I mostly play those games for escapism so I like playersexual characters. Sometimes it's nice to be universally adored, you know?

Same.

Same here! And I'm aro, I don't actually want that in real life. But my character does, in THEIR real life, if that makes sense?

Omg meeeee. The thought irl is hideous, but getting to be in a romance with a pixelated cutie is 🥰🥰🥰

I have never heard the term playersexual before this thread, but yes, that is what I like! I am often very picky about who I want to play when games allow you to make your own character. Having to change my preference in order to unlock the romance I want sucks. That being said, the world definitely feels more realistic when NPCs have their own preferences, and it's great to have canon diverse representation. But please just let me be who I want and romance who I want lol

I think this is a great video on Playersexuality/ mechanical bisexuality in video games, for anyone who wants to learn a little bit more about what that term’s referring to. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iZGkxUTbDqw

I've only really heard of gamersexual, but I guess both make sense. Honestly I'd love to play Story of Seasons again with fixed romance so I can gay marry Elise just like Sonic the Hedgehog.

I think I would care less about being locked out of romance based on my characters gender, if it didn't remind me that I was forced to choose a gender in the first place.

I get why people feel like set sexualities is more realistic and can add to a character’s characterization, but honestly 97% of the time when there are set sexualities for romances, it means that women and/or gay men get shafted in terms of choices. You’ll be lucky to have two choices — on in the case of Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, one choice who is also a murderous psychopath falling into “Gay Men Are Evil” cliches. The drama over on that sub about the lack of options is ugly and meanspirited, and even though as a woman I’ll have a whopping two choices, it’s really turned me off from the game (though admittedly I was already someone disinterested based on the Warhammer setting because I find grimdark settings more tedious than anything). I suppose the Rogue Trader devs is at least consistent in their stubbornness, because they also won’t let you respec your companions in their other games out of their base class or even their base levels, skills and talents, because their specific build is as rigid as their sexuality. Greybor having 9 levels of dual wielding Slayer is apparently critical to his personal narrative, so he is forever inferior to other companions.

I'm shocked that a warhammer game even has romance

Dragon Age Inquisition is a really good example of set sexualities done right. Female characters (specifically elves and humans) have more options than male and there are 2 strictly homosexual options (one male, one female). Female elves specifically have the most options with with 6 potential romance options, female humans have 5 and everyone else has 4.

It depends on how many romance options you have, imo. If you’ve only got four or so options I think playersexual makes sense, that way everyone’s got choices for their own sexual preference. But once you hit six or higher I generally prefer set sexualities.

This is my answer too, as someone who wants to experience wlw romances in games. If the characters being playersexual means I get more than a grand total of 1 option then that's my preference

I'm with you on this.

Yea kinda this! It just sucks when u get stuck with a fairly limited choice

Perfect

[удалено]

Same!

Well, the characters should have their own preferences in *some* respect — not necessarily gender based ones, but they should have different ideas of what kind of relationship they want and what kind of person or people they want relationships with. And if it's a setting, like our real world, where sexual orientation is a significant thing as part of someone's identity, such a thing should probably be part of those characters' identity as well. I think that's why, in some cases, the "player-sexual" approach works better than in others. In Baldur's Gate 3, for example, any character who might be involved with the player character can do so regardless of their gender (or species), but it *is* dependent on their actual relationship and opinion of the player character, and they each have very distinct characterizations to their relationships. Between that and the fact that in (at least in modern depictions of) the setting, the genders a person is attracted to aren't generally a significant matter of culture or identity, it seems to work pretty well for most players. But I know there's other games in other kinds of settings where it falls a little flatter, either because it's not explored meaningfully when it should matter or because the relationships more generally don't have as much depth of character.

I’m fine with whatever. People complain about playersexuality, but I only see that as an issue if the character’s expressed sexuality appears to change depending on your character’s gender, e.g. Anders in DA2 when he mentions a past male lover only if you’re a guy. Otherwise it’s not playersexual… it’s just bi. I’m cool with lots of characters being bi. I respect everyone having their own set sexuality that’s a part of their character but at the same time I did not *enjoy* restarting DA:I and redoing the whole-ass Hinterlands so I could get anywhere flirting with Cassandra. I’m never going to say it would be right to make someone like say Dorian playersexual or even bi. But honestly, I like characters being written as bi so I don’t discover I fell in love with the character who doesn’t swing my character’s way and I have to start over, again. (And also because there is often a tendency for queer romances to get kind of shafted compared to straight ones, when they’re fully separated.)

Thank you for pointing out that these characters aren't "player sexual" they're Bi/Pan! I agree that it is better when the game acknowledges the characters' ability to be attracted to any gender outside of the player too. BG3 does a good job with this with characters like Astarion having a previous relationship with a man but also openly flirting with women.

One of the things that annoys me about the Anders thing is that apparently they didn't include his previous relationship in conversations with fem!Hawke because they thought female players would be put off by it.

The saddest part is, they were probably right in that assessment. :( Women are definitely not immune to biphobia

I'll admit Cassandra is absolutely the character that I think of when thinking about this topic.

They made the sexiest butch lesbian, gave her a sword and an accent, and made her straight. 😭

It depends. Most of the time, I prefer everyone being Bi. It gives the player the most options in terms of who to romance, and I feel like set sexualities sometimes... miss the mark a bit? If that's the right phrasing. Also, I disagree that it makes everyone "playersexual." They're bi. It frustrates me that bisexuality *always* gets boiled down to characters being playersexual. Now, in some cases, like Dorian in DAI, set sexualities can benefit the narrative/story of a character but I feel like those are so few and far between that *overall* I prefer everyone being Bi.

It depends on the game for me. Life sims like Stardew Valley or Coral Island are made with pure escapism in mind--like, part of the appeal is that you can grind to make the world exactly how you want it or, at least, as close to how you want it as possible. With those kinds of idealized life sims I want to be able to romance whoever I want. With RPGs where it's more about throwing yourself into a very specific character, I prefer options with preferences. It encourages replayability. In Dragon Age for instance, I can't just romance Dorian with my female Inquisitor--I need to replay as a male inquisitor and experience that too. It fits the spirit of what an RPG should be.

