"Playersexual" and representation question.

[Darsh]

I know I know, the title probably will get this derailed quickly, but I am being genuine with this so please lets try and stay on topic and not go on unrelated rants.

Question, Is "Playersexual" actually LGBTQ representation, and if so is it good representation? I am not part of the community so I have no strong opinion either way and was curious what people who ARE part of the community think.

On one hand, it is very clearly an avenue for same sex relations, allows total freedom for us the player, and seems like a general win win.

But i was thinking about cyberpunk 2077, no spoilers, in it there is a gay character, that you can not romance if you are not the same sex as them. This is character trait, a part of who they are, and they won't just not be who they are FOR you. Where as in this game they are people, waiting for YOU to dictate what their sexuality will be, or are all just inherently pan? Which, sure that's fine but seems like it is just replacing one 'everyone is this sexuality' with another....

Either way, this isn't about playersexual as a game-play mechanic, strictly as representation, so which do you think is better? Fixed character identity, or plug and play can be whatever the player wants? Again, genuine question no ill intent meant.

[id795078477]

Prepare for fireworks. Because subtlety isn't an option anymore. The minorities are too empowered in this game so that even an "orientation" option in the CC feels like oppression to them. Gone are the times of Cyberpunk, Dragon Age or Mass Effect where gay romances were absolutely possible and fleshed out, but as with any romances they were subtle and left to the "bedroom time in private". This isn't strong enough a message to the activists anymore. They want those things to actively chase after the player with as few options to dodge them as possible.

(thanks for any points coming my way!)

[Dylan]

Originally posted by Darsh:

On one hand, it is very clearly an avenue for same sex relations, allows total freedom for us the player, and seems like a general win win.

/thread

[Mollerz]

Originally posted by id795078477:

The minorities are too empowered in this game

Big time yikes.

[Aldain]

The only thing playersexual writing really represents to me imo is the horny crowd.

It seldom really brings any actual quality with it in my experience, far too often just making characters that feel shallow because at that point they only exist to respond to the player's whims.

But I also really never cared for player-driven romance in RPGs in the first place because nowhere near enough games do it in a way that doesn't come off stilted and somewhat cringe inducing.

[Vyvance80HD]

i had this EXACT thought, and have played CP2077, i know the character you're talking about

initially i believed it was better to have clear sexuality for the party members, since characters like dame aylin and issobel are 100%, they are lesbian icons! real world lesbians can claim those girls and use them as icons and such. so the lack of a clear defined sexuality was (initially) something i thought that would benefit a change

but after playing cp2077 and trying to romance *that character* as a man, and being rejected felt bad as a player, i had seen online that they were a romance option and i loved it! but i had no idea they were gay, so playing as a male character they rejected me, as a player this felt ♥♥♥♥, like id done all this work just to be rejected.

so upon further thought, i think its a good idea in theory to have characters be playersexual, because players may not always play the same gender character that they are IRL, plus it just makes less friction as a player.

for context, i am a queer man, so im not just talking out of my ass about LGBTQ+ topics! :))

[Wokelander]

I wouldn't consider it representative but I'd also argue that playersexual and queer representation is two separate things. Playersexual is pretty much replacing a partner with a sex toy, figuratively speaking, as the core design philosophy of is making sex/romance accessible to MC with no regard to the NPC.

Obviously computer game characters do not have actual agency but as I see it, playersexual removes even the suggestion of agency which seems like a seriously unhealthy thing to propagate that feeds entitlement

[Rando]

Yeah, I think that having every character have a universal sexual preference is unrealistic and feels fake. Whatever sex you pick - male or female - it should open some doors and close others. Having even one character turn you down because he's straight/gay would be a lot more realistic.

[cheebus weebus]

Originally posted by Darsh:

I know I know, the title probably will get this derailed quickly, but I am being genuine with this so please lets try and stay on topic and not go on unrelated rants.

Question, Is "Playersexual" actually LGBTQ representation, and if so is it good representation? I am not part of the community so I have no strong opinion either way and was curious what people who ARE part of the community think.

On one hand, it is very clearly an avenue for same sex relations, allows total freedom for us the player, and seems like a general win win.

But i was thinking about cyberpunk 2077, no spoilers, in it there is a gay character, that you can not romance if you are not the same sex as them. This is character trait, a part of who they are, and they won't just not be who they are FOR you. Where as in this game they are people, waiting for YOU to dictate what their sexuality will be, or are all just inherently pan? Which, sure that's fine but seems like it is just replacing one 'everyone is this sexuality' with another....

Either way, this isn't about playersexual as a game-play mechanic, strictly as representation, so which do you think is better? Fixed character identity, or plug and play can be whatever the player wants? Again, genuine question no ill intent meant.

i think Playersexual is better so its up to the player what they want

[Wokelander]

Originally posted by GazzaMATE29:

i had this EXACT thought, and have played CP2077, i know the character you're talking about

initially i believed it was better to have clear sexuality for the party members, since characters like dame aylin and issobel are 100%, they are lesbian icons! real world lesbians can claim those girls and use them as icons and such. so the lack of a clear defined sexuality was (initially) something i thought that would benefit a change

but after playing cp2077 and trying to romance *that character* as a man, and being rejected felt bad as a player, i had seen online that they were a romance option and i loved it! but i had no idea they were gay, so playing as a male character they rejected me, as a player this felt ♥♥♥♥, like id done all this work just to be rejected.

so upon further thought, i think its a good idea in theory to have characters be playersexual, because players may not always play the same gender character that they are IRL, plus it just makes less friction as a player.

for context, i am a queer man, so im not just talking out of my ass about LGBTQ+ topics! :))

