[POLL] WOULD IT BE SEXIST TO HAVE DIFFERENT STARTING STATS BASED ON YOUR CHARACTER'S SELECTED GENDER?

author=slashphoenix
...Once you've added an NPC and all of the related code, art and dialogue, you've done the majority of the work. Restricting that NPC from dating certain players wouldn't take nearly as long, unless you needed custom dialogue for each, somehow (usually not the case, designers plan around that - that's why you have a neutral name like "Gray Warden" or "The Avatar").

Hmm, I'm torn with what Unity said - on one side, you have a diverse range of sexual orientations, but on the other side you give the freedom of choice to the player. It certainly sucks to have your favorite character be made undateable because you wanted to play a guy or a girl specifically - that already happens in real life, why should it happen in games? Especially games like Skyrim, where the entire thing is basically about you running around doin' cool stuff, wild and free. And if the only purpose of that is to give the dateable NPCs "canon" or "realistic" orientations... it doesn't seem worth it. I suppose it makes more sense (and is probably more fun) to make the all of the NPCs dateable by anybody, and leave other various orientations to be represented by non-dateable NPCs. I don't know if that would possibly be offensive to anyone else, but it would definitely be the easiest and least limiting option.

One thing this doesn't address though, is that even people who're strictly bisexual tend to behave differently while interacting with a male partner versus a female partner. Yes, there are plenty of examples of games which allow you to romance the same characters with either a male or a female protagonist, but I'm not convinced that there are any examples of games that "make it work." I've been highly unsatisfied with Bioware's romance writing, for instance, since way back with Baldur's Gate 2, when I was just thirteen (and their writing teams are still headed by a lot of the same people now that they were back then.)

If I were making a game where you can pick your PC's gender, and romance NPCs, I would only make the same characters romanceable by either a male or female PC if I was willing to write a different set of dialogue for each scenario. It's possible to write a romance which can keep one party's gender vague and accommodate a switch just by swapping some keywords back and forth, but if you're going for a romance with depth, which draws on the finer points of how those characters interact with each other, I think it's practically always going to be a huge handicap. If I have to choose between giving all my NPCs strict orientations, and making half the potential romances unavailable to players who pick a given gender, or making every NPC bisexual with the same romance script for a male or female PC and thereby not being satisfied with a single one of the romances I wrote, I'll pick the first option every time.

ETA: I think video games as a medium actually have really significant advantages in terms of portraying romance, but that potential is on the whole so dramatically underexplored that it's no surprise if people start thinking video games are just not good for romance.

Don't worry, my statement was mostly a joke and making fun of myself for being a person who tends to hate love-stories.

But I'm not saying it can't be done well. I just think that being able to "pick" your love interest from a crowd of people with a guaranteed chance of success is silly and unrealistic. Especially if the player character is not a pre-set person, but created by the player. Such "romance" simply lacks depth and credibility in my opinion, and dangerously cheapens the concept of love.

If I am supposed to really care about a relationship between characters, its story and development should be more or less "linear" and interwoven with the game's plot. This is why I think only games with fixed characters can successfully pull off believable romance. It's also why I think dating games are dumb: They start with the "goal" (a relationship) in mind and how to achieve it, instead of with the development of both involved characters that is necessary to even bring that "goal" into existence in the first place.


...I'm afraid we've just gone way off-topic. Sorry.

I never saw anything wrong with making certain characters only have specific romance options. Why should all the characters just be open to everybody? Kind of means that you're just writing bad characters imo, since at that point they're reason for existing is practically to just make the player feel better about themselves.

EDIT: And before anybody attacks me, I mean if you just opened up the options without specifically writing the character as a bisexual or whatever other orientation. There's nothing wrong with making characters who can go either way, there's something wrong with just making characters like that for no reason.

One of the most interesting examples of this is James Vega in ME3. He can't be romanced, but a female Shepard can try to romance him anyways. I know Bioware's romance writing isn't always the greatest, but that particular option always struck me as being really interesting for a game, because it's very realistic. Just because he doesn't want a relationship doesn't mean the player can't try. Idk, it was really intriguing.

If you wanted to have a real plethora of romance options then go all the way and write more characters. Don't just trivialize the ones that are already there. World/Characterbuilding exists for a reason, and it's not always to gratify the player. Granted, it was nice being able to romance whoever you wanted no matter who you were in Skyrim, but those marriage sidequests are about the flattest they could possibly get, and they need to be in order to accommodate every type of player, which is one of the more obvious downsides of doing a truly open thing like this.

NeverSilent also brings up a good point. It's better to just not have the option if all it's going to make for is poorer, flatter character development on either side of the coin.

author=Pizza
I never saw anything wrong with making certain characters only have specific romance options. Why should all the characters just be open to everybody? Kind of means that you're just writing bad characters imo, since at that point they're reason for existing is practically to just make the player feel better about themselves.

EDIT: And before anybody attacks me, I mean if you just opened up the options without specifically writing the character as a bisexual or whatever other orientation. There's nothing wrong with making characters who can go either way, there's something wrong with just making characters like that for no reason.

If you're saying "Don't make straight or gay characters bi just because it suits you" then I think what you say has some merit. But I completely disagree that having a bi cast means having a cast of flat characters (again, it looks like that's probably not what your saying, but I want to be clear on my thoughts). I'll fully admit that it's looking more and more like a possibly problematic approach, though, and I may have to rethink some things if I want to make such a thing work.

author=Schwer-von-Begriff

author=unity
Also, realistically, many bisexual people are on a scale of how likable they find either gender (for example I find females more attractive than males, overall), so it only makes sense that people who like both genders would have different ways of speaking to a mate of one gender over the other. This means twice the work for the developer, but I think it would work fine.

