Jimquisition: Neutered

[Mahemium]

I saw the mention of GTAV lacking a female protagonist, as though it's an issue. No one criticizes The Godfather, Reservoir Dogs, Heat, Scarface or any classic crime film for lacking a female crim, because that's very simply how the criminal sphere is. Why the double standard? I don't see why films can be well received for brutal honesty, whilst video games are considered backwards for lacking gender equality.

 

[Mastemat]

When I read the blurb at the bottom of your video while it was loading....
I thought you were talking about the shenanigans wherein a game (like an RPG) has its "appeal broadened" and it becomes more... at this current time, more "frat-boy-shootery" because that's the "ideal" market atm.
But that kind of bullshitery was only brought up at the end. (cause you've already talked about how bad that is)

All in all, there really should be more equality in games... and the guys who are complaining about having their games "neutered"... are probably the same guys who raised hell on the Bioware forums when Anders "raped" them in DA2.
Which was one of the only good things about DA2 in my opinion. (the inclusivity of having the LIs be player-sexual: Isabella is always bi, but Merrill and Anders are either gay or straight depending on your PC's gender. At least they appear to be given no dialogue to the contrary.)

 

[jmarquiso]

I saw the mention of GTAV lacking a female protagonist, as though it's an issue. No one criticizes The Godfather, Reservoir Dogs, Heat, Scarface or any classic crime film for lacking a female crim, because that's very simply how the criminal sphere is. Why the double standard? I don't see why films can be well received for brutal honesty, whilst video games are considered backwards for lacking gender equality.

All of those have interesting female characters, with the exception of Reservoir Dogs. Now I'm not among the critics calling for an additional female protagonist there, but there's something to be said for other crime thrillers like Out of Sight and Jackie Brown.

I'm also - oddly - not very interested in GTA V.

 

[Smeatza]

I disagree. Being focused can created fantastic experiences, while being versatile can very well do the same. Not every game should have a character creator, just as not all books should be first-person-prospective-choose-your-own-adventure books. For example, would the walking dead have been a better game if you could have changed Clementine or Lee's gender, age, height, and skin color? Character Creators definitely have their place, but so too does static, unchanging, predesignated characters.

Very true, and you picked a perfect example there. The characters of the Walking Dead game are so close to perfect that I would say they border on the sacred.
But I still can't help but wonder, how much would be "lost" if you could change Lee's gender, skin colour, voice etc.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

More like "It's likely not a coincidence we're using a term commonly associated with the removal of testicles to aggravate a group of people who would rather not be associated with it".

I wouldn't argue that creativity is being limited because some people have a problem with some games. Support inclusive games. I don't care. But if a game is going to not be inclusive then too bad, it isn't being made for you. I don't like Dragon's Crown's pandering. But it's allowed to do it, and I don't think it's sexist either.

Your point about language though is silly. Yes it may be creative or challenging to invent turns of phrase. Largely the opposition to turns of phrase that are often labelled 'casual mysogyny' or 'casual racism' is not that the user is being uncreative, it's that they're bad things to say and shouldn't be said. To which I say fuck that, I say what I want, and stick to those turns of phrase because I don't mean anything discriminatory and the critics need to realise that before they start pointing the finger. Just because a group of people makes a fuss about something I see as an invalid concern doesn't mean I should alter my language for them. Furthermore, you can't parody stereotypes with new phrases. Defeats the point.

 

[Eve Charm]

Skyrim with mods is probably the best example of what people REALLY want. One of the most popular things aside from the main official patches are the character creators and skeleton replacers and make your game look prettier with better npcs. You can't look at characters, armor or npcs without coming across a few terms like ADEC, CBBE, TBBP. They stand for, Acdale's Eye candy, Caliente's Big Bottom Edition, Tender Body and Busts Physics. Are people alienated that these exist or the fact they were made by people and supported by many others mean deep down people really embrace this stuff?

 

[JimB]

I wouldn't have cared if JC (JessiCa?) Denton was a woman, and I'd hope women don't care that he was a man.

Okay, so, you're a girl, a little girl. You are, as all children (and most adults) are, trying to figure out what the world is and where you fit into it. You're constantly on the lookout for people to help you figure things out, because the world is confusing. Identity is confusing. You don't know it at the time because you're a kid and you've only barely even learned to think, but you're trying to find someone who can help you be the person you will one day be.

