princemarth23
Member
Nope, not at all.
Anthropomorphic animals in games | Does it influence your buying decision?
- Thread starter Gormless Noodle
- Start date
That's the amateurish part I mentioned. Characters in the game look very flat, like they're missing a final pass of detailing or something. It comes off as the efforts of someone learning from a 'how to draw cartoons' book, an amateur. Then you play the game, see the quality of dust's animation, and you realize the guy who made the game is anything but an amateur artist. I guess he just wasn't able to fully translate his style into the game. I know dust was the only hand animated character because of memory limitations so I assume it was him trying to stay within the console limits.
Cizeta-Moroder
Banned
Some of you guys have got to be kidding me. How can it be a big deal.
It's as though there exists an incredibly thin line between "ew gross furry art" and "likeable anthropomorphic characters". It's not just as simple as good art or characters versus bad art or characters. I think it's what certain art styles represent and how their respective fan bases are portrayed that skews opinion.
Many of us here on GAF grew up in the late 80's/early 90's where animal people were the norm in many cartoons and games. No one thought it was any kind of problem until much more recently really, as many in our age group hit sexual maturity they started to create sexualized material based on those same characters that garnered it's own fanbase and before anyone knew it a cyclical process of creation and consumption was established. Not to mention the rise of the internet , where ANY bizarre habit and fetish has a website with a few fans somewhere online.
Among nerd groups that exist, counting yourself as a furry was like being gay in the 90's - you get shoved out of the group and people think they'll catch what you have due to ignorance. It's merely a kink but it disgusts people so much that they want to avoid it and well, the negative sentiment has carried over to any material that furries might enjoy. I'm not a fan of the stuff myself but I doesn't actually bother me much outside of when things seem overtly sexual.
A prime example is from the 90's sonic cartoon and comic book- Princess Sally was simply the leader of a group of freedom fighters attempting to get her kingdom back. A pretty typical plotline and character archetype really. But , it's sonic the hedgehog so everything outside of robotnik and his assistant is an animal. The fanbase of these characters has taken upon itself to be publicly ... well gross... with characters like Sally to a degree that's tainted the source material. You basically decide you don't want to consider enjoying material that may mark you as a "furry" so you declare it as awful.
To that end , that thin line I talked about is different for everyone. This has nothing wrong with it, it's just stylized bit of character art. In fact , truth be told, there's nothing really wrong with dusts art on the whole. I guess you could say it's a bit generic looking but really it's not any more "disturbing" looking then any other mainstream art out there.
And now I think I come to the crux of the situation -This has nothing wrong with it but, look in the corner of the image at Krystal and you'll notice she's been "sexed up". Large breasts in a tight outfit, eyeshadow and bedroom eyes. I think the thin line is more accurately described as "this might give me a boner so I don't like it".
This also describes some kind of line in picture form. I think on average, because of the amount of ridicule they receive, no one wants to be accidentally viewed a furry. It's probably primarily due to it not seeming like "just a hobby". You are essentially publicly declaring you think animal human hybrids that look more animal than human are sexually attractive and then going out dressed up as one yourself. It'd be like someone into bondage walking around in leather wearing a ballgag and then being surprised that someone didn't want to see that at a starbucks
There's just certain types of fetishes that should be kept in the privacy of your own home or brought out during conventions and because of this behavior , everyone else thinks that ALL furries are horrible sexual deviants and to get to the point here- people who aren't furries don't want anyone to think they are one and so will go out of their way to angrily decry what the masses have declared is furry art.
This then, comes back full circle to the point of this thread and why, in our current climate utilizing anthropomorphic characters can lead to scrutiny. Stick with overly sexualizing "normal" human beings and you'll mostly escape scrutiny but the second you stick a pair of D cups on a fox girl you'll be in for a world of hurt.
Many of us here on GAF grew up in the late 80's/early 90's where animal people were the norm in many cartoons and games. No one thought it was any kind of problem until much more recently really, as many in our age group hit sexual maturity they started to create sexualized material based on those same characters that garnered it's own fanbase and before anyone knew it a cyclical process of creation and consumption was established. Not to mention the rise of the internet , where ANY bizarre habit and fetish has a website with a few fans somewhere online.