Being rejected is something that happens in real life though, even you're a good boy. I find it a strange notion that a game should cater specifically to my desires rather than be representative of the narrative design and intention

[Darsh]

Originally posted by GazzaMATE29:

i had this EXACT thought, and have played CP2077, i know the character you're talking about

initially i believed it was better to have clear sexuality for the party members, since characters like dame aylin and issobel are 100%, they are lesbian icons! real world lesbians can claim those girls and use them as icons and such. so the lack of a clear defined sexuality was (initially) something i thought that would benefit a change

but after playing cp2077 and trying to romance *that character* as a man, and being rejected felt bad as a player, i had seen online that they were a romance option and i loved it! but i had no idea they were gay, so playing as a male character they rejected me, as a player this felt ♥♥♥♥, like id done all this work just to be rejected.

so upon further thought, i think its a good idea in theory to have characters be playersexual, because players may not always play the same gender character that they are IRL, plus it just makes less friction as a player.

for context, i am a queer man, so im not just talking out of my ass about LGBTQ+ topics! :))

Great, I am glad my point wasn't totally off and unrecognizable here. I generally was on board with the player sexual thing myself, but I had almost the same situation, and getting rejected by that character, fleshed them out for me.

I have no issue with everyone being able to be gay, but i wonder it it waters down characters to just have them be 'playersexual' and not a defined thing. The MC can be that, your choices dictate it, if I play a straight guy that has to turn down a gay guy, that is fine. But should that gay guy hit on my female character? I dunno, why I made the thread.

[Boss]

Originally posted by Darsh:

I know I know, the title probably will get this derailed quickly, but I am being genuine with this so please lets try and stay on topic and not go on unrelated rants.

Question, Is "Playersexual" actually LGBTQ representation

No, and I don't get why everybody is still harping on this so much, when there's much more important things to talk about. Like horse representation. Where's my playable horse, video game industry?! We're only ever resigned to mounts!

[Çylladora Vanyamar]

This example might help. There are statistically as many Intersex humans containing a form of both XX and XY chromosomes at birth in the world as there are red heads. Did you know this? No you didn't. Why? Because accurate representation in the minds of people who prefer not to know things like that means next to zero to them, and if they see anything that flips that ratio on its head, even in a video game that is based in a fantasy world where changing appearance at will is common place - well, it is beyond the pale and part of some agenda.

[I Denizen I]

Originally posted by GazzaMATE29:

i had this EXACT thought, and have played CP2077, i know the character you're talking about

initially i believed it was better to have clear sexuality for the party members, since characters like dame aylin and issobel are 100%, they are lesbian icons! real world lesbians can claim those girls and use them as icons and such. so the lack of a clear defined sexuality was (initially) something i thought that would benefit a change

but after playing cp2077 and trying to romance *that character* as a man, and being rejected felt bad as a player, i had seen online that they were a romance option and i loved it! but i had no idea they were gay, so playing as a male character they rejected me, as a player this felt ♥♥♥♥, like id done all this work just to be rejected.

so upon further thought, i think its a good idea in theory to have characters be playersexual, because players may not always play the same gender character that they are IRL, plus it just makes less friction as a player.

for context, i am a queer man, so im not just talking out of my ass about LGBTQ+ topics! :))

But doesn't this very rejection add depth and complexity to your gaming experience?

Should every NPC just be sexually available to your whims (your as in the player) don't you want them to be clearly defined "people" with wants and desires of their own?

I also got rejected by the NPC in question, I also got rejected by the other NPC on my female play through but it was a great experience and well written and it added to the game (in my opinion) by making the NPC's dimensional.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

It really depends on what the focus of the game is.

The story in this game doesn't really revolve around romance/sex, it's just there as a means to deepen your relationship to the characters.

It doesn't matter if any of the characters are gay or straight, what matters is that you chose to romance them, and all that entails.

In that context player-sexuality makes more sense, because their specific orientation isn't the focus at all.

In other games, where the sexuality of the character might be the point, then obviously player-sexuality wouldn't work as well.

I have a similar view of race-swapping in classical stories - in stories where the race of the individual was never part of the character's story to begin with - as is the case with Ariel in Little Mermaid, Hermione in Harry Potter, or Major in Ghost In The Shell - then it's perfectly fine, because the character is the same, regardless of their ethnicity.

However, in stories where the ethnicity of the character is literally part of the material, then obviously it doesn't make sense to change that aspect. A story about African slaves in the US obviously wouldn't work if all of those slaves were written as though they were French instead of African, would it? Since it's part of history and because their ethnicity is literally part of the story.

So, the answer is that context is always King - player-sexuality is fine for a game like BG3 where the specific sexuality of the character isn't even the point in the first place, it's about how and why you end up romancing that character, and in other games where sexual orientation is a meaningful part of that character's plot and development, it's just as fine for their sexuality to be fixed.

"One size fits all games" is the only wrong answer.

[Darsh]

Originally posted by Khorvale:

I wouldn't consider it representative but I'd also argue that playersexual and queer representation is two separate things. Playersexual is pretty much replacing a partner with a sex toy, figuratively speaking, as the core design philosophy of is making sex/romance accessible to MC with no regard to the NPC.

Obviously computer game characters do not have actual agency but as I see it, playersexual removes even the suggestion of agency which seems like a seriously unhealthy thing to propagate that feeds entitlement

I think that is a fascinating point as well. We do deal with a good deal of entitlement around sex in real life, and it does seem like "you can have anyone you want, regardless of anything about them, as long as you say what they want to hear long enough" just -feels- really weird in a way if you look at it deep enough. Now I get i am over analyzing like hell, but it just seemed weird to me.