NeoGAF

Originally Posted by broham

Unless it's some blatant fetish pandering, I don't care. A lot of people are saying they stayed away from dust because of it's furry art style but I think the real problem those people had isn't that dust was furry but that the style felt very amateurish in how it came across in the game. Dust and overgrowth have been brought up a few times so I'll use those as examples. On the left is a rabbit character from dust and on the right is rabbit character art from overgrowth. Neither is necessarily more "furry" than the other but one is more realistically represented and better drawn. It's not furry art that's making you avoid a game, it's just what you perceive as poor art.

this is a smart post

Originally Posted by Tekkie

From early caveman drawings to certain gods of Egypt, to contemporary movies, cartoons and games, they've always been there.

Before the internet age, it was quite popular since these kinds of characters transcended racial and gender boundaries quite effectively and had a very broad and child friendly appeal to them.

You probably already see where I'm going with this, but during the internet boom we got a phenomenon called furries. Somehow this relatively tiny subculture managed to make such an uproar that anything depicting anthropomorphic animals is now automatically called furry and also receives the associated stigmas.

I find it problematic that everything gets lobbed together under that moniker, since it should be quite obvious that there's a big difference between anthropomorphic animals and sexual deviants. Not that I'm calling all furries that, I'm just saying it all gets thrown together.

I see furries getting mentioned whenever there's a game with anthro characters in them. From Total Biscuit feeling the need to explain that there isn't any furry porn in Dust an Elysian Tail, to Tim Schaefer saying on a podcast on GT that he refuses to play Khajiit characters in Skyrim because he doesn't want to have anything to do with furries.

Automatically relating these characters to sexual deviants seems batshit crazy to me. Perhaps it's a dumb example, but I more or less see it as someone saying "I don't watch Indiana Jones because it has whips in it and s&m is disgusting".

But perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way. So I'd like to ask, do these types of characters such as Sonic, Star Fox, the Khajiit race in the Elder scrolls etc. Appal you so much that it influences your buying decision? And if so, why does it?

Damn this post is depressing.

One of the things I like about [spoiled]stylized[/spoiled] Anthropomorphic Characters is that they ascend past an appeal that most characters offer due to by passing racial and gender boundaries while offering some unique aspect of surrealism.

It's sad seeing them painted in this view considering I grew up with Looney Tunes, Disney Characters/ Hannah-Barbera (Swat Kats), and now all of sudden watching that shit is off limits because of some fandom?

Fuck that.

Furries can do whatever the hell they want, everyone else can too.

But I am buying the next Starfox/Sonic

If the design is good (Klonoa, Sonic, Blinx, Rachet) It guarantees a look from me either by box art or gameplay videos.

If the design is bad (Crash, Jack, Sly cooper, Donkey Kong, star fox, Rayman) then I'll dismiss it unless the game is amazing (new Spyro games)

I find sexualized furries disgusting, but some of the less conventional ones can be pretty neat, like...

... which is why I tend to stay away from (most) games with cat/dog furries, because many of them feel like a creator's sexual fantasy. Not all, of course, but many.

I hope Noogy is not sad at the corner now (I love Dust man, don't hear them!).

People are way too insecure in this thread, the "furry" aesthetic isn't a problem the theme is.

Some GAF people have insanely narrow taste. Like, no animals, no SD, no retro, no anything but realistic (at the time of release) looking games. I'm glad I can basically play and enjoy games with different art styles, I'd be missing a ton otherwise.

Originally Posted by Winterfang

If the design is bad (Crash, Jack, Sly cooper, Donkey Kong, star fox, Rayman) then I'll dismiss it

Originally Posted by Boss Doggie

But Dillon's cast are all anthro! Did you just miss his squirrelly friend and the towns!

Speaking of which this game had some of my favourite anthro designs in any game as of late, now if only that world could be placed into a different type of game that isn't a tower defence game with a difficulty curve like a sudden incline.

Shitty "mascot" characters in JRPGs bother me. Not quite the same thing though.

Originally Posted by Winterfang

If the design is good (Klonoa, Sonic, Blinx, Rachet) It guarantees a look from me either by box art or gameplay videos.

