Honestly, the word “playersexual” is important when it comes to discussing LGBT representation in video games, and people who call it an erasure of bi/pansexuality are missing the point.
When someone says an NPC is playersexual, they’re not saying “this character is not bi/pansexual.” What they’re saying is “The confirmation we get of this character’s bi/pansexuality can only be found by playing multiple playthroughs.”
Because of this, not only we will never get that confirmation if we only play one playthrough, it also ties bi/pansexuality solely to the player’s romantic option benefits. Their bi/pansexual identity only exists so that the player can romance them, and nothing more.
Really, the difference between a bi/pansexual character and a playersexual character is that a bi/pansexual character will discuss it independent from the player character’s romance ambitions. That’s still pretty rare in video games, and people who use the word “playersexual” are saying they want more.
Which isn’t to say that playersexual romance options aren’t a good thing; homosexual romance options are far too rare in video games, even now.
That said, playersexual options are generally a way to simplify the process. The developers don’t have to make extra gay-only romance options if they just make every romance partner playersexual. They won’t even mention how these characters are all bisexual or pansexual, they just make them all like the player.
I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, because any LGBT+ options in a video game are wonderful, but still, it feels cheap.
Published
sky's stuff 