Not a fan of "playersexuality"

[Johanna ୨୧]

I am really happy that there is more and more inclusion of non heterosexual romance in games nowadays and Stardew Valley was always one of the earliest examples.

I appreciate that, but not the way it was implemented.

I know that sexuality doesn't completely define a character/person, but it is a huge part of one's identity imo.

I would have loved for romance-able characters (other characters would be great as well) to be openly homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual etc.

I know this would take away options if you decide to play as a male or female farmer (would also be great to have a non binary option).
However, I think this would bring so much more depth into the characters and the world. Even though there's limited dialogue, I do think that the characters in SDV are otherwise quite well developed.

I am just a huge fan of romance and characters that have a full identity and personality.

And as SDV has a big modding community making all characters romance-able for all players would surely be implemented. For example there are mods out there to marry Robin or have multiple partners.

I wish the "canon" game itself would just have more depth in this way.

This is not just a thing with SDV. Most recent games with romance options I can think of go the playersexuality way and to me that's just a huge bummer.

[Johanna ୨୧]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Originally posted by Johanna ୨୧:

Calling a suggestion/wish like this "abnormal" I also found extremely problematic, almost like they are implying it is something "sick".

I mean, it is quite unusual though, isn't it? Perhaps that word - "unusual" - would have been a less judgmental way of phrasing it compared to "abnormal", but your significant focus on character sexuality does seem quite outside of the scope of what the average person would prioritize to care about.

Like, there are probably a thousand ways that characters in the game could be more "fleshed out", and in ways that would not interfere with other player's preferences. But you prioritize establishing canon about what genitalia they're interested in, so much so that you "wish" the default was set in such a way that it significantly cuts into other people's freedom.

That being a priority of yours is quite obviously going to seem odd to at least some people.

Yeah, unusual would have been a better choice I agree.

Sexual orientation is much more than and does not necessarily even include genitalia imo.

And it's just that when I was growing up characters in games had more of a clear orientation, which was most often heterosexuality. That is definitely problematic, but by completely getting rid of it, there is a depth that was taken away instead of expending it to other sexualities imo. It's like a step forward and backwards at the same time. And I feel like this is a cheat way out instead of proper representation.

In general I wish for characters to be more developed including having a sexual orientation (just a wider one this time) again.

Disagreeing is totally fine, not everyone is also so focused on romance in farming sims (or other games where it's only a part and not the sole focus), but I'm just disappointed it's like this instead of what it could have been.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by Johanna ୨୧:

And it's just that when I was growing up characters in games had more of a clear orientation, which was most often heterosexuality. That is definitely problematic, but by completely getting rid of it, there is a depth that was taken away instead of expending it to other sexualities imo. It's like a step forward and backwards at the same time. And I feel like this is a cheat way out instead of proper representation.

Well it isn't about representation in the first place, it's about player freedom. Whether you're straight, gay or bi (or just playing a character that is), the point is to make sure you can make your character date whichever (eligible) other character you want them to date.

Originally posted by Johanna ୨୧:

In general I wish for characters to be more developed including having a sexual orientation (just a wider one this time) again.

I mean, the kind of story that you seem to be looking for is quite common these days, you're just... looking for it in a weird place.

Originally posted by Johanna ୨୧:

Disagreeing is totally fine, not everyone is also so focused on romance in farming sims (or other games where it's only a part and not the sole focus), but I'm just disappointed it's like this instead of what it could have been.

And that's fine, but again... I think you shouldn't really be surprised that some people are getting a bit annoyed when you say that you wish their freedom was limited in order for you to get your very specific outcome.

Personally, I still don't really understand what difference it makes. Like, let's say Leah is now gay, Kel is always female no matter what gender you play, and if you're male, she'll no longer be willing to enter a relationship with you. What actually changed about her? How does she have more character now? Should the game change half of her dialogue to be about her being gay? Wouldn't that just... take away from the things that actually make her interesting as a character?

