|
|
|
Banned
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 2022
|
I do want to say that you aren't quite grasping what playersexuality in a game space is. The characters aren't flipping or changing their sexual preference. I ‘grasp’ it very well, cheers. To put it in the most simplistic terms, it’s making every ‘fellow adventurer’ you come across somehow sexually malleable, based on the character you happened to choose. You say these characters can have different sexual identities based on each ‘game world/playthrough’ – except that’s not how games work, or can ever work given our current tech and writerly limitations. The backstories for these characters remain static, no matter how you choose to fantasise about every game world being different – they aren’t, as that’s impossible. Gale remains straight-coded, as does Wyll, as others have pointed out. No matter how many Tavs you roll, your companions’ chatter around their past is the same. Playersexual then becomes this phony, brittle thing because it can’t do what you’re saying: it can’t generate entirely new personas or backgrounds for these characters based on your preferences. So straight-coded Gale, who talks about shagging goddesses and gives no indication of being into men – at any point – remains so, no matter the fantasies of the PC. So yes, no matter how you dress it up, when looked at impartially and without emotional language, Gale is written as straight and he does indeed ‘flip’ to being the opposite, for no apparent reason, at the party scene. I very specifically said, if that’s something people actually like – go for broke. I’m also entitled to think it’s a bit daft, and to wonder where the satisfaction is in it. The point I’m making – and others here have mentioned the same thing – is that given the very glaring phoniness of playersexual (as a result of writing, tech and dev time constraints), how is it in any way enjoyable? Nobody who wants this gimmick has answered that in a plain way, so it’s difficult to take seriously any argument for it as anything other than gratuitous wish-fulfillment. Gale being interested in males that take his fancy is not contradicting anything I don’t share your confidence there at all. Are you male? Have you read anything I said about how straight men tend to react to being ‘propositioned’ by other men? It can invoke quite a reaction, let me tell you. It doesn’t add up for me, because he never gives that impression – he just ‘flips’ because...because why? What’s the draw here for people who are into this? All I’m going to get, I know, is emotive language as people who do want it dance around giving, no pun intended, a straight answer – but I’m afraid that’s never going to convince me, so we’ll have to just agree to disagree and move on. I’d also like to say that this is, at its core, a RPG focused on turn-based battles – it has its work cut out for it just delivering on that promise, given the scale of the game. The dating-sim aspect will always be tacked-on and low-effort, because they’re only human and can only do so much. Personally speaking, I don’t see the appeal even outside of playersexual. By your own admission, the writing isn’t stellar – so what makes these characters so ‘sexy’ that anyone would desire them to begin with? Even if they were all charismatic and fascinating people, they remain pixels – they remain fake. You can bring in your argument again about the ‘fantasy’ of it all, which is fine, but I merely expressed curiosity as to why people want the feature – yet all I get is cagey defensiveness. If someone at least said, ‘Well, because of life circumstances I can’t date other humans in real life, so this provides an escapist substitute, even if it’s half-assed and not entirely convincing’ then I could buy into it. But maybe there’s some shyness there about being ‘judged’ – certainly, I don’t judge people on such matters. Also Konmehn, I don't think people look to video games to learn social skills, in fact related to the above, they're interested in less complicated exchanges. I never said people go to the game to learn ‘social skills’. I did state that I don’t believe ‘playersexual’ is helping the problem of people not respecting other peoples’ boundaries. I’m not saying it’s going to erode the social fabric of the human race. But I wouldn’t want my impressionable young kid to be exposed to it, let’s put it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I’m not saying it’s going to erode the social fabric of the human race. But I wouldn’t want my impressionable young kid to be exposed to it, let’s put it that way. What's going on here? You've made some perfectly good points about playersexual characters being unrealistic, fostering bad roleplaying in players (the point I was making in the post) and being conducive to poor writing, without entering the territory of a moral panic. Kids will be, and have always been, exposed to everything, even video games they're technically not supposed to play, and now they have the internet. It's a fool's errand to second-guess these things in my experience. Not to mention it calls to mind the sporadic moral panics that occur around video games, whenever a generation feels the need to scapegoat some social ill on them. The kids are alright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 2022
|
It's a fool's errand to second-guess these things in my experience. Not to mention it calls to mind the sporadic moral panics that occur around video games, whenever a generation feels the need to scapegoat some social ill on them. Nice to know your thoughts. My comment stands - let's leave it that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I'm here to be your scapegoat anytime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 2022
|
I'm here to be your scapegoat anytime. No idea what that means in the context of what you quoted and what I wrote, but cool stuff, my friend.
