Community Update #124
|
Posted 2024-01-07 09:24:24
|
 Halconera #8777 |
|
Posted 2024-01-08 07:36:45 (edited)
Please, make the NPCs shepherdsexual. Or, playersexual as some other users have called it. I've seen a few posts calling it gay erasure and that it takes away from their story, but as a member of the LGBT+ community, my personal opinion is that it absolutely does not. For starters, 99% of the NPCs don't even have a story. Lorcan, from memory, is the only one we'd ever seen before February, and it's not like dating them unlocks some deep backstory for you to explore. Removing sexuality "removes their story?" They don't have one. They don't have a story for their sexuality to inform. They are pixels on a page and lines in code. On that note, they are pixels on a page and lines in a code. Cian, Axheyat, Swansea, they are not going to know or care that they are open to all players. You know who is going to care? The players. I fell in love with Cian last year. My leads are always female. It feels like garbage to be locked away from pixels and code because of something that does not matter in the long run. Cian is not going to be sad because he was written gay and is romanced by a female. He isn't real. I am real. Other players who like these characters are real. Having access to them and determining the lore we want is real. There's a reason why majorly successful games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, and even Stardew Valley leave romances completely open to the player. Because we are the real life input that informs the story. Opening up the sexualities of all the NPCs adds so much lore potential as well! What if I'd like my lead to be gender fluid? What if they're ace and just want to develop really deep friendships? Theoretically they should be able to date everyone. Locking NPCs off due to a one time choice ruins that. Yes, it means some players will have characters that were gay last year in a straight relationship this year. But it also means players will have characters that were straight last year in a gay relationship this year. There is no benefit to locking players out of content. Even in August if you play it right you can have all three shops. In February currently you have one arbitrary choice that locks you out of at minimum a third of content, accounting for overlapping characters that would prevent it from being a full two thirds. It leads to frustration across the board, from players that enjoy the personalities of two different characters locked to two different pools, to collectors that want to try and get everyone's decor naturally. It's not fun, it's just not. It's endlessly frustrating. And I just don't agree with everyone saying it kills lore potential. The whole point of lore potential is that everyone gets to choose their own lore, like the silly "all your wolves are gay now!" threads in the forums. This is a player driven game, and keeping things away from the players by making the pixels on a page and lines in a code so rigid with real life, human ideals that the players are told "they don't like you" is not satisfying. |
 π Maladi idalaM π #1568 |
|
Posted 2024-01-08 07:45:39
|
jerry the 3rd #130134 |
|
Posted 2024-01-08 11:51:02
|
βΒ°~Coffee~Β°β #2614 |
|
Posted 2024-01-08 12:31:00
February NPC Compromise #1: Gender-Change Item in LB Shop February NPC Compromise #2: Shared Pool - RNG Weighing/Options Added at End February NPC Compromise #3: Gender is a Like/Dislike |
 Before #8638 |
|
Posted 2024-01-08 13:08:52
|
AntoineDythe #94807 |
|
Posted 2024-01-08 16:16:23
Completely agree with all of this, ngl I'd be very sad if they lock away 66% of the content :( |
 [π] Aspen !! #50586 |
|
Posted 2024-01-09 09:40:32
Firstly, it's for economical reasons, obviously - assets that can be purchased with Lovebugs and NPC decors will be more valuable. I frequently bring up this reason so I guess there's no need to explain further unless asked. Secondly, it's for gender specific interactions - these were more expressive than gender neutral counterparts. We could see them in the first three quarters of the previous year's event but these were changed to avoid misgendering when dating with wolves which gender preference wasn't compatible with identity. Some of us prefer gender neutral terms than incorrect gender specific ones but over these we prefer correct gender specific ones, making the NPCs sound less neutral (and the event is not supposed to have a neutral feeling) making us love or hate them even more. Therefore, limiting the NPCs to their preferences would allow them to talk gender specific without the feeling of being misgendered. Thirdly, while it feels nice to have every option possible, it might feel boring in the next year to have the same content whether we want it or not. With limited NPC sets we might look forward for more in the next year by picking another gender, making the experience more unique. We can also share our point of view with other players while chatting and be excited with how differently our adventures go. Also, I'd like to mention that we're gonna get 60% of NPCs if the quantity becomes balanced - this is much greater part than you could've initially expected. |
 DΕΌanek #24018 |
|
Posted 2024-01-10 08:10:34
|
 Miso π₯£ #1101 |
|
Posted 2024-01-10 11:30:51
|
FurryFreak420 #31920 |