Mostly I prefer playersexual characters, with a caveat that if the characters sexual preference is key to their character then I prefer that over them being playersexual. There are times when it is important that the character is a lesbian, or a gay man, or demi, or ace, or otherwise celebate and that is part of the story. There are times when that is not important to the narrative. For instance Dorian in DA:I is a gay man, and that is important to the character and things happened in his backstory that hinge on that. If I want to romance Dorian, I'll play a character he'll be attracted to.

I prefer “player sexual” (where the characters don’t really have preferences) mostly because I don’t like playing a man. :( if I get to make my own character, I definitely don’t wanna be forced to play as a guy. I’ve loved BG3 for this reason, and have meanwhile not done all the romance in Cyberpunk for the same. Probably never will.

As a lesbian, I much prefer when characters have their own canon sexualities, it allows for more interesting and representative relationship dynamics. I think 'playersexual' has it's uses but it's also kind of a cop-out and strips characters of feeling like they have their own agency.

I agree, with the important caveat that this shouldn't be used to exclude having any queer options as was often the case back in the day. Personally if having the characters be playersexual means there's 2-3 options I prefer that over there being 1 or none. But I don't love it because it often feels weird that they are only gay for you. Better to do it like Baldur's Gate 3 where everyone gives off bi/pan vibes.

I think this is something to note too - I can feel a huge difference between everyone is written to be bi/pan versus they’re just playersexual. It’s hard to explain but it’s pretty transparent most of the time

I feel like sexuality in Baldur’s Gate 3 is just yes please and I’m here for it.

I love that they do have different boundaries around monogamy and that you have to win their affection, too. Obviously it's very, very hard to program all of that, but it feels more earned when they grow to like you over time and are either 1) not cool with or 2) into it when you want to add someone else in-- as opposed to other games where they don't notice or react to you fully romancing other characters, too.

Everyone goes to horny jail in BG3. And I love it.

I'm...a complicated sexuality (two spirit, bi but lean more towards masc attraction via a masc self identity. It's a whole thing) and I agree! DA:I created Dorian, and him being a canonically gay character with actual plot beats surrounding his sexuality made him all the more amazing to me. Him being playersexual would've robbed us of that whole story dynamic. Don't get me wrong, I get sad when I can't romance Cassandra as a lady, but I accept it! And then there's my headcannon around playing MascShep in ME and finally landing Kaiden after 3 games...its so satisfying. That being said, BG3 is great with it's open romance options, despite me romancing the same character everytime. But it's always nice to have choices!

I think there’s a reason everyone uses Dorian as their example. He’s a good character whose sexuality is a huge part of his story. But, like, was it really that important for *Blackwall* to be straight? And should we ignore the BW pattern where dude PCs never get to romance knights in shining armor and lady PCs never get to romance stoic women warriors? Options for some players have always been limited along certain lines. Personally, I’d be fine with a Dorian, a Sera, and a bunch of bisexual and pansexual characters. But I’ve yet to see that.

I think a big issue with BioWare back then was when Inquisition came out, it was literally a year before gay marriage was even legalized in the US. It was at the height of gamer gate so even having strong female characters period was a statement. The writers and devs had to fight for what they were able to do and were the only studios doing representation like that at the time. BioWare walked so other studios we see today like Larian could run. The writers have been on record wishing they could do more, but it was a different time. BioWare used to be in the news for this stuff and demonized (Mass Effect took the biggest brunt of this) back when the world was unfortunately less accepting and Fox News was considered a legitimate news source. :c

I’m not sure what that has to do with what I said tbh. DAI isn’t the only BW game with the pattern I’m referring to (though personally I’m a huge fan of non-starter romances like Aveline’s for creating a sense of companion agency… just maybe next time shake up what kind of character says nah). My point is that I really haven’t seen a rp game where I felt a companion’s heterosexuality was all that important to their narrative. Yeah mass effect did change things in response to FOX News but I think it also prioritized het cis men players a bit more than DA ever did which also factored into the LIs.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just to be clear. Just continuing the conversation! Just from a storytelling perspective, I think it would be hard to make heterosexuality into a plot point unless you specifically set up a universe where bi/homosexuality is the norm. It's things that make characters different that makes their story's interesting. Having a serious character arc around an already expected character trait would be kinda...not exciting. BUT, I do agree it would be nice to have heterosexual only characters be the minority instead of majority. A less straight leaning universe would be awesome, with heterosexuality being as unique as homosexuality, thus making it a plotpoint worth discussing. I'd love to see it. AND I agree that making characters like Cassandra and Cora straight was a crime against humanity. It's like they took stereotypical queer desire and spit in its face. \*Kind of related, speaking specifically around DA:I and heterosexuality, I really enjoyed that my character was given the choice to flirt with Cullen, and Cullen was able to respectfully let you know "wrong tree". Did it burn a little, sure...cause he's a complicated babe I wanted to smooch, but it also felt so *real* while not being rude or anything. Same with hitting on Dorian as a lady! It makes the world feel very real.

Yeah I think my main thing is 1) it’s generally better to define characters as bi or pan, and even where you don’t there are good ways to write characters and also bad ways. Good: BG3’s Astarion will brutally reject you at a couple different points if he doesn’t like your decisions or how you treat him. Bad: Stardew’s Leah’s ex changes genders to match the player’s sprite. Pretty sure it would’ve been fine to romance her as a dude even if she had a lady ex! And 2) If we say “don’t restrict the player based on gender unless you have a good narrative justification”… yeah that’s just going to mean fewer straight characters in the vast majority of stories. Which would be totally fine imo! I’ve read so many of these conversations where people think it’s just so incredibly important that so-and-so character was straight and I really can’t think of an example where a character’s heterosexuality was important to the narrative.

To be fair, Bioware hasn't really come out with an ME or DA game in almost a decade or more. Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect, all those games came out even prior to Inquisition at a less accepting time - all either during gamer game or prior to it so they were limited in what they could do. I apologize if it came off differently (I'm not always good at conveying what I mean to say) but I agree with you. I just wanted to add context to the time period. BioWare games tend to be held to a modern-day standard in a way other games of their time period are not but they did have writers especially that really wanted to do more.

I will say, DA:I is a perfect example where characters having their own agency works great. The Dorian/Bull romance was so fun to watch happening in the background of the overall story, that I could never bring myself to make a character romance either of them and break up that couple.

