I See This Confusion Time And Time Again, Despite Explanations That Personality Matters A Great Deal

I see this confusion time and time again, despite explanations that personality matters a great deal to many players and not just looks. Garrus was written as a character first, not tailored to what people think women want. And this isn't a knock on the other romances either. People loved them because of their personality just as much too. The point being is that our reasons, despite the tendency for "critics" cheapening our love for this character as some shallow freak fetish, are just as based on the bonds developed over time.

It's funny; Garrus' romance is a pretty good summation of what demisexuality is. He wasn't physically attracted to Shepard by his own admission, but his respect and admiration makes him able and willing to explore a romantic side of it with her until he does develop a physical attraction to her in ME3. In fact, you literally can't romance him if you deliberately kept him off the team in ME1. No history, no bond, no romance.

He's brash, but respectful. He's reckless but wants to do good. He's stubborn but listens if Shepard disagrees. He has strong opinions and isn't afraid to voice them, but that's never harmed the friendship he can have with Shepard.

He's one of the first teammates there for Shepard she can trust when she had woken up alone and struggling in an organization she does not trust.

It's a little disappointing that we have to repeatedly say, the personality matters in our attraction to a character. Especially if we're particularly struggling to feel sexual attraction at a glance.

Do you think Mass Effect's character writers deserves more recognition for how they managed to turn an entire generation of people sexually and/or romantically and/or aesthetically attracted to someone who is essentially a featherless spacebird?

No because they did it entirely by accident, tried to placate the confusing requests by female fans to make him romanceable but because that was not something they planned for they were still writing him primarily removed from being a romance partner and were more focused on writing him as the "best friend" character to MShep (not realising this is EXACTLY why the female players (as well as gay players) liked him) and by Mass Effect 3 they just threw up their hands and went "WELL HELL! YOU GUYS LIKE HIM SO MUCH YOU GET ALL THE ROMANCE THEN!!!"

Garrus' writing as a romance was a perfect storm of factors, many completely out of the writers' control that even they themselves completely missed until their players POINTED IT OUT TO THEM. Garrus is lightning in a bottle of unplanned factors, incredible voice performance, the writers willing to comply to player feedback, and the symbiotic relationship Bioware had with their fans and players.

Garrus is an incredibly well written character in his own right, that's WHY he's such a good romance option and the best one Bioware has ever had. But a part of this was luck, chance, and willingness to adapt his character to what a subsection of fans wanted.

Proof further by every single romance Bioware has since written with the INTENT of making them exactly what their female players want, never hit the same way Garrus did. And speaking personally, none of their other romance characters in any of their games scratches the same itch.

Also "Featherless Spacebird" means nothing to me because my "sexual attraction" level is lower than 0. It's not DESPITE him looking like that. It's BECAUSE he looks like that. Not because I find him physically attractive, but because he does not resemble something I am supposed to be physically attracted to in any way shape or form.

I like the way Garrus looks because he's Garrus. And because I like Garrus it means I like the way the turians look.

The caveat of "essentially being a featherless space bird" implies that "haha isn't it CRAZY gamers would be attracted to THAT???"

no.

His personality, voice, performance, and writing is wonderful. Why WOULDN'T players be attracted to that?