Well, it was inevitable, considering we’re doing a romance game and you gotta go out there and romance some folks. We need to figure out how we’re going to handle sexual orientation.
I mean, we KNOW how we’re handling it — we’re not. You can be boy, girl, or non-binary. And you can still date anyone in the game you want to, regardless of whether they’re boy, girl, or non-binary. Basically every character in the game is “playersexual,” they’re oriented towards the player, no matter what form the player takes.
This gives us maximum coverage and no restrictions. I mean, don’t you hate it when you really wanna date someone in a game but they decide to lock out half the romances based on which gender option you picked at the start? It sucks.
But… at the same time, lockouts reflect reality. Some people are just not going to be into you. They’re gay and you’re not, they’re straight and you’re not, whatever. And having a “playersexual” approach, while very free and open and fun, does hang a big ‘ol obvious lampshade on the unreality of it all. It can break immersion.
So, we’ve been discussing back and forth how we want to handle this in-game. We have a few options, and I’d really like your feedback on them. Or if you can think of something we haven’t!
1. Don’t Even Mention It. Sexual orientation just never gets mentioned. Ever. This means not even offering a token explanation for why nobody’s concerned about this, which is a bit awkward, but also avoids the awkwardness of trying to explain it at all. It lays bare the conceit of the game, which could break immersion for you, but if talking about it at all would break immersion for you then this is the way to go.
2. Mention It But Assure That Everything’s Cool. We can have a moment where the player character asks Iris “Well, what if they aren’t into a guy/girl/person like me?” and Iris just says “Don’t worry, I already checked, we’re good.” This is a token explanation which leaves the sexual orientation of OTHER characters up in the air, while confirming the ONE you’re after is definitely your type. This locks in one but leaves the others a mystery.
3. All Character Sexual Orientations Change Based On Player Gender. Whoever you approach, if they’d accept your love, they’re suddenly gay or straight or whatever they need to be. If they’d reject you, they were never gay or straight or whatever in the first place. This is a bit like #2 but more defined, saying straight up “This character is gay” or not. But that means that on repeat playthroughs, their orientations may change. Which is a large lampshade to hang. Normal humans don’t work that way.
Which of these approaches do you prefer? Do you feel that not talking about the elephant in the room makes it too obvious and weird? Do you feel talking about it at all makes it too obvious and weird? What’s your preference?
We really, really, really, really, really need your feedback. You can post in the comments below, tweet at me, drop me an email, whatevah. Thanks!
I prefer the first option. Third would be really uncomfortably weird. Second is ok.
I really don’t think it needs much explaining. The game might be a bit unrealistic because of that lack of explanation, but I didn’t think you were trying for ultrarealism in the first place. Just ignore it.
A fourth option would be that everyone has an explicit sexual orientation and it’s bi, pan, making-an-exception-for-you, etc. A whole arcade of bisexual people is improbable, but not impossible, and it’s the kind of improbability that wouldn’t break immersion for me. Whereas finding out that the cute explicitly-lesbian girl isn’t actually gay after all would be… jarring, I guess?
Then again, I go looking for queer representation in media and have a friend group that’s about 1-in-2 transsexual (including myself). Can’t exactly promise to be representative, is what I’m saying.
2 to me makes the most sense I think! I feel like that’s the most lighthearted way to acknowledge the situation, which feels like a very reasonable direction for something as escapist/warm? as a dating sim. 3 to me feels inherently stressful, and could break immersion on repeat playthroughs if not handled very gently. That being said, it could lend a lot of reality to the whole vibe if the characters all had their own personal orientations and were, in some sense, ‘demi-playersexual’.
1 is probably the route I would be most tempted to do, as a game designer, but I feel like the vision you have for the game is a lot more concrete and honest than the dreamlike feeling that would give.
Thanks for the feedback! And yeah, you’re right that we’re going for a bit of a warm and escapist tale.
I say define some strongly as sharp ethero/homo (and ready some unwanted love drama!)
Someother as winnable with effort
A few always datable no matter witch.
We’re already set on the idea that every character is dateable no matter what pronoun you picked, so we aren’t going to lock any out. What we’re trying to decide now is how much of a lampshade we’re hanging on this decision.
Then your option 2 is the one I prefer.
During Peter Capaldi’s last season of Doctor Who, he had a companion who happened to have dark skin and who was obviously interested in another girl the very first episode. Yet every single episode she was in, she had to express at least once (sometimes more) that she was black and a lesbian. This is NOT how people are in real life, and it came across as derogatory and really broke the immersion.
I think the best way to do it is to have a sliding scale for each character. The further the scale goes one way, the more their orientation leans that way. For attraction to transgenders, the attraction (realistically) tends to be towards their sex, not gender (transsexuals blur this line depending upon if they’re open about their genitals). But essentially, the player may pursue any character. The further that character’s orientation is from the player, the harder it is to win them over. Someone whose attractions are diametrically opposed may still fall for you if the circumstances are just right, but we’re talking a very tough battle that requires ill fortune as much as it does good (such as being there for them during a tragedy and carefully nurturing their feelings without becoming forceful).
While not as easy to implement, this form of attraction is much more natural, and the scale could be set randomly and kept hidden) at the beginning of each new game for replayability. As for making sexuality obvious, it should never be broadcast, but hints would be good. Maybe the player overhears gossip that male A was staring at (or holding hands with) person B, leaving it up to the player to figure out if this was a sign of orientation or not. A person may reject the player by saying “You’re not my type” or “Sorry, I’m just not into (sex/gender)”.
As a transgender, my gender and sexual orientation almost never come up. When it does in public, I find it’s usually met with hostility from SJWs or those who don’t understand the difference between gender and sex (these usually assume I’m transsexual or think that my gender defines my sexuality). Gender or sexuality should never be portrayed as a badge or as something that makes one person different than another. In the end, what forms a true relationship transcends the physical or sexual and comes down to how close two people become without being friend-zoned. Two lesbians may find they’re totally incompatible, where a straight man may find his soulmate is another man (despite no physical attraction beyond what love supplies). So while sexuality exists and may manifest, it should remain a subjective subtext, just as it would in any real life setting.
Agree!
But for a game my proposal would be simpler
I could see that, but you’d have to design an entire game around it. That’s not really Arcade Spirits. This is a lighthearted game, much as Bob notes, and we really want every character dateable by the protagonist no matter what pronoun you selected. So the question is not “What sexuality do we make the characters?” it’s “How do we have the characters always be aligned to you without making it too obvious that we’re playing tricks?” and that’s what the blog post is about. Do we not mention it at all, give a token explanation, or completely shuffle around sexual orientation case depending?