Furry Hatred

[Halei-Helai]

My problem is that there's just so much more diversity with non-humans than there are with humans, and what diversity CAN be churned from humans isn't utilized. We get the same military dudes, the same knights, the same demon hunters, and usually these characters have such similar personalities that they begin to meld together, causing games to get stale. That's the reason I don't get fired up for a lot of games. The ones I DO get fired up for, believe it or not, star non-humans.

Not to mention, making a game about non-humans would actually appeal to a broader audience, as most people will either not care as long as the game is good or buy it just for non-humans. I, personally, have gotten so sick and tired of "humans are the absolute good" type games that I literally won't play them. A game can have amazing gameplay, graphics, characters with unique personality (usually said games have none of these, to be honest), but if it's a narcissistic "humans are the absolute good" type game, that will ruin just about any enjoyment I could have from the game. Diablo III, for example, is a game that has decent enough gameplay, but the idea that ONLY humans can be good and that being misanthropic is the root of all evil ruined the game for me.

My big problem with your statement is that, if done right, making an anthro model literally takes no more money than a human model. If you seriously feel the need to make your character super-duper detailed, of course it's going to be time consuming, but does the character really need to have super-realistic detail? Most gamers are not turned off by games that have a slightly less realistic style. I, however, am HUGELY turned off by "realistic looking" games, especially ones that portray the whole entire world as one color. Plus, making tails and large ears doesn't cost all that much.

People constantly tell me "they're just trying to play safe marketing," but deep down I feel you guys are wrong. If non-human models are so expensive to make, why do people have no problem spending grands to make these HUGE dragons or hideous monsters. The money spent making all those monsters could have been used to make decent non-human creatures that are actually peaceful. But instead, humans are treated as gods of righteousness. You say it's not narcissism or anti-furry beliefs, but honestly I'm not buying what your selling. I still believe that it's a combination of vanity and throwing the middle finger to us furries.

Also, saying the negative things first BEFORE the positive things actually stresses the positive points out more, while saying negative things afterwards stresses those points out, and often times cancels out anything positive, which makes the positive comments feel like lies.

I am pretty sure that when Call of Duty: Whatever is Out Now came out, the developers weren't high-fiving each other about not including anthros in their game. Really, I think you would find that the reasons behind not a whole lot of games having anthros are really mundane.


And think of it this way when it comes to modelling/creating anthro characters and assets. Humans don't have long tails, big ears, digitigrade legs, or other unusual features as such. Each and every single one of these creates extra modelling work because of the increased polygons that those features require. Then each of those pieces has to be individually textured and then animated, along with a whole other slew of things I probably don't even know about because I frankly have no knowledge about that process. This all takes money, and this all takes time. The money part is pretty self-explanatory, and no studio wants to go overbudget. The time part could probably be worse though, because the longer it takes you to finish that nineteenth turtle-person anthro to appease the scalies out there so they don't flame your game forum after release, the further behind your tech becomes and the better all of your competition gets in that regard. Yeah, you can point out the huge and difficult-to-make dragon, but it probably isn't hugely likely that the game is going to have many models as complex and demanding as those. Additionally, if it isn't in a prerendered cutscene, they likely took shortcuts with that model that you can't even see because they have to get it to run efficiently on the player's console or PC. That huge and imposing dragon that you only see from far away may be even less detailed than that character you see all the time up close, simply by virtue of the fact that you never get close enough to see the detail.


And lastly, all of this is besides the point in some regards because people still need to buy your game. If you are developing sequel #47 to some popular FPS franchise, millions of people are going to line up to buy your game regardless of how good or bad it is. You can afford to make a character's nose-hairs sway realistically in the breeze. If you are trying to develop a furry-friendly game that is an original IP and most people aren't furry anyway? You probably can't afford to make hugely grandiose models because not only is your property untested but you are also selling to what is frankly a niche market, and there simply aren't as many possible players to buy and play it. Unless you are developing your game on a library PC and living off ramen and tap water you simply can't afford to go all-out on modelling anthro characters unless your property is already well established or unless you are independently wealthy.

