Is the MC 'the player' or just a Character you use to interact with a game?

[obibobi]

Not really? at no point in lesbian porn do (many) guys think they are lesbian, the idea of 'being on in a secret' or wanting to replicate what they see is part of it. Why I was asking, legit to work this shit out.

I think this one should be self explanatory, there is going to be levels of disconnect of course we won't relate with everything, if someone has a job you know nothing about and starts talking about it you won't relate.

In that lesbian game, if the womans threatened and her life is on the line, we can relate, if she finds a woman hot, where like "yeah I get it" but when it comes to lesbian sex are we watching women we don't find attractive? Rarely, we like watching because if it's hot women being naughty.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Rarely, we like watching because if it's hot women being naughty.

Not arguing with most of it, but here I will disagree. Thinking on it I suppose people who like lesbian porn are either lesbians, or guys who dont want to see a d and like looking at stuff, or imagining 'and then i walked in'.

EDIT: point of the question is working out what is 'self insertion' & where does it happen, no (sane) person thinks they ARE the character, but where do you get 'onboard' as opposed to staying abstract. Will update OP to that better definition.

 

[MissCougar]

I may have misread it, which is entirely possible, but it seemed like you meant people who say "I don't self-insert" (like me) are implying that people who do "self-insert" are losers, which isn't the case at all. I think we all just have different degrees of what "self-insert" means.

I think people can relate to what some character says or does sometimes, making themselves personable and likable is a good thing.

I recall the late 90's when the brooding emo male character was top of the charts for gaming. I couldn't relate to any of them very well even though I had my own emo phase.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

I recall the late 90's when the brooding emo male character was top of the charts for gaming. I couldn't relate to any of them very well even though I had my own emo phase.

Obviously because emotions are in the fringe, and you didn't fringe hard enough

EDIT: also emos were the 00's. 90's was ocarina of time

 

[MissCougar]

Obviously because emotions are in the fringe, and you didn't fringe hard enough

I may not have. But I recall gaming going through the Cloud stage and Squall stage and then graduated into the "generic brown hair male" stage and then things kind of got wild from there in a lot of directions.

Trying to think about a video game character I saw myself as the most... I'm not even sure! I feel like a character is someone else's idea and I can play with it, but they do things that move a story, not a life. I live a life, and I feel like that life vs story thing is a tough barrier to break through.

I'd say I identified most with Sims I was able to make, I guess.

 

[That other person]

I've never done the self-insert stuff. I think there's nothing wrong with it, and depending on the game I will care more or less about my character. I think that's the most common way to go about it? I just see it as me experiencing this character's life.

When I create my character I do have a certain attachment to them, like a close friend or something regardless of them being female or male, so when bad things happen, real bad stuff, I do feel like "Oh shit, no!" because I even have a personality in mind for them, hell I even make them wear clothes that fit that personality and/or their fighting style and have a brief story in my head about their background.

Yes I'm one of those that completed Dark Souls games with some of the crappiest armor just because my MC HAD to wear the clothes appropiate for them. Needless to say, that has made some games like Monster Hunter quite a pain when I don't want to wear the ugly stuff that makes no sense to me in my head. In that sense, the characters I make are real living people in their world going about their business as I help.

When it comes to porn games I use the same logic, but there's a key difference with created characters. For example, I played Roundscape Adorevia with female MC first. I tried my absolute best to complete it without her having sex with everyone because in my head she was relaxed about it, but not the kind that just fucks everything that moves. Also gave her some fetishes, but not too many. Did something similar with the Male MC. THEN I created new characters I was detached from and went absolutely bananas.

Man that game was cool, flawed, but cool still. Plenty of content. Reminds me that Arenus could have been so good.

 

[Raksha17]

I think some level of "self-insertion" is the hook with AVN's.
Given the same story it's the reason to choose this medium over a book/comic.
It's the reason you choose to play a Spiderman game instead of watching a Spiderman movie.
Being part of it the attraction. Even if you then roleplay a character and not actually yourself.

(And I don't really believe the "I don't self-insert" NTR claims. NTR is in its core about jealousy. If it's just about any random characters there would be no reason to be jealous (as the reader) and it would not need to be a NTR scene to begin with so it could just be a scene between the MC and an LI if it just about random characters having sex.)

 

[chainedpanda]

I believe that there is a big misconception on what immersion means. So many people seem to believe that it's just tossing in a faceless character with no personality and calling it a day, that's bogus. While it is one method, it's a shallow one that's generally just used for works with poor character design.

The best possible example I can give is Dungeons and Dragons. While I've never played, isn't the whole point to create a character for you to inhabit? To immerse yourself into the character which inhabits the fantastical world? You don't play some mindless, faceless character. You give them backstories, ideologies, interests and personalities.

