🎮️ what is 'playersexuality'? 🎮️

QUEER WORD
PLAYERSEXUALITY

What It Means:

a term used to describe non-playable video game characters whose romantic or sexual orientation adapts to match the gender of the character chosen by the player, rather than having a fixed sexuality. These characters appear attracted to the protagonist regardless of the player's chosen gender, prioritising gameplay accessibility over authentic sexual identity. The term is often used critically to distinguish this design choice from genuine bisexual or pansexual representation.

Let’s Use It In A Sentence:

It’s hard to tell whether Miranda actually fancies me for me, or whether she’s just playersexual…

Video games, eh?

I am one of those people who can’t allow themselves to play video games. If I do I get way too invested too quickly, obsessively playing for hours on end, refusing to come up for air until I finish all the levels (and side quests, of course).

One of the first video games that sucked me in this way (and caused me to lose about six months of my life) was Sims, a life simulation game where the goal is to build a community of little video game people (the aforementioned Sims), support them to get jobs, feed themselves, fall in love and build and maintain beautiful houses. It’s a bit like having a really elaborate Tamagotchi. 

And one of the most exciting things about the Sims was that you could make them queer. Which is precisely what I did with mine, making them flirt with… well… actually… if I’m completely honest I just made all of my Sims uber-slutty, flirting with anyone that they met, regardless of gender (which maybe tells you more about hormonal teenage me than you needed to know).

But, still, a big part of the thrill of the game was watching queer characters fall in love and build lives together.

So, I was all for the idea of being able to choose character sexuality in video games. Or, at least, I thought I was. After hearing arguments against playersexuality I’m a little less sure. 

Let’s take a closer look (and then I’d love to hear your thoughts):

History of the term 'playersexual'

The events that led to the coining of the term playersexual were a bit of a beautiful accident. 

All the way back in 2011, the video game developer BioWare was up against a tight deadline for their new game, Dragon Age II, and so decided to cut some corners. Unlike their previous games where romance options were limited by character gender, they decided to make all four romanceable companions available to any player character, regardless of gender. 

It seems as though the decision to go in this direction was primarily practical - the team was working under serious time constraints and the work involved in creating separate romance paths for different genders would have been a resource nightmare. But lead writer David Gaider later went on to say “the romances in the game are not for 'the straight male gamer.' They're for everyone... we have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention."

Sounds like a bit of revisionism to me, but it’s still nice to think that at least we’re having conversations about representation and inclusivity in video games.

When the game was released, nerdy video gamers did what nerdy video gamers do - they went on the internet to complain!

Many weren't entirely convinced that the characters were actually bisexual. Or even pansexual. Instead, they felt like the companions would just... adapt to whoever the player was. 

One frustrated user said that these characters “don't seem bisexual to me; they seem playersexual” - basically existing to be ‘available to as many players as possible’ rather than having their own authentic sexual identities.

And that's how we got the term. Playersexual became shorthand for Non-Playable Characters (NPCs) who aren't really bi or pan in any meaningful way, they're just programmed to be attracted to you, the player, whatever gender you happen to be playing as.

By the mid-2010s, the term had spread beyond Dragon Age players to the wider gaming community. Gaming journalists started using it to describe similar systems in other games - a particularly noticeable example being that all the marriageable characters in Stardew Valley will happily settle down with you regardless of whether you're playing a male or female farmer.

And, so what?, I hear you ask… 

So, on the face of it, this all seems to be a good thing, right? Players have the choice of which gender they play as, and which gender their player falls in love with. It helps users to feel represented and seen, and to create a world in which they can play out some of their desires (like younger me and my slutty village of Sims).

But, when you dig a little bit deeper, it exposes some of the flaws with this approach…

Empty representation

The main criticism of playersexual characters is that they offer what feels like ‘halfway representation.’ Sure, you can make the characters queer in your game, but they're not actually written as queer. They don't have the backstories, the struggles, the specific experiences that shape real queer people. They're just conveniently available to sleep with you, regardless of who you are.

But, of course, queer people don't develop their identities in a vacuum. Our sexualities are shaped by coming out processes, by navigating a heteronormative world, by finding community, by facing rejection or acceptance. A lesbian who realised she was attracted to women at 14 has had different formative experiences than someone who's playersexual by design.

When every companion's sexuality is undefined until the player intervenes, it creates this weird perception that characters' identities exist only in relation to the protagonist. They become these empty vessels waiting to be filled by whatever the player wants, rather than people with their own authentic experiences and preferences.

And mulling over all of this has made me think about the rise of AI dating apps and chatbots, and what that might mean for the ongoing dilution of queer identity (and the further propagation of heteronormativity). People who are entering into relationships with AI will be experiencing the same thing as those flirting with a playersexual NPC - connection made with a character that is designed to be attracted to you, regardless of who you are, and who won’t have had any struggles, reckoning, or friction that’s made them the person they are. It's kind of like playersexuality taken to its logical extreme - artificial partners with no motivations other than loving you, and no authentic identity.

Will queer identities as we know them be completely erased? Or are they becoming more heteronormative anyway with the advancement of rights and greater integration in society, making this whole concern moot?

I’m both mortified and fascinated to see where it will all go. 

Back to video games though…

So, I guess the big question here is - is some representation, no matter how flawed, worth it?

And, as per usual, there isn’t a clear cut answer. Yes, fixed sexualities allow for richer storytelling about identity and the realism of rejection or unavailable love interests, but they can leave some players without romance options. Playersexual game design ensures every player has equal choices and no content is gated, but it risks characters feeling like hollow wish-fulfillment dolls rather than people with independent, fully fleshed-out identities.

I’m not exactly sure which is best.

Ok, I can't quite believe that I've spent this much time thinking about the sexuality and authenticity of video game characters, so maybe it’s time to draw a line under this conversation.

But, before we do, I want to know what you think. Do playersexual characters count as authentic queer representation?