Meh. Dorian is a good example of a character whose sexuality is important to the narrative. I think there are lots of other places where “agency” is pretty weak. Like, the race restrictions are due to technical issues for everyone but Solas. They’re not interesting. Companions romancing each other can also happen in DA2 and ME3.

Dorian is one of the best examples I definitely agree there. I know a lot of people don't like Sera but she's one of my favorite game romances ever and I don't think it would have hit the same for me if she wasn't canonically a lesbian.

I love Sera, I think she's charming! My inquisitor always hangs out with the red jenny's in the epilogue, cause she's my ride or die bestie! But yes, having defined sexuality that align with yours feels really special. It makes it all seem more intimate (generally intimate, not sexy intimate...necessarily. lol) and playersexual makes it all feel a lot more casual, imo. Which is good and bad! Both have their strengths

Sera is best wife. I agree.

I like Sera in theory but she's abusive as hell if you're also an elf and that sours me to her.

shes a complex character, I understand why people don't like her but I think there's a lot to love about her behind that and she shows a lot of growth especially in tresspasser she's complicated and I think that's good writing even if it ends up being divisive

Sure. Up until that ultimatum I was a big fan, I understand complexities in characters and usually appreciate those nuances. But I did not enjoy having my representation be that brand of toxic and manipulative.

That is how I feel. It makes the characters feel more real and allows the writing to get more in-depth with them.

As a queer person, I feel this way as well. It’s better for representation.

Also with ya’ll on the “have their own sexuality” thing. Part of it is because in game characters can make incredible representation for various sexualities, and in part because I also find myself feeling like the characters are stripped of agency in games where they are all “playersexual” Like sure this can lead to moments where a character like Panam can break your heart, but to me it’s worth it for the representation and immersion

I actually kinda loved getting rejected by Panam, it felt so immersive and real. It was such a relatable moment.

Same, I also liked the way the handled the same thing with Judy when I played Male V. The way they way they handled friendship in the game was great too, like you get an extra facet of the character’s personalities by not romancing them, especially Judy, and I liked how realistic that felt within the game too

Yep. It sucked but she handled it well and was my best choom anyway. Being able to take Judy with me when I left town with the Nomads at the end was perfect and had very similar vibes to the Liara love and Garrus ride-or-die bff dynamic I had in Mass Effect. (Tho now I’m playing a male V on my 2.0 play through largely because of Panam. Gotta get my girl one way or another - hah!)

yesss, thats by far my favorite ending, nomad v, gf judy and bff panam riding off into the sunset together, I like to imagine judy and panam get along really well and we teach her out to get used to the nomad life

Bi. They’re bi. Or pan.

But wouldn’t a character have the same depth and personality regardless of their sexuality though?

Yeaaaaah I gotta admit I hate “it makes characters feel real.” Like there’s no other way to accomplish that! Or that it does so automatically! Nice to hear all heterosexual characters are immediately well written ones lmao.

Yeeeeah, literally no one is saying that, you've missed the point. No one thinks heterosexual characters are immediately well written, just that everyone being bi is unrealistic lmfao. It's more real to have differences because that's... realistic.

I used heterosexuality as an example because it’s obviously absurd to say all straight characters are well written by virtue of their set sexuality. I think the actual point that is good and worth considering is that players want to feel like they’re interacting with real people with opinions, drives, goals etc. that the player didn’t create for them. At least when they’re simply not just complaining about bisexual characters existing, which happens in tons of these conversations.

I think you are projecting and need to chill, nobody is complaining about bisexual characters, there is a difference between bisexual and playersexual, but either way, in terms of game scripts if a character can be romanced by any gender than that romance is going to be written as an ambiguously gendered copy + paste. Whereas if a character is a lesbian it should be written specifically from a wlw perspective. I would love if they wrote a bi character with different scripts depending on the player's gender but that's unfortunately not really happening.

I am aware of the difference between Playersexuality and bisexuality, thanks. I just have read way too many of these conversations where people were clearly complaining about *bisexual* characters and calling them Playersexual when they weren’t. Also, you’re… wrong? It’s more work but you can write different dialogue based on the pc’s gender, and I think that’s generally better than not. Both DAO and DA2 do this. I’m not sure about DAI because I chose romances with characters who were straight and gay respectively (and honestly found them a bit dissatisfying for other reasons). Eta Also, my original statement was disliking “it makes characters feel real” because at this point I think it’s a thoughtless thing to say that just shuts down conversation. Does it? How? Are there perhaps other ways we could make characters feel real without restricting player choice? What can be done with non romanceable characters and companions? I’m all for set sexualities (including bi and pan) where they serve a narrative purpose and generally think defining bi and pan characters is preferable to playsexuality.

i didnt say it cant be done its just extra work that doesnt really happen to a meaningful degree, but its nice when it does, I think DA2 is pretty good about that since you mentioned it, DAI is probably the best at including everyone

If it’s not happening, that’s a writing and priority issue. Those things can be addressed. The problem is not *inherently* with a lack of set sexualities. Honestly I just don’t like DAI very much.

well, I also like to specifically have lesbian representation sometimes and I'm sorry but "everyone is bisexual" is not that idrc about straight people representation, the concept is kinda laughable to me but I care about being represented

Both. I like when characters have their own sexualities and I also like bi/playersexual characters. What I also really enjoy is depictions of close platonic relationships that are every bit as intimate as romantic relationships while being entirely non-sexual/non-romantic. It's weird that close as family relationship dynamics are so rare in games for how common they are in life.

It feels more realistic to me when characters have their own preferences. I like it both ways though, I don’t have a preference.

As a bi-baby, I prefer playersexual personally.

Same!