[Alessia Starfurr]

My problem is that there's just so much more diversity with non-humans than there are with humans, and what diversity CAN be churned from humans isn't utilized. We get the same military dudes, the same knights, the same demon hunters, and usually these characters have such similar personalities that they begin to meld together, causing games to get stale. That's the reason I don't get fired up for a lot of games. The ones I DO get fired up for, believe it or not, star non-humans.

Not to mention, making a game about non-humans would actually appeal to a broader audience, as most people will either not care as long as the game is good or buy it just for non-humans. I, personally, have gotten so sick and tired of "humans are the absolute good" type games that I literally won't play them. A game can have amazing gameplay, graphics, characters with unique personality (usually said games have none of these, to be honest), but if it's a narcissistic "humans are the absolute good" type game, that will ruin just about any enjoyment I could have from the game. Diablo III, for example, is a game that has decent enough gameplay, but the idea that ONLY humans can be good and that being misanthropic is the root of all evil ruined the game for me.

My big problem with your statement is that, if done right, making an anthro model literally takes no more money than a human model. If you seriously feel the need to make your character super-duper detailed, of course it's going to be time consuming, but does the character really need to have super-realistic detail? Most gamers are not turned off by games that have a slightly less realistic style. I, however, am HUGELY turned off by "realistic looking" games, especially ones that portray the whole entire world as one color. Plus, making tails and large ears doesn't cost all that much.

People constantly tell me "they're just trying to play safe marketing," but deep down I feel you guys are wrong. If non-human models are so expensive to make, why do people have no problem spending grands to make these HUGE dragons or hideous monsters. The money spent making all those monsters could have been used to make decent non-human creatures that are actually peaceful. But instead, humans are treated as gods of righteousness. You say it's not narcissism or anti-furry beliefs, but honestly I'm not buying what your selling. I still believe that it's a combination of vanity and throwing the middle finger to us furries.

Also, saying the negative things first BEFORE the positive things actually stresses the positive points out more, while saying negative things afterwards stresses those points out, and often times cancels out anything positive, which makes the positive comments feel like lies.

I am pretty sure that when Call of Duty: Whatever is Out Now came out, the developers weren't high-fiving each other about not including anthros in their game. Really, I think you would find that the reasons behind not a whole lot of games having anthros are really mundane.


And think of it this way when it comes to modelling/creating anthro characters and assets. Humans don't have long tails, big ears, digitigrade legs, or other unusual features as such. Each and every single one of these creates extra modelling work because of the increased polygons that those features require. Then each of those pieces has to be individually textured and then animated, along with a whole other slew of things I probably don't even know about because I frankly have no knowledge about that process. This all takes money, and this all takes time. The money part is pretty self-explanatory, and no studio wants to go overbudget. The time part could probably be worse though, because the longer it takes you to finish that nineteenth turtle-person anthro to appease the scalies out there so they don't flame your game forum after release, the further behind your tech becomes and the better all of your competition gets in that regard. Yeah, you can point out the huge and difficult-to-make dragon, but it probably isn't hugely likely that the game is going to have many models as complex and demanding as those. Additionally, if it isn't in a prerendered cutscene, they likely took shortcuts with that model that you can't even see because they have to get it to run efficiently on the player's console or PC. That huge and imposing dragon that you only see from far away may be even less detailed than that character you see all the time up close, simply by virtue of the fact that you never get close enough to see the detail.


And lastly, all of this is besides the point in some regards because people still need to buy your game. If you are developing sequel #47 to some popular FPS franchise, millions of people are going to line up to buy your game regardless of how good or bad it is. You can afford to make a character's nose-hairs sway realistically in the breeze. If you are trying to develop a furry-friendly game that is an original IP and most people aren't furry anyway? You probably can't afford to make hugely grandiose models because not only is your property untested but you are also selling to what is frankly a niche market, and there simply aren't as many possible players to buy and play it. Unless you are developing your game on a library PC and living off ramen and tap water you simply can't afford to go all-out on modelling anthro characters unless your property is already well established or unless you are independently wealthy.

Worgens in Warcraft don't have tails, just ears and actually you start out human, as worgens are sort of werewolves, Dranei have tails, and digitgrade style unigrade legs. then again warcraft is a fantasy so maybe that's why.

