Are gay people *entitled* to the same amount of romance options as straight people in self-insert games?

[SnowHawk]

I don't like the word entitled so I'm going to say no just like straight people aren't entitled to a relationship option a game. No one is entitled to anything.

Now deserve? Damn right they deserve the same options as straight couples and the fact that if there is options to build relationships but not with the same sex is disgusting.

Everyone deserves to be represented in games, especially if those games give you choices.

 

[Kiekura]

If you are roleplaying blank character as you like, yes you should. Thats the whole idea on there.

 

[PinballRJ]

Depends how characters are written, if you wanna make every character bisexual that's fine, it just won't seem as realistic.

Kinda like that game Dream Daddy, what are chances of an entire neighborhood of gay single dads? It's fine because the game isn't meant to mirror reality in any way.

 

[unicornKnight]

Entitled? No. Developers aren't working for us, they are making products and if we like them we buy them. We can't expect them to do whatever we want like in new Zelda people want Zelda to be playable but some of the are taking too far as if Nintendo are obliged o do so.

 

[Huell Babineaux]

Entitled: no. But VG authors are free to put how many gay options they want, the choice it's their.

My reason for disagreeing with you is freedom: a game has to reflect the vision of its author.

 

[JetBazooka]

No one ever asks how many romance options straight people are entitled to.

Click to shrink...

As a straight person I never wanted romance in any of the games I played. I want zero romance in any of my games period.

 

[StayHandsome]

Edit: I was reading the thread and totally forgot the original question. I was framing this as if the question was "should all characters be Charname-sexual". Should the actual number of options be the same? I don't know. It would feel a little odd if a vastly larger portion of the people in the game world were gay in comparison to the real world, where it's a small minority. But that small minority should be able to enjoy games just like everyone else. So, it's tough.

No, because for characters to feel real they should have their own personalities and sexual orientations. Romance doesn't feel as intimate if I could make my character a male half-Orc cyclops and they'd be loved just the same as if they were a sexy blonde elf girl (with two eyes).

I like the solution BioWare generally goes with, where there's some straight, some bi and some gay options. I don't usually like the dialog, but at least it feels like the relationship is more personal.

 

[Deleted member 203]

With a title and OP like that, this is just about the least helpful framework I could think of for a discussion about gay representation in role-playing games. Reading the replies, it's exactly what you'd expect.

 

[Deleted member 2328]

If the player is a blank character and romancing is touted as a big gameplay aspect, then yes.
But honestly I don't really like these sort of games as I feel the story takes a hit with an MC with not well defined personality and history. I would rather have a well defined MC from the beginning. But I guess that would make a gay MC less likely...

 

[Dr. Mario]

No I don't think every sexual preference is entitled to the exact same amount of dateable (and sufficiently attractive) NPCs. That by the way means I also don't think straight people are entitled to more (or equal) romance options.
You are entitled not to have your sexual preference shit on, but outside of that kind of have to role with the world building and characterizations that are in the game. Or decide not to buy it. I didn't like any of the romance options in DA:I. Shit happens. It should be just a minor part of the game anyway. And otherwise you just roleplay your character differently. It's a roleplay, not you.

 

[Annoying Old Party Man]

You are allowed to critique and decide if you want to invest too. You are not entitled to anything - on a creative level it's the developers/creators choice on what to do with these issues. On a business level it's a ROI thing - if it brings more money it's good practice to do, if not then you know the answer too.

 

[Trisc]

With a title and OP like that, this is just about the least helpful framework I could think of for a discussion about gay representation in role-playing games. Reading the replies, it's exactly what you'd expect.

Click to shrink...

What, cishet people talking about entitlement without realizing they've had literally centuries of representation that's so deeply ingrained into their psyches, they've been conditioned to believe it's the norm, and anything shy of that norm is somehow asking writers to go out of their way to depict queerness in a positive light?

 

[Batatina]

Absolutely OP and I haven't purchased FE for this exact reason. I think it's unacceptable.

I would be happy if there were a good variety of gay, straight, lesbian characters, but I think the best solution is to simply let me romance anyone. And let my character be any gender or even gender fluid - why force people to pick a gender? Simply pick a look and pronoun that you identify with.

 

[Deleted member 203]

What, cishet people talking about entitlement without realizing they've had literally centuries of representation that's so deeply ingrained into their psyches, they've been conditioned to believe it's the norm, and anything shy of that norm is somehow asking writers to go out of their way to depict queerness in a positive light?