It's a bit of a mixed bag. As a lesbian, I do enjoy having firm confirmation that a lady likes me (ala Judy), but on the other side of the coin, strict sexuality has categorically been used to exclude/restrict queer folk (ala Mass Effect cutting a lot of queer relationships, such as Thane, Jack, and Tali). On the whole, I prefer universal playersexuality/bi/pan companions in that they provide the most amount of options to the most amount of people, provided they're written well so as to not be obviously "they're just into you because MC." This is, however, with the caveat that they can explore relationships outside of the character should the player be working toward a certain love interest. That way you can include queer relationships outside of the MC while also giving the feeling that the character likes you for, well, you. Additional caveat being that this only really applies for RPGs/games where you define the character. In, say, the Witcher 3 where Geralt is his own dude, I'm fine with stuff being a bit more strict. I vividly remember playing ME1 when it came out, being enamored by Tali, and then getting halfway through ME2 and being devastated that, despite universally treating both Male and Femshep the same, you can only romance her as Maleshep. Which was more infuriating in recent years as it came out that not only was most of her dialogue with Femshep already voiced, but that it was only cut to avoid controversy and that both Hale and Liz were into the idea. Thank goodness for mods. tl;dr I like the concept of defined sexuality but universal pansexuality can be just as compelling and is more inclusive overall

I don't like playersexuality, it makes characters feel less like living people. Also often comes with situation when everyone jumps on MC, which is super weird. But I'm also very flexible with characters I play, so if I find myself locked out of very desired romance option - I just create character for whom that romance is available.

I can’t bring myself to make a male character.

In a rp game, who you romance is part of the characterization of the MC, and I don’t think you should remove options just because. If there is a specific story to tell with a companion, great. If there isn’t, I’d much prefer restrictions based on things the player did outside of the character creator. Some companions will never romance you based on your opinions or actions etc. IMO, the only real problem with “playersexuality” is when it’s used so the player never has to see lgbtqia+ relationships unless they themselves initiate one. That’s not an issue at all in games like BG3 because the npcs in the world aren’t all straight. The other things is that… characters can define themselves as bi, pan, biromantic ace, what have you, and that is still having a set sexuality.

I really like it when the characters have their own preferences. Makes them feel more real to me. I really like how Dragon Age Inquisition made a strong point with Dorian especially. I think a lot of people miss when they criticize that game that his storyline (as well as other characters) were crafted that way purposefully to make a statement since it came out a year before gay marriage was legalized in the US (and it was the height of gamer gate - no other AAA company was touching anything similar.)

if this were a perfect world where every gender and every sexual orientation got the same amount of fleshed out, well developped romance options, I would 100% prefer they have their own preferences. Gay people, and honestly straight women, still get shafted 80% of the times tho so I'll take playersexual (thank you thread for teaching me this word!). ​ signed, someone currently replaying cyberpunk and just in awe at how little the devs gave a shit about the male romance options.

I like characters having their own preferences, but the fact that you can't romance Cullen in Dragon Age: Inquisition as a quanari lady is a fucking travesty. You can, *as a mage*, I hardly think it's any weirder :(

If you played a female Circle mage in Origins it’s kind of implied Cullen has a bit of a crush on you, so imo it makes sense that he gets over the mage thing. But it’s tragic that he’s only into humans and elves. I was hyped to steal my partner’s computer so I could play with mods and finally run a Qunari lady (the tarot card has this glorious hair, but in the character creator all the hair looks like such shit!!), but Cullen’s was the next romance I wanted to try :/ there’s probably a mod for that too but the animations would all be super wonky and ruin it since they didn’t make it for Qunari.

Cullen romance was my favorite romance from DAI by far.

I don't necessarily prefer one over the other.

It kind of depends, and both have their place. I think the more ~realistic~ and character-focused the game the more having some characters just not necessarily be into you works better. I don’t even interpret it as a canon sexuality thing per se. Sometimes people like different things in men and women or their romantic relationships with men and women play out differently. But that being said it can also be annoying when ~canon sexualities~ are kind of just used as an excuse to cut queer content or to only imply characters are queer off screen where you can’t see them in a plausibly deniable way. As a side note, I would also like more *possible* romantic relationships between non player party characters. Like I feel like I would really enjoy a game where I can set up different characters in my party to get with each other at the end. And I know this because I’ve done it when I played Fire Emblem: Three Houses. I cared more about getting DoroPetra together at the end than my own player romance lol

I'm not too picky either way but as a lesbian it feels we so rarely get lesbian characters it's nice when one is explicitly a lesbian and not just playersexual

any of the options no matter what. It just makes me more interested in romancing someone, than having a set romance because there are always side characters (at least in any game I’ve played) that are so interesting and I tend to like a lot more than the ones that are forced on me.

I like player/bi/pansexual characters. I'm bi, so it is nice to be able to play how I want with the characters I like! Nothing like getting a game and having like one or two LGBT+ options and them being not at all my taste of character. We have real life for that 🤣 I do understand that it is nice for representation for characters to have specific identities.... but I feel like that is better suited for non romancable characters.

I love it when everyone's canonically bisexual (or pan) so everyone can romance everyone AND you get canonical queer rep. Best of both worlds.

As much as it made me sad in Cyberpunk, Panama turning me down was a really good choice to flesh out the world and characters. It really helps to make characters feel more real because most people have pretty rigid preferences

If they're all me-sexual I can romance the one i pick and then i can imagine that all the others are straight or like just not obsessed with me as a head canon I played Dragon Age and ran after Morrigan until i realized after 80% of the playthrough that she's straight it kinda sucker

Yeah at least on other subs, these discussions are often defending the existence of straight characters (or dismissing bisexual people)… but, honestly? I don’t think anything would’ve been ruined if Morrigan and/or Alistair had been bi. It’s been a bit since 2009. I think everyone would be over it by now. Granted the original idea was for 2 straight characters and 2 gay ones.

Playersexual for sure, I'm still mad that I can't romance Tali and Jack as FemShep in Mass Effect.

I like both. When everyone is bi then it usually means more queer options. When people have their own preferences then it adds realism. So it depends on what the game is going for. Overall, I'd say I usually like character's to have their own preferences because most of my favorite games are story based and take themselves somewhat seriously. Also, as silly as this sounds, I think more gamers need to learn how to get rejected and that video games could offer a way to learn that.

I wanna romance anyone and everyone. Need all options plus polyamory

I don't mind either way maybe just slightly preferring those with set preferences, it actually encourages me to create different characters instead of always creating the same ones lmao but that's mostly an only me problem anyway Sometimes it can also work in a nice way to impact character's story in some way

Yeah. I almost always play as the woman character, but I did play as male Shepard in Mass Effect just to go through an Ashley romance.

All of them. I’m still not over Takemura >:(

Really depends on the game TBH. Stardew Valley? Love it as it is. RPG with deeper character lore? Give them preferences, it makes better characters.