[Grovygrunge]

Warcraft is also a VERY well established franchise. So you just proved Halei-Halei's point.

[Halei-Helai]

Worgens in Warcraft don't have tails, just ears and actually you start out human, as worgens are sort of werewolves, Dranei have tails, and digitgrade style unigrade legs. then again warcraft is a fantasy so maybe that's why.

At the risk of being nitpicky, World of Warcraft doesn't exactly have the most detailed models in existence. Blizzard was already flush with cash when they released World of Warcraft, and have only gotten more flush with cash ever since. The Warcraft franchise started in a time where you could churn out 2D characters for your RTS's faction in a matter of days. Just making the basic Draenei male and female models for Burning Crusade probably took an order of magnitude or two longer, and by that time they had been collecting revenues from their 2D games (and WC3) for years. A new studio just starting out that is trying to make something really unique and detailed is going to have a really difficult time unless they get a huge influx of personal wealth or outside investment. Even then it doesn't always work out. Just look at Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning. That turned out to be such a fiasco that Rhode Island is STILL hungry for blood from Curt Schilling.


EDIT: beaten by Grovygrunge.

[Nrein]

My thing is, there are a ton more things in games that aren't given proper attention, more-so than "Anthro" characters. Aside from games that allow you to customize your character, there's still a serious lack of diversity in terms of what kind of *human* you can be, let alone species. I'd much rather see an incline in race/gender differences before I start worrying about what species I can be.

[BennyJackdaw]

My problem is that there's just so much more diversity with non-humans than there are with humans, and what diversity CAN be churned from humans isn't utilized. We get the same military dudes, the same knights, the same demon hunters, and usually these characters have such similar personalities that they begin to meld together, causing games to get stale. That's the reason I don't get fired up for a lot of games. The ones I DO get fired up for, believe it or not, star non-humans.

Not to mention, making a game about non-humans would actually appeal to a broader audience, as most people will either not care as long as the game is good or buy it just for non-humans. I, personally, have gotten so sick and tired of "humans are the absolute good" type games that I literally won't play them. A game can have amazing gameplay, graphics, characters with unique personality (usually said games have none of these, to be honest), but if it's a narcissistic "humans are the absolute good" type game, that will ruin just about any enjoyment I could have from the game. Diablo III, for example, is a game that has decent enough gameplay, but the idea that ONLY humans can be good and that being misanthropic is the root of all evil ruined the game for me.

My big problem with your statement is that, if done right, making an anthro model literally takes no more money than a human model. If you seriously feel the need to make your character super-duper detailed, of course it's going to be time consuming, but does the character really need to have super-realistic detail? Most gamers are not turned off by games that have a slightly less realistic style. I, however, am HUGELY turned off by "realistic looking" games, especially ones that portray the whole entire world as one color. Plus, making tails and large ears doesn't cost all that much.

People constantly tell me "they're just trying to play safe marketing," but deep down I feel you guys are wrong. If non-human models are so expensive to make, why do people have no problem spending grands to make these HUGE dragons or hideous monsters. The money spent making all those monsters could have been used to make decent non-human creatures that are actually peaceful. But instead, humans are treated as gods of righteousness. You say it's not narcissism or anti-furry beliefs, but honestly I'm not buying what your selling. I still believe that it's a combination of vanity and throwing the middle finger to us furries.

Also, saying the negative things first BEFORE the positive things actually stresses the positive points out more, while saying negative things afterwards stresses those points out, and often times cancels out anything positive, which makes the positive comments feel like lies.

I am pretty sure that when Call of Duty: Whatever is Out Now came out, the developers weren't high-fiving each other about not including anthros in their game. Really, I think you would find that the reasons behind not a whole lot of games having anthros are really mundane.


