You don’t even have to make it clear, I think? From what I’ve seen discussing media with friends, as long as a character experiences aesthetic attraction, allosexual people will be able to read sexual attraction into it. Meanwhile, a large chunk of aces/demis would be able to parse it without having to read something about how the look on the RO’s face is sending butterflies aflutter in their stomachs or setting their loins on fire.
I remember commenting to a friend that someone looks cute (I just meant that they looked nice and you know, cute in the way puppies are cute) and said friend, an allosexual, immediately went OMG you’re actually interested in hitting on someone!?!?!
Not all people experience aesthetic attraction, though. I know that I would read a ‘wow’ you look good as the writer inserting sexual/physicla attraction into the character - It would not read as ace to me.
Yeah I know, which is why there should be another way to go down that character’s route without being immediately attracted to them. I was just suggesting it because I wanted to show that there are types of attraction besides only sexual and romantic.
I think you can just appreciate someone’s aesthetic without there being anything other than artistic view there though, it doesn’t necessarily mean any kind of attraction. Or am I reading this completely wrong?
This is something a lot (not all) of JP visual novels actually does well, I think. You have all these characters looking like they were personally sculpted by God, and generally speaking the narration doesn’t seem to be very shook by it. Particularly the ones intended for a female audience, where usually you just get a description of what they look like without any judgement qualifiers.
I do think that aesthetic appreciation on the level of ‘oh that is a pretty tree’ is fairly common even among aces, as least as long as the protagonist isn’t particularly taken by it. I know it isn’t inclusive for every ace, but at least it’d be an improvement over the overt sexual attraction we have right now without being hell to code for the authors.
As I said before, No author in the universe can include the entire complexity of human emotions and attractions not even Shakespeare. And in a Cog is totally impossible. You can’t have twenty versions of the entire descriptions based on the player is attracted to visual or not. Like hug or not…
Not in a normal Cog or Hosted. When most romances Are not the principal focus.
I think that what we need is authors that focus on ace aro grey spectrum and make a really immersive game for it probably in the heart brand focus on romance.
As an author writing a sci-fi dystopia, I just simply can not focus on romance to that deep I just give choices without labelling anything.
My opinion is, games shouldn’t ask anything but your name. In fact, even your name. I’ve played a book (not Choicescript game) that never asked anything about me and can easily say it’s the one of the best books I’ve ever read. I felt like myself and when I lost my RO I felt like I lost her IRL. That sucked for a few days for sure.
How it works? You play as yourself, people always calls you with a nickname (usually either boss or your profession), like “hey boss” “Lawyer is really awesome”, some RO’s appear and it entirely depends on you if you’re going to do something or not.
IMO, best solution for both reader and writer. Reader will feel themselves in the game while writer won’t have to deal with pronoun, name coding etc.
My issue with what you’re suggesting is that asexual on its own = alloromantic* Which really isn’t true and it does a disservice to non-SAM* aces.
Another problem it presents that (allo) aces are the real/pure/default aces because they can just be called asexual, but (Aro)aces are adulterated lesser aces because we have to specify we’re Aro to segregate ourselves from the “real” ace who “can still love like everyone else”.
If CoG/HG could say things like
Play as Aro/Ace(short and sweet gets the point across)
-Play as A-Spec(not everyone knows what A spec means)
-Play as Ace,Aro,Allo Ace,Allo Aro or Aroace(is the most inclusive way but this is a bit longwinded to say)
*SAM=Split Attraction Model: when your romantic and sexual attraction are different/split. Non SAM means your attraction isn’t split.
*Alloromantic: Experiences romantic attraction
Allo Aro= allosexual Aromantic
Allo ace = alloromantic asexual
What this thread is about and what COG is doing right now is pretty much outright treating asexual = non-SAM, which does a disservice to SAM aces and treats aro-ace as the ‘pure/default’ ace in the first place, so…
Going by your suggestions, I feel like “Aro/Ace” would land us in the same pile we’re in right now where a lot of authors/readers just aren’t sure if it’s aro or ace or aro and ace or if it’s the same thing at all, because people interpret the ‘/’ symbol differently. I’d suggest a minor change to ‘Aro and/or Ace’, just for clarification’s sake.
(On the pure/real/default thing, I’m not a social scientist, but if you take it from a general scientific point of view there’s a likely reason why allo-aces are often referred to as just asexual while aro-aces are given the aro appellation, since allo-aces basically only have asexuality as their defining feature apart from the larger population (allosexual, alloromantic) while aro-aces also have aromantic as their other defining feature. It’s easier on the nomenclature. I do get what you’re saying that it feels bad in real life, though.)