[Kusarigama]

Originally posted by Johanna ୨୧:

I did wonder why they were acting this way, but to me it just seemed like the typical "identity culture war" response. As they haven't said anything more, I don't have more info to further understand their pov.

I have no idea about the "NexusMods fiasco" you're mentioning, could you give more info on this?

You see, the culture war is more than the "Nexus War Fiasco" but I will start there. 17 August 2022 Nexus Mods released a Statement for Spiderman Remastered titled "Flag mods and us (and you)." It stated basically called out a user for making a mod to remove all the Pride Flags a troll and basically said if this upsets you delete your account, get bent we are for inclusivity and are not going to argue it, "We aren't the authority on what users can and cannot mod."

Fast forward to September 2023. The Starfield pronoun fiasco is in full swing. Nexus then decides to chime in yet again, "As a business, we're not the police on what people can and cannot mod into (or out of) their games, but this one just isn't for us.
A "no-pronouns" mod, which is a direct removal of something that we know certain minorities rely on, goes against the Nexus Mods core values" Nexus Mods.

So you remember when I said that something small is big to others? Nexus lost their minds on this and had no understanding on the other side with this. These people if you go to their Darkest Dungeon Adult mod page are trying to be the arbiters of morality and virtue here and say what is supposed to be on their site. It is quite humorous.

We then have the Blaine Pardoe fiasco with Battletech because his political views did not align anymore in 2022 was forced out. It is funny because if you know anything about Battletech in the writing and not in the minis it is a lot like Helldivers in the political aspects in some factions. You have some people who are not into the Mechcommander and Battletech world wondering why it has some racist and fascist elements in some factions which Pardoe being a Military historian would have an understanding a grasp of would write in these books.

Finally we have the GamesWorkshop fiasco with... I can't believe I have to get into this... the female space marines.... There was already a faction in the 40k universe called the Sisters of Battle that people absolutely adored and that took a giant dump all over them. It was essentially this. Real fans knew it.

People often wonder why I defend gatekeepers so hard. It really is because things never get talked out and it is never rational. The culture war is real and its is VERY ugly. No one wants to talk. Its all out tribal warfare and everyone would very much follow the "eye for an eye philosophy" but that leaves everyone blind.

Edit: I should say I am not saying your not willing to listen but A LOT are not willing to.

[arkkumanu]

In short, you want to restrict the options available to rainbow folks in the name of "character depth". You can word it as eloquently as you like, but it's still only bigotry, and you're just concern trolling here.

As others have said, you are welcome to create your own mods to satisfy your bigotry. The community obviously has no need for them (otherwise they would already exist).

Besides, this topic is already addressed within the game. Some of the marriage candidates express they haven't felt this way about people of their sex before, if you pursue them homoromantically.

What's with all these cis-hetero trolls in the SDV community forums lately anyway? Feels like every other day there's a new topic in which some "concerned player", who "definitely doesn't have anything against gay people, but" just "wants to improve the game" by limiting player freedom in a way that specifically restricts the characters' sexuality and gender expression in some way. Like, you're too obvious and boring.

[Johanna ୨୧]

Originally posted by arkkumanu:

In short, you want to restrict the options available to rainbow folks in the name of "character depth". You can word it as eloquently as you like, but it's still only bigotry, and you're just concern trolling here.

As others have said, you are welcome to create your own mods to satisfy your bigotry. The community obviously has no need for them (otherwise they would already exist).

Besides, this topic is already addressed within the game. Some of the marriage candidates express they haven't felt this way about people of their sex before, if you pursue them homoromantically.

What's with all these cis-hetero trolls in the SDV community forums lately anyway? Feels like every other day there's a new topic in which some "concerned player", who "definitely doesn't have anything against gay people, but" just "wants to improve the game" by limiting player freedom in a way that specifically restricts the characters' sexuality and gender expression in some way. Like, you're too obvious and boring.

I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion at all. It would limit the options for heterosexual people as well?