Among nerd groups that exist, counting yourself as a furry was like being gay in the 90's - you get shoved out of the group and people think they'll catch what you have due to ignorance. It's merely a kink but it disgusts people so much that they want to avoid it and well, the negative sentiment has carried over to any material that furries might enjoy. I'm not a fan of the stuff myself but I doesn't actually bother me much outside of when things seem overtly sexual.
A prime example is from the 90's sonic cartoon and comic book- Princess Sally was simply the leader of a group of freedom fighters attempting to get her kingdom back. A pretty typical plotline and character archetype really. But , it's sonic the hedgehog so everything outside of robotnik and his assistant is an animal. The fanbase of these characters has taken upon itself to be publicly ... well gross... with characters like Sally to a degree that's tainted the source material. You basically decide you don't want to consider enjoying material that may mark you as a "furry" so you declare it as awful.
To that end , that thin line I talked about is different for everyone. This has nothing wrong with it, it's just stylized bit of character art. In fact , truth be told, there's nothing really wrong with dusts art on the whole. I guess you could say it's a bit generic looking but really it's not any more "disturbing" looking then any other mainstream art out there.
And now I think I come to the crux of the situation -This has nothing wrong with it but, look in the corner of the image at Krystal and you'll notice she's been "sexed up". Large breasts in a tight outfit, eyeshadow and bedroom eyes. I think the thin line is more accurately described as "this might give me a boner so I don't like it".
This also describes some kind of line in picture form. I think on average, because of the amount of ridicule they receive, no one wants to be accidentally viewed a furry. It's probably primarily due to it not seeming like "just a hobby". You are essentially publicly declaring you think animal human hybrids that look more animal than human are sexually attractive and then going out dressed up as one yourself. It'd be like someone into bondage walking around in leather wearing a ballgag and then being surprised that someone didn't want to see that at a starbucks
There's just certain types of fetishes that should be kept in the privacy of your own home or brought out during conventions and because of this behavior , everyone else thinks that ALL furries are horrible sexual deviants and to get to the point here- people who aren't furries don't want anyone to think they are one and so will go out of their way to angrily decry what the masses have declared is furry art. This then, comes back full circle to the point of this thread and why, in our current climate utilizing anthropomorphic characters can lead to scrutiny. Stick with overly sexualizing "normal" human beings and you'll mostly escape scrutiny but the second you stick a pair of D cups on a fox girl you'll be in for a world of hurt.
It rarely influences my gaming choices. I can't think of a single instance where that alone made me go yay or nay on a purchase, it's almost always the entire gameplay package.
Some designs do look neat though. Does that cat tribe from the BoF series count? Laguz from the Fire Emblem Tellius games probably do, those were pretty awesome too.
Some designs do look neat though. Does that cat tribe from the BoF series count? Laguz from the Fire Emblem Tellius games probably do, those were pretty awesome too.
ab.aeterno
Member
Oh.IIt'd be like someone into bondage walking around in leather wearing a ballgag and then being surprised that someone didn't want to see that at a starbucks
Well suddenly that awkward moment this morning makes just way more sense.
I don't think many people outside of forums really know and care about this. Certainly not to an extent gay people have had to deal with.
As for sexualizing, there is also the thing that nothing needs to be done to adult people for them to be found sexy in the first place. Overly sexualizing them is inviting more scrutiny nowadays, but the reasons it's still being accepted are certainly very different from anything to do with the topic.
Animals are not sexually attractive. Any degree of added sexiness sticks out, and it sticks out especially to adults, who like looking at sexy things. And then it's creepy because it's a sexy body shape, covered in fur and with some weird head on top.
(Also, in Dust it's the sidekick character that gets to toe the line).
Anthropomorphic creatures are pretty awesome.
I don't give a shit about "furries" or the disproportionate stigma people have attached to them.
If someone wants to wank to the wolfman, that's their business and i seriously don't care what they do in their personal space.
Those who care, will continue to harass and crusade against harmless bullshit, meanwhile i'll continue to enjoy Black Sad and The Secret of Nimh, like i did before.
I don't give a shit about "furries" or the disproportionate stigma people have attached to them.
If someone wants to wank to the wolfman, that's their business and i seriously don't care what they do in their personal space.
Those who care, will continue to harass and crusade against harmless bullshit, meanwhile i'll continue to enjoy Black Sad and The Secret of Nimh, like i did before.
Yes but I haven't seen anyone do that.
Not buying said material is much different then condeming it and those who like it.