And think of it this way when it comes to modelling/creating anthro characters and assets. Humans don't have long tails, big ears, digitigrade legs, or other unusual features as such. Each and every single one of these creates extra modelling work because of the increased polygons that those features require. Then each of those pieces has to be individually textured and then animated, along with a whole other slew of things I probably don't even know about because I frankly have no knowledge about that process. This all takes money, and this all takes time. The money part is pretty self-explanatory, and no studio wants to go overbudget. The time part could probably be worse though, because the longer it takes you to finish that nineteenth turtle-person anthro to appease the scalies out there so they don't flame your game forum after release, the further behind your tech becomes and the better all of your competition gets in that regard. Yeah, you can point out the huge and difficult-to-make dragon, but it probably isn't hugely likely that the game is going to have many models as complex and demanding as those. Additionally, if it isn't in a prerendered cutscene, they likely took shortcuts with that model that you can't even see because they have to get it to run efficiently on the player's console or PC. That huge and imposing dragon that you only see from far away may be even less detailed than that character you see all the time up close, simply by virtue of the fact that you never get close enough to see the detail.


And lastly, all of this is besides the point in some regards because people still need to buy your game. If you are developing sequel #47 to some popular FPS franchise, millions of people are going to line up to buy your game regardless of how good or bad it is. You can afford to make a character's nose-hairs sway realistically in the breeze. If you are trying to develop a furry-friendly game that is an original IP and most people aren't furry anyway? You probably can't afford to make hugely grandiose models because not only is your property untested but you are also selling to what is frankly a niche market, and there simply aren't as many possible players to buy and play it. Unless you are developing your game on a library PC and living off ramen and tap water you simply can't afford to go all-out on modelling anthro characters unless your property is already well established or unless you are independently wealthy.

Then don't make a game where anthros are heavily detailed. Again, gameplay > graphics, and making a cartoon anthro that's not heavily detailed really doesn't cost as much as making a heavily detailed human with realistic hair.

Not to mention, furries are not such a small niche that making an anthro game would be a waste of time, especially since, because apparently I absolutely have to repeat myself over and over, most people are not going to be so turned off by the anthro characters that they're not going to buy it even if the game's really good.

Basically, all I've heard from you guys as to why good games aren't allowed to exist are excuses. People aren't willing to make an interesting game because "waaah! it's too hard!" so you think it justifies the excuse to make the SAME FLIPPING GAMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER! There's only so many times a game about space marines, military men and monster hunters can be made before people besides me are sick of those settings. People like me are begging for games with anthro heroes because it's different, it's something new, it's something we haven't seen a lot of since the SNES/Genesis days. I mean, seriously, you have to admit you'd like an anthro game/want something different than just more of the same. Please tell me honestly WITHOUT going into the whole "but..." thing.

[Alessia Starfurr]

Worgens in Warcraft don't have tails, just ears and actually you start out human, as worgens are sort of werewolves, Dranei have tails, and digitgrade style unigrade legs. then again warcraft is a fantasy so maybe that's why.

At the risk of being nitpicky, World of Warcraft doesn't exactly have the most detailed models in existence. Blizzard was already flush with cash when they released World of Warcraft, and have only gotten more flush with cash ever since. The Warcraft franchise started in a time where you could churn out 2D characters for your RTS's faction in a matter of days. Just making the basic Draenei male and female models for Burning Crusade probably took an order of magnitude or two longer, and by that time they had been collecting revenues from their 2D games (and WC3) for years. A new studio just starting out that is trying to make something really unique and detailed is going to have a really difficult time unless they get a huge influx of personal wealth or outside investment. Even then it doesn't always work out. Just look at Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning. That turned out to be such a fiasco that Rhode Island is STILL hungry for blood from Curt Schilling.


EDIT: beaten by Grovygrunge.

And the models at least In my opinion are still a bit lackluster you think with the sales of Starcraft 2 they could afford to do a litle remodeling. it's easier to redo a  currently available model than it is to make a new one, should potentially be cheaper too.

[Nrein]

I don't think anyone is saying they wouldn't want a game like that, they're being realistic about what current developers are doing.

I'm sorry but, Call of Duty has been making the "same" game, for 13 years now. If people haven't gotten sick of it enough that there's a huge public outcry, in 13 years, then obviously no, people are never going to get sick of it.

And honestly, I'm willing to put a foot in the boat that they aren't willing to make it because it'd be too hard/time consuming to do it well and make it a hit. Almost every developer out there today would rather take shortcuts to get out their games than go the extra mile. Again, Call of Duty, they've been using the same, albeit heavily modified, engine since Modern Warfare. I know quite a few people have been begging them to just start from scratch but, honestly, that'd take way too much time/effort, they'd probably lose more than gain.