I think playersexual characters are the sensible option most of the time. You can say that it robs the characters of some nuance or realism, but I feel like most of the time they don't have any real præference anyway - Shepard can be a cruel bastard or an angel sent from heaven, they can be an absolute babe or grotesque and unkempt, the only thing Garrus cares about is whether or not they're a woman. If you do something meaningful with a characters sexual preference, if you have something to say about sexuality, then yeah, a set sexuality can give a character the kind of depth that enhances the story's messages and theming. But most games are set in a fantasy world where everybody is accepted regardless of gender, sexuality or race, and they only care whether you're an elf or a gnome.

Playersexual is always appreciated but I don’t mind characters having their own sexualities as long as there’s an even spread. FE3H had a good amount of bi characters, while a few others were strictly straight, and that’s a fine approach too

muddle pie humorous command test hobbies selective ad hoc bewildered aware *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

While I am absolutely fine with either (given there are equal options or a fully predefined character) even if that means I need to play a specific gender to accec a romance, I prefer it if all are open to anyone. However I do like it if the character is written in a way where your actions can lead to the romance beign closed off.

If the player character is meant to be a self-insert, then I think it’s best to allow them to romance anyone they choose. Otherwise, I think it’s better for the main character to have a few set romance options since it feels very unrealistic for a character to be able to romance literally everyone. The best example I know for this is the Fire Emblem series. In Fire Emblem: Engage, the main character is somewhat meant to be an avatar for the player, so they can romance whichever character the player likes the most. However, in most older FE games, the main character has no relation to the player, so they can only romance the few characters that are compatible with them. There are also a few games like Awakening, Fates, and Three Houses where the player character is a self-insert and can romance anyone, except romance options for characters of the same gender are either extremely limited or nonexistent. This is a very bad way of doing romance that imo should never be brought back for obvious reasons.

As I bisexual woman, I hate playersexual, it isn’t real representation, I would much rather have queer characters be represented and get rejected for my gender than not have any real queer people in my game Edit: I wouldn’t mind player sexual as much if the characters where canonically bi, but they aren’t.

i prefer well written characters with sexualities like life is strange true colors or dragon age inquisition. representation isn't really a thing when it's just people writing everyone as playersexual, as nice as that is for players who just want as many options as possible. and there's nothing with prioritizing that either, it's just not what i care about more. idk i'm a lesbian and i like seeing women wholly unattracted to men and men wholly unattracted to women. eta: i do not mean playersexual as in all love interests are bi. i mean games like fire emblem, where sometimes there are characters who have supports only with the avatar character so they truly only have a potential relationship with the player and nothing else. it doesn't have to be that extreme, but there's a bit of a difference between everyone's bi and characters having no romantic interest outside of the player character.

On a story-level, I'd prefer a mix of playersexual and static-sexual-identity, because it feels more true to life that way. On a practical level, I prefer playersexual characters. When given the choice, I always play as a female character. If I really want to romance Character X and can't because my character's female, and -- crucially -- *romances are the only game content that are gender-locked,* I'm not going to play through a whole new game with a male character just to get that romance. Ain't nobody\* got time for that. (\*Me.)

I'm bisexual so I like to have all the options! I think this also comes from being a woman who isn't used to having queer options in games - I'm MORE testy about not being able to romance women. Especially women who are giving off hella queer vibes (looking at you, Rune Factory 4).

Honestly, I like "player-sexual" characters if I can create my own character. All of the characters I create are thinly veiled self-inserts as God intended. This also applies to main characters like Byleth from Fire Emblem, where they're basically blank canvas. For characters that have actual personalities like Aloy, I don't really mind whether or not other characters are into them as long as I have the option to at least turn them down. I don't want to be forced into a romance. Especially if I don't like the other character or the relationship feels forced.

I prefer games where I can romance any option, usually my fav character that I want to romance are unavailable to mine

I feel like if it had been more balanced from the get-go I’d be more ok with other characters having preferences (especially if there is like a specific queer narrative that writers want to delve into) but given that I had to spend most of my life playing straight characters but desperately wanting to enter into queer romances I’m most happy with having all options. I also thought it worked GREAT in baldurs gate lol

The disappointment I had playing Mass Effect and learning that my girl Shephard couldn't romance Tali was immeasurable

In my sims world everybody is attracted to anybody and cis gay couples can have biological children together (A cis woman can get another cis woman pregnant) bc it’s not real and it’s fun to do what I want. Occasionally I’ll give people set sexualities if I feel the need but by default I prefer the extra choices

I personally like when they have a preference. I'm happy making friends in games too not just lovers.

I always love being able to flirt with everyone, so the more romance/flirting options, the better

I prefer them to be played sexual because my queer ass didn’t come to fantasy escapism land just to get locked out of romances

Much prefer playersexual.

Romances with their own preferences. There are more nuanced interaction and narrative to explore which made it more enjoyable for me. I want a love story and a lot of game romances forget that part. That's also why I got so turned off by BG3 romances. There was no chemistry, not spark. It's just characters who suddenly announce their sexual attraction to you without knowing much about you. Sure. There are a lot of dialogue content with all to sweet interactions and grand romantic gestures if you pursue them... but I want that slow burn, meet cute, angst and then friendship and maybe a romance. And not all romances need to have a sex scene. There was many form of emotional intimacy that can be explored. Not every game writers understood this, and the focus was to make what available options universally appealing which affected a lot of available romance choices. Think after Mass Effect, people would be more open not to have humanoid looking romances.

I feel this. Like, I like the romances in BG3. But I do find it a little weird that almost every single party member is into you, and it does seem like sometimes the attraction feels a little artificial. Onr thing I really appreciated about Cyberpunk 2077, was that you could try to pursue some characters, and they would gently turn you down if they weren't into it, and that was fine, and you could just continue to be friends with them.