The only thing you know is that you are girl. You know it because everyone tells you all the time. Your clothes tell you that, the way your mother styles your hair tells you that. Your toys tell you that. Okay, fine, you're girl! That's okay. That's a good place to start figuring things out. So what is girl? Girl is not boy, you know that already--even a child who hasn't learned how to think picked up on that real early--but that's not a useful answer to you because you don't need to know what you're not; you need to know what you are.

So you look at the world, observing it like the larval form of a scientist, observing it and categorizing the results and trying to turn the data into useful information. You look at TV and you find that girl is pretty, girl is never fat and only rarely ever messy in her appearance, so you file away that appearance is important to be girl. You go to McDonald's and you find out girl likes ponies and princesses, so you file that away too. You go to movies and you find out that there is usually only one girl in the world, and she only ever talks to men and always ends up being their girlfriend, so you file that away too.

You go to video games and you find there's really no one like you in video games. The girls there are weird, they're off, and eventually you realize it's because they never do anything. They just have things done to them, usually by men, and they only exist when a man is doing things to them. Then they go away and stop existing until the man thinks about them again. You still aren't totally sure what girl is, but you know for a fact that's not right: You exist all the time, and you do things instead of having things done to you. For a long time, you decide that video games are full of crap and their teachings should be ignored because they don't know anything. One day, though, one inevitable day you're not really even thinking about it when a question occurs to you, the first question a child ever asks about anything:

Why?

Why are video games telling you that girl is a thing that never acts on its own and that only exists in relationship to a man? Is it because video games think that's what girl is, or (and you don't want to think this, you're kind of horrified and hurt to think this, but it's too late and you can't stop the thought from occurring to you) is it because that's what video games want girl to be? And if that's it, why? Are they afraid of girl? Do they hate girl? Do they fear and hate you?

--

Let's drop the roleplaying (though you could fit almost anything in the place of the word "girl" into my example as long as it's not "straight, white man;" try "gay," "transgender," or "black"). The point I'm getting at is that you, Thanatos2k, are in a position where you don't have to care that JC Denton is male, because you have so many males to choose from. Women don't have that many choices. JC Denton may only be one character in one game...but so is every character in every game, and when you look at how all those one characters and one games add up, certain conclusions are inescapable. The video games industry doesn't want women to be part of it, which is really weird (their money is worth exactly as much as a man's money) but tolerable. What's more, it doesn't like women. That last one is the one that stings.

 

[minimacker]

Ooo! Was that Hydro-Man from Spider-man:TAS I saw?

 

[Eve Charm]

Why is it when games come out with characters that all reality would never exist in real life, THAT's when people decide to bring up games need greater diversity.

90% of games have humans, 10% of games have robots. Why doesn't the robot game have humans it's got no diversity?

 

[JimB]

I saw the mention of Grand Theft Auto V lacking a female protagonist, as though it's an issue. No one criticizes the Godfather, Reservoir Dogs, Heat, Scarface, or any classic crime film for lacking a female crim, because that's very simply how the criminal sphere is. Why the double standard?

People do criticize those movies for their gender politics. If they don't criticize them by name, it's because they're criticizing them under the general auspices of the Bechdel test.

I say what I want, and stick to those turns of phrase because I don't mean anything discriminatory and the critics need to realize that before they start pointing the finger.

Your point here seems to be that you have less of a burden to choose your words carefully as to convey your exact meaning as precisely as possible than everyone else in the world does to already know what you're thinking. I find this position insupportable.

 

[Miroluck]

snip
The video games industry doesn't want women to be part of it, which is really weird (their money is worth exactly as much as a man's money)

It's actually not weird at all.
I know that 49% of gamers are female, but the thing is - for a company it doesn't really matter. It won't matter to them until percentage of female gamers will reach at least 51% (or in another scenario that I will explain below). Why? Because making those female-(or everyone-)oriented games will cost them a lot of money. And these expences will not be covered unless bulk of the gamers will be considering sexist games repulsive and stop giving them money as a result.
So the only choice here is somehow to convince most of gamers that such games are not good. And also convince them to stop buying these games.
Which is not going to happen because most gamers will find an excuse to buy (or pirate) a game they like, no matter what kind of views this game contains.

 

[JimB]

It's actually not weird at all.

