For where I'm concerned it's a shame, I self-insert and really can't appreciate a subby MC even if the FMC is awesome. I'm drawn to boundary breaking but there has to be a minimum I can sustainably identify with, otherwise I feel I'm just being denied the choices I would make, and it breaks the "illusion". Don't want to sound stubborn, it's just how it is, I don't feed on humiliation at all, at most it's something that can occasionally spice things up, but sustenance must come from feeling good about "my" (the MC's) role in the relationhisp.
I'm confused as it seems to contradict what
turmio said above, but I can see how things may appear differently to different people. I may have to check it out but guarding myself against some unpleasantness.
There’s nothing
wrong with trying different perspectives now and then, but forcing yourself to enjoy something that fundamentally goes against your preferences won’t necessarily make the experience better. I'm sorry if I nag too much in these discussions, but what other place to look for the nuance that game descriptions sometimes miss? If I were in the dev's position, I'd probably struggle with how to present the game, between promoting what's appealing to a particular audience and warning about what may deter others. You want reach as many people that can enjoy your work as possible, while avoiding the backlash of those who would feel "defrauded" - I won't be among the latter, which is why I end up discussing games BEFORE I play them... which comes with its own traps.
Just wanted to make sure the devs - if they read this - don't take me the wrong way. If our preferences don't align, there's nothing wrong about it. I suppose I *could* play a game for the sake of a good story, or a good character *other than* the MC, but maybe I'm just a simple guy, looking for simple rewards