Again, I admit that my "make everyone bi, dammit" mindset is extreme, but having some bisexual characters in games would certainly be welcome :D

I actually try to do this right now! I'm working on a lighthearted game about owning a candy store. With harvest moon like features. It does have a gender option and two bisexual possible love interests. Both of those react differently towards your PC's gender AND you, as the PC, get the option to react differently towards the various love interests. Nothing big, of course, that would be too difficult to implement, but your choice of reaction during events will define your PC's mindset. (Dumb example not included in the game: "He's totally up my alley!" vs "I'm not interested." vs "He is...worth it. More than others.")

I already want to play your game XD

Does it have a gamepage yet?

quite honestly it's all really just a matter of preference. And I personally think it's cool to have a female warrior whose stats are initially slightly oriented to the magic side of things, depending on the game system; it allows her, for instance, to be able to use magic items better, to last more because she has more mp, etc. to equip some magic abilities to support her straighton damage dealing, etc.
a warrior with 10 less points in strength and 10 more in Magic isn't weaker, they'll be able to fend off magic attacks better, wear magical equipment like fire swords better, use items better, etc. so in the end it's not a disvantage or an advantage, just a sliiiiiiiiight bit of variation xD

but ofc the game has to be designed that way ne


about making everyone bi... i am personally against it. but that's because I like writing painfully sad and frustrating stuff so it's to be expected lol

author=Pizza

author=unity
If you're saying "Don't make straight or gay characters bi just because it suits you" then I think what you say has some merit.

Yeah, this is what I mean. Having a cast of bisexual characters is totally fine and truly, progressive. But making the characters bisexual without developing that into their story is bad character design, straight up.

I mean, personally, it's like... I wouldn't want a possible love interest to be furry just because. It would feel bad. It would feel like I was being pandered to, which is not something you want to do when you're already playing with your player's emotions.

Yeah. I guess it's the difference of, say, if I was a furry and I wanted to make all the romance-able characters furry because that's what I wanted personally. Is that self-indulgent? Yes. Is that pandering? Quite probably. But does that mean the game I'm going to make is bad and the characters can't be well-written? I'm going to say a big no to that one. :D

Again, I have to specify that it doesn't mean all games should be that way.

author=unity
Also, realistically, many bisexual people are on a scale of how likable they find either gender (for example I find females more attractive than males, overall), so it only makes sense that people who like both genders would have different ways of speaking to a mate of one gender over the other. This means twice the work for the developer, but I think it would work fine.

Again, I admit that my "make everyone bi, dammit" mindset is extreme, but having some bisexual characters in games would certainly be welcome :D

Given a cast of any significant size and level of development, I'm almost certainly going to make some characters bi whether you have any option to select your PC's gender or not, because elements like this can still significantly affect how characters relate to each other. I'm not going to be planning out every nuance of character interaction in advance from the beginning of the game, so it's not like I always know from the outset whether, say, the fact that a character is bisexual, or that they like to read fairy tales, is just going to be a random tidbit that informs how I think about them as a writer, or if it's going to manifest as a notable trait in the game.

In one game which I'll hopefully get around to actually making once I finish my commitments to working on other people's games, one character's bisexuality happens to be an important component of her arc of character development, despite the fact that the main character of that game does not have selectable gender. I'd like to give players choice in terms of the kind of romance they can experience over the course of the game, but I don't want to provide that level of choice at the cost of depth and nuance.

author=kentona
I have a habit of putting gendered restricted equipment in my games, but that's purely for nostalgic reasons (and being able to make puns).

I don't think this is an issue if your game has predesigned characters. Is it an issue if my character in an open world, player customized game can't wear a pink bow because it's 'female exclusive equipment' and he's male? Perhaps, yeah, what if I want my dude to wear a pink bow?

Contrast in say, FFVI, where Edgar can't equip say, the female only Minerva Bustier because it's female exclusive. It's not that there would be anything wrong with it, it's just that Edgar Figaro himself as written isn't into wearing female clothes. That's a part of his characterization.

lockez is the next game jam going to be us making a transgender large-nosed homicidal furry loli barbeque chef game

A lot of the protests I'm seeing here against dateable bi characters in games boil down to "they suck when they're badly written," which doesn't seem to be a problem inherent to dateable bi characters.

WRT the sex-based stat differences... I mean, yeah, it's sort of vaguely true that there are certain biological differences in the overall populations of male vs female people, but who cares if it's a videro game? Unless you're specifically choosing it to Make a Point it's just a weird thing to include, given all the real-life baggage attached to sex and gender difference IRL. I don't want to get into my escapist entertainment only to be reminded that a significant portion of the population think I'm inherently and naturally unsuited to, say, kicking ass. I wanna pretend to be a buff awesome monster puncher for a while!

The baggage itself would keep me from my first inclination in response to things like this, which would be to go ahead and change stats, but not make them the usual strength/charisma/magic silliness. (Like, say, ladies have more magic defense at the cost of evasion or something.) Because there's SO MUCH meaning attached to gender-based differences right now that, even if you're consciously trying to avoid making a statement, you'll be seen as making a statement.

I mean, some people don't give a shit about how their choices are taken, but I view that as sort of irresponsible and lazy if you're making something for other people to consume. Like graphics, music, and mechanics, I feel like you should at least make some token effort to make it not suck.