安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
31 
檢舉此篇文章
Exclusively straight, or exclusively gay. If OP prefers to reject any suggestion of romance with a male NPC, she could choose _Exclusively gay Female_...and the scenario would never come up. I guess 'non-Exclusive' would mean bisexual, so maybe not a necessary option.
Because labels.
Modern folks like labels and to put stuff into little boxes....I think.
Used to be it was just LGB. Then T. Then I and A..
The letters go on and on as people discover new things they want to filter out and separate.
If that's good or bad? No idea...I consider myself 'just passing through' lol. Get the feeling by the time I get to the 'great log in qué in the sky' it will still be going on.
Because some people might not want to be cut out of a full experience of the game while some do? Maybe because some people find it more realistic to have to turn down an 'inappropriate' advance...or be turned down? Because more options are better? Because surprises are fun?
I'll admit that I (straight, male, senior citizen) was slightly nonplussed when the option to 'Kiss River' came up for male V. But I was willing to see where the game was going...and I found it funny to get shot down by him...ditto with female V getting shot down by Panam.
TBH I think this is far more realistic than than simply removing any possibility that it could come up. I think it's also much more realistic than the games where _every_ NPC is romanceable....that says more about the players' fantasies than anything else.