If the design is bad (Crash, Jack, Sly cooper, Donkey Kong, star fox, Rayman) then I'll dismiss it unless the game is amazing (new Spyro games)

I don't think Rayman counts . . . fuck if I know what he is though, lol. Never had an issue with Rayman's design, always liked it.

my Skyrim character was a female Khajit

what is wrong with me

Originally Posted by Winterfang

If the design is good (Klonoa, Sonic, Blinx, Rachet) It guarantees a look from me either by box art or gameplay videos.

If the design is bad (Crash, Jack, Sly cooper, Donkey Kong, star fox, Rayman) then I'll dismiss it unless the game is amazing (new Spyro games)

Shout outs for me not being the only person liked Blinx.

But dude, wat?

Also would Jack even count as furry, he is more whetever link is. Elven, just on some mad max fist of the nortstar stuff

Best jak

Originally Posted by mullet2000

Shitty "mascot" characters in JRPGs bother me. Not quite the same thing though.

What a beary unfortunate opinion.

I don't really care, but if I start to really notice that it seems specifically "furry" and the characters are over-sexualized then I'll probably be bothered by it a little.

As long as females are not over sexualized... it's all good.

Amy Rose and Cat from Sonic and Star Fox... Cool.

Rogue and Crystal from Sonic and Star Fox.... Pushing it....

Originally Posted by balohna

seems specifically "furry" and the characters are over-sexualized

Just for the record, for those that don't know. "Furry" doesn't mean the sexualisation of an anthro animal.

Originally Posted by Miktar

"Over-sexualization is A-OK as long as it's a white female in a revealing outfit. No furries."

Nothing wrong with any of it, just what I choose to consume.

Originally Posted by Farrow

Just for the record, for those that don't know. "Furry" doesn't mean the sexualisation of an anthro animal.

That's why I said "and".

Originally Posted by balohna

Nothing wrong with any of it, just what I choose to consume.

I was speaking generally, making light of white male gamers in general, because I thought it funny.

*insert League of Legends female character sheet*

I play Alistar m'self. Of course.

Dont care in the least. I won't shun a game if it has them or if it doesn't.
Hell Sin Mora I thought had a cooler world with all it's animal characters than what I was actually playing.

Originally Posted by broham

Unless it's some blatant fetish pandering, I don't care. A lot of people are saying they stayed away from dust because of it's furry art style but I think the real problem those people had isn't that dust was furry but that the style felt very amateurish in how it came across in the game. Dust and overgrowth have been brought up a few times so I'll use those as examples. On the left is a rabbit character from dust and on the right is rabbit character art from overgrowth. Neither is necessarily more "furry" than the other but one is more realistically represented and better drawn. It's not furry art that's making you avoid a game, it's just what you perceive as poor art.

This is quite sensible

Originally Posted by Kai Dracon

If you took the costuming, so to speak, off most characters of any kind there wouldn't be much left to look at. The WoW example is interesting - the pandas are used because they're icons of east asia. I don't think that's lazy; it's just using an icon as an icon. It doesn't have to be any deeper than that.

I don't know if that's as true with regular characters as anthropomorphic ones. That said, I do think most characters are pretty shallow but that shouldn't make lazy characterization acceptable just because it's common.

For an example, take a look at Kreia from Knights of the Old Republic II. There is excellent characterization for a person who is essentially wearing a brown Franciscan robe. You could most definitely change her clothes and she would still carry the depth that she had in her design. Clothes and appearance can help flesh out a character but it shouldn't be the whole character.

Another example, HK from KotOR I is pretty much a shallow murderbot. But HK in KotOR II had a more complex personality. So, it is unfair of me to dismiss most anthropomorphic characters since its possible some do have deeper personalities even if their initial appearance is shallow.

Originally Posted by Boss Doggie

Using WoW as reference is bad though, that's like one of the worst things to base stuff on.

WoW is just one of the few things I'm aware of because of its popularity. I did discuss this with a friend and he pointed out there is quite a bit of good anthropomorphic characters kicking around. Redwall and Animal Farm are the examples he used as well as pointing to The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

It's just a pity that the most prominent representations happen to be the worst.