Click to shrink...

something like that. Framing it as entitlement just means every other reply is some variation of "no you're not entitled" or "creative vision". And it's too broad to have a constructive argument around because no two games are the same.

 

[Trisc]

something like that. Framing it as entitlement just means every other reply is some variation of "no you're not entitled" or "creative vision". And it's too broad to have a constructive argument around because no two games are the same.

Click to shrink...

I just wish cishet folks would give queer people the loudest voice in this conversation. It's really not the place of straight cisgender people to tell queer people what they are and are not entitled to in life. After all, they've had their identities validated throughout their entire lives through experiences with peers, popular culture, and the state itself. Queer people have, with some exceptions, never really had that kind of shared experience, and have been historically oppressed more than they were celebrated in the way cishet people were. Their sexualities and gender identities are just as valid, and should absolutely be recognized by artists. To act like queerness doesn't exist isn't artistic expression. At best, it's willful blindness, and at worst, malicious and prejudiced.

Poorly-worded thread title aside, this is the kind of conversation I'd like cishet folks to not participate in, and rather read, respect, and hopefully understand the points of view of queer people. This is already a divisive topic within the queer community, and we don't need the voices of people who don't get it to comment and act like they "get it" (when they really, really don't) by throwing around the word "entitled" as if a gay man's love for his husband is somehow on-par with some rich asshole's 80" 8K HDR12 television.

 

[Deleted member 203]

I just wish cishet folks would give queer people the loudest voice in this conversation. It's really not the place of straight cisgender people to tell queer people what they are and are not entitled to in life. After all, they've had their identities validated throughout their entire lives through experiences with peers, popular culture, and the state itself. Queer people have, with some exceptions, never really had that kind of shared experience, and have been historically oppressed more than they were celebrated in the way cishet people were. Their sexualities and gender identities are just as valid, and should absolutely be recognized by artists. To act like queerness doesn't exist isn't artistic expression, it's prejudiced.

Poorly-worded thread title aside, this is the kind of conversation I'd like cishet folks to not participate in, and rather read, respect, and hopefully understand the points of view of queer people. This is already a divisive topic within the queer community, and we don't need the voices of people who don't get it to comment and act like they "get it" (when they really, really don't).

Click to shrink...

asking cishet folks to just not talk and listen is like asking the sun not to rise. I agree with you, but ignorant cishet folks dominating the conversation is why threads like these are just endless cycles of the same two "arguments" over and over. It's boring, and I don't feel like there's anything to be gained by participating. Because they don't listen. It's known that no one reads anything past the OP anyway, so even if you try to post something later on in the thread, 99% of people won't read it.

 

[Trisc]

asking cishet folks to just not talk and listen is like asking the sun not to rise. I agree with you, but ignorant cishet folks dominating the conversation is why threads like these are just endless cycles of the same two "arguments" over and over. It's boring, and I don't feel like there's anything to be gained by participating. Because they don't listen. It's known that no one reads anything past the OP anyway, so even if you try to post something later on in the thread, 99% of people won't read it.

Click to shrink...

You're right. There's not much else to say. This thread will continue as jackasses parrot the same shit over and over again: "artistic integrity", "they're not entitled to anything", etc. They don't know what it's like and they never will. I just wish for once some folks posting that shit would take a moment to have some introspection to see just how horrible the things they're writing really are, and how they can affect queer people.

This is the kind of toxic environment that silences queer people. Perhaps that sounds dramatic, but it's the sentiments expressed throughout this thread that made me afraid to speak up for myself when I was growing up. I'm not just tired of it, I'm angry that the same bullshit I heard in high school has persisted through to my adult life.

 

[Deleted member 8593]

Hetero people can have a lot blindspots when it comes to this stuff and not all of them are malicious but if your artistic vision is "players should be able to date and romance anyone they want!... well, except for The Gheighs™" then you're a jerk.

 

[Izzard]

People using that word entitled to help dismiss the idea of equal representation I see. That's a bit disappointing. If the game has multiple romance options then the default should be equal represention, rather than "its perfectly fine to have just the one token gay option if that's what the dev wants. And you're perfectly fine to dislike that if you want, but how dare you say you expect more" line people are using.

You could just say, no I don't want equality. It's quicker. After all, that's what the OP is asking for.

