I'm tired of romance period. Why does every RPG have to have it? Depite my personal feelings on the matter it just brings out all the six starved weirdos who get off on six in video games.

Why should it be like throwing a rock at the LGBTQ community? Gay marriages just don't fit into the pre-war theme.

Anbd as said many times... nobody is saying you are forced to be hetero. You can also play your char as bi. Or even as gay if you claim that the marriage is just a cover. I see no problem with this.

Maybe your character has been living a LIE all these years. A lot of gay people end up marrying someone of the opposite six as a form of denial.

And with (most of) the bigotry gone with the apocalypse, he/she is now free to be themself!

Why is this even a thing, there is such an idea we call headcanon, go crazy, you cant expect (and certainly trying to is just offensive) that developers/writers/directors should cast a million different denominations for a minority of people, that takes an industry from being able to write what it pleases to one that is forced to pander (sort of does anyway, but still).

*sigh* I agree with you. But sadly, this is now the world we live in. Where getting unnecessarily angry is considered fashionable.

The idiocy. It burns.

In what way? There's been nothing said on how people felt about it pre-war. Yes, some groups have a problem with it post-war (New Vegas Brotherhood, Caesar's Legion, certain parts of the NCR army), but there's also groups that are fine with it (the NCR itself, the New Vegas casinos). And even so, like you yourself said, the later games are set 200 years after the war, we can't take them as a model for pre-war life (and in the older games set more closely to the war, nobody really said anything about it either way).

Yes, but if there's no way to express that in-game (or worse, if the game continually contradicts it), it makes it much harder to immerse yourself as that character.

They already voiced the playercharacter, i think its no longer a thing people should expect.

because otherwise you couldnt have the plot-necessary baby.

I honestly don't think anyone is trying to throw a rock at anybody, that would imply that the decision to give us a Spouse and Child was made to spite, as apposed to trying to tell a story.

Now this could be just the fevered ramble-dreams of a madman BUT Im assuming that our tiny, tiny baby plays some sort of important role in the story. Its 2015 and WE as sane rational humans all know that a homosixual couple can raise a child to the same extent as a straight couple BUT society in Futuristic Post-Retro 2077 was probably only marginally less ass-backwards than our 1950's America. Its probably harder story-wise to set up a gay couple with a baby if we assume that Legally adopting a baby in the 50's was next to Impossible for an openly gay couple. Is this right? No its not but a lot of things in 2077 weren't right.

Tl;Dr Nobody wants to throw rocks at anyone except for the people living in 2070's America, and that particular social injustice very well may make for a really great story, but it just happens to not be this story.

This has nothing to do with raising the Baby but the child being your own flesh and blood has a greater dramatic impact than having a story with an adopted child.

"throwing a rock" was bad wording on my part. It's just how it came out. "Unintentional slight" maybe?

Anyway, its obviously miffed some people, I don't think it was intentional, but there better be a good reason for the decision or it's an unnecessary miffing.

It isn't an exaggerated version of the 1950s, this is a very common mistake. Although Fallout is inspired by the 1950s, it is not the 1950s. At most, it's a vision of the future from the 1950s, but with a lot of influences from other periods, spanning the whole of the 20th century. That's why you have gender equality, women serving in combat roles, general absence of systemic racism and apartheid, and a lot of modern concepts and ideas.

It is sad indeed that the RPG aspect was reduced or considered as an afterthough rather than the forefront.

I don't know about you but im absolutely exhausted from this tiresome debate, stories don't always have to represent what you identify as, you all seem to assume that it is personally targeted to ignore you but sometimes the story requires certain aspects that fit contextually. what im saying is that not all characters can be a tabula rasa to suit your lifestyle and if they don't that it's somehow the result of sixist CIS white males who are homophobic racists!

I think you're right,

without their open-mindedness, this might not even be a issue that gets discussed.

I'm not convinced it's a big issue in this case.

It fits 1950's repression or Bethesda could include a spouse toggle.

By the sound of it, they will be a pile of steaming pot roast a few minutes in anyway.

The way I see it is if the story requires your character to have a heterosixual relationship the result of which is your kid that you'll probably bump into later in the game then I don't see how you can come up with any reasoning besides your feelings being hurt. And feelings != logic. If the story requires for a certain character to be of a certain sixual orientation then that's that.

It doesn't make sense for Geralt to be gay in the same way it doesn't make sense for Philippa Eilhart to feel attracted to him in The Witcher books and games. It doesn't make sense for Samantha from Gone Home to be straight. It's how developers created their stories and characters not matter how much you don't agree with them in your headcanon.

And as others have pointed out that doesn't rule out the possibility of your characters comming out of the closet afterwards if they begin to have doubts about their sixual orientation. You have to roleplay around fixed elements, it's always been like that. You play an RPG game, yes, but you play it in a certain setting, there are still limits as to what makes sense in the current context and what doesn't: I'm a vault dweller, not the dragonborn reincarnated from another dimension.

At the end of the day, a line has to be drawn somewhere between the player's freedom and the creator's story.

Well, you don't play the creator "story", but your own story inside the creator "world".

Their job is to provide a good world with proper consequences to your action, and interesting characters (indeed created by the creator) to interact with.

If he set to make an rpg, he must not force his own playstyle/backstory into the one you are supposed to create yourself. His job is too make sure your approach won't be broken.

By that definition Witcher 3 isn't an RPG. Heck, no RPG is an RPG if you go with that train of thought because for example there's no RPG out there that lets me identify as a pansixual F-22 Raptor-kin and have consequences based on that

The Witcher is mostly an adaptation of a book, which has defined protagonist, which limits quite a lot the RPG options.

But if you take Fo1-Fo2-FoNV only a few things are defined, mostly your human status, where you were born and the reason you were sent out. Who you are and what you do are up to you.

You are obviously an Chinese android on an infiltration mission. Why else do you have an build in compass and enemy proximity indicator.

Most protagonists are ASSUMED to be straight but there is no references as to their sixuality. Why the need to put so much emphasis on it? A gay protagonist you say? How exactly would that go? "Hi I'm Jeff, a master thief who is gay". The problem with having gay people in a storyline, is they always have to go out of their way to let you know they are gay. It's contrived and often unnecessary other than a "look, we included a gay person in the game".

And yet all of those are RPGs... and pretty good ones at that. And guess what, all of them enforce a backstory that may or may not restrict your choices in gender, race or sixual orientation. Just because an RPG does that doesn't make it any less of an RPG.

Your argument that the devs musn't force a backstory on you if they want an RPG is faulty and illogical. What you desscribe is more of a sandbox. And Fallout has always been an RPG first before sandbox.

To me what this seems to boil down to is making a mountain out of a molehill over something trivial.

So, i describe a thing that was part of this RPG series since the beginning and your answer is that it shouldn't keep it or it wouldn't be an RPG ?

You might want to be more convincing...