Last edited by konmehn; 30/07/22 07:43 PM. Reason: typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
It means we can continue the conversation, because I seem to be on the other end of it, I can take on the role of scapegoat. Most people around here are happy with strawmen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Nov 2020
|
As for the draw behind making NPCs playersexual, people have literally already answered that in this very thread. We are not going to get a large number of companions, certainly not enough to satisfy everyone's preferences. Making your companions playersexual is a *compromise*. It allows anyone playing any race/gender combo to romance their choice of companion on any given playthrough.
In this particular case it's literally not possible to win. If the dev team make enough companions to satisfy everyone, then there will be (more) complaints that the party is not big enough, that that the team is trying to force replayability by piling up NPCs and not actual gameplay content. If the dev team give us a small number of companions with restricted race/gender preferences then there will be complaints that the options are too limited. So they went for the compromise.
I don't know about you, but I have never once played a romance game (or game with romance in it) and actually expected it be a realistic representation of real-life romance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Nobody who wants this gimmick has answered that in a plain way, so it’s difficult to take seriously any argument for it as anything other than gratuitous wish-fulfillment.
[...]
All I’m going to get, I know, is emotive language as people who do want it dance around giving, no pun intended, a straight answer Serious and simple answers have been given, you've just ignored them. Why should I repeat them again, and again, for someone whose ears are closed? Will you turn around and say "Oh, I see, I guess that does make some sense after all, I can see the justification at least, though I still don't agree, yeah." Let me ask you instead: what sort of serious answer would you accept? If you consider yourself to be having rational discussion, then there must be a scenario where the answer you're seeking is acceptable to you, and would lead you to revise your position. So, in your mind, what sort of answer would do that? If No answer would do that, then you are not engaging in rational discussion. I'll try one more time: - Roleplaying games are generally about investment and emotional attachment to the characters presented in the course of the story. - Romance and romance options are a natural part of this, and a common desire in such game spaces - it's not wish-fulfilment any more than playing a video game itself is wish-fulfilment. It's just a natural part of this fictional game space experience, and is highly desired by many. - For in-game romances to be satisfying, players need to be able to choose to pursue characters that they, or their player character, find desirable To pursue. (this is a problem in the current game because most of our companions are horrible people that I wouldn't choose to bed in any circumstance... but for the sake of discussion, they are the options we currently have) - For this to be done to an acceptable level, options need to exist for a broad spectrum of tastes, so that a majority of players who do wish to follow romance paths can find some romance option that suites the character they are playing, or their own tastes, depending on the player. - Having only a few options, with restricted access, is thereby never satisfying to the audience that is interested in romance as apart of the emotional engagement with their roleplaying game. - Having a broad spectrum of options that are each housed in individual characters requires a broad spectrum of companion characters to achieve - something that this game currently cannot, and will not, ever achieve. This is a problem faced by many games in the genre. They cannot pitch a broad enough spectrum to be satisfying. - The alternative is to loosen the restrictions on the characters that you do have, making their personalities persuable by any player character; Rather than having to pitch a witty scholar archetype for males-who-like-males, and one for females-who-like-females, and one for males-who-like-females, and one for females-who-like-males, you now only have to pitch one female and one male option to achieve the same effect. If you're really cutting down the character options available, it means you only have to pitch one witty scholar archetype, and have them be pursuable by any player character who acts in a way they like. It's not a great fix, but it's a resource solution to a resource problem. Is Larian's writing terrible? Yes, it is! Is the party night badly handled? You bet it is! Is the whole thing a right debacle? It certainly is right now! Is the root of this problem in playerexual characters? No, it's not. so what makes these characters so ‘sexy’ that anyone would desire them to begin with? In the current writing, not much. I don't care for most of the companions at all. They're entirely undesirable to me, for the most part. Even if they were all charismatic and fascinating people, they remain pixels – they remain fake. You can bring in your argument again about the ‘fantasy’ of it all, which is fine, but I merely expressed curiosity as to why people want the feature – yet all I get is cagey defensiveness. It's a thing called Roleplay - and emotional investment is part of it. Getting attached to characters, and allowing yourself to experience feelings for and about them, is a part of that... so naturally, romance is also often a desired part of that. There's no defensiveness here - your answer as to why