Huh didn’t think of it that way, mark that down as another con of using Aro/ace
It’s a bit funny how CoG is doing the inverse of the rest of society. Bc outside of this ace is usually taken to mean alloromantic. But I don’t want to seem like I want to throw SAM aces and Aro-aces under the bus. I just don’t want the overcorrection of what the wider world does by trying to distance ace from Aro that it throws Aroaces and non SAM aces under the bus by low key saying asexuality=alloromantic.
That’s honestly nice to hear! I’m planning on ace options that don’t include sex in the romance, as well as options that ~fade to black~ and possibly some more adult content? But I’m glad to know the ace option is wanted. I didn’t know most ace options locked you out of romance entirely! That’s a little disheartening.
I think as a community, we really need to be more vocal when we see our sexuality being misrepresented, myself included. I’ve seen so many WIP threads on the forum that lump romantic ace and aro-ace together, or otherwise have poor ace representation, but I’ve never spoken up, and rarely has anyone else either. Part of the reason has to do with the fact that aces are already seen as attention seekers who made up their sexuality to seek validation, and I and many other aces fear that by speaking up and attracting attention to ourselves, we’ll just be reinforcing that stereotype. And I think that’s something that should change. If we ever want to have better representation, we need to be vocal. We need to speak up when we see ourselves being misrepresented. Not just aces, but allies as well. Ace visibility won’t ever increase if we all just bury our heads in the sand and hope for someone else to deal with it.
The problem with this solution is that some people like having the option to define themselves in the game. It feels good when a game explicitly acknowledges that yes, my sexuality is real and valid, simply because a lot of the people I know in real life don’t. Not only that, but there’s so little ace rep out there in mainstream media that any representation or even mention of asexuality goes a long way in terms of ace visibility. Plus, some games use defining your gender and sexuality as a way to open up interesting dialogue or unique experiences specific to that identity. I get why some people may not want that, and would just want their sexuality or gender to be treated the same as all others, but I personally really appreciate when authors go out of their way to acknowledge the different experiences that people with different identities have in a respectful way.
As someone who creates characters for games (or, when I get lazy, I just use one of already established characters to check out a game before bothering making a new one), I don’t really like this. I make characters to fit the setting, usually. Of course, that goes to hell pretty quickly once I start developing them and figure out their backstories, but that’s not the point. The point is, I don’t so much like completely blank slates. Games like that tend to be somewhat soulless to me, and if it can’t get me to feel something (something positive!), I get bored and stop playing. If I just want to stat build, I’ll go play a video game.
A question for you… is the label necessary? If a game recognizes the complexity of the issue by providing a path (or paths) to the type of relationship you want for your character (or you, if you’re self-inserting), do you need to have the option presented for you to define it? Or is it acceptable to have choices that reflect those labels without getting into having the label itself?
Not sure if I’m being clear or not, but I’ll give you a hypothetical situation for a game…
Setting: A relationship-heavy adventure with a five-ish NPCs for your team, with their sex set (M/F/I’m not getting into what one of them is, but my point is they don’t flip–they are what they are).
Among these five (possibly six, if me and my friend get energetic), there would be one option for those uninterested in romance but not sex, one option for those interested in sex with no romance, and, of course, a friend-only route (as I said, this is relationship focused, so you gotta get close to them or you’re toast). A conversation would be had or, possibly, the NPCs just might pick up on it via MC choices.
I’m just curious if that is an acceptable option and, instead of going the route of “choosing” a sexuality for your character, it would be okay to define that through interactions with the NPCs.
But this thread is about the lack of asexual romance routes and how the lock to aromantic when you pick asexual is alienating, not romance in general. I’m not sure what your point here is tbh, or what it has to do with the topic at hand? If you’ve got a grievance with how romance in general is handled, you’re more than welcome to make a thread for it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming you’re asking because of a project you’re working on.
To answer your question, I wouldn’t say a label is necessary for me, but I really do appreciate having the choice to define myself as asexual in some way. Mainly because no matter what I do, I know the game will still read me as ace. I can choose to say suggestive things, make out, or even have sex, and no matter what my character will still be seen as asexual. In a lot of games that don’t let you define yourself, choosing to have sex basically means playing an allosexual character, meaning if I want to be read as ace I have to choose not to have sex. It’s pretty frustrating and contributes to the misconception that being asexual is a choice.
That being said, I definitely don’t think the label itself is necessary for a good ace route, nor an explicit choice. If the game can get all of that across without using labels or having the player choose their sexuality explicitly, that’s great. I don’t care if it’s done explicitly at the beginning or through various character interactions, as long as I get to define myself as asexual in some form.
I hope that answers your question. Please note that these are only my personal opinions, and different aces will have different experiences than mine. Other than that, good luck with your story! (If you are writing one that is )
First off, I just want to say thanks for sharing about the importance of being able to define your sexuality in a game. I’m trying to figure out how to handle that in my current (very young) story, and I’ve been wanting to figure out why being able to specifically define the MC’s sexuality is important versus a more general “just play them how you feel” kind of thing, and you’ve provided some great answers to some of the questions I’ve had but didn’t know how to ask.
