hand, reads to me as someone who, IF he will accept interest from or express interest in a male PC, probably is well aware of his interest in that sphere already, and might instead have dialogue that notes why he projects only female-oriented interest outwardly (and when he thinks it's about his heroic image we can thoroughly disabuse him of that notion...).

One important thing I feel makes playersexuality work well (though this is harder to manage) is that the characters CAN have predefined leanings that they default to without the player, but that they shouldn't be dominant enough to be defining traits, and that they should only show up when the player isn't pursuing their romance. This helps divorce the concept of playersexuality from general bi- or pansexuality.

Either way - I can understand criticisms at the moment that feel their male romance paths feel very out of the blue or ungrounded to their character else-wise... and that's something that can and should be fixed.

Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
"Player"sexual is weak sauce that ruins the character.

Suddenly the NPC is less real. The NPC has no sexual identity, and verisimilitude is broken.

All to satisfy a masturbatory fantasy. As if that juvenile fantasy were more important than characters being three dimensional. Overall, I would have to say that I'm not a fan.

Joined: Jan 2021
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
I will argue strongly for the use of playersexuality in games with romance, for reasons I've stated; most importantly that a character's persona and characterisation should not revolve around their sexuality, and that making it a defining feature of a character is a failure in writing... but I will definitely concede that at the moment, Gale and Wyll do feel a little bit jarring in this respect with male PCs.

The issue is neither their backstories with established romantic female interests, nor with their propensity to be more flirtation with only the females, and definitively not so with males (In running banter, Gale firmly rebuffs Astarion, and can do so before his nature has been revealed); it is the combination of both of these things together that make their accepting of your interest - or in Wyll's case, his expressing interest to you - feel a bit out of place.

Because the significant female figures are important parts of their back stories, I'd strongly recommend that there be some dialogue to counterbalance this when starting a romance with them, as a male PC. Something to acknowledge their past while affirming their openness to this in a way that makes smoother sense. Gale currently reads (to me) as the sort that likely *hasn't* had a same-sex relationship before; his dialogue could include references to his surprise at how he's feeling about this development, and perhaps even some witty intellectual banter about new experiences. Wyll, on the other hand, reads to me as someone who, IF he will accept interest from or express interest in a male PC, probably is well aware of his interest in that sphere already, and might instead have dialogue that notes why he projects only female-oriented interest outwardly (and when he thinks it's about his heroic image we can thoroughly disabuse him of that notion...).

One important thing I feel makes playersexuality work well (though this is harder to manage) is that the characters CAN have predefined leanings that they default to without the player, but that they shouldn't be dominant enough to be defining traits, and that they should only show up when the player isn't pursuing their romance. This helps divorce the concept of playersexuality from general bi- or pansexuality.

Either way - I can understand criticisms at the moment that feel their male romance paths feel very out of the blue or ungrounded to their character else-wise... and that's something that can and should be fixed.
Personally, I would like to have some references to the player's gender in some ways since the whole bisexual is pretty much just playersexual in-game. There is really no difference, they act and talk to you the exact same way, so I don't see how it adds more character to them, considered the only difference is that they reject you if they're "gated". At the end of the day, the whole gated thing essentially just limit the options for people whose features they don't even use, meanwhile, gated reasons ranging from arbitrary to downright offensive stereotyping.

Last edited by Hilarian; 13/03/21 05:42 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
I prefer Playersexual tbh, it allows the player to construct their narrative and romance exactly who they want.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by JoB
"All to satisfy a masturbatory fantasy. As if that juvenile fantasy were more important than characters being three dimensional. Overall, I would have to say that I'm not a fan.

Reel it in, please.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by JoB
"All to satisfy a masturbatory fantasy. As if that juvenile fantasy were more important than characters being three dimensional. Overall, I would have to say that I'm not a fan.

Reel it in, please.

I take it you enjoy the fantasy and don't like different opinions?

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by JoB
I take it you enjoy the fantasy and don't like different opinions?

Different opinions are fine; pointlessly disruptive ones aren't. You're contributing the latter and this is your last warning.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by JoB
I take it you enjoy the fantasy and don't like different opinions?

Different opinions are fine; pointlessly disruptive ones aren't. You're contributing the latter and this is your last warning.

