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).
I kind of agree, but also don’t at all? I think playersexual is pretty much the best way to do it if you’re appealing to as many people as possible, but a game made by some people of one sexuality for the same sexuality is always going to be better than a game made to appeal to everyone.
Of course it’s hollow, because it ignores the numerous intricacies of gender and sexuality when you just write based on a generic protagonist who could be literally anything. This doesn’t stop at gender, writing everything the same regardless of the player’s species or class or background has the same issues.
I don’t think this means it’s worthless or that stories can’t be told with playersexual or wide ranging games, just that games that want to explore a specific experience will always explore that specific experience better than Skyrim: The Mass Effect Quest for the Five Rings