What truly creates immersion is not the ability to imprint yourself into the role, but rather you becoming the role. No one truly immerses themselves into the faceless characters. Instead, they immerse their persona into that character. A persona can be literally anything, it's why a middle aged man with three kids can still immerse themselves into a game featuring a bland 18 year old with no personality.

Thus, what creates the best immersive experience isn't just a blank canvas. Rather it's the ability to connect with the character you're playing. Writing in first person, freedom of choice, great writing, likable and relatable characters and so forth is far more important than simply providing a blank canvas.

The main disconnect between immersion and reality doesn't stem from the protagonist's personality, but rather their choices and actions. To provide an extreme example, what do you think happens if the protagonist showcases a love for a specific kink, but the player despises that kink? well, it can create an irreversible barrier between the player and the protagonist, limiting their ability to immerse themselves into that role.

Tho, to answer the actual question, I prefer being able to immerse myself into the story. I've realized that I find games where I can't immerse myself far less enjoyable. There are also cases where a game I've loved suddenly has a drastic change in the tone or the protagonists personality and poof, immersion broken.

 

[allanl9020142]

I never really see myself as the MC but if the character does something pre-scripted in the game that I'd never do then I start losing immersion or I become even more detached. If it gets worse I just start thinking, "Damn the world in this game sucks." The MC is the vehicle I use to interact with the world but if I can't actually interact with the world the way I'd want to (the story's is railroaded) then what's the point? I could be literally anyone else in that game world and it'd be the same.

Then again, there is a certain degree of wanting to see the world through the eyes of the MC. That's why it helps when the MC is more "generic" than not. If it's some really short fuck with spiky hair or some really tall dude with long hair then there's a disconnect from the start. It's kind of why a lot of porn would just be some bald dude that looks like every other bald dude. Easier to focus on what you're there for than being distracted by the guy and at some point you just start seeing the bald dude as "generic guy".

 

[HornyMonsterGirlEnjoyer]

I tend to try my best to self insert into games(like renaming the character and choosing choices that I would do irl) however ultimately it depends on the story. Sometimes you want to play through the game as the gentleman, but you're railroaded into peeping on all the members of your family in the shower. Most of the time I rename the character to my online handle and play through the game. I sometimes try to roleplay as myself, but eventually "I" become a pervert anyway. I mean these are porn games.
Although when I play FMC games I tend to just divorce myself from the story entirely.

 

[MarshmallowCasserole]

While I don't self insert, I still think it depends on the game's intentions, and how fleshed-out a dev makes the MC. I can't see people self-inserting for my MC, for example. She's too much "her own character".

Unless by "her own character" you mean a completely inhuman freak OH MY GOD SOMEONE KILL IT WITH FIRE! then you're missing the point of self-insertion.

Think of it this way: let's say someone wrote a story that perfectly captures my circumstances and my character. And so the question is WHY would I want to read it? I already have experienced everything that story has to offer.

No, the entire point of self-insertion is novelty, fantasy. I don't WANT to self-insert as a boring mundane copy of me, or some bland loser. I want to self-insert as a character that resembles me only in general terms, but is... well not better, but let's say brighter, more vivid.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

example I can give is Dungeons and Dragons. While I've never played, isn't the whole point to create a character for you to inhabit?

Some people make a version of themselves that follows their own morality and ideas in DnD, so they are going with their own choices, whilst others create a new character that has 'rules' to follow and the decisions are based upon 'what would this character do'.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

~Snip~

I'm sure you've already read it, but I clarified what I mean by "self-insert" later in the thread. I meant it literally, while others meant it in a more figurative sense.

 

[balitz Method]

Yes I'm one of those that completed Dark Souls games with some of the crappiest armor just because my MC HAD to wear the clothes appropiate for them. Needless to say, that has made some games like Monster Hunter quite a pain when I don't want to wear the ugly stuff that makes no sense to me in my head. In that sense, the characters I make are real living people in their world going about their business as I help.

This is another part of the balancing act. It's not just a straightforward spectrum between a literally faceless husk on one end and a real character on the other; with player characters there's a certain amount of characterization that goes on and many people who're creatively inclined want to roleplay a bit, to imagine a character for their character that plays out in-between the lines, and while these people aren't necessarily self-inserting they might get upset if the PC becomes defined enough to violate their ~head canon~ and ruin their roleplaying.