 

[Deleted member 37739]

It's a question of product versus art: I think most games these days, though they are the product of creative teams and contain a lot of artistic elements, fall solidly into the space of 'product' and products should aim to meet end-user needs as broadly and comprehensively as possible.

 

[Razmos]

What, cishet people talking about entitlement without realizing they've had literally centuries of representation that's so deeply ingrained into their psyches, they've been conditioned to believe it's the norm, and anything shy of that norm is somehow asking writers to go out of their way to depict queerness in a positive light?

Click to shrink...

100% this. This thread frustrates me too much to say stuff like this as clearly as you have

 

[TeddyShardik]

No they don't. They DESERVE equal options, and not just tokens.

Just because entitlement is a big buzzword in gaming, getting misused left and right, it doesn't change its meaning.

People are entitled to criticize, suggest, boycott or whatever way they want their voices to be heard, and I will lend my voice to them, but they're not entitled to get what they want.
I repeat, they deserve it and I'mm 100% behind them to get it, but an entitlement is something very different.

 

[Anko]

If you want LGBT players as your customers, then of course.

It's a self insert. Believe it or not, us gay people have a dating pool of more than one person. It's just not viable to make a super large cast of characters in a game to maintain that "realistic ratio", while not limiting it to just the one token gay character. So the sensible solution is to make everyone bi. Surely that's the best "compromise".

And OP, your question is loaded af. Are we any less of a customer than cis straight people? Can I pay less since I have less options? I'm not "entitled" to the same amount of features after all. /s

 

[Deleted member 22002]

Every thread like this is a riff on the "let them eat cake" from CIS/Straigth people and it's basically a recipe for bad feeling for LGBTQ people: using the "entitled" word, which has been abused to vilify legit complaints from gamers for years, was also the worst decision OP could make.

Logistically speaking, I'm gay and I don't feel i'm entitled to anything: I don't want every game to include every type of relationship with any minority that is possible under the sun, it would be impractical, and silly.

But

I'm really really fucking grateful when I DO get represented in games, and I'm glad when other minorities get represented in games. In fact, money wise, I don't feel straight people reward with money representation, because everything represents them, but you do get gay money when you do gay stuff, it's a simple "limited supply" VS "endless supply" market effect.

 

[Nemesis Warlock]

Hire gay writers. Have them create Husbandos/Waifus for LGBT players. Win win for everyone.

 

[boy power]

'' Gay romances should be in the minority because gay people are in the minority, and it reflects the real world! ''
Games aren't the real world, and it'd be an EXTREMELY depressing state of video games if games had to replicate our world to the T.

'' The amount of gay romances/characters should only reflect the percentage of LGBT people in the real world! ''
It's great that percentages start mattering so much when there's talk of LGBT people in media, because there are a lot of other percentages to follow as well.. And the funny thing is, if we are trying to enforce some kind of ONLY 1-5% OF THE CHARACTERS IN ANY GIVEN MEDIA SHOULD BE LGBT then damn, most forms of media can't even include that 1-5% of LGBT characters!!!! Oh, you mean IF some product decides to feature LGBT people, THEN it should be 1-5%? But 0% is fine too? Uhuh.

'' Artists and developers should be allowed to create whatever they want! That's the point of art! ''
You people really think non-indie artists and developers are allowed to practice complete artistic freedom? It's not like most dev teams consist of several hundreds of people with different ideas and hopes for the game, and it's not like there are tons of higher ups who will limit what kind of content they'll be able to make. If you think the idea of a gay male protagonist (for instance) in an AAA video game hasn't been suggested as an idea only to be discraded because '' ew '' or '' but straight men... '' or '' but China and Russia's censorship laws... '' then you are a fool.

Okay, that's it for the few depressing comments I've seen thrown around in this thread, and onto the topic.

No, no one is entitled to anything. Let's just get that out of the way.

When it comes to romances in video games, especially gay romances, QUALITY over quantity any DAY of the week. You can give me 100x Linhardt's, but that won't replace a male romanceable Dimitri/Claude. You can give me 100x Josephine's but that still won't be better than Dorian (and I freaking loathe Dorian). You can give me 100x Gil's but that won't do much when I have Jaal.

Basically, the amount of same sex romances is irrelevant. It's how you experience the game, the story, your character, the romanceable character through their romance, is what matters. If I have several options that all fail to deliver an experience that gets me more hooked into the ongoing story, game and characters, then the writers and developers have failed, no matter how many irrelevant useless badly written gays there are to gay romance.

