This discourse was going around twitter today apparently and im curious takes from here.
Which is it for you?
For me i prefer playersexuality. I want to be able to romance any romance option regardless of my charachters gender. I dont want to be stuck with only Arcade Gannon if i want to do m/m
I agree that sexuality can be important to a charachter. But if you wanna do that, seems like the charachter can just not be a romance option.
That said. In RPGs devs can do what they want. You want a charachter to be monosexual and a romance option, have at it. (Unless theyre all straight, then fuck you).
I do kinda hate what The Sims did by adding monosexuality. Felt like such a virtue signal that made the game less fun. All Sims being pansexual was always more fun for me. Especially since i usually play that game as a pansexual slut. Unless i decide my player Sim is mono, but thats on the player's end.
Monosexual townies in the Sims should at least be optional (is it? Idk havent played Sims 4 since this update).
I would say that if the game's writing is going to do something with it, then having distinct sexualities for all of the NPCs can be a cool idea that really fleshes things out. Like if LGBT rights are a thing in your game world that the characters care about, and different societies have different views on the subject that get explored during the game, then that would be a situation where giving all of the relevant characters a specific sexuality makes sense.
But if you don't have something specific you're trying to do, then playersexuality makes the most sense. Games have a lot of acceptable breaks from reality in the name of player freedom already, so why not this? That said I'm kind of a basic bitch when it comes to this, since I always play a female PC who romances the "default" female love interest when that's an option and nobody when it's not.