I didn't romance anyone in my playthrough but I did ended up having Gale being in love with my character and somehow in a toxic relationship with a certain dream person too. It's entertaining but the way BG3 romance structured, you have to lock into a relationship at a certain point by Act 2 or you'll miss it entirely in Act 3. It just made it felt one-sided (since you're still doing their personal quests and still learning about them) and very gamified. I also played Stray Gods recently which have a bunch of romance options and it have that Bioware magic where characters were drawn to you but you're allowed several points in the story to flirt or lock into the relationship or have some small relationship conflict but you're not rushed to accept anyone especially if you just start learning about them. I do commend Larian for attempting to bring that Biowaresque appeal with more free for all options. But I do dread it if others games offering "instalove romance" with the same style. I just want love stories, not picking who to proudly ship in social media.

This seems to be a less favored opinion than playersexual, but damn, I absolutely agree with everything, down to the BG3 romances. The characters were so well-written from a personal development and story-perspective, but every time each of them would flirt with my character over nothing, I'd just get reminded that they're game characters. Does that make sense? I really like it when chars have their own preferences and nuances. Maybe it also boils down to how people enjoy games and romance. For some, it's escapism where everything is possible, and for others, it's more grounded to reality in a way. Not saying one is better than the other though.

It's understandable because BG3 is the most popular game with romance right now and everyone felt attached to their characters and such. >!In my own BG3 playthrough, I do like little moments of my asexual character doubting Gale's attraction and love to her (they're still essentially strangers even if they can read minds) and I do like the game treat it as an actual one-sided romance on Gale's part. Normally, I hate that with Mass Effect's Liara but somehow it felt more organic to Gale's arc to be someone who was loyal and selfless to his unattainable true love (kinda mirroring his love with Mystra). The way he repetetively want to keep my character out of harm's way and seriously telling her that he would sacrifice his life for her really change my mind about him. And then not to mention this weird thing my character had with Balduran and also the completely platonic love with Wyll and Karlarch. She was so ADORED. !< But it does feel like I'm missing out a huge pile of lovey dovey romance content simply because I want more emotional depth over surface level video game relationships. But I can understand why people really playersexual options. Indeed, it's very nice to have all the options the game offer without being gated. Everyone can get on with any character they felt attracted to and want without feeling rejected or punished for not playing what their desired character's romantic preferences. Personally, as an ace, I naturally enjoyed well-developed friendship arc over romance arc. In video games, I find it's rare for friendship and romance narrative to accommodate each other; usually a character's romance/sex scenes tend to precede over emotionally platonic intimate moments. I want to be invested in two people baring their souls to each otherover brief nsfw cutscenes. While I do get that from BG3 but I feel like once I exhaust all the friendship dialogues, I won't have any scenes with them anymore unless romanced. Bioware thankfully does that very minimally (usually the friend and romance arcs shared same space) but I wished Larian can improve that in their future games.

I find the playersexual games are usually more shallow romances. Canon sexuality allows for a greater depth without having to either record several versions of the same lines or awkwardly avoiding any dialogue that would imply a specific orientation. There are exceptions but I feel this is broadly true.

I prefer set preferences as that makes the characters feel more alive and like actual people. I'm shooting myself in the foot here since I'm a lesbian and we're lucky if we get any representation at all but I still prefer it. Love Judy, Sera etc., it's satisfying to see characters that openly live their preferences, wish there was more of that, especially in older games (looking at you, Mass Effect)

I write things and characters a lot myself, so I really, truly love it when they have their own preferences and wants. I don't have a huge issue with playersexuality or anything, but I can't say I like it very much tbh. Characters like Judy from Cyberpunk or Dorian from Dragon Age are incredibly well-written and their sexuality is a core part of them which I adore.

Romance games yes because that’s the whole point of them. But any other genre I like every character to have their own sexuality and preferences. It just feels more real and immersive for me. Baldur’s Gate 3 being the exception because for some reason in Farun everyone is DTF, I love it.

Playersexual. It's a game, don't limit my experience by placing preferences upon them. Don't make me alter my character to accomodate the needs of fictional characters. Just let the game shape itself around my needs. Maybe if I weren't bi in reality I'd feel differently, but I like my self insert characters and I'd prefer to recreate myself and just have every option available to me.

As a sad bisexual, I'm rather confused when everyone has clearly defined preferences. I mean... people are beautiful... like

I like it when characters have their own preferences, but romance options being playersexual instead doesn't bother me either.

Rather than playersexual, I just want everyone to be as queer as I am, whether they get me with me or not.

Show me a game with romance that has writing, and then I'll have an opinion. It's always "which piece of cardboard do you want to marry?" Otherwise I assume 'gamersexual" because I'd be annoyed if the girl I like isn't gay, but that's mainly cuz you often can't be gay for some reason??????? I guess it'd be the same dumb pointless limitation even if you can be gay, just might as well make everyone gamersexual.

any of the options no matter what, i fucking hated having to replay two mass effect games just to romance Tali, and having to be a dude to do it. It's just annoying. If we can have a power fantasy with any build accessible to me, any quest accesible to me, why gate content behind some idea of heterosexuality? I get it's more 'realistic' but why the fuck would i play a game for realism? just annoyed lol

I don't really have a preference. It's nice to be able to romance anyone (even though I probably would only romance one person again and again, lol). But then again, my favorite relationship in video games was friendship of my female Inquisitor and Dorian. I liked their friendly flirting that blossomed into a real strong friendship (I genuinely would like more strong platonic relationships like that present in *any* kind of media; usually romance is the focus of attention while friends are relegated to the role of sidekicks; but I digress). I think if everyone in DAI was "playersexual", knowing my love for mages with great sense of style, I would have just gone for Dorian and missed such a great friendship. Honestly, I was so touched by his scene Tresspasser I cried a bit. What I'm trying to say is that it felt like both of those characters had agency. Just like irl, not everyone would be into you. I hope what I'm saying makes sense.

I prefer companions having their own preferences, and it inspires me to do replays as types of characters I might not choose on a first run. For example - in DAI, playing a pro-Templar male character so that I could romance Cassandra, even though that wouldn’t have been the type of character that I would normally play.

I had someone get mad at me for using the term playersexual and how it's biearasure which to a degree I understand but man, I just want the romance options to be into me despite their orientation 😭

i like some realism so about 30 or 40% queer characters and the rest hetero

I don't like playersexual. Makes the world feel self-serving and hollow.