people want romance in a game about roleplaying is that romance is a commonly desirable aspect of developing emotional investment in the characters of a story, especially when you are playing an active party in that story as one of them. If someone at least said, ‘Well, because of life circumstances I can’t date other humans in real life, so this provides an escapist substitute, even if it’s half-assed and not entirely convincing’ then I could buy into it. You are missing the point entirely. If you snoop around the forum you'll be aware of my own relationship status as I've mentioned where relevant here and there, where it's come up - this is fantasy, and fiction - it's not about real life, or being a surrogate for real life in any way. Spoilering the rest since it's getting off topic: Are you male? Have you read anything I said about how straight men tend to react to being ‘propositioned’ by other men? It can invoke quite a reaction, let me tell you. Let those males deal with their fragile masculinity and sexual insecurity as they see fit - the game should not pander to or accommodate such unhealthy attitudes and behaviours. My sex is irrelevant - I've made it clear enough already, but the way you talk you don't feel like the sort of person I'd naturally volunteer that information to, one to one. Are you saying here that an individual getting hurt, offended and reacting in strong and often violently negative ways when someone asks them if they're interested in sex is... okay? That that's right? Because it isn't. Is your sense of masculinity so incredibly fragile and delicate that you have to react viscerally negatively when someone asks if you'd be interested in them? If a male acts violently or in aggressively negative ways to another male asking if they're interested, one of these people is at fault; one of these people has behaved poorly; one of these people is being unhealthy and should get some assistance growing as a person, and their poor behaviour should not be accommodated - it's not the person asking. There's nothing wrong with asking. You are, in fact, sounding terribly homophobic at this point. It sounds like you played a male character, had Wyll and/or Gale, whom you *Assumed* were straight, suggest to your character that they were interested... and had some kind of visceral negative reaction to the concept of male-male intimacy so bad that you had to talk about it. That's not healthy. Get help. It doesn’t add up for me, because he never gives that impression – he just ‘flips’ because...because why? What’s the draw here for people who are into this? Once again: Player makes assumption about character's sexuality; gets offended when it isn't as they expect; blames character for their own assumptions. ((Fault exists between chair and keyboard)) He doesn't flip. He reveals something about himself that you didn't know before, because before now it had not come up. Now it has, and now you know; gale is bisexual, in this iteration of the world, and is open to male company as well, when the fancy takes him. What is the problem? Is it that he didn't ACT gay-enough to alert your gaydar and let you passively judge him and keep him at arm's length? Tough. Life's not actually like that. People's sexualities aren't dependant upon or defined by their external behaviour. Why is it such a problem for you that Gale asked your character if he was interested in some wine and romance? Why does that upset you to the point of vilifying it? That's not healthy. Interesting also, that you're talking about Wyll and Gale... but not about Shadowheart and Lae'zel, who are just as more or less straight-coded written as those two are... it doesn't bother you that they're both okay with other women and might proposition your female character? Not in the same way it bothers you that Gale and Wyll might proposition your male one, it seems. Why is that? You talk about negative male reactions to being propositioned, as though that's somehow defensible and should be taken into consideration - it shouldn't, by the way, it's not a healthy reaction and not one that should be catered to, ever - I wonder if you have just as strong reactions about women who are frequently expected to be okay with 'experimenting' with other girls, or kissing other girls, usually for the gratification or enjoyment of male friends, for fun and sport... and they're just Expected to be okay with that, even if they're known to be straight... That happens quite a lot, but the women involved generally don't act incredibly offended, hurt, affronted, or get violent or angry at the proposition (honestly when it's set as an expectation despite knowledge to the contrary, that is grounds for getting annoyed, but one who does is usually treated as the problematic person, not the one(s) doing the pressuring and expecting)... So why is okay for males to do so just at the simplest first point of being asked if they're open to it? Why is that something we should consider and be sensitive to? Here's a hint: It's not. I’m not saying it’s going to erode the social fabric of the human race. But I wouldn’t want my impressionable young kid to be exposed to it, let’s put it that way. Sorry, but that really does taste like homophobia... you don't want you kid exposed to an environment where it's okay for one male to ask another if they're interested, openly and without shame or fear of reprisal, and that being treated by everyone else as being a normal and acceptable thing that a person may ask, safely and without judgement. Yikes, can't show them that, can we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Making your companions playersexual is a *compromise*. It allows anyone playing any race/gender combo to romance their choice of companion on any given playthrough.