No, it really is. I get the whole "more men play video games, so let's try to get their money" thing, but why are they making it an either/or choice? Yes, men make 51% of the gaming demographic, but you know who makes 100% of it? Men and women. Why not aim for both? And if one hundred percent is impossible (which I think we all agree that it is), why not redefine the conversation along lines other than the properties of one's crotch? Why not aim for [people who like X] rather than [men or women]?

It's super-weird. I do not get how it makes good business sense. How it promotes lazy thinking, sure, that I get, but how it makes good sense? I got nothing.

 

[Miroluck]

It's actually not weird at all.

No, it really is. I get the whole "more men play video games, so let's try to get their money" thing, but why are they making it an either/or choice? Yes, men make 51% of the gaming demographic, but you know who makes 100% of it? Men and women. Why not aim for both? How it promotes lazy thinking, sure, that I get, but how it makes good sense? I got nothing.

Again - making games more equal will cost additional money, and these people don't want to risk like that.
I get that "aiming for both" market would be more profitable, but for market as it is right now? Changing anything is too scary for them.

 

[nuttshell]

Okay, so, you're a girl, a little girl. You are, as all children (and most adults) are, trying to figure out what the world is and where you fit into it.
...Why are video games telling you that girl is...

If McDonald's, TV and video games are places where your children are looking for answers in existential questions, hoping to form their identity, you are a bad parent. And if children really ask: "Oh Ronald! Why are we here?", I really hope, he tells them the truth in the creepiest of ways.

 

[hentropy]

You said "the very best games in the gaming history" without actually thinking about gaming history. Don't blame me.

That is only a part of the sentence. The key word being "many". "Many" of the greatest games in history. Not "all", or even "most". Many. This includes recent history as well, not just the 90s.

So you're arguing that the characters aren't even really male characters because they didn't need to be male, AND simultaneously arguing that females are alienated because there's so many male characters and no one for them to identify with. Make up your mind. And really, stop selling women short. I've never been "alienated" by having to play a female character, I wouldn't have cared if JC (JessiCa?) Denton was a woman, and I'd hope women don't care that he was a man.

No, I'm not saying that. That should be obvious if you can link the various points in my posts to a common point. When I say "alienation" I'm talking about black and white, someone can still love a game while still feeling alienated by it. I haven't played Dragon's Crown but I gotta say the art style throws me off as well, not just because of the women but because of all the characters look like some kind of disfigured freakshow. And yes, such an art style can really detract from the experience.

You might not have any problem with playing a female every now and then in a game, but imagine if EVERY game you played besides a rare few FORCED you to play as a female protagonist. You might still enjoy the games, but you might also feel like the people making the games aren't really doing it for you, or caring about how you feel, and it might make you seek out other hobbies instead. As I said in my first post, women may not have problems playing an everyman, but if they're not going to do or say much and the gender isn't ultimately that important in many of those older games, then why force women to play a male? It's usually because the developers and publishers are targeted men and boys, and make it more relatable to them.

Add in the caveat that, in this world where everyone is forced to play as female characters in games, all the men NPCs portrayed are wimpy, weak, insulting caricatures of what men are like in real life. You'd probably get pretty offended by that, and want to change it.

See, the thing is, a tight well written linear story doesn't really allow you the freedom to craft your own characters and experiences. A tight well written linear story has preexisting characters that can't be changed with some checkboxes and dialogue choices. They go through arcs from the beginning of the story to the end. They change according to the wishes of the author. Linearity is not and has never been a BAD thing, just a different way of telling stories.

That's precisely what I said in the first post. Linear stories aren't necessarily bad things, and there have certainly been some really good stories that have been linear... but 8/10 times that's simply not the case. There's a reason why games have a hard time being taken seriously, and part of it is because not many devs put a lot of effort, time, or money into storytelling. When they try, it's usually mediocre at best. This goes double, even triple for the Japanese game market. While there have certainly been good stories within JRPGs, they've been stuck in a rut for a long time now and no amount of character creation or inclusitivity is going to fix the main problems in that genre.

In Mass Effect, while it has a good story for the most part (lol ending), Shepard doesn't change from the beginning of Mass Effect 1 to the end of Mass Effect 3 at all. Many of the other characters have arcs but Shepard acts almost identically the whole way through. Same thing happens with most other games that have character creation. In games like Dragon's Dogma and Demon's Souls your created character doesn't even really say or do much themselves - they barely even HAVE a character. Same with Baldur's Gate, Kingdoms of Amalur, etc.

I couldn't disagree more, but it is a subjective matter that depends on how you approach a story like Mass Effect. I can start out as a goody two-shoes Paragon with upstanding morals who slowly get disillusioned and becomes more Renegade-like, only to hold onto those values when they really matter in the end. No, the developers can't program every single emotional reaction one can imagine, but that's what your own imagination is for. This also goes for the SR series, even though you're more or less forced down a fairly linear storyline, you can come up with your own motivations and reactions to things, and adds to the experience. I'd much rather have something like that than the developer trying to tell me a story, because much of the time the story they want to tell isn't really worth it in the end and just makes me want to go back to shooting or beating up things.

I'd much rather have that freedom of a character "checklist" than have all those boxes already filled out for me with no choice, like the way it was in GTA games. I really love the GTA games, but story and really good main characters have never really been their strong suit, and yes, they could be much better games if I was given a bit more freedom as what to do with them. When I play Nico or CJ or Tommy, I feel like I have to have their motivations and their personality, limiting the experience in what should be an open-ended game. This is why the three interchangeable male protagonists in GTAV is a somewhat of a controversy, because no matter how good the rest of the game is, it will always feel like Rockstar is intentionally stifling my own creative input in the game so they can force their story down my throat.

Books, theater, movies, and other traditional art forms are one-way, a book's story and characters and writing style is all it has, and it better be good to be considered a good book. Games include so many different forms of media it's almost staggering, and along with that it is also interactive. Now that we have the technology to truly do it, developers should drop the idea that they should be telling the stories for us, as they have proven time and time again they simply can't do it as consistently well as other mediums, with only the occasional gem in a pile of crap. Instead, they should create platforms in which players can create their own stories, especially now since graphics have more or less plateaued.

 

[JimB]

Again: making games more equal will cost additional money, and these people don't want to risk like that.

Then what are "these people" (only put in quotation marks to indicate that I'm not sure whom we're talking about, not because I wish to imply derision) doing in positions of authority over these decisions? Profit only comes at the expense of taking risk. Who can look at the video games industry as it is, either from a social perspective as I do or from a business perspective as I would expect developers to do, and think, "This is a sustainable model that will serve to increase our profits?" It's just--it's lazy. That's the only explanation I can conjure here. It is too lazy to think critically and too lazy to be brave. Maybe I'm missing something, but laziness is all I got.

If McDonald's, TV, and video games are places where your children are looking for answers in existential questions, hoping to form their identity, then you are a bad parent.

The places they are looking are the world. Like it or not, McDonald's, TV, and video games are all part of the world; and like it or not, there is a lot more world to teach kids things than there is parents. Please do not sit here and argue that parents, that two individual human beings, should somehow be able to overpower the message the entire world sends without having to change that message first; it smacks of a complete abdication of personal responsibility.

 

[Miroluck]

Again: making games more equal will cost additional money, and these people don't want to risk like that.

Then what are "these people" (...) doing in positions of authority over these decisions?

Well, positions I'm thinking about are usually taken by white straight rich men, and they are there because other w.s.r. men decide who's going to take those positions.

Profit only comes at the expense of taking risk. It's just--it's lazy. That's the only explanation I can conjure here. It is too lazy to think critically and too lazy to be brave. Maybe I'm missing something, but laziness is all I got.

Now that you've said that, I think that maybe, their own views are a little more important for them to reinforce than profit.

 

[leviadragon99]

Neutered

Why do gamers defend their favorite titles from criticism with such volatility? According to some, it's because they don't want to see their genitalia removed.

Watch Video

Can i just point out one of your other things on here is " movie defense force "

Oh yeah, because challenging people to see things the mainstream audience dismiss as terrible in a new light is EXACTLY the same as ravenously demanding that all reviews of a game give it perfect scores.

Really it's different from people JUST saying a movie is awful and no one should ever see it and it should die in a fire then the people that take one look at the art of a game and call it trash? Defend movies on their merits but don't defend games?

It's not about the scores, it's about the existence. You can't and never will be, able to homogenize art. For the good or bad, it should exist and shouldn't have to be watered down for anyone. You can't put a boob slider on Hand-drawn characters, just like the statue of david in real life doesn't come with an "sex appeal slider" often imitated but never duplicated, whether it's your thing or not, it's better to exist then not to exist at all.

No. those people who scored Dragon's Crown lower than the general consensus weren't challenging its right to exist or demanding it be changed, they were expressing their personal disapproval, saying it wasn't for them and suggesting that maybe it isn't for everyone, that the aesthetic design could be a deal-breaker for some. And I think you'll find that score inflation pattern in the industry aside, ranking a game a six isn't the same as calling it trash and dismissing it entirely, certain themes, content, ideological perspectives or politics can substantially influence someone's opinion of a piece of media, for some, they won't be able to get past it, but for others, they can enjoy it in spite of an aspect they might see as a flaw, or they might be okay with it, but demanding that everyone be okay with it, that there be no discussion or dissent... well that's just boring.

Also, the endless call of duty clones out there and the endless popcorn big action movies that fail to get it right prove that you CAN homogenize art... you just really shouldn't, of course we could bring in what personal definition of art you're going by, whether you mean something as specific as high art or whether you're all-inclusive for it to mean any form of theoretically creative media, but that's a whole other can of worms. In any event, it's still a bit rich saying that diverging from the ludicrously over the top sexualisation that so many games seem to follow would be making things LESS homogenized.

Yeah, like Jim said a little while back, parody or not, when so much of its contemporaries use that kind of imagery unironically...

No one is trying to take away your toys or say that those games can't be made any more, don't even pretend that's the argument going on here, what we're asking for is the usual stuff AND a little more variety, this doesn't have to be an either-or mutually exclusive thing, maybe make some room by cutting out some of the focus-tested dreck that no-one likes anyway?

Hell, why do I have to reiterate so many of the points Jim has made over his videos to you? Do you just watch them to disagree or do you fail to even consider the points he raises?

 

[leviadragon99]

Oh dear Christ... this phenomenon is actually a thing? People really use that argument? Goddamn...

It's just another way for the ingrained bigotry to try and find excuses for itself.

Ingrained bigotry is people who like having big boobed women in their games?

Honestly the people who make games don't owe you anything, they are not obligated to make games that appeal to you.

No, the ingrained bigotry is people trying to chase female gamers out of the community,

Not happening.

it's the ludicrous level of hostility Anita Sarkis-whatever gets for even suggesting that maybe some games out there might not have the best depiction of women,

How dare she receive backlash for her opinion that things are sexist and/or cause real life sexism.

it's the rape threats on twitter, the "make me a sandwitch" meme, and the idea that a game has to alienate people to remain pure and creative.

I can't think of a single game that doesn't alienate someone for whatever reason.

And they are indeed not obligated, where in my argument does it say that? But it might just help them out if they did make games that genuinely appeal to a market beyond the brogrammer demographic from time to time.

Oh they do. Quite a lot. Thing is whenever a game gets made that does people have to act like it's personally responsible for bringing sexism to gaming or alienating women. There's already a variety in games. NOTHING is stopping you from avoiding those games and still having a ton to play. So at this point it's 'some women will judge all of gaming because of Dragon's Crown and we need to make sure those ultra-judgemental people are fans of gaming'

Point the first: I believe you to be either blind or deluded if you're not seeing that hostility and willingness to harass anyone with two X chromosomes until they leave the game/forum in certain segments of the community, I might have hyperbolized a little, but it's there.

Point the second: She received hostility before she even started, before she had a chance to make her case, before anyone knew what she had to say, just because she was raising the possibility that it could potentially be a problem, I'd say the reaction more than proved her right, if male gamers are so insecure that they have to attack someone suggesting there's bigotry, I don't see it being much of a stretch to think they might be bigots, and what happened after she began to make her case? A substantial amount of her negative feedback continued to be mindless, tasteless threats and personal attacks, dismissals on the stupidest of grounds, and very little in the way of actual countering of her arguments. So yeah, damn right I consider that to be bullshit, you can disagree with someone, but be civil about it rather than yelling at them to die in a fire.

point the third: Annnd yet this video would seem to suggest that Saints Row 4 does that pretty well by letting anyone be the lord of the sandbox... heck, I can't recall Skyrim alienating anyone through potentially offensive viewpoints or deliberately exclusionary tropes, or Dragon Age, or Mass Effect, or Portal, or Planescape Torment, or the Fallout games, or Pokemon, or Persona 4, or Dust, or Minecraft, or Bastion, or Shadowrun just to name some that I'm most familiar with. Name me something from each of those games that'd alienate a viewer based on race, religion, sexuality, gender, or any of the other big ones, for extra points, try actually coming up with something someone might find offensive that isn't balanced out by the game trying to show the other perspective. Yes, it's almost impossible to make something that everyone will like, and there's people out there that can get offended about just about anything, but I think some games do alright with not actively sabotaging their chances with more than half the population of the earth.

Point the fourth: I think you're exaggerating a little, and I'll remind you that most of those more varied games come from the indie circuit, or for smaller riskier projects. The mainstream, high-profile, most visible games out there do seem to have a hard-on for gun-bros. Hell, irrespective of the quality of the final product, Remember Me's personal story does tell of a certain reluctance to bring in female leads, Lara only got her reboot because of delicious nepotism by her established brand, most of the games I can think of that'll allow you to play a female character do so because you create your own with both genders and a bunch of bodysliders as options, or choose/customize from the start, rather than ones where the female lead is the set established, fleshed out character, while white male leads being the set option in games is far more commonplace.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I wouldn't have cared if JC (JessiCa?) Denton was a woman, and I'd hope women don't care that he was a man.

Okay, so, you're a girl, a little girl. You are, as all children (and most adults) are, trying to figure out what the world is and where you fit into it. You're constantly on the lookout for people to help you figure things out, because the world is confusing. Identity is confusing. You don't know it at the time because you're a kid and you've only barely even learned to think, but you're trying to find someone who can help you be the person you will one day be.

The only thing you know is that you are girl. You know it because everyone tells you all the time. Your clothes tell you that, the way your mother styles your hair tells you that. Your toys tell you that. Okay, fine, you're girl! That's okay. That's a good place to start figuring things out. So what is girl? Girl is not boy, you know that already--even a child who hasn't learned how to think picked up on that real early--but that's not a useful answer to you because you don't need to know what you're not; you need to know what you are.

So you look at the world, observing it like the larval form of a scientist, observing it and categorizing the results and trying to turn the data into useful information. You look at TV and you find that girl is pretty, girl is never fat and only rarely ever messy in her appearance, so you file away that appearance is important to be girl. You go to McDonald's and you find out girl likes ponies and princesses, so you file that away too. You go to movies and you find out that there is usually only one girl in the world, and she only ever talks to men and always ends up being their girlfriend, so you file that away too.

You go to video games and you find there's really no one like you in video games. The girls there are weird, they're off, and eventually you realize it's because they never do anything. They just have things done to them, usually by men, and they only exist when a man is doing things to them. Then they go away and stop existing until the man thinks about them again. You still aren't totally sure what girl is, but you know for a fact that's not right: You exist all the time, and you do things instead of having things done to you. For a long time, you decide that video games are full of crap and their teachings should be ignored because they don't know anything. One day, though, one inevitable day you're not really even thinking about it when a question occurs to you, the first question a child ever asks about anything:

Why?

Why are video games telling you that girl is a thing that never acts on its own and that only exists in relationship to a man? Is it because video games think that's what girl is, or (and you don't want to think this, you're kind of horrified and hurt to think this, but it's too late and you can't stop the thought from occurring to you) is it because that's what video games want girl to be? And if that's it, why? Are they afraid of girl? Do they hate girl? Do they fear and hate you?

--

Let's drop the roleplaying (though you could fit almost anything in the place of the word "girl" into my example as long as it's not "straight, white man;" try "gay," "transgender," or "black"). The point I'm getting at is that you, Thanatos2k, are in a position where you don't have to care that JC Denton is male, because you have so many males to choose from. Women don't have that many choices. JC Denton may only be one character in one game...but so is every character in every game, and when you look at how all those one characters and one games add up, certain conclusions are inescapable. The video games industry doesn't want women to be part of it, which is really weird (their money is worth exactly as much as a man's money) but tolerable. What's more, it doesn't like women. That last one is the one that stings.

See it's stuff like this that prevent people from taking arguments against this seriously. I didn't play video games while growing up to find my place in the world. I played them to have fun and to experience interesting stories. End stop. I mean my god, people actually obsess over this kind of stuff?