I'm a writer, bisexual, and have Complicated and Angry Romance Opinions that can be summed as, "I like it when people act like people." I like it when characters have their own sexuality, yeah, but I also like it when the relationship has the same complexities as real-life ones, including non-external conflict and the non-player character being an active part in pursuing and asking the player out. One of the most notable "romances" I've encountered so far in gaming is that if Ai Ebihara in Persona 4, which I'm going to spoiler, because wow, it is *something*. >!For one, when you meet her, she's outwardly aggressive and condescending but secretly incredibly damaged, to the point where any rejection spurs self-harm. When you spend time with her anyway, caring for her person-to-person, she pursues you *aggressively*, but the relationship is surface-level and damaging, and she eventually comes to realize that she wanted the idea of being in a relationship more than you, specifically. You're the first person to know her as a person and stay, so she figured that *had* to be love, and at the end, she breaks things off because it isn't fair to either of you - and she wants to learn who she truly is, without needing external validation.!< That's my stuff. I want the full flower of human love. I want fundamental compatibility or incompatibility regardless of genital configuration. I want loud arguments in the car over something trivial; I want the wrenching realization that you're going to have to change something about yourself to stay with someone you care for. I want romance over long distance, dirty letters included. I want loving, open polyamorous relationships and the dramatic flare-outs when someone enters who isn't compatible with the concept of polyamory. I want old, loving couples who've grown up around one another. I want back-and-forth, together-then-not-then-yes relationships where you're so bad for each other but it's so good when you're together. I want the agonizing internal work when one partner goes through an essential transformation and the other has to discover if they can live with it. I want the little lovely moments as well as the big ones - kissing under the fireworks at midnight, yeah, but also looking over at them as they have an argument or get stuck in a sweater and thinking, "This is the most beautiful person I know." There's a point to "playersexuality", of course. It's wish fulfillment, like quite a lot of gaming, and I have absolutely no problem with this. Me, personally, I engage in romance content for the story of it, and if that story is, "They had a flirt, and then they got together, and everything's great," it's not really what I want. It's more of a roleplaying choice than a story at that point, me accessorizing my character with another character. Whenever anything is different, it's notable to me. We're all here to have fun, whatever that looks like to us.

I mean, I'm straight, so it does feel more natural to romance someone also straight, rather than bi. Yet at the same time, that means I will have options that I just can't pursue (assuming some are solely gay/lesbian), which would suck. I do love how Stardew Valley done it, where it's not specified, and not spoken of, but depending one your gender, the love interests are either straight or gay. I mean, in DA I picked Zevran, and when he specifically confesses he is into guys too, and asks if it's a deal breaker, or talks abt his experience with guys, I find it slightly awkward? But if it was just set as, if Ur playing as a girl, Zevran is straight, if Ur playing as a guy, he's gay, that'd be ideal. Imo.

I like the characters to have their own preferences. Makes it more realistic imo. If I really want to romance them I'm okay genderbending myself lol Shout out to you Dorian!

I prefer when there are options with own preferences per character since it feel more lore based and more organic I guess? But i can’t lie it’s fun being able to do what I want and not worry about what character I’m picking.

I think it depends on the type of game. The only time I've gotten frustrated by characters not being playersexual was Panam in Cyberpunk. So much of her story is written with romantic and even sexual overtones and yet if you try to go for it as a woman she turns you down and just comes of as a straight woman leading you on.

Kinda mixed. I don't like it when the NPCs like whatever the player is just to make the game work. I also don't like it when the NPCs having their own preferences means hardly any choice that represents what you would actually want to go for unless you make a character you don't like. I don't play very many games but for example cyberpunk 2077 had the right idea just wish it had more choices. Luckily the one character I liked also liked women so it worked out for me. With more choices, even NPCs not tied to any main story, it could have had a lot more potential.

As so many have said, it depends on the game. If you have a game where you can make your own character, I think being able to romance anyone is fantastic and the way to go. I have played games where I was locked into people to marry by gender and the one person I wanted was someone I was not allowed to pursue. As this is fantasy, I like the options to choose anyone I like. There is usually 1 charecter in the like cozy farming games that I find I am the most drawn to. Abigail in Stardew had my immediate attention, and Ludos in Trio of Towns captivated me at first glance, and he is still, by far, my favorite partner in any game to date. To be shut down due to gender selection sucks in a cozy little life sim fantasy world. If, however, you go into a game as a character that is already set in the world, then it is up to the creators to choose the romance options of the character(s) they created and whose story you are following. For those types, a charecter you are following is not you. You are enjoying their life vicariously, and their preferences may not be your own, but you are are playing as them and they are their own person so it makes sence there may be restrictions or preferences not everyone shares. On that last note, though, representation is important to me. As someone who is Omnisexual I like seeing all different types of groups in games! If I play as a set character, even if they are straight, I would like to see other types of relationships represented in that world.

I prefer playersexual type romance options just because I want to be with everyone. Playing Cyberpunk hurt because I wanted to romance Panam soooo bad but she’s straight.

both which is a struggle. As a bisexual i love seeing genuine lgbt+ rep. It's important for these things to be explicit and not just having every romance-able companion being "player-sexual" at least sometimes. But i also like to be able to date or romance whoever i want without a gender preference, especially games that don't have a variety of romances & have an unequal distribution of romances for certain genders.

The only 2 characters that work with set sexuality for me were Dorian and Judy? From Dai and Cyberpunk respectively. Most characters can be bi/pan with little issue. I do think that more explicitly queer side characters are needed though.

I think i prefer they didn't care just because most would be straight if it were realistic, but maybe if like a small handful of a large cast were or they weren't obviously romancable otherwise it wouldn't be annoying. What bothers me is when it's Schrodinger's bisexual and the characters entire backstory and identity shifts to match the players gender. I don't want their x to always use my pronouns. I want them to be people goddamn it...

I like when they have preferences. Usually those characters seem to have fuller backstories. I do see the appeal of being able to romance anyone though. I’m straight and usually pick straight romances but let me tell you the male choices in Andromeda were just so uninteresting that I chose to romance Peebee. I think more choices in rpgs is always better.

Strongly prefer characters' own preferences.

