Romances fixed orientation vs player-sexual

[Just Another Gamer]

Before we start, I respectfully and humbly ask that we refrain from talking about "woke" or use this topic to air out political grievances. It is meant to be an open topic of how romances are designed in video games for freedom and convenience vs immersion.

Thank you.

In BG3, all the romance options seem to be either bisexual or, as I have heard in the past, "player-sexual." With the latter regard, we often may not know much about the romantic or sexual history and our only knowledge is that they are open to romance with the PC. Whether the PC is a man or woman, trans (possible in the character creator), or non-binary (not sure if that one is there), all romance options are possible.

On the one hand, this is great for player choice. Some people don't like that their female V from Cyberpunk 2077 can't romance Pan-Am or that Judy from the same game isn't interested in men. It can leave a sour taste in what might otherwise be a fun gameplay experience.

Yet this restriction helps to encourage replayablility, reminds the player than this world doesn't reovolve, and make the world just a tad more believable since most people are not bisexual. Sure, you could define a world or place the game in a setting where their orientation would be more believable. But most game worlds don't include that in their lore, i.e. yes we have dragons and magic but human nature has not changed much beyond what the presence of dragons and magics would entail.

I've seen both options used, even in the same series. Dragon Age Origins and Inquisition used fixed orientations. Player-sexual was the option in Dragon Age 2. I never had an issue either way since there were only four romance options (frak off Sebastian!),

With BG3, it just seems to stretch credibility that (to the best of my knowledge) ever single romance option is open. I wonder if the party would have benefited to more defined in their orientation to help with immersion, even as I think most agree that the writing is strong enough such that who they want to sleep with is the least interesting aspect of their character.

I am curious what others think of the two approaches or others that I may not have thought of. Again, please engage in this topic in an open-minded and respectful nature.

Thank you.

[Angel]

Publicado originalmente por xelakerley:

Publicado originalmente por Angel:

I don't want to play as a male character just to get a romance lol

I don't want all my male companions hitting on me, or wondering if saying something nice will start a romance line of hidden checks...

poor you, no idea why you singled out my comment specifically to say that rather than just post yours by itself

[Ixal]

Fixed sexuality allows for much deeper personalities and romances. Playersexuality requires everything to be generic and shallow.

[alanc9]

Publicado originalmente por xelakerley:

Publicado originalmente por Angel:

I don't want to play as a male character just to get a romance lol

I don't want all my male companions hitting on me, or wondering if saying something nice will start a romance line of hidden checks...

What do you do when that happens IRL?

[alanc9]

Publicado originalmente por Ixal:

Fixed sexuality allows for much deeper personalities and romances. Playersexuality requires everything to be generic and shallow.

How so?

I hear this claimed a lot, but nobody can ever explain what would change.

[Cass]

Publicado originalmente por alanc9:

Publicado originalmente por Ixal:

Fixed sexuality allows for much deeper personalities and romances. Playersexuality requires everything to be generic and shallow.

How so?

I hear this claimed a lot, but nobody can ever explain what would change.

I wouldn't state is as strongly as lxal did, but playersexual companions means that you can't really have that character's sexuality be a part of their story. That's not to say that you can't write compelling playersexual companions, but it is a constraint that you have to write around. Like, Dorian from DAI simply wouldn't work as a character if he had to be ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ by both a male and female protagonist. It's limiting.

It also means that, mechanically-speaking, the characters are functionally incapable of saying no to the player; which is just not how life works. It makes the characters feel more artificial as a result.

[Mike Garrison]

Any time the romance options are limited by the character creation choices (Mass Effect, BG2, etc.) then some players complain. And when they aren't limited by the character creation choices, other people complain.

[seeker1]

Publicado originalmente por Smoove:

Seeker1, you and others state again and again that the NPC's will only initiate a romance if dialogue options are followed. That is blatantly false, unless by "romance" you mean actually start a relationship. ALMOST every single NPC-Gale, Halsin, Lazalle just off the top of my head-will absolutely engage in SERIOUSLY flirtatious behavior: i.e. the sort of behavior that would get you fired in any workplace.