In this particular case it's literally not possible to win. Once again i have to disagree pointing towards my suggestion.  At the very least, all it would take would be to prepare 2 scenarios for any romance scene. Ideal would be 3, but in order to make it as cheap as possible 2 would be sufficient. Now repeating myself in short: You set sexual prefferences for NPCs ... your character either fits them, or not. Ideal scenario is Race + Gender, wich leads to 3 possible permutations: - Either you fit both >> NPC wants you ... meaning it makes proposion, and the romance as we know it. - Or you fit either >> NPC is willing to sleep with you ... meaning it DONT make proposion, but if you do, the romance as we know it. - Or you fit neither >> NPC didnt even think about sleeping with you ... meaning it DONT make proposion, and the second scenario where the character YOU propose to spend night with is surprised with this situation ... but after short conversation finds out that they may not be fully against it (this last part is there just to, if i may use your own words "allow anyone playing any race/gender combo and romance their choice of companion on any given playthrough") And voila! Its nice, its easy, with fresh scent of lemon! 
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings.  Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2014
|
I'm not a fan of characters changing their sexuality to suit the player. Also not a fan of being propositioned by the same sex without having encouraged the situation, so hopefully that's not a thing.
Last edited by lolwut77; 31/07/22 08:47 AM. Reason: Typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
I'm not a fan of characters changing their sexuality to suit the player. Also not a fan of being propositioned by the same sex without having encouraged the situation, so hopefully that's not a thing. This is homophobic unless you're equally not a fan of being propositioned to by the opposite sex, and since you took the time to mention "the same sex," I have to assume this isn't true. No thank you. If you can't deal with a 2-second moment of uncomfortableness while playing a video game (and you should probably examine why you feel uncomfortable in such a situation), then a rated-M rpg with gore, sexual content, and general adult themes probably isn't for you. IF BG3 is going to have companions proposition to you, then it should be irrespective of their sexuality. I don't think ALL companions should proposition to the player, but *some* of the more assertive companions doing so would be acceptable. And since BG3 already has all companions proposition to you, if they change it to only have hetero propositions...yikes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2014
|
I'm not a fan of characters changing their sexuality to suit the player. Also not a fan of being propositioned by the same sex without having encouraged the situation, so hopefully that's not a thing. This is homophobic unless you're equally not a fan of being propositioned to by the opposite sex, and since you took the time to mention "the same sex," I have to assume this isn't true. No thank you. If you can't deal with a 2-second moment of uncomfortableness while playing a video game (and you should probably examine why you feel uncomfortable in such a situation), then a rated-M rpg with gore, sexual content, and general adult themes probably isn't for you. IF BG3 is going to have companions proposition to you, then it should be irrespective of their sexuality. I don't think ALL companions should proposition to the player, but *some* of the more assertive companions doing so would be acceptable. And since BG3 already has all companions proposition to you, if they change it to only have hetero propositions...yikes. Good grief, no need to get so wound up. Plenty of people don't enjoy being propositioned by someone who falls outside their preference (be it looks, gender, income, culture, etc.) - call it however you like, I care not. I would be totally fine if none of the characters made unwelcome advances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I'm not a fan of characters changing their sexuality to suit the player. Also not a fan of being propositioned by the same sex without having encouraged the situation, so hopefully that's not a thing. This is homophobic unless you're equally not a fan of being propositioned to by the opposite sex, and since you took the time to mention "the same sex," I have to assume this isn't true. No thank you. If you can't deal with a 2-second moment of uncomfortableness while playing a video game (and you should probably examine why you feel uncomfortable in such a situation), then a rated-M rpg with gore, sexual content, and general adult themes probably isn't for you. IF BG3 is going to have