What you mentioned about some marriage candidates stating they have never felt this way about a same-sex person is also part of the problem imo.
Non heterosexual relationships seem like an afterthought, a possibility, but not really a proper representation.

Like the "rivals" (not really I know) at the flower dance are all opposite genders. I would have preferred to see both same sex couples and maybe a romance between someone and a non binary person.

Yes, I am cisgender and mostly heterosexual, but I would still prefer more open representation.

The other replies do made me think that Stardew Valley's characters and the relationship system as a whole is quite too limited to properly implement this.
However, I do would love to see a farming sim with more focus on relationships and lots more potential romance options to also have more diverse characters!

Please read more carefully and don't immediately jump to conclusions next time.

[MekaDovah]

While I'm all for more solid representation, from a game design stand point I've always noticed if you want options available to as many players as possible, then there's a degree of genericness that's unavoidable. That's why, for the most part, most characters don't even mention their sexuality. It's not relevant to their stories.

Mechanically, restricting the romance options for any reason is simply that: restricting options. Reasons don't change this bottom line. Some people dislike that Robin isn't available as an option. Whether the reason was because she was already in a relationship or was of an incompatible orientation doesn't change the fact she's not an option. "Canon" dictates the player cannot have her. Period.

Fewer options means fewer things for the player to explore and interact with. The more specific the characters are written, the more restrictions are required to have it make sense.

Wanting "canon" designed in a way that satisfies oneself requires that the story be restricted in some way. It cannot be both that and something that offers the freedom for people of all stripes to enjoy the game as equally as possible. For that freedom to be possible, concessions have to be made, which means the experience can never be perfect. And this is one top of all the other logistical issues and limitations that go into game design.

[Sunny]

if you want story limitations based on NPC sexuality you have to play a game where sexuality is important to the story. sexuality has NOTHING to do with this story. nothing. zero. zilch. it would feel tacked on and completely inappropriate. this isn't a game about sexuality. that any of the NPCs comment on it at all should be the furthest extent of what is present in a game like this.

we do not need identity politics infecting SDV. do not. this is a terrible idea and everyone who has it should feel bad for bringing this nonsense up.

if you really, really, really, really are desperate for this sort of thing, go play Wylde Flowers. That's a farming sim where sexuality is important to the story, and thus it includes it. What you want exists. Leave Leah alone.

[Aetemes]

Let's be real if the characters are "officially branded" as certain stuff, it can easily attract negative attention, playing the "vague generic" game is probably best for sales.

Demetrius for example...I personally feel some kind of way, having all these "hot button" details about him, but making him the ambassador of you know what - anyways moving on.

The romance in this game is already "not realistic", and not detailed enough for it to feel entertaining from that angle, and the "identities" you date are kinda cliche and shallow. Why start with the "sexuality"?

It's a farming/mini terraria kinda game, the other stuff adds a cute "feels good" feels, but it's not the main focus.

Even the farming element, where is the animal poop, where is the fox killing your chickens...you can't even make a steak cause apparently dead fish is cute, but not bleeding cows.

I don't know if you are actually LGBT or not...but would you really like if they carelessly represent such characters and ignore the complexities that these kind of identities face in real life?

For a game to sensitively represent that, or frankly even "straight" relationships, I feel it needs to be aggressively geared towards this, it's not an easy thing to encapsulate by "normies" living their best life LOL.

I personally don't want an "outsider" pretending they know how these relationships work and trying to cash in by "baiting"...I find it very obnoxious.

Stick to what you know, and make actually good games instead of all the "clout chasing" through identity politics. But again if the game is good, I'll just ignore all that anyways.

I find blanket "playersexuality, no gender, girl on girl action teehee" a wishy washy, teeter the fence, "I am sophisticated and I care", why not? - it's more cash in my pockets.

I am over it personally, but that's the sleazy game of sales - I guess :/.