You haven't seen what, people bothering "furries"? I've seen plenty of people consider "furries" the worst thing on Earth.
If you simply don't like it, that's fine, even though "furry" at this point involves a brush so broad that it's almost pointless.
I'm not implying anyone who doesn't like Black Sad is an hater, i'm saying those who DO crusade are silly people.
I don't understand why some people feel the need to make a point about being obnoxiously vocal on completely harmless shit they simply don't enjoy.
Fair enough.
However me stating I don't support soliceted a response saying I sounded like I treat others like drug dealers.
Yet didn't ask if I wanted women to have abortions when I said something equal or even harsher about children in games.
There are just as many people who want to lash out because not every person is on board with it. These things cost a lot of money and I and others simply want something that appeals to them.
Are we going to call every gay man out because he doesn't buy straight porn?
Or a every straight man a homophobe?
If games where free maybe the accusations would merit something. However there not and people not willing to spend money on something they don't like shoildnt be met with any more disdain then those who do like it.
I said that because of you way you said "Sorry don't want or need that in my life", like buying a game with an anthro/furry character would invite some kind of trouble into your life or cause you actual, genuine grief in the same way that inviting a hard drug addict into your home that might steal your possessions or abuse you, which I thought sounded comically hyperbolic.
Rabid-Coot
Member
Yes but then you left the kids comment unchalleneged and I was much harsher saying I didn't like them in a game at all, and yet was fine with Anthros as side characters.
Messofanego
Banned
^^
So what? This isn't a topic about kids in games. I didn't address it because I didn't have anything to say about it, and implied nothing in doing so.
I guees we just gave different view points.
Ehen the thread is asking about yes or nos, and I specifically say yes I will play games with them your comment is unwarrented period.
Nah, I think I'll comment on whatever I want, thanks. Cheers though!
I don't think I have thrown around such accusations, and you'll understand, i can't be responsible for what other users say in the thread (or elsewhere).
Thing is, if you don't like anthropomorphic designs, for whatever reason, i have absolutely ZERO issues with you not consuming such media, whether it's free or not (time is a limited resource, just because something is free, doesn't mean you want to spend your limited time on it).
If you make it a point to be a dick to other people about the harmless things they enjoy, however silly or goofy they may seem to you, then i'll have a problem with it.
BTW, just to give my two cents on, "sexualization," and "furry art."
Well, the furry fandom is dominated largely by young men ranging from their late teens to thirties. Get a lot of young men in that age bracket together, and there's going to be some cheesecake drawn and shared. Same thing will happen in any subculture, really, and isolating it only makes the issue worse.
Well, the furry fandom is dominated largely by young men ranging from their late teens to thirties. Get a lot of young men in that age bracket together, and there's going to be some cheesecake drawn and shared. Same thing will happen in any subculture, really, and isolating it only makes the issue worse.
Wonko_C
Member
This reminds me of the arguments between my middleschool (long before the Internet was a thing) friends about Lola Bunny being "hot" in Space Jam. "Dude, but she's a rabbit! she's not human!" "she's still hot, though!".
Those were simpler times, when thinking that an anthropomorphic character as "sexy" was innocuous enough, can't say I don't get repulsed by the extreme examples of the furry fandom, though.
Those were simpler times, when thinking that an anthropomorphic character as "sexy" was innocuous enough, can't say I don't get repulsed by the extreme examples of the furry fandom, though.
Agreed. Its wrong and they should callef out on it.
You and I have virtually opposite tastes. Literally the only thing I agree with in your post is that Ratchet has good character design.
Finding out this kind of stuff is interesting, though, as it goes to show that peoples' taste and preferences are so vastly different, and it validates the existence of many different things.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Yeah, that's pretty much why despite liking the game I detest the art.
Most of the time that happens in fanart only though.
shysaursoft
Member
Except sexualizing things and turning them into a fetish is kind of the modus operandi of the human race. You almost cannot look at the car industry with a straight face, because of how stupid hard they try to make the cars sexy in all the right ways to trigger the right responses. No wonder some people become physically attracted to them. Buildings are giant penor in design, except the ones designed by females, then they're giant vagina. *removes tongue from cheek*
And then there's, well, *everything* in all media - movies, games, music, art...
It feels rather disingenuous to call out a small subset for it, when it's so prevalent in society.