Block me or not mate; I really don't care; I will still respond to your post.

You definitely need to contact the HR department. Oh wait, isn't that a "modern" thing? It's a camp of fantasy adventurers thrown together by circumstances, not a "workplace" office with an HR department. I don't think they are worried about being sued or fired, LOL. That analogy strikes me as dumb.

Fact -- more and more my experience and talking to people using OIO -- (which I have yet to use) -- it actually seems that many people are using things coded as flirt lines without realizing it - THEN the companions flirt back - making it seem like they are flirting first.

It is FACT that Lae'Zel won't start her sex stalking of you until you select the flirt line "Have you been looking at me differently lately?" I get you might not know that's a flirt, you could even argue it was silly of Larian to make that a flirt line, but it is you using that flirt line with HER that starts HER flirting back at you.

I'm convinced in MOST cases, not all, the "flirting first" companions are only flirting with you because Tav probably used a flirt line with THEM first without realizing it. Astarion might be an exception. But his background explains why.

I am no homophobe, I am not even talking about sexuality here but yes Npc's are DEFINITELY initiating relationships without prompts and you saying otherwise is frankly a blatant lie. I know it's a lie because you are on these forums talking about this crap in every.single.thread.

So, my repeating a true statement makes it a lie? Say fella, did you sleep through all of Logic 101?

I seriously think if Larian forcibly made every player install OIO mod in Patch 8, it would be proof everything I'm saying IS true.

Now, BTW, even if occasionally they are flirting first -- here's what DEFINITELY remains true:
1. you can easily say no, no romance initiated, no approval drop.
2. contrary to what some claim, you only need to say no once. They will NOT keep flirting with you.

If you don't believe me, and you don't have to, check the Romances section at the BG3 Wiki, which says everything I am saying here.

And you are so unreasonable that I blocked you long ago.

Some people can't take my rationality. That is their problem.

In fact, the whole relationship angle in this game-should be a minor footnote at best. Instead it has become the most controversial, divisive concept in the game. What a waste.

"Controversial and divisive" for some. A group of people on this forum and elsewhere that can often be very loud and noisy, but I'm not sure their volume represents that they are expressing the views of a large group of people just because they proclaim it loudly.

I for sure am not convinced of that. I just think it's a small group of noisy people who keep making this complaint.

And you sure CAN quote me on that.

[Spicy Pepper]

On a logical note, a realm of fantasy with multiples species with lots of religions, cultures, city-state and magic... queer folks will be a mundane encounter with a clear spike of pansexual peoples.

I mean in our world homosexuality is not uncommon in nature and about 98% of wildlife make no big deals of it, gay penguins often adopt orphan chicks, gay lions help to hunt and protect the pride with no fight with the dominant male since they're not interessted in having cubs with the females.

The only two species dumb enough for making a ruckus about it are us humans and a specie of spider (wich I forgot the name) where females tends to predate on gay males in order to reproduce with their mates.

[Mike Garrison]

Publicado originalmente por seeker1:

It is FACT that Lae'Zel won't start her sex stalking of you until you select the flirt line "Have you been looking at me differently lately?"

This is not a fact.

If you raise her approval high enough, she will get a "!" over head and say, "I have a confession. I was too hasty to judge you. I thought you witless, gutless, unimpressively bland." Then you are given response options that can lead to the romance beginning.

The point is, Lae'zel *can* be the one who makes the first move.

[seeker1]

Publicado originalmente por Mike Garrison:

This is not a fact.

If you raise her approval high enough, she will get a "!" over head and say, "I have a confession. I was too hasty to judge you. I thought you witless, gutless, unimpressively bland." Then you are given response options that can lead to the romance beginning.

The point is, Lae'zel *can* be the one who makes the first move.

That sort of strikes me as her giving you an opportunity to flirt with her, not her flirting with you, so it doesn't really contradict what I said. I mean, I guess maybe for Klingons just telling somebody they aren't as worthless as they thought is the beginning of flirting, LOL.