[Johanna ୨୧]

Originally posted by MekaDovah:

While I'm all for more solid representation, from a game design stand point I've always noticed if you want options available to as many players as possible, then there's a degree of genericness that's unavoidable. That's why, for the most part, most characters don't even mention their sexuality. It's not relevant to their stories.

Mechanically, restricting the romance options for any reason is simply that: restricting options. Reasons don't change this bottom line. Some people dislike that Robin isn't available as an option. Whether the reason was because she was already in a relationship or was of an incompatible orientation doesn't change the fact she's not an option. "Canon" dictates the player cannot have her. Period.

Fewer options means fewer things for the player to explore and interact with. The more specific the characters are written, the more restrictions are required to have it make sense.

Wanting "canon" designed in a way that satisfies oneself requires that the story be restricted in some way. It cannot be both that and something that offers the freedom for people of all stripes to enjoy the game as equally as possible. For that freedom to be possible, concessions have to be made, which means the experience can never be perfect. And this is one top of all the other logistical issues and limitations that go into game design.

Yup, I can totally see your point!

I'd prefer more "fleshed out" characters (in more ways but also including orientation) over freedom to have all options available. That's what mods can take care of.
Even if it means a romance option I would have liked best is unavailable to me.
I can still like them as a person and befriend them in game.

Judging by all replies so far, I guess I'm in the vast minority, but yeah, it's not a dealbreaker for me the way it is.

And while I did say the characters are otherwise well developed in my initial post, I worded that quite poorly. I meant more as in they feel unique and not just like total typical romance options stereotypes (Shane with his many troubles, Emily being quite esoteric etc). But in the end we do only learn limited things about them and it's best not to overload them.

And a game where you can divorce and make them forget with a potion and remarry them again or marry and then divorce everyone one by one is not the right place to implement what I would like to see for sure!

I guess it would be a nice idea for future farming sims in my opinion.

[Johanna ୨୧]

Originally posted by Sunny:

if you want story limitations based on NPC sexuality you have to play a game where sexuality is important to the story. sexuality has NOTHING to do with this story. nothing. zero. zilch. it would feel tacked on and completely inappropriate. this isn't a game about sexuality. that any of the NPCs comment on it at all should be the furthest extent of what is present in a game like this.

we do not need identity politics infecting SDV. do not. this is a terrible idea and everyone who has it should feel bad for bringing this nonsense up.

if you really, really, really, really are desperate for this sort of thing, go play Wylde Flowers. That's a farming sim where sexuality is important to the story, and thus it includes it. What you want exists. Leave Leah alone.

I disagree as it's a game that includes the option to date and marry, sexual orientation feels natural to me.

As I said before though, I realized that this game is too simple in the relationship system and too little focused on the characters to implement that in a way that works well.

I mean SDV is queer friendly already though?

I do own Wylde Flowers and it's on my to be played list, but there you play more as an existing character instead of your own.

No one can harm Leah don't worry, she's safe in the valley lol.

[Johanna ୨୧]

Originally posted by Aetemes:

Let's be real if the characters are "officially branded" as certain stuff, it can easily attract negative attention, playing the "vague generic" game is probably best for sales.

Demetrius for example...I personally feel some kind of way, having all these "hot button" details about him, but making him the ambassador of you know what - anyways moving on.

The romance in this game is already "not realistic", and not detailed enough for it to feel entertaining from that angle, and the "identities" you date are kinda cliche and shallow. Why start with the "sexuality"?

It's a farming/mini terraria kinda game, the other stuff adds a cute "feels good" feels, but it's not the main focus.

Even the farming element, where is the animal poop, where is the fox killing your chickens...you can't even make a steak cause apparently dead fish is cute, but not bleeding cows.

I don't know if you are actually LGBT or not...but would you really like if they carelessly represent such characters and ignore the complexities that these kind of identities face in real life?

For a game to sensitively represent that, or frankly even "straight" relationships, I feel it needs to be aggressively geared towards this, it's not an easy thing to encapsulate by "normies" living their best life LOL.

I personally don't want an "outsider" pretending they know how these relationships work and trying to cash in by "baiting"...I find it very obnoxious.

Stick to what you know, and make actually good games instead of all the "clout chasing" through identity politics. But again if the game is good, I'll just ignore all that anyways.

I find blanket "playersexuality, no gender, girl on girl action teehee" a wishy washy, teeter the fence, "I am sophisticated and I care", why not? - it's more cash in my pockets.

I am over it personally, but that's the sleazy game of sales - I guess :/.

Yup, I agree, it's the safer option definitely. My whole approach with this discussion was also kinda poor in hindsight. I guess I would just love a farming sim where relationships (romantic, platonic and family ones) take a lead role, but the playersexuality problem is only as small part of it.

I also agree that in SDV characters are not given enough attention to make it work in a way that's makes sense and does not just feel like randomly assigning labels for the sake of it.

I would not really see myself as part of LGBT+ as I'm "only" slightly bi and demisexual and don't face any difficulties regarding that. My friends and also many former university acquaintances are part of it though and I generally wish for more acceptance for everyone.
I also always like to see more queer representation and romance in games and media.

Sensitive representation is absolutely important and I think a great way could be to have a diverse and queer team of developers that could bring their own experiences into the characters.

Well, wishing for this in SDV everything considered was kinda not well thought out, but yeah ^^;

[The Big Brzezinski]

Considering how thin player characterization and roleplay options are on the ground, attaching specific requirements for NPC to have romantic interest in them seems like a dead end. Custom player characters in most games do not have personality traits outside of our own head canons. It might be different if a game had systemized life goals, world views, maybe an idiocentric-allocentric slider, stuff like that. The Sims took a crack at this early in its life. Such personality-focuesed game mechanics might well lead to deeper and more interesting roleplay and storytelling.

But in this game, and many others, player characters are basically just a checklist and an appearance wearing a backpack. The checklist is a poor substitute for a developing relationship, but it at least entails actual gameplay. To start assigning arbitrary appearance requirements to a player character for certain progression paths would just feel punishing. Or cheap, if it can be easily changed.

Hence the prevalence of Schrödinger sexuality. You don't know their orientation until you present them the bouquet. Then, wouldn't you know it, they're compatible with the player character. It's almost like characters in fiction need to facilitate the story for the fiction to even function.

[ChrillBill]

The thing is, and this is something some of us has already hinted at, that once again; this game IS a poor example in terms of character writing and development. Therefore it would be pretty much pointless to program certain npcs to only have romance options for a specific gender (essentielly mirroring real life sexualities). It would be like adding a cherry on an empty plate. Okay maybe not completely empty but upon a very flat cake...

The type of major overhaul that would be required in order to "justify" different sexual orientations is not happening. This game was released almost a decade ago and IF the dev had any interest in that department of the game we would have seen something ages ago.

So sorry to say but what you want is not happening for Stardew Valley. At least not vanilla Stardew Valley

[Amberbaum]

I think we already discussed it to death. Limitations in man-power due to single developer and having to spread the effort on multiple gameplay facets that are typical for this genre. Got it.

Maybe it wise to close this thread, because it doesn't help that bad faith comments coming from all sides keep dog-piling on OP. Anyone that stayed on topic and didn't interpreted anything in OP's comment - Good job.

@ Johanna
I recommend unsubscribing from this discussion. It's not worth pouring your heart out into this anymore. I know what you mean and your comment was neither meant to attack the rainbow crowd nor was it meant to play "identity politics". Tailored game experience when it comes to romance aspects is just more immersive and feels more tangible. I understand that. I still recommend sticking to romance visual novels. There are some real good gems out there that aren't kitschy and have a good story.

[ChrillBill]

Yeah I agree with Amberbaum. I also did not view this as an attack or insult towards my sexuality. Those posts were silly in my opinion and does not represent the whole LGBT community. That I can guarantee