And then there's Orangina.
I should be doing hw
Member
I find nothing inherently wrong with the concept. I specifically disliked the character portrait art in Dust because it looked like DeviantArt levels of shit but it had nothing to with the subject matter. The game itself was fine.
GiantEnemyGoomba
Member
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
And that's why they're fantasy. You know, not real? Because realistic looking anthro characters in real life would look really awkward.
I doubt Zylo would look like that in "real" life. It's not simply just making a wolf stand up. And I'm pretty sure there's a difference between people finding animals attractive and anthropomorphic animals attractive.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
It's all about intent, honestly.
I can usually "feel" if the furries are designed to be cool animal people, like in most Nintendo games (Krystal is only problematic in Adventure, where everyone was hyper-realistic, she's fine in Command), or the artist sees them as more, like that Dust and Solatarobo game which honestly do sort of weird me out.
I think it's really the female anthropomorphic characters that send people over the edge, but I think that reflects on the need to sex up female characters and making them animals sort of satirizes that I think. Like Rouge always felt like someone at Sega was poking fun at the femme fatale character type, I never really got a creepy vibe from her, it always felt tongue-in-cheek.
Also, what the fuck at Donkey Kong being listed as anthropomorphic. He's pretty much a straight-up gorilla in a tie.
I can usually "feel" if the furries are designed to be cool animal people, like in most Nintendo games (Krystal is only problematic in Adventure, where everyone was hyper-realistic, she's fine in Command), or the artist sees them as more, like that Dust and Solatarobo game which honestly do sort of weird me out.
I think it's really the female anthropomorphic characters that send people over the edge, but I think that reflects on the need to sex up female characters and making them animals sort of satirizes that I think. Like Rouge always felt like someone at Sega was poking fun at the femme fatale character type, I never really got a creepy vibe from her, it always felt tongue-in-cheek.
Also, what the fuck at Donkey Kong being listed as anthropomorphic. He's pretty much a straight-up gorilla in a tie.
How do people feel about Animal Crossing or Parappa's characters?
I feel like the question in the thread is when the game is less cartoony or at least more anatomically detailed.
While I don't mind them I usually don't prefer them. But I do think that someone like Warzard's Leo is badass:
I feel like the question in the thread is when the game is less cartoony or at least more anatomically detailed.
While I don't mind them I usually don't prefer them. But I do think that someone like Warzard's Leo is badass:
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
I've never gotten why people single Solatorobo out. What makes it any more "furry" than any other game with cartoon animals?
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
Don't know, it just strikes me as having a sort of style that looks like it was made by someone who legitimately is in to drawing humanoid animals. It rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Star Fox doesn't, Sonic doesn't, but it does.
The Tofunator
Member
It's dem feelz, man. Gotta use the force and trust instincts and all that shit.
Ragnorok64
Member
I find I have far more issues with the fans of anthropomorphic characters than the characters themselves.
I avoided Dust because of it....there is a certain style of furry art I just try to avoid....that said I LOVE anthropomorphic characters in games....Ratchet, Daxter, etc....just not ones that pander to furries....I find it very odd when people where their fetish on their sleeve...I would have the reaction to somone wearing a ball gag in public
ab.aeterno
Member
What the fuck are you talking about?
Anthropomorphism means, roughly, ascribing human characteristics to anything not human. No less, no more. It doesn't mean "animal people." So yes, he's anthropomorphic in displaying human intelligence.
Also, he can fucking drive a car.
For more examples of anthropomorphism that aren't animal people, see: The Brave Little Toaster.
Did you seriously just compare furries to being gay?!
Just kidding
Interesting thought but I don't know if that is really necessary for disliking anthropomorphic characters. Personally, I just don't care for the style and am pretty comfortable with myself to know it doesn't threaten my sexuality. As you mentioned, I'm one of those people that grew up with it and frankly I've had enough human/critter hybrids that I don't need all my games with those characters.
That and their use is often reserved for things directed at children. Probably because of that 80/90's association.
And that's why they're fantasy. You know, not real? Because realistic looking anthro characters in real life would look really awkward.
I doubt Zylo would look like that in "real" life. It's not simply just making a wolf stand up. And I'm pretty sure there's a difference between people finding animals attractive and anthropomorphic animals attractive.
Wait wait. Zylo's name in the Japanese version is Zappa?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked