This discourse was going around twitter today apparently and im curious takes from here.
Which is it for you?
For me i prefer playersexuality. I want to be able to romance any romance option regardless of my charachters gender. I dont want to be stuck with only Arcade Gannon if i want to do m/m
I agree that sexuality can be important to a charachter. But if you wanna do that, seems like the charachter can just not be a romance option.
That said. In RPGs devs can do what they want. You want a charachter to be monosexual and a romance option, have at it. (Unless theyre all straight, then fuck you).
I do kinda hate what The Sims did by adding monosexuality. Felt like such a virtue signal that made the game less fun. All Sims being pansexual was always more fun for me. Especially since i usually play that game as a pansexual slut. Unless i decide my player Sim is mono, but thats on the player's end.
Monosexual townies in the Sims should at least be optional (is it? Idk havent played Sims 4 since this update).
See the very next line I wrote in my comment where I addressed this.
I don’t see why that’s a bad thing. Maybe you see them holding hands with a same sex partner? Or maybe you try to romance them and learn something new, then you move on (this one should be done quickly to not waste players’ time).
I like Stalker’s A-Life and RDR2’s NPC system. Characters have lives beyond your presence. If expanded to sexuality, then seeing them just going on about their lives and maybe see hints of sexuality is enough for me to be fine with fixed sexuality.
Lots of games don’t have any exploration of gender but still let you choose. Like when was the last time Pokémon games got real deep about lesbian or gay love? Yet you still choose your gender. Would you want it to be all male or female PCs since gender is not explored?
Well, uh, it’s funny you bring up gender, because I would legitimately say that games like Pokémon should probably yeet player gender choices entirely, because they do literally nothing except restrain you