The focus should be more in the quality, and LGBT characters getting to be big heroes, and sometimes big villains, and being able to romance these characters if it's that sort of game, instead of being drowned in some badly written, borderline offensive, completely soulless gay NPCs. Quantity will NEVER replace quality. NEVER. It's easy to make a few gay romances that are complete duds, but it takes a real creative to put together something that really hooks you and makes you feel things through their (gay) romance. That is what LGBT players deserve, not soulless, lifeless, useless garbage only put there to keep us '' satisfied '' with the bare minimum.

 

[Radeo]

Entitled is a weird way to put it, but if it's a self-insert MC there's no reason not to.

 

[javiergame4]

Nope. No one shouldn't be entitled to it. Let the developer create their vision of the game. If the main protagonist is gay/bi/lesbian/straight, etc, then they would make it that way but it's the creators choice.

 

[Zutrax]

My thought has always been that romancable NPC's should be a blank slate, and the narrative of that character should shift depending on what the player chooses. I see no harm in that, people who don't do the gay romances will never see them, people who do will always have the option.

 

[Shivers]

no

 

[Inugami]

Nope. No one shouldn't be entitled to it. Let the developer create their vision of the game. If the main protagonist is gay/bi/lesbian/straight, etc, then they would make it that way but it's the creators choice.

Click to shrink...

This is a weak excuse, because it empowers people who hate to just say "well it's art!" Heck more often than not it's not even that. The "creator" is almost always a team, and that team is almost always run by a number cruncher who'll look at them and say "They can't be gay, it'll scare off 20% of our audience."

people who don't do the gay romances will never see them, people who do will always have the option.

Click to shrink...

Shuffling gay and trans individuals under the rug isn't much better. Yes, people who don't like gay people SHOULD be forced to interact with gay people so that they can see they aren't some boogie man out to destroy their world and/or forcibly sleep with them.

The worst thing anyone can do for truly homo or transphobic people is to not challenge them.

*Edit* To be clear, I don't think anyone should be forced into a gay relationship in a game if they don't want to (even if there are plenty of games where that IS forced for straight couples). There should, however, be openly gay individuals in the game that interact with the player character.

no

Click to shrink...

Are straight gamers *entitled* to multiple times more options in games over non-straight gamers for relationships?

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

My thought has always been that romancable NPC's should be a blank slate, and the narrative of that character should shift depending on what the player chooses. I see no harm in that, people who don't do the gay romances will never see them, people who do will always have the option.

Click to shrink...

The harm is

1. It necessarily entails characterization that is less vivid and specific

2. Non-hetero content isn't something offensive that people should be able to turn off if they don't want to see it like a gore filter

 

[Zutrax]

Shuffling gay and trans individuals under the rug isn't much better. Yes, people who don't like gay people SHOULD be forced to interact with gay people so that they can see they aren't some boogie man out to destroy their world and/or forcibly sleep with them.

The worst thing anyone can do for truly homo or transphobic people is to not challenge them.

Click to shrink...

The harm is

1. It necessarily entails characterization that is less vivid and specific

2. Non-hetero content isn't something offensive that people should be able to turn off if they don't want to see it like a gore filter

Click to shrink...

I didn't quite mean it like that, I meant more like romance as a whole should be optional. And if you choose to opt for romance it should just have the NPC lean whatever you pick. Not necessarily as a "hide this from people who don't want to see it".

But I totally see the validity of needing openly gay characters that are designed to be that way so that people who are uncomfortable with it need to be confronted by it. I was imagining something along the lines of a Mass Effect where the romance is secondary and unneeded, as well as not really being openly discussed by the crew unless pursued, as opposed to a designed character from the getgo.

 

[looprider]

Definitely. I hope all devs around the world realize lgbtq people exist AND we pay money to buy their games. There should be parity in games with romance options where the character is supposed to be a reflection of the player. It's not as difficult as it seems.. lgbtq people go on dates and flirt just like straight people. Would'nt take a huge ton of extra work to write the romance options more gender neutral imo

 

[brainchild]

What, cishet people talking about entitlement without realizing they've had literally centuries of representation that's so deeply ingrained into their psyches, they've been conditioned to believe it's the norm, and anything shy of that norm is somehow asking writers to go out of their way to depict queerness in a positive light?

Click to shrink...