companions proposition to you, then it should be irrespective of their sexuality. I don't think ALL companions should proposition to the player, but *some* of the more assertive companions doing so would be acceptable. And since BG3 already has all companions proposition to you, if they change it to only have hetero propositions...yikes. While I agree that the quoted poster is in for a lot of disappointment, buzzwords need to be left out. Unless, of course, you mean that anyone that's bothered by hetero only advances is heterophobic? I'm not a fan of the current implementation, but, I understand exactly why it's in game. One needs only look at games with fixed sexuality companions that support modding to see that characters will be modded to suit. I'm ok with that too, until someone starts throwing out buzzwords and catchphrases to justify it. Why can't it simply be "I wanted to romance them on a same sex character, instead of attempted character assassination?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
It is ... but still its a valid opinion. I dunno where you are from, but here in Czech i know many people who are allready tired how this new era of "forced tolerance" is suffocating everything ... in every single movie, series, story, game even comics ... you have to have at least one gay, one bi, one non-binary, one cultural and racial minority representatives ... everyone have to be presented, and there is often so many characters so you rarely see white heterosexual male that isnt bad guy of the story. It gets ridiculous and its understandable that some people have enough of that ... then it takes little for them to be upset by the same topic ... And if i may add, most people who mind it *i* know are gay themselves ... so no homophobic exuse apply there.  IF BG3 is going to have companions proposition to you, then it should be irrespective of their sexuality. Agreed 100% ... Shame they dont have any in this game, huh?
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 31/07/22 04:53 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 2022
|
Serious and simple answers have been given, you've just ignored them. What part of the above sentence from my previous response has misinterpreted what you wrote? It’s an exact synopsis of your case for this feature. You might want to re-examine your ‘someone whose ears are closed’ putdown in light of this. Let me ask you instead: what sort of serious answer would you accept? I already answered that and you even quoted me in your response: ‘If someone at least said, ‘Well, because of life circumstances I can’t date other humans in real life, so this provides an escapist substitute, even if it’s half-assed and not entirely convincing’ then I could buy into it.’ For the umpteenth time, I am not arguing for playersexual’s removal – I do, however, find it to be very silly and unbelievable. Hysterically so, in fact. That’s merely my stance on it. If you have any confidence in your own stance, then you wouldn’t respond with such loaded language, calling the person you disagree with both deaf (ears closed) and incompetent (fail to grasp etc.). It’s the equivalent of trying to bludgeon the individual into silence. Let me paraphrase again my simple question on playersexual: where is the satisfaction in having, for example, straight-coded characters flip their sexuality for one shoe-horned-in section of dialogue? Ie – wouldn’t LGBT people prefer to have a properly written LGBT-coded character, with a proper, believable ‘lead up’ to any potential romance? I’m simply fascinated, that’s all, that their expectations would be so low as to accept this ‘playersexual’ contrivance as a substitute. I cannot get my head around where that could be enjoyed by anyone. And you haven’t answered why it would be, except to state the below: Roleplaying games are generally about investment and emotional attachment to the characters presented in the course of the story. Romance and romance options are a natural part. Yeah, and like I wrote – would it not be preferable to have this properly written as opposed to being the gimmick it is now? A gimmick that rewrites the character’s history – whether straight-coded or otherwise – up to that point. Put another way, I wouldn’t want an LGBT-coded woman having her entire history overwritten for one section of dialogue just because I liked the look of her. I would get no satisfaction from such artifice, but I'm crazy like that, I guess. The question is not directed exclusively at LGBT people – it’s directed at anyone who finds enjoyment in having a character, straight or otherwise, be something they clearly are not, for something that also clearly can’t be called a romance, even in the weakest possible definition of the word. I believe it’s a mistake, because it strong-arms the writers into deforming the narratives of their creations, situationally, in a manner that completely undermines, at least for me, any fictional substance the story might have. It sticks out so badly, so cack-handedly, and makes the whole experience laughable – ‘Oh look, here we go again – a big event has just occurred and now every person who’s been following me wants to have sex’. I find that disturbing. There are things in life I can never have, there are people in life that I can never have, and I personally like that: it seems sane, normal and believable to me. And while I don’t expect everyone to think as I do, you might want to consider there are people who do – and for them, likewise, this playersexual thing is baffling and nonsensical. It can never be well-written, even if some genius tried to have a stab at it. Better off to have a mix of LGBT and straight characters, properly written as such, and let them all have the option to say ‘no’ if same-sex or even opposite-sex is not their thing. Judy from Cyberpunk is an excellent example of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Van'tal
Unregistered
|
|
Van'tal
Unregistered
|
I would say...Yes, its up to the player.
There is not a single companion I would even consider being romantic with...so I politely answer flirty questions up to the point where they are not getting the hint, then end the dialogue as best I can.
I don't have a clue what sex in this game even looks like, nor do I care to.
If others enjoy it, then hey...knock your socks off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I think you mean 'knock yourself out', knocking socks off is something else...or is it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
I think you mean 'knock yourself out', knocking socks off is something else...or is it. ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/uvKTTCr.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
|
I'm not a fan of characters changing their sexuality to suit the player. Also not a fan of being propositioned by the same sex without having encouraged the situation, so hopefully that's not a thing. It is ... but still its a valid opinion. I dunno where you are from, but here in Czech i know many people who are allready tired how this new era of "forced tolerance" is suffocating everything ... in every single movie, series, story, game even comics ... you have to have at least one gay, one bi, one non-binary, one cultural and racial minority representatives ... everyone have to be presented, and there is often so many characters so you rarely see white heterosexual male that isnt bad guy of the story. It gets ridiculous and its understandable that some people have enough of that ... then it takes little for them to be upset by the same topic ... And if i may add, most people who mind it *i* know are gay themselves ... so no homophobic exuse apply there. IF BG3 is going to have companions proposition to you, then it should be irrespective of their sexuality. Agreed 100% ... Shame they dont have any in this game, huh? While expressed poorly, I've said before that I'd have preferred to see a middle-ground of solutions. With everyone being into everyone, it gets so untied with reality that I wouldn't think even those wanting representation feels represented; Or becomes a mockery of it. I think it'd be good for the game and its players to have some companions heavily preferring men, others women, and some going both ways. That's more tied with reality and thus is more believable. If everyone's into everyone, no one matters, in a way. If Wyll was mostly into women, yet I was really into him, I'd appreciate having both a bromance path and a harder to achieve romance path where Wyll's appreciation changes because of me, not because everyone's into everyone because inclusion. I think you can be inclusive *and* be within a believable reality as well. That being said, the thread is really skirting closure; I don't want to shut it down but social politics gets really spicy really fast, so tread carefully and be respectful to eachother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Nov 2020
|
I think this person is confusing what I , a player, is attracted to, with what I've decide my Tav character is attracted to.
If I had my personal way, Halsin and Zevlor would be romance options. But it isn't about what I personally find attractive, it's about what my Tav wants. I would never consider a relationship with some like Asterion in real life, he's just not my type (maybe Shadow though, depends on how her character progresses), but I can make a Tav who wants to romance him.
This is always the way for me. I play game that has romance, chances are good that the person I most want to romance is unromanceable.
As for the realism, we've already covered that.
|
|
|
|
|