I stand by my opinion.

In fact, this board is full of people disagreeing vehemently with one another.

Again, I stand by my opinion, which I am offering to LARIAN, not you.

If that means you are done warning me and somehow have the authority to ban me, then do what you need to do.

I have zero interest in the romance system as it is set up. I believe it is intensely flawed, masturbatory, and juvenile.

Is that clear enough?

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
And now I need to do the paperwork. :|


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Well it doesn't have to be one or the other. My approach would be one each of straight male, straight female, gay male, gay female, bisexual male, bisexual female, and then if the game is going to be able to afford more than these six base romance options make all those additional options playersexual. Provides for a good range and should keep everyone happy.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
I dunno ...
On one hand, i completely understand that it may be frustrating for some people who really, really, REALLY want to romance Dorian (DA:Inq) but sadly play female. :-/
On the other hand it seem really odd that some characters have isues with certain races (Shadowheart > Gith ... Lae'zel > Tieflings ...) but they are completely willing to hop in players bed, even if s/he is one of them. :-/

It may seem a little better, if player will be the one who made first step ... right now, as litteraly everyone is offering "night company" at tiefling party. :-/
It just seem weird. :-/


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
I would probably be more fine with all the companions being playersexual if they weren't all playerhorny. And, at least as of a patch or 2 ago, incredibly jealous and snaky if I slept with another companion.
Originally Posted by Niara
I will argue strongly for the use of playersexuality in games with romance, for reasons I've stated; most importantly that a character's persona and characterisation should not revolve around their sexuality, and that making it a defining feature of a character is a failure in writing... but I will definitely concede that at the moment, Gale and Wyll do feel a little bit jarring in this respect with male PCs
[snip]
One important thing I feel makes playersexuality work well (though this is harder to manage) is that the characters CAN have predefined leanings that they default to without the player, but that they shouldn't be dominant enough to be defining traits, and that they should only show up when the player isn't pursuing their romance. This helps divorce the concept of playersexuality from general bi- or pansexuality.
Strongly agree with you that, if playersexuality is implemented, then companions should still have predefined leanings. Every additional opinion or preference an NPC has makes them more well-defined characters. And, as you suggest in the snipped portion of your post, having dialogue that reveals those preferences and then explains why they're attracted to the PC and how that relates to those preferences is great.

Without that additional dialogue/explanation, however, I think I'd prefer that some NPCs only be romaceable by certain genders. Like Gale: his history and party banter strongly suggest straight so it breaks a bit of immersion/his characterization that he's so willing to sleep with a male PC.

I'll qualify the above with: there needs to be enough companions to not make this overly restrictive. If BG3 eventually has 8 companions, then there could be 4 who have a set sexuality (the combinations of male/female and straight/gay), 2 that have stated preferences but can be woo'd regardless of PC gender, and then 2 that are openly bi- or pansexual. This would allow anyone the option of 6 romanceable PCs (3 if you only romance companions of a single gender).

tl;dr: Basically what @kanisatha said, but I'm fine with all companions being playersexual as long as any conflicts between their banter/history and their attraction to the PC is explained.

Joined: Jan 2021
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Jan 2021
Even when we look at current games that have set sexuality that are releasing this year, we get Kingmaker that somehow still has all the females being available to the straight males. The issue is that people are still afraid of offending the biggest consumers when we look at set sexuality, and that is why these kinds of things failed. Developers are still consciously or subconsciously assign sexuality based on sales and stereotypes. It's not about being realistic when their intention is catered. It's the inherent flaw when we look at commercial games and having to decide who they should prioritize. Even games like Cyberpunk, there were a very unequal content distribution between the option.

The issue I have with this romance personally is more or less how out of the blue it is when it comes to the companions being interested in you. There should be romantic moments, and point where you express interest. Some could hit you up just for sex like Lae'zel, but I would kind of prefer for characters to naturally grow to be interested in you instead of the sudden interest out of nowhere at the party, even if you don't interact much with them.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Hilarian
Even games like Cyberpunk, there were a very unequal content distribution between the option.

Hmm? CP77 had Panam as the romance option for straight male characters; River as the straight female PC romance; Kerry for gay males; Judy for lesbians. Aside from a few flings e.g. Meredith Stout that was it.

Unless you mean equal game time, then yeah; Panam and Judy did pretty well, River got, well, his own quest line, Kerry was very late game only, though the actual romance/post romance stuff for all characters was a bit threadbare IMHO.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Jan 2021
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Hilarian
Even games like Cyberpunk, there were a very unequal content distribution between the option.

Hmm? CP77 had Panam as the romance option for straight male characters; River as the straight female PC romance; Kerry for gay males; Judy for lesbians. Aside from a few flings e.g. Meredith Stout that was it.

Unless you mean equal game time, then yeah; Panam and Judy did pretty well, River got, well, his own quest line, Kerry was very late game only, though the actual romance/post romance stuff for all characters was a bit threadbare IMHO.
That's what I mean. If you look at the straight options, they tend to the plot relevant characters, and the gay option tends to be optional and very missable in almost every game I have play. As with Cyberpunk, you have to meet with Panam and Judy, and their contents are often a lot more than what you get with River and Kerry. When you look at the lesbian options in these games, there is the issue of the male gaze. If you look at a lot of Japanese games, there are surprisingly large amount of lesbians but almost nothing on gay in most mainstream games. Even games like Fire Emblem Three Houses, you have 1 gay option that is pretty hidden and could even interpret as friendship. You then have everyone available to straight players and 4 lesbian options, 2 of those options are with the main characters. There was a big controversy over the number and option. It has always been that way with Japanese games and even Western games, but it was just so blatant that the fans speak up. Even when you look at the Kingmaker series, you have everyone available to straight players then lesbian players get second most amount then gay and straight females. You can see why I tend to have issues with set sexuality. It's not about representation. It also tends to be about pandering like what people accuse playersexual audience of(to use the word), but the issue is who the audience that the developers are catering to. It is something that I already said. I understand that straight players are the majority, and I understand that from a sales perspective, you would want to cater to them, but if that's the case, I would rather for everyone to be playersexual for these kinds of blatant unequal treatments. If they actually do it earnestly and giving equal treatment in contents then I don't mind that, but the issue is that every single game with set sexuality, the gays tend to get the short end.

Joined: Apr 2013
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Apr 2013
In Cyberpunk it's gay men and straight women who get the short end but it's generally whoever isn't straight men.

I'd lean towards splitting the difference. Make set sexualities but have an option that lets the player override them. Then just one character max per playthrough is changed and honestly it's not that big of a stretch that one person is bi but leans mostly towards a single gender.

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by Rack
I'd lean towards splitting the difference. Make set sexualities but have an option that lets the player override them. Then just one character max per playthrough is changed and honestly it's not that big of a stretch that one person is bi but leans mostly towards a single gender.

I dunno. If someone is bi, make them bi; but I think that being a sort of default for everybody (with or without coercion!) doesn't really appeal to me even if it does result in fewer "options"! IMHO it makes characters less individual and more generic; and I think I'm too used to characters in TV programmes often ending up being "whatever the script writers want at the time"-sexual which feels a bit cheap, though tbh that's just a subset of characters undergoing complete personality changes, something soaps in particular are especially guilty of doing. Running with CP77 as an example, there's a significant amount of pressure to make Judy "bi" because Panam isn't enough choice for some players, and I hope CDPR doesn't cave in a future patch as Bioware reportedly did with Jack before ME2's release, who was apparently supposed to be bi or lesbian but a decision came from on high that some media outlets might object so it was better to cave in advance, which effectively resulted in no female/female LIs (based on the assertion that Liara doesn't count as Asari are monogendered; still haven't made my mind up whether or not I agree with that, but y'know).

Sticking with Bioware, IMHO I found the characters in Inquisition more interesting from that point of view as they all had clearly defined preferences compared to DA2's playersexual approach. I don't think Dorian or Sera would've worked nearly as well if that wasn't the case, though I do note Sera in particular got a lot of hate and I can't help but suspect this was a significant part of that. OTOH, trying to romance her as an elfy mage, neither of which she approved of, was quite interesting but I think that would've been undermined if it was a case of "why not make it elfy mage guy for the hat trick".

Er anyway, I seem to have meandered away from whatever my point was originally.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Rack
In Cyberpunk it's gay men and straight women who get the short end but it's generally whoever isn't straight men.

