Do any of y'all tire of the way games handle relationships? There's pratically no ethically non-monogamy built into most games and even if there is there's either no recognition of your relationships or there's jealousy from the other characters you are involved with.
Mods help a little but there's usually no recognition or discussions. There are two games that have frustrated me in recent memory.
One is BG3 when I tried to date both Lae'zel and Shadowheart and Shadowheart angrily told me she wasn't "going to be my sidepiece" when that was far from how I saw her or what I actually wanted.
The other that frustrated me is Coral Island since yes you can date more than one person but the game really pushes marriage for reward, if only for an achievement probably and I find that really disheartening that these games are always built this way, can we please have some thought for those of us that don't do things the ways developers biases expect and recognition of how meaningful these relationships can still be, even if we were dating the entire village?!
Not allowing multiple partners (or even if they do, not multiple spouses if the game insists on only allowing certain content or rewards for getting married) shows such a monogamous and scarcity mindset from the developers that I find shocking and kind of disgusting, though sadly unsurprising. Let me sit down with the characters and let me explain what I'd like, not just assume I'm using you because I don't actually like you... please!
I really wish there was more not only ethical nonmonogamy in games but more realistic actual R.A. where we could discuss what we all what. Some might see this as a silly pipe dream or fulfilling a fantasy, but really I think to me at least it's because representation matters and I want to see myself reflected in these games, not just have to accept monogamy or if the game insists on marriage then only one marriage and then 0 other marraiges, partners or important people to me.
What do y'all think?
People only create stuff based on what they experience. There's incredibly few people percentage wise that practice ethical non-monogamy, so there's only little being made in that regard.
Also, as you probably very well know, society is still in the process of accepting non-monogamy as natural and even the possibility of it being ethical. Heck, society hasn't even accepted homosexuality completely which is an even more basic and non-controversial subject.
Also, it's really hard as a creator of a story(-based game) to represent all experiences. Just because I know the stats, homosexuality only has an occurrence of like 5-10%. Yet almost no game even has 10 romancable characters, which, when you only have 5 romancable characters and you included one homosexual character, would objectively be overrepresentation of homosexuality and underrepresentation of heterosexuality (of course, doing it the other way around would be the opposite). The same applies to ethical non-monogamy. It's just "safer", if you want your game to sell well, to cater to the largest market you can, i.e. overrepresent the common case and don't bother with all the uncommon stuff, especially when you yourself as a creator are not part of that demographic.
Also it's just simply impossible to represent everything because you have limited development time. At one point, you have to decide what to include and what to exclude.
So yeah while I completely agree with you, it simply doesn't bother me that much. There's plenty of acceptable reasons why it's not happening. Of course there should be some games with ethical non-monogamy, and I'm pretty sure they are. I'm just not disappointed when a game doesn't have it.
Also RPGs are terrible anyway. Like every 2nd decision I'm like "but why not just do X, or Y?" - but the game has not thought of that and doesn't give me the option to.
Right, which is why we need more diverse experiences and people on development and writing teams.
Yeah, I see it all the time where people, but especially online blame the wrong things i.e. polyamory or being gay is the problem instead of the actual problem like someone's shitty behaviour. You never hear that it's the monogamy that's the problem when monogamous people do it or it's the straightness when straight people do it.
I'm not sure I agree with you that having one gay character is objectively an over representation, because nothing is in isolation and thinking in terms of the entirety of society gayness is still vastly under-represented, so I think it could be seen as subjective over-representation but not at all objective.
I don't agree it's safer, time and time companies have been proven incorrect that making the same stuff leads to the same amount of engagement and money amongst those who interact with entertainment. Most people will be just fine with diversity in media and actually learn more about the world around them, so these companies think they are safer but it actually leads to a downturn many times or people eventually becoming bored and giving up.
I agree it's impossible to represent everything but I'm not asking for everything, just a few more games and media in genres that I enjoy to reflect me and reality since a lot of us are queer and also queering our relationships nowadays.
I guess I will continue to be disappointed and bothered.
Yeah, RPGs can be a bit lacking in choice a lot of the time, but they're okay for what they are, the last good one I played was one that focused entirely on a pre-existing relationship and whilst yes monogamous did have a lot of the communication, consent and boundary respecting, all of which are things I like in relationships: Haven.
The representation stuff was simplified by me. It's all statistics/random chance if you meet a non-monogamous person. You could meet 1000 people and only meet monogamous ones, or you could be in a room with 10 non-monogamous people. In either case, is non-monogamy under- or overrepresented? Of course not, because it's just random chance, and both situations can happen in a random distribution.
I was just trying to explain why it's not incredibly easy to represent