I've seen some people bluntly say to devs that they shouldn't have the narration or the PC tell them (the player) what 'they' think. Approaching from another angle, I've seen people throw fits because the PC was forced by the plot to do something that their character wouldn't do. Both of these happen because the PC is too ill-defined to be considered as a real character. Some people earlier in the thread mentioned how action movies, like James Bond, are also leaning in this direction but don't have this problem and that's right: the better thing to do is to have a character that the players can relate to or admire in some way. That allows them to make a connection without entering this territory where feelings are getting hurt when the game's writer asserts themselves.

Besides, most of these ""blank slate"" MCs are not ~tabula rasa~ ideals that make the whole premise work because they well and truly could be anyone. They're just creeps and sadsacks who seem nondescript because they're the sort of person who never bothered to develop a personality.

What I personally like to do is make real characters that you as a player can get a handle on and then play with. For me a PC is most engaging when there's an unspoken (or maybe spoken if the game's being meta, but that can get gimmicky) dialogue going on between player and player character that makes you want to see how they react to the way you choose to play with them. That 'reactiveness' is the heart of it all for a video game.

If it's an action or fighting game it's usually about synchronizing: you really connect with your player character once you've learned all the moves and can see all the effort you put in show up onscreen when the player character acts out the awesome sequence you input for them. In a lewd RPG you might want to play the way the character would, trying to get through the challenges without getting raped or w/e, but you might also want to play poorly and see how the character reacts to that.

IMO that's what people need to focus on. Is the relationship between the player and PC a friendly one, where they're allies, or is it more adversarial? Are both ways of playing satisfying? <- That's huge, because in many games there's technically more than one way to play, but one style has next to no lewds. The best lewd games give you appropriate h-scenes based on your playstyle rather than forcing you to win, lose, or do either of those in one particular way.

 

[chainedpanda]

Some people make a version of themselves that follows their own morality and ideas in DnD, so they are going with their own choices, whilst others create a new character that has 'rules' to follow and the decisions are based upon 'what would this character do'.

I'm sure some do play a 'version' of themselves in DnD, just as how some attempt to recreate themselves in whatever character customization they're using. However, how we view ourselves is simply a persona of our own. Most people generally ignore our own faults, or have traits that we wished we had. When people portray themselves in any medium, that's the version of ourselves we wish to be. Plus, they include various DnD elements to their persona to play the game, do these traits distract them from an immersive experience? No. Nor does it bother them if they're character isn't identical to their real world traits.

(Examples; someone that people perceive as closed minded might believe themselves open minded. Some may be unsatisfied with their appearance, and thus alter said appearance in game. Some people may not like their real world name, or decide that they want to play with a lore-sounding name etc.)

What's more, one of the main reasons why someone would literally put their persona into the game is for the sake of immersion. By implanting their own interests, beliefs and perceived personality, the player doesn't have to break their own immersion by acting in ways that they personally disagree with or dislike. Which is similar, if not identical to the kink statement I mentioned.

Of course, not everyone is the same. Some people can immerse themselves into any role, while others fail to be immersed at all. However, the fact remains that since the beginning of this community, many people seem to assume immersion automatically equals blank protagonist.

 

[That other person]

IMO that's what people need to focus on. Is the relationship between the player and PC a friendly one, where they're allies, or is it more adversarial? Are both ways of playing satisfying? <- That's huge, because in many games there's technically more than one way to play, but one style has next to no lewds. The best lewd games give you appropriate h-scenes based on your playstyle rather than forcing you to win, lose, or do either of those in one particular way.

Yeah, it's the kind of thing that people that say "it's just a game" can't quite get. It's a little more complicated. Though I've never been super mad about the MC doing something I don't like, I usually chuckle and say "Oh you fucked up there, you should have done what I was thinking, stupid", which, unless it's absolutely jarring, does help make the character feel more like a person.

I was playing Sunset Overdrive a few weeks ago and the MC is quite relaxed and has a great attitude about the mess in the game. They are friendly, sarcastic, break the fourth wall and don't really take the threat seriously, even when they are getting shot they are making jokes about it if you (the player) keep fucking up.

It was a great experience, I played as a female, and I could really see her being a cool-ass friend, especially since she would directly complain to me or make random comments, even telling an NPC to thank "them" for the good work while pointing at the camera, with the NPC not knowing what the hell they are talking about. I kept thinking "girl you're so cool". Amazing game by the way, recommend it for sure. And that was a character that already had a personality.

Now, I also played Fashion Business. The main character is such a bitch all the time and I hated that attitude, but I also kind of wanted to see how she would react to both lewd and non-lewd situations. There are many ways to do things in that game and I did enjoy that even though I didn't like her attitude. Kept saying "See that's what happens when you are a bitch all the time, Monica."