I'd lean towards splitting the difference. Make set sexualities but have an option that lets the player override them. Then just one character max per playthrough is changed and honestly it's not that big of a stretch that one person is bi but leans mostly towards a single gender.

Letting the player override NPC orientation would cripple the game writer's ability to develop the NPC stories and backgrounds before they're romanced.

For example, we learn about Judy's orientation in CP2077 through the story of what happens to her friend and presumed lover Evelyn. That whole side campaign is an organic part of the main plot line. Judy is the most developed NPC in that game, but there is one sequence with Kerry during the Silverhand flashbacks where you see him making out with another guy backstage after a concert, so you don't have to guess what his orientation is. Things like this help establish who the characters are, and I think allowing the player to just flip a "bi" switch if you want to romance them works against character development.

Anyway, it's a fun discussion but all of this is somewhat moot for BG3, because Larian obviously isn't going that deep into developing this side of the companions.

Joined: Apr 2013
R
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
R
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by Frumpkis
Letting the player override NPC orientation would cripple the game writer's ability to develop the NPC stories and backgrounds before they're romanced.

For example, we learn about Judy's orientation in CP2077 through the story of what happens to her friend and presumed lover Evelyn. That whole side campaign is an organic part of the main plot line. Judy is the most developed NPC in that game, but there is one sequence with Kerry during the Silverhand flashbacks where you see him making out with another guy backstage after a concert, so you don't have to guess what his orientation is. Things like this help establish who the characters are, and I think allowing the player to just flip a "bi" switch if you want to romance them works against character development.

Anyway, it's a fun discussion but all of this is somewhat moot for BG3, because Larian obviously isn't going that deep into developing this side of the companions.

When I say split the difference I mean still do that but just let the player flip a switch in the options which lets them still romance characters where the story doesn't really support it. Just add the bare minimum of voice lines so the player doesn't get misgendered. It's not a perfect solution for anyone but as a compromise neither side has to give up much. If you don't want character's backgrounds to be undermined don't enable the option and everything is exactly as you want. If you want everyone to be player-sexual then you get that but some of the stories won't make quite as much sense as they should, which is almost what you were asking for in the first place.

Originally Posted by vometia
I dunno. If someone is bi, make them bi; but I think that being a sort of default for everybody (with or without coercion!) doesn't really appeal to me even if it does result in fewer "options"! IMHO it makes characters less individual and more generic; and I think I'm too used to characters in TV programmes often ending up being "whatever the script writers want at the time"-sexual which feels a bit cheap, though tbh that's just a subset of characters undergoing complete personality changes, something soaps in particular are especially guilty of doing. Running with CP77 as an example, there's a significant amount of pressure to make Judy "bi" because Panam isn't enough choice for some players, and I hope CDPR doesn't cave in a future patch as Bioware reportedly did with Jack before ME2's release, who was apparently supposed to be bi or lesbian but a decision came from on high that some media outlets might object so it was better to cave in advance, which effectively resulted in no female/female LIs (based on the assertion that Liara doesn't count as Asari are monogendered; still haven't made my mind up whether or not I agree with that, but y'know).

I guess the question I have about this is why do you hope CDPR don't cave? If it's made explicit she isn't bi and the male/female Judy romance is non-canon would it still bother you players are able to access it? For myself it's the Panam relationship I'm locked out of and I have a suspicion the only relationship they'll change is Judy's. That change would never affect me but if they were to shift Kerry's relationship I'd never really notice his character made less sense if the decision were left in the players hands. But it would be nice for me if Panam got a meta dialogue pick where it says "She's going to reject you because she's straight. Do you want to break the narrative slightly to make Panam bi?" that only appeared if I selected the appropriate option in a menu.

Last edited by Rack; 14/03/21 03:29 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Frumpkis
[...] allowing the player to just flip a "bi" switch if you want to romance them works against character development.
This is it exactly. This is what I want games to categorically avoid doing. We seem to have somehow lost the main point of a role-playing game and are veering off into some sort of dating sim here where everyone is bi so every companion can be romanced by everyone. And even then it is still unfair, because even though a bi character works fine mechanically for a gay/straight player, bi is romantically not at all the same as a gay/straight preference.

Page 5 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 20

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