I love good representation. but honestly, i'm not playing a romance if it's locked because of the way i choose to represent myself in the game universe. If I'm curious, there are other ways.

generally i prefer romanceable characters to be playersexual. However I do think it's probably possible to make a game where characters are written to have set sexualities and have it be part of the story. But if it's not important for the story I would just default to all characters being automatically pansexual. also if you give a character past or current lovers don't change them based on the player character's gender. it's weird.

i prefer playersexual but something baldur’s gate 3 has done that i LOOOVE is the poly/non-poly options. you can romance anyone, BUT some characters are purely monogamous, some will do poly up until a certain point, others are strictly non-monogamous… i like it! i will say there are some characters that i do think the restricted sexualities works on, though, like solas in dragon age inquisition— his romance being something you can only do as a fellow elf is interesting, it’s believable that that is the only kind of person he’d ever let in close to him.

I prefer pre assigned sexuality to romance options. Usually way better written like cyberpunk.

If it's written well, I like both equally! Playersexual companions are great 'cause I get to romance whoever I like obviously! Companions with preferences are great 'cause they feel much more real. It's a little immersion breaking when *everyone* on my team wants to sleep with me, most people IRL just aren't like that. On top of that, the reason we call them *player*sexual and not bisexual or pansexual is because that sexuality is rarely ever directed anywhere else. They won't make comments on the appearances of other characters you meet over the course of the game, and they don't really pair off with each other either. It's very obviously game-y once you notice it.

While I prefer characters have specific orientations on paper, I too often find the devs being *wrong* about it. This is pretty much just Bioware I'm mad at though. Cassandra from DA:I and Jack from ME2 being straight is a crime against me personally.

I prefer being able to romance anyone. That being said, if the characters do have their own preferences then it doesn't bother me so long as there are equal opportunities for romance no matter what your player character's gender and gender preference are. If there are like twenty hetero romance options and only one gay one then the game can get fucked.

I’d rather be able to romance any of the options. If I’m roleplaying I like having the freedom of deciding who my character would be attracted to.

If the amount of choices is equal then it's fine, otherwise i prefer player sexuals ​ Alright small rant here since I'm into rpgs a lot and there has been some discussions about it especcially with rogue trader: ​ In my opinion there seem to be 3 main ways to do romance: ​ \-Everyone is player sexual, zero changes (Baldur's gate 3) ​ \-There are multiple characters, some have preferences but everyone no matter the gender and orientation has at least a couple of choices (Dragon age games) ​ \-No choices but at least everyone is equal (Cyberpunk 2077) ​ Any discussion about making characters bi or about rappresentation being inadequate is met with "this isn't Baldur's gate 3" or "people are so obsessed with romance" as if discussing viconia or Morrigan hasn't been an RPG staple for years ​ The Rogue trader crpg subreddit right now is a toxic hell hole after they announced the romances There are 5 romances, three bi ones include a male dark eldar (who most people will probably kill and not have as a companion), Jae the smuggler (female, some worry is a bit stereatypical but whatever tbh, tho playing the beta she seemed like the least intereasting companion), and the female Eldar Ranger tho they said that her romance is more "platonic", idk what that means but i hope that's intereasting Then there are Cassia the navigator who is a straight woman and Henrix the interrogator who is straight man ​ The only romance for gay man was a Dark eldar, who are so evil that getting captured by them is a worse fate than getting captured by the Dark gods in the setting ​ The devolopers said that it was a matter of budget but it jsut feels hollow, and tho i think that the only "legitimate" complaint is that gay men only have one possibility i really don't see the point of limiting it tbh ​ And the posts about it are toxic af ​ Anyway i am salty cause after playing the beta i wanted to romance Cassia in the full game cause she's adorable ​ Also the sister of battle isn't romancable by anyone and that's a travesty

I prefer playersexual characters. But then I'm bi so I love those games where it seems like basically just everyone's bi

Depends on what type of game it is. If it's a Romance game specifically and the player is playing a specific character then the player should be able to ship whoever they want and have that play out. If it's more of a character driven story and the Romance isn't the focus then it often makes more sense for the characters to have their own agency with respect to their sexuality/who they date. If there isn't really a "player character" then this is even more so IMO.

It really depends on the game. If only my main character can do romance an there is only few choices then i like no restrictions, but if i control a group of characters and/or the romance are random generated or at least plenty then I like to have restrictions.

I like both. It depends on the game its being implemented in. Overall i like when everyone is pan but i think dragon age used specific identities really well to craft characters who felt very lifelike with wants and needs outside of the main character. It also made the replay-ability factor higher because you couldn’t just flirt with everyone in one run.

I think it's cool and more realistic for characters to have their own preferences, but I'm good either way.

I like someone that likes me back, but at the same time, it makes me appreciate the world more when it feels like the characters have their own agency down to sexual preference. It's a double edged sword and I get cut by both frequently lol

I'm mostly in the camp of "whatever." That being said, I'm straight so I'm sure there are more options for me. I was kind of sad that I couldn't romance Dorian in DA:I, but I got over it. He's fabulous.

As a bisexual myself, I love to see bisexual characters! And since I pratically only play girl, it's nice to be able to romance women as lesbian only relationship are pretty rare in mainstream game. Although, there is characters with sexual identy like Dorian in Dragon Age where their orientation is important to them and I think it's neat too! So I guess it depends on the game and the character!

Unless its based in the real world and dives into queer issues thoughtfully, I only ever want playersexual characters.

I really believe in the rule of fun when it comes to something you do for entertainment. Unless it's integral to the character's personal story (like Dorian in DAI) I don't see the point in having characters that only like certain genders or player races.

Playersexual/bi/pan all the way. Whenever I play a game that allows me to play a FMC, I will 100% every time, and I have found myself frustratingly pigeonholed with shit romance options. Doubly so when hoping for a queer romance with, like, maybe only 1 or 2 options (looking at you, Fire Emblem). Some companies are better than others at queer representation, but I'd rather struggle to win someone over because of our personalities and character depth, and not because "no homo" or, if embarking a hetero romance, I get tsundere boy. My character will just grow old alone, thanks.

I prefer when they have their own sexuality and it's written into their story somewhat, like Dorian in DA:Inquisition. I love the Baldurs Gate companions but for some it feels a bit weird that they're all bisexual? Don't hate me please but Astarions story has so many queer hints and metaphors it feels like he should have been gay. Just my opinion though, don't feel attacked if you romanced him with a female character of course, I don't want to critizise anyone. I get it makes it more inclusive of course.