I'm queer and find the premise of this thread to be terrible (and plenty of non-heterosexual people in this thread have said as much). This is not how you start discourse about representation; the backlash isn't just cishet people being salty. I WANT better representation in creative content, but not at the expense of freedom of expression.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

I was imagining something along the lines of a Mass Effect where the romance is secondary and unneeded, as well as not really being openly discussed by the crew unless pursued, as opposed to a designed character from the getgo.

Click to shrink...

Well that's the thing though. In BioWare games like KOTOR/Mass Effect/Dragon Age you have romance-able characters that run the gamut from Carth Onasi who is only straight, to Liara T'Soni who is attracted to male or female player characters, to Steve Cortez and Dorian Pavus who are only gay.

Liara was written from the get-go as bisexual so it's all good. For Cortez or Dorian, being gay is part of the character and their history. Dorian specifically had to deal with anti-gay bigotry in his home country. A version of Dorian that flipped to straight because a female player character wanted to romance him would be an incoherent version of the character.

Player-sexual characters lock the writers out of creating that kind of character, where a specific sexual/relationship history informs who they are.

(In the Mass Effect series you also have the tricky example of Kaidan Alenko who was straight in Mass Effect 1 and 2, then retconned into being player-sexual in ME3. Not necessarily the choice I would have made, but at least they wrote him a specifically gay storyline for the male Shepard romance so it doesn't just come out of nowhere.)

 

[btags]

I think it is certainly something games should strive for. The only practical concern would be development time/budget. That said I also feel like if a given dev wants to tell a story about a heterosexual relationship, they shouldn't be forced into including a homosexual relationship or vice versa as that means they will likely half ass one or both of the options. OVerall though, I think more devs should and will continue to develop games with non-cis/het relationships.

I don't like the idea of characters just conforming to whatever the player chooses, because then it cheapens the character and rather than having a defined sense of being/orientation they simply exist to check off a list. I think the easy way to get around budget/dev time concerns and the forementioned concern is simply to remove "romance" options from many games (for any sort of relationship, just remove "romance" options entirely). Even in huge series such as mass effect the relationship stuff always seemed kind of half baked to me. When games actually focus on making it a large part of the narrative (Life is Strange, etc.), I think it can be done exceptionally well. Devs should only focus on relationships if it is a significant portion of the game so they can adequately budget to make the characters in the relationship seem like real people.

 

[Hippopuncher12]

Of course, like you said in games where you play a defined character then it makes sense to not have that *depending* on that character but on anything where you play as a blank slate or a projection of yourself....yes, absolutely. Having said that I just wish games didn't have relationship based content at all....I always ignore it unless it's forced.

 

[Zutrax]

Well that's the thing though. In BioWare games like KOTOR/Mass Effect/Dragon Age you have romance-able characters that run the gamut from Carth Onasi who is only straight, to Liara T'Soni who is attracted to male or female player characters, to Steve Cortez and Dorian Pavus who are only gay.

Liara was written from the get-go as bisexual so it's all good. For Cortez or Dorian, being gay is part of the character and their history. Dorian specifically had to deal with anti-gay bigotry in his home country. A version of Dorian that flipped to straight because a female player character wanted to romance him would be an incoherent version of the character.

Player-sexual characters lock the writers out of creating that kind of character, where a specific sexual/relationship history informs who they are.

Click to shrink...

True, I just know I have a few friends who love Fire Emblem and are gay and want gay romances with their favorite characters, but they never get the chance to have that. So I guess my thought process is having a player-sexual character is better for gay folk to be able to have their choices, but I see why written dedicated gay characters is better for representation and challenging homophobic people.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

True, I just know I have a few friends who love Fire Emblem and are gay and want gay romances with their favorite characters, but they never get the chance to have that. So I guess my thought process is having a player-sexual character is better for gay folk to be able to have their choices, but I see why written dedicated gay characters is better for representation and challenging homophobic people.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm 1000% in favor of all players having the chance to pursue the type of romance they want to. I just think what devs should do to accomplish that is populate their game with straight characters AND gay characters AND bisexual characters, rather than making everybody player-sexual. Does it result in situations where a particular character isn't available for every player who might be attracted to them? Sure, but to me that tradeoff is worth it.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

You know I'm reminded now of Solas in Dragon Age Inquisition who is not only straight but is only attracted to elves. So in a game where you can create all kinds of different characters, the Solas romance is only available to a fraction of players. But part of what makes it so memorable is being deeply rooted in elven lore and how elves relate to the rest of the world.