I still don't understand what separates a furry from anthropomorphic characters.

Originally Posted by BeesEight

I still don't understand what separates a furry from anthropomorphic characters.

For a lot of people they're the same thing. The term 'furry' has become very ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Gustav

I'd rather play games with no anthropomorphic animals in it. It just doesn't appeal to me. It's that same with Fantasy. Trolls, Elves and Orcs are just as dumb to me.

Sonic, Crash Bandicoot, Bubsy, Croc, Scrooge McDuck, Starfox, and Gex all say 'Howdy!'

Originally Posted by BeesEight

I still don't understand what separates a furry from anthropomorphic characters.

"Furry" is a specific fandom, and subculture.

Many internet people tend to use "furry" to refer to anything anthropomorphic. So the word has become a shorthand for any form of anthropomorphism. I think as the GAF furry topic puts it: furry fandom members like Fox McCloud because he's an anthro character, but Fox McCloud is not a furry just because furry fans like him.

I'm not a big fan of them, but if a game is good enough, I can deal with it.

Originally Posted by BeesEight

WoW is just one of the few things I'm aware of because of its popularity. I did discuss this with a friend and he pointed out there is quite a bit of good anthropomorphic characters kicking around. Redwall and Animal Farm are the examples he used as well as pointing to The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

It's just a pity that the most prominent representations happen to be the worst.

I still don't understand what separates a furry from anthropomorphic characters.

Not necessarily. You just cited one, while notable, is also known for lack of creativity. It's not something like Blacksad or Grandville that plays with anthropomorphism.

It reminds me of "oh shit Digimon gets furries" when Renamon (a bipedal yellow fox) was introduced or "oh shit Star Fox gets furries" when Krystal was introduced. Apparently furry stuff didn't exist prior to them... which is weird.

And it's more of a slang really. Furry really means the fandom while anthropomorphism is the actual term of giving non-human character human features, but you know how words are misused by the common folk. The fact that they even get "surprised" when they see anthropomorphic dragons, birds, sharks, etc. should be a point.

Originally Posted by Boss Doggie

Shining Force character designs, so good.

A "Furry" is someone who likes anthropomorphic animals. Mostly for the aesthetics, but some for sexual reasons (Who, believe it or not, are the minority).

I don't know why people have started calling anthropomorphic animals "Furry". They are just anthropomorphic animals

Originally Posted by Boss Doggie

Wow. He's so fucking suave. I could never pull that shit off.

Originally Posted by Veldin

Shining Force character designs, so good.

Yeah I love the designs of Shining Force, and their female foxes are really good looking. Never realized Alef was busty though.

Sadly can't find a clearer pic of Dora (the vixen crossbow operator). She's from FEDA, a game for SNES made by the same group who did Shining Force.

Originally Posted by Farrow

Wow. He's so fucking suave. I could never pull that shit off.

His shades are custom made, and being da chief of a Super Sentai he is required to have one :P

To me it's just another style. It doesn't bother me at all.

Originally Posted by Winterfang

If the design is good (Klonoa, Sonic, Blinx, Rachet) It guarantees a look from me either by box art or gameplay videos.

If the design is bad (Crash, Jack, Sly cooper, Donkey Kong, star fox, Rayman) then I'll dismiss it unless the game is amazing (new Spyro games)

Gaming confession: I finished this game.

It wasn't very good.

Wait, reading through this topic is confusing. When did "furry" and "anthropomoprhic" suddenly diverge from meaning the same thing to "sexualized fetish fapping material" and "anything that's sorta human and animal I guess"? In all my years on the interblag, I've literally never seen this weird split usage except here on GAF, and recently. I have always seen it used to refer to anthropomorphic characters, or the fandom that takes their enjoyment of said characters that extra step.

I feel like the schism was made to help mitigate the dissonance of liking Starfox, and consoling yourself "it's not really furry because it's not sexualized."

It doesn't really influence my decisions, personally. I've seen enough other weird shit that anthropomorphic beings rate pretty low on the bizarreness scale.