Look at EA. Let's not talk about how lazy Battlefront was. Hell, even Nintendo has been doing it with Zelda, using the same engine since Wind Waker to make their games.

Which if you ask me, Nintendo would be the only viable choice to make the kind of game you want, but the IP would have to be pretty well rounded for them to take it. What would a game about anthros be about? Where would the story go? What sort of game is it? Action? Platformer? Adventure? Are they all gonna sit around and talk about how much better they are than humans? Or just goof around and do "anthro" things?

Developers will look at that and go "Well, if they can't do anything differently than what a normal human can do, then let's not waste the money and time creating a dynamic fur system and modeling each species and look and" this and that and so on and so forth. Don't sit there taking it out on us for giving excuses, we're not the ones making the games :V Blame the developers, take it to them.

[BennyJackdaw]

I don't think anyone is saying they wouldn't want a game like that, they're being realistic about what current developers are doing.

I'm sorry but, Call of Duty has been making the "same" game, for 13 years now. If people haven't gotten sick of it enough that there's a huge public outcry, in 13 years, then obviously no, people are never going to get sick of it.

And honestly, I'm willing to put a foot in the boat that they aren't willing to make it because it'd be too hard/time consuming to do it well and make it a hit. Almost every developer out there today would rather take shortcuts to get out their games than go the extra mile. Again, Call of Duty, they've been using the same, albeit heavily modified, engine since Modern Warfare. I know quite a few people have been begging them to just start from scratch but, honestly, that'd take way too much time/effort, they'd probably lose more than gain.

Look at EA. Let's not talk about how lazy Battlefront was. Hell, even Nintendo has been doing it with Zelda, using the same engine since Wind Waker to make their games.

Which if you ask me, Nintendo would be the only viable choice to make the kind of game you want, but the IP would have to be pretty well rounded for them to take it. What would a game about anthros be about? Where would the story go? What sort of game is it? Action? Platformer? Adventure? Are they all gonna sit around and talk about how much better they are than humans? Or just goof around and do "anthro" things?

Developers will look at that and go "Well, if they can't do anything differently than what a normal human can do, then let's not waste the money and time creating a dynamic fur system and modeling each species and look and" this and that and so on and so forth. Don't sit there taking it out on us for giving excuses, we're not the ones making the games :V Blame the developers, take it to them.

So people who want something different have to suffer just because you people think it's not worth the time and effort to make a decent anthro game? You're not being realistic with your excuses, you're basically just saying "furries don't deserve to have fun with videogames." Not to mention, there are quite a few things anthros can do that most humans can't if you put your mind to it. But no! It's better that we get the same ****ing human characters in the same ****ing settings, with the same ****ing rehashed engines and same ****ing monochromatic graphics, all because you think that MAKING A GAME THAT ISN'T SHALLOW AND NARCISSISTIC IS A WASTE OF TIME! Yeah, if we keep up with THAT attitude, nothing interesting will ever be made. If we actually TRIED to get videogame companies to realize there's a demand for games that don't star humans, maybe we can get more out there. But no! Once again, people who want something different have to suffer.

Sue me, I AM getting kind of angry at this discussion. I'm at that point again where I honestly wonder if any of you are even real furries. Again, you can't say anything positive without saying something negative that completely goes against anything positive that was said.

[Nrein]

Christ you're quick to point the finger :V

I literally just say that "I don't think anyone is saying they don't want a game like that." And *I AM NOT SAYING IT ISN'T WORTH THE TIME*. I am saying that *DEVELOPERS MOST LIKELY THINK THAT.* Can you literally calm down, please?

Seriously, you're some of the worst "furry" that I know. So quick to judge when no one agrees with your view on how anything furry should be handled. I'm sorry, I may not be *your* definition of furry, but at least I can be content with what I've got in the fandom, and don't need to patronize people who don't share the same passions that I do when it comes to it.