If the romance guides at BG3 Wiki weren't so incomplete, these kinds of questions would be easier to answer.

The Wiki says you are right. ... BG3 Lae'Zel romance guide ....

[quoting]
Romance with Lae'zel can begin if If the player character has at least medium (20) approval with her. At this threshold an exclamation icon [!] may appear above her head. If spoken with, she states she has misjudged the player character, that they have proven their courage, and she is aroused by their scent. She then offers a night of sensual pleasure. If the player character begins a romance with another companion (where an evening cut-scene occurs) first, this scenario will not take place and she cannot be romanced unless the prior relationship is ended first. Instead, she will only mention her interest with some regret. Also, if the beginning stages of romance are started with two other companions even before a night scene occurs, Lae'zel ultimately dismisses any advance by the player character, stating she prefers "fresh meat".
[end]

But IGN says I am also right.

https://www.ign.com/wikis/baldurs-gate-3/Lae'zel_Romance_Guide

You can also receive this scene earlier than the celebration if you raise your approval with Lae'zel and then speak to her and select the option:
****"Is it me, or have you been looking at me differently?"*** (FLIRT LINE)
Once you do, select options that show her you're interested in sharing your bed with her tonight and then Lae'zel will appear after you take a rest which will trigger the same scene as above.
[snip][end]

I'll split the difference: she CAN flirt first, but doesn't ALWAYS. And I guess that really depends on if you consider, "gee, you're not as worthless as I thought" a flirt, LOL.

[Dust]

Publicado originalmente por Just Another Gamer:

I am curious what others think of the two approaches or others that I may not have thought of. Again, please engage in this topic in an open-minded and respectful nature.

Can't win either way, if I'm being honest.

With fixed orientations, there's either going to be an imbalance, which obviously won't look good for many people for various reasons, or balanced, which I can't help but consider that as the devs going through a checklist. There's also the issue of characters seeming like they go one way until the player tries to romance them, upon which they're met with the incredibly disappointing "sorry babe, I don't swing that way". I remember the Handmaiden from Star Wars KOTOR 2, Jack from Mass Effect 2 and Cassandra from Dragon Age Inquisition being notorious examples of this.

With player-sexual characters, it just comes across as a little lazy and/or trying to please everyone at the same time, which unintuitively can limit what you can do with the character depending on how you portray some sexualities and gender roles in your setting.

If it was up to me, I'd have no straight women in my games. I fully realize that saying so might come across as weird and maybe sexist, but my reason for that is that whenever I have the choice, I play women, and I always romance women only. Just so I don't get into a situation like the one described above in the middle of my playthrough when I'd already placed all my chips on one romance only to have to change it last minute. So if I were to choose between the two, it'd be player-sexual.

[wtiger27]

Publicado originalmente por Angel:

I don't want to play as a male character just to get a romance lol

And if a game is designed right, you shouldn't have to. BG3 is designed around choices. And that is one reason it is a great game.

I only play straight male chars in any RPG I have played. If that option is not available, I don't play the game. And I really don't care what others think of that stance.

And how others want to play their games, should not be a concern. It's not for me to tell others how to play them and in what role they want do.

[Angel]

Publicado originalmente por wtiger27:

Publicado originalmente por Angel:

I don't want to play as a male character just to get a romance lol

And if a game is designed right, you shouldn't have to. BG3 is designed around choices. And that is one reason it is a great game.

I agree, bg3 is a great game

[Hobocop]

Publicado originalmente por alanc9:

How so?

I hear this claimed a lot, but nobody can ever explain what would change.

Because there is no evidence that romantic partners would treat each other any differently if they happen to only swing one way or the other, especially if all other aspects of their personality remains intact. An empty claim that begs the question.

[alanc9]

Publicado originalmente por seeker1:

I am saddened by what I hear of the current kerfluffle raging about Siege of Dragonspear and the trans character Amber Scott designed and included in it.

Not sure I'd call that "current."