Thinking about this and the earlier SD/Chibi thread, I think I've come to the conclusion that, no, the way characters look, as in being realistic, cartoony/anime, SD/Chibi or anthropomorphic, has little to no relevance in my choosing to experience a game(or even movies). I think a more important factor is if they are used in a way appealing to me and whether or not they(the stories they are part of and the personalities) are heavily a part of some current pop trend. Kinda like in the 90s when the whole "EXTREME" thing was in and everybody tried to capitalize that spirit. IMO, that's more important of a deciding factor. Like if a main character's design is to reflect a popular youth movement just for the sake of appealing to modern hip kids. Basically, the whole "Poochy" thing from The Simpsons, which DOES happen. Hate when they say, "Yeah, let's try to make this character edgy, because edgy is COOL!". To me, yeah, that's more of a travesty than the whether a character is a humanoid animal, SD and cutesy, or realistic.

Originally Posted by MagnaderAlpha

Hate when they say, "Yeah, let's try to make this character edgy, because edgy is COOL!". To me, yeah, that's more of a travesty than the whether a character is a humanoid animal, SD and cutesy, or realistic.

I think this is why I can't stand Infamous protagonists :P

I don't think a lot of people dislike furry characters because they think they're sexual, but because they just think they look stupid and/or creepy, myself included.

Yes, I find them incredibly dumb.

Originally Posted by Squirts Macintosh

I don't think a lot of people dislike furry characters because they think they're sexual, but because they just think they look stupid and/or creepy, myself included.

Eh, no more stupid than seeing humans in a setting of fantasy.

Originally Posted by MagnaderAlpha

Thinking about this and the earlier SD/Chibi thread, I think I've come to the conclusion that, no, the way characters look, as in being realistic, cartoony/anime, SD/Chibi or anthropomorphic, has little to no relevance in my choosing to experience a game(or even movies). I think a more important factor is if they are used in a way appealing to me and whether or not they(the stories they are part of and the personalities) are heavily a part of some current pop trend. Kinda like in the 90s when the whole "EXTREME" thing was in and everybody tried to capitalize that spirit. IMO, that's more important of a deciding factor. Like if a main character's design is to reflect a popular youth movement just for the sake of appealing to modern hip kids. Basically, the whole "Poochy" thing from The Simpsons, which DOES happen. Hate when they say, "Yeah, let's try to make this character edgy, because edgy is COOL!". To me, yeah, that's more of a travesty than the whether a character is a humanoid animal, SD and cutesy, or realistic.

The current trend is "realistic" or "hip"!

Anthropomorphic animals have absolutely no effect on my buying decision one way or another. If the game is good then the game is good, bottom-line.

Yeah, it affects my purchasing decisions

as in, I would totally purchase a great game with Star Fox characters in it, hint hint Miyamoto

Originally Posted by SnakeSlashRO

Rogue and Crystal from Sonic and Star Fox.... Pushing it....

Who the hell is Rogue?

Originally Posted by MissDeviling

I find sexualized furries disgusting, but some of the less conventional ones can be pretty neat, like...



... which is why I tend to stay away from (most) games with cat/dog furries, because many of them feel like a creator's sexual fantasy. Not all, of course, but many.

Frog is a perfect example. Great character, good design, anthropomorphic nature is relevant to the story, and he doesn't have big distracting genitalia (as far as I can tell).

Originally Posted by Miktar

I refuse to play an MMO where my only choices are human, short human, tall human, beefy human, black human, green human, human with pointy ears.

It's just too boring. It's way cooler to play something like this:



Then again, I grew up with 80s cartoons. I expect everything to have dinosaurs from space in it, just as a matter of course.



I'm more likely to play a fighting game if it has an interesting anthro character in it I could play, like Lizardman from Soul Calibur. Some people like to play the hot females in fighters, some the beefy guys, some the interesting off-kilter characters. I like playing the anthro ones.

I'm also far more interested in RPGs if there are non-human party members in it.

Cartoon animals are one thing, and they vary in their quality and creepiness. But these guys? Fuckin' badass all around.

We just need more games with dinosaurs in general.