 

[Bobcat Fancy]

Bioware has yet to produce a game where the female lead wasn't a romantic option for straight guys. (and Fire Emblem sure as h*ck won't in a self-inert game)

I don't like the way Inquisition handled romance and the protagonist as much as Dragon Age II. Don't really think Dorian's written with much more queer specificity than the other queer guys who came before him in the series. Not personally overwhelmed by his plot line or character arc, which is fine. Some people really liked it! Anyway, what I like about Dragon Age II is that he protagonist is pretty set and has a more specific backstory and some distinct personality options. (I don't really think of silent main characters as myself or particularly interesting, especially in JRPGs where they're just written as straight guys) Hawke's interactions with the characters are more interesting than any other Bioware protagonists I've experienced. Hawke has a way more specific way of dealing with their world and its characters than the Inquisitor or Warden, despite the occasional references to character backgrounds in DAO or DAI.

Hawke can also be queer. That's the closest thing I'll get to a Geralt or Kratos that likes guys. I'm sure those games are great. Of course I play a lot of fun games with straight guy main characters and watch movies with the same. They're almost all that exist - and certainly out of proportion to real world numbers of straight men, who are not one hundred percent of the population.

Anyway, can you imagine how many posts IntSys could have prevented me from making if they made the considered artistic decision to just let the one queer guy in Fire Emblem Three Houses have a better haircut?

 

[Renna Hazel]

Definitely. I hope all devs around the world realize lgbtq people exist AND we pay money to buy their games. There should be parity in games with romance options where the character is supposed to be a reflection of the player. It's not as difficult as it seems.. lgbtq people go on dates and flirt just like straight people. Would'nt take a huge ton of extra work to write the romance options more gender neutral imo

Click to shrink...

After seeing some of the S rank supports in Fire Emblem TH, I'm convinced it would take very little effort to allow more romance options. I don't think the conversations would even have to be altered for the most part, just the still picture they show would have to use the male avatar. Seems like a simple thing to do that would make a lot of people happy.

 

[Altera]

No. Nobody is entitled to anything in a game, regardless of sexuality, race, gaming abilities (in regards to game difficulty), anything else you can think of, etc...

I don't think it's fair that character designers have to alter their vision of a character/game in order to cater to anyone. Their vision is their vision.

As people said over and over when it came to the Sekiro difficulty option argument (yes, not romance, but still a game feature/design discussion), not every game is meant for everyone.

It's nice when it happens, but the player isn't entitled to anything, but at the same time the devs/publishers aren't entitled to everyone buying their game.

 

[dabri]

No I don't think anyone is entitled to anything when it comes to entertainment. I think people who are gay or trans deserve more representation in entertainment. Most certainly.

 

[Ant_17]

It sounds creepy that you're projecting your sexuality to these school kids.

 

[Izzard]

It sounds creepy that you're projecting your sexuality to these school kids.

Click to shrink...

Trashy, disgusting reply.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I'm okay with it being restricted as long as you do something interesting with it.

Like, if you make orientation an important part of someone's character and backstory in and outside of romance and make it a salient point during the relationship I feel much less miffed about having fewer options. FE actually is a great franchise to try this approach, inasmuch as seeing how homosexuality integrates into a world very focused on bloodlines and family would be interesting.

But we basically never get this. I think Juhani all the way back in KOTOR sort of did? But otherwise game developers seem totally spooked about maki g commentary about gay-specific relationships, which, good for them for staying in their lane, I guess. Almost every gay video game romance is the straight romance with the serial numbers filed off - as one designer said, that it would take more programming resources to exclude gay romances than include.

And like, this is totally fine, not every game with gay romance needs to be dense sociologically or to ally like Angels in America. But it's completely pointless to file the serial numbers off and then still offer a tiny number of choices because, I don't know. It strains your disbelief that everyone could be queer in the same place at the same time. Either make them unique or make them universal. Pick one.

 

[Gaiseric]

Everyone should have the option to play a game as they see fit. That goes double for a role playing game filled with options.

Getting to play as a mage or a warrior isn't considered as an entitlement. Getting to play according to your orientation shouldn't be seen as one either.

 

[Inugami]

I don't think it's fair that character designers have to alter their vision of a character/game in order to cater to anyone. Their vision is their vision.

Click to shrink...

They already do this for hundreds of reasons, mostly for marketing, time, budget, etc etc. It's also just a round about way of saying "This is how things are done traditionally, so why change?"