>>30009635Tell them you're not one of the types of people who self-insert in games/media, you're a 3rd person type, so for you the character is just who you're helping along and have to look at for dozens of hours. And you'd rather help and look at a cute chick.
In all seriousness while I'm sure there are plenty who do in fact want to be the little girl, in my observations there really is a significant divide between people who want to always self-insert into a piece of media and people who don't. I don't think either way is right or wrong, I'm on the 3rd person type and don't get emotionally involved in stuff period in general and I would not assert that is always a good thing at all. But it does create a real difference of perspective in a lot of areas, I hate those "faceless generic protagonist" shows for example (harem or otherwise) because they're just utterly hollow for me since I don't project or join anything. I want everyone to have strong characters and see what stories they tell. But objectively (economically speaking, this shit is financially successful) lots of other people do want a "blank slate" on which they can involve themselves.
More gaming-related, classic Dungeons & Dragons showed this as well. Some of us really enjoyed trying wide varieties of role playing, trying entirely whacky stuff, be it good or evil. But I definitely encountered a few people who just could not create emotional separation: to them, if you played someone horrible and gleefully did evil or played a total lawfag or whatever, that actually reflected on you. They'd only play chaotic neutral or chaotic good or some shit, exact same archetype every single game.
At any rate even if you want to be the little girl it's a reasonable explanation since it's a thing and kind of interesting in the realm of gaming.