If you don’t mind my asking, what is the difference to you between a game that lets you choose to be asexual versus a game that allows you to define yourself as asexual? I can definitely appreciate the difference between a game that lets you pick a label at the start and then does nothing with it versus a game that reacts to and acknowledges what you chose, but I’m not sure how to avoid making it a choice to begin with given the medium, if that makes sense.
One not every label can be represented. There is a lot about sexuality which is a lot less black and white and does not represent well with a label. For the ace- (and also the aro, I would guess) spectrum it is not easy. There is the whole grey-area, which is impossible to fully cover. Paradoxically enough the more which is included the more you notice if your specific one isn’t.
Some labels are contested and does not mean the same to every person. Just see the whole bi- and pan discussion, which if you are not bi and pan you should really just stay out off.
Is the understanding of the label. To keep in the ace community. How would you as an author mechanically understand demi-sexual. The definition is once you have an emotional connection, but how do you as a writer establish that? When you reach over a certain tresshold in the relationship tag? Just ignore the definition and let the player function as asexual until the player decides that they have an emotional connection (That’s properly best in this exampel, but…)
Then there is the mechanic. What does the sexuality mechanic do.
Is it there soley for the players benefit and function the same way as hair color, but limits nothing because, well, sexuality is complicated.
Does it limits the player according to sexuality. This is the mechanic where the cog issue of not knowing the difference between ace, aro, aroace and not interested in romance subplots really screw over romantic aces (and I imagine sexual aros)
Does it prevent npcs from flirting with the mc, but it does not limit the mc otherwise. This is good for those player who, for one reason or another, gets really uncomfortable when they are flirted with, but for other players is just not fun. For romantic aces it might also force them into being the pursuer due the game taking the safe route and assuming not interested unless stated otherwise.
For ace player specifically does it take away the mc options when it comes to sex. Aces have many different approces when it comes to the actual act and it ranges from Just the thought of it makes me actual sick to I am really into all the kinky stuff because it is fun even if I am not attracted to people.. That is a huge range for one choice to cover.
My personal position as someone who is a biromatic ace and genderfluid is that I prefer to not choose a label and more often than not I actually find the situations authors come up with as an excuse to label the mc’s orientation uncomfortable or alienating. I would, personally, much rather approach it in a situation to situation approach, but I do understand why it is important for some.
You are not wrong. That’s my main reason for asking. So thank you for answering. I really appreciate it.
The game is in the planning stages, but the world in which it is set is one that my writing partner and I have already extremely developed. The NPCs are characters that are already established as well, so I know what they want, and what draws them to people romantically and otherwise, so it’s more a matter of giving the player options for their MC that fit with what they want while still staying true to the characters and the world (which is also already established).
For what it’s worth, my thoughts were to give the choices as the relationships with the NPCs develop. I’m not ace or aro myself, but I certainly understand the “it depends” factor when dealing with other people (i.e., finding someone attractive but having no desire whatsoever for them to touch you or experiencing romance without any desire for anything physical or even experiencing serious physical attraction with a desire for the physical but none for romance). The thing is, for any of those things to “happen”, there is a dependence on the other party (parties) involved.
^^That is my main reason for wanting to do things this way. I don’t always understand the labels, since they mean different things to different people. Plus, there are so many labels, with more appearing each day. The thing is, labels aside, we’re all people. With desires, thoughts, and emotions. That’s the common ground–particularly the emotions.
Plus, given that the world our game will be set in is a fantasy world–one where the NPCs involved are non-humans, telepathic and/or empathic to some degree, and seriously freaking old (I’m talking like several million years old, and billions for one of them), the labels don’t matter to them. And, at least two of these characters are extremely open, to the point where they’d flat out ask the MC what it is they’re feeling at any given time instead of plucking it from their mind like one would a ripened piece of fruit.
Thank you for answering the question so thoroughly. It really gives me something to think about as far as how to do this game the way we want. And it also makes me feel better about not offering labels in the beginning of the game like most games do. Instead, the topic as to “what does the MC want” can be brought up by the NPCs/LIs/friends and discussed in a more natural way. Or if the MC doesn’t want to talk about it, just figure it out as the game progresses and the relationships with the NPCs develop.
From a coding perspective, it makes things interesting (read: a pain in our collective ass) to offer a more situational choice than a beginning choice of “a, b, or c,” but I think the story and character interactions will flow better that way. And dealing with the different MC won’t be so much like trying to shove a square peg into a round slot (no euphemism intended). That said, we might piss off some people with the MC’s gender (only binary choices), but the MC is also non-human and must follow some basic rules for that race. But you can’t please everyone all the time, so we’ll see how it goes.
Again, thanks to those who responded. It really does help.
)