Another good example is Claire's Quest. Game is great (though I hope it gets proper finished one day) and you are allowed to choose what to do. Now, I like Claire, she's cute, so I actually tried to make her go from little innocent girl to badass, experienced lady that would definitely not use her body to get anything, and it went well. Scenes often show that. Same thing if you go full lewd. You can even mix it up. And in all those styles, she has a different attitude. I appreciate that.

In porn games you would think putting some random hottie and making her slutty would work, but it doesn't, I need more than that, which is why I do like being given choices, corruption mechanics and actual scenes that change depending on your approach. So yeah, it's definitely more complicated than just self inserting or not.

 

[MarshmallowCasserole]

I'm sure you've already read it, but I clarified what I mean by "self-insert" later in the thread. I meant it literally, while others meant it in a more figurative sense.

No, I've read the thread. The example I gave was exactly to illustrate that "literal" way isn't really a thing. There is always some mask to put on in self-inserting, it's always "figurative" to some degree. The main character is always a character of their own, with feelings and value judgements. You'd have to go out of your way as a writer to make it not so.

 

[White Bomber]

depends on the set up.

MC=main character aka the protagonist. technically speaking, they're like NPCs in their own environment.
they usually have per-established relatable story about youth to make them relatable to the younger demographics like you'd find in anime or any story driven fiction that isn't interactive.

if its based on the the player choice,
they'd usually make them silence or faceless with an unknown background
(sometime they give you a character creation to modify how they look). they act like an avatar for you the player to make choices & explore the world, its good for those that wanna self insert or modify their own version of what a protagonist should be or look like & also don't wanna deal with controlling annoying flawed scripted protagonist.

as for me, i like to make my own hero/protagonist version in games.
i have my own prospective on what a cool protagonist should look and act.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

IMO that's what people need to focus on. Is the relationship between the player and PC a friendly one, where they're allies, or is it more adversarial?

This is a good point, such as games where you 'want' the MC to fail, and the MC is kind of reduced to a chess piece that you move to see results or the labrat in an experiment.

I'm sure some do play a 'version' of themselves in DnD, just as how some attempt to recreate themselves in whatever character customization they're using. However, how we view ourselves is simply a persona of our own.

It comes down to whether you are following your own choices or imposed, yes the game has no repercussions so you will do more than the real world, but if you are motivating your own emotions on some level you are projecting onto the MC. Classic example is doing a 'bad' play through of a game, and even though you 'the player' dont want to make a choice your 'evil character' would, so you go against your own inclination to go with the MC.

No, I've read the thread. The example I gave was exactly to illustrate that "literal" way isn't really a thing. There is always some mask to put on in self-inserting, it's always "figurative" to some degree. The main character is always a character of their own, with feelings and value judgements. You'd have to go out of your way as a writer to make it not so.

It can be a literal real thing, and you see it in some people when they refuse to play characters that dont 'look' the way they want, such as people who refuse to play a woman fighter in a fighting game. If anything in games the mask comes off, you will be MORE like yourself as there is a free world without repercussions. Take GTA, how many people drive within the lanes, dont harm anyone and dont steal. If you are just using the MC to enact your own wants pretty sure thats a version of a self-insert. The difference though is how attached you become to that MC i.e. as stated if that MC does something you wouldn't, it can become jarring. Some people wouldnt play GTA because they 'wouldnt' do that.

Alot of it does come down to the writing intend & execution of game devs, although there seem to be those who do seek out games that they want to get onboard with & current theory based on the thread & votes so far is that they are alot more fussy when selecting a game to play.

 

[MarshmallowCasserole]

It can be a literal real thing, and you see it in some people when they refuse to play characters that dont 'look' the way they want, such as people who refuse to play a woman fighter in a fighting game.

Right, characters that look the way they want. Not characters that look like them. That's the thing.

If anything in games the mask comes off, you will be MORE like yourself as there is a free world without repercussions.

Yes, that is one way this happens. But another way is that fiction can provide opportunities to self-insert in ways that are just impossible in real world by circumstances of your life, or just by laws of physics. If you aren't born a prince, you can not become a beloved benevolent monarch, it's not a question of you being constrained by your fear of reprecussions. You're just not royalty, period. So, power fantasy is self-insert into a character that is fundamentally different from actual you. IDC if you call that literal or figurative, there's no actual division. It's a single category because no one self-inserts into a pixel-perfect representation of themselves. No, it always has some empowering fictional features. How big is the gap depends from person to person, and story to story.

The takeaway I want you to have, is that self-insert is not mutually exclusive with MC having traits. It just needs MC to have desirable traits, that's all. Having a very distinct "strong" main character is not a barrier to self-insert. Having an unappealing piece of shit for main character is, though.