You must believe that everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% are against you and everything you believe. You're no better than the bullies you constantly complain about, if you're gonna sit there and flip out like that over something so trivial as anthros in a video game :V

[BennyJackdaw]

Christ you're quick to point the finger :V

I literally just say that "I don't think anyone is saying they don't want a game like that." And *I AM NOT SAYING IT ISN'T WORTH THE TIME*. I am saying that *DEVELOPERS MOST LIKELY THINK THAT.* Can you literally calm down, please?

Seriously, you're some of the worst "furry" that I know. So quick to judge when no one agrees with your view on how anything furry should be handled. I'm sorry, I may not be *your* definition of furry, but at least I can be content with what I've got in the fandom, and don't need to patronize people who don't share the same passions that I do when it comes to it.

You must believe that everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% are against you and everything you believe. You're no better than the bullies you constantly complain about, if you're gonna sit there and flip out like that over something so trivial as anthros in a video game :V

I try to be a goodguy, in all honesty. I am sick of being treated as a scumbag just because I get frustrated easily. You think it's fun watching so many games you hate get made and win awards while the few games that come out that interest you end up sucking and/or go unnoticed? It's not. It gets frustrating when nothing you like gets made, and you're basically told that making anything good is too hard.

The fact that you called me "one of the worst furries" seriously doesn't help. Again, frustration sets in when you desperately want something anthro related, and even fellow furries tell you it's dumb to want that and developers shouldn't waste the time because it "won't make them money." You think I'm trying to bully you guys just because I'm pointing out that you're making excuses? Again, telling me I'm a terrible person makes me more frustrated. I try to be one of the best furries I can be, and now you're making me feel like the whole entire community is scum because I'm constantly being told that furries are terrible people, but I try to be one of the goodguys, but you're telling me I'm a terrible person, which makes me feel like I'm just as much of a waste of oxygen as every other furry to most people.

My problem is the fact that you absolutely can't say anything positive without saying something super-negative, not that "you don't see 100% eye to eye." Once again, it adds to the frustration. I'm sick of being treated like scum just because I'm sick of seeing nothing but "humans are the absolute good" in media these days.

[Nrein]

Right, but saying that I'm "not a real furry" is so much better than being the worst kind of furry.

You are literally taking me saying "This is the developers, not us" and saying "IT IS YOU, IT IS YOU. YOU'RE MAKING EXCUSES FOR DEVELOPERS SO YOU'RE JUST AS BAD (If not worse) AS THEM." You *wonder* why you're treated like that, if that's how you're going to respond to anyone that has a counterargument to what you're saying?

And no, it is that we don't see eye to eye. I could say a ton of things positive about anthros being in games, but I would most likely just be reiterating what has been already said, and *not adding to the conversation.*

And I'm sorry, can you tell me where I said that humans are the absolute good in media? You seriously need to figure out who you are gonna focus that frustration on, because focusing it on *furries* in a *furry fandom* that *understand where the issues come from* really isn't gonna help you.

[BennyJackdaw]

Right, but saying that I'm "not a real furry" is so much better than being the worst kind of furry.

You are literally taking me saying "This is the developers, not us" and saying "IT IS YOU, IT IS YOU. YOU'RE MAKING EXCUSES FOR DEVELOPERS SO YOU'RE JUST AS BAD (If not worse) AS THEM." You *wonder* why you're treated like that, if that's how you're going to respond to anyone that has a counterargument to what you're saying?

And no, it is that we don't see eye to eye. I could say a ton of things positive about anthros being in games, but I would most likely just be reiterating what has been already said, and *not adding to the conversation.*

And I'm sorry, can you tell me where I said that humans are the absolute good in media? You seriously need to figure out who you are gonna focus that frustration on, because focusing it on *furries* in a *furry fandom* that *understand where the issues come from* really isn't gonna help you.

If people never have anything positive to say about furries without saying something negative, what am I supposed to think?

But you ARE making excuses. And again, you're adding to the frustration of never being able to get an interesting game by saying these things.

That has nothing to do with it. Plus, you're not adding anything by saying all the negative things that have already been said, especially when there are positive things that haven't been said yet because people are too busy being negative.

You're telling me that devs shouldn't waste the time making something original instead of "humans are the absolute good" type stories because of what you think the media is willing to make. You keep saying "it's the media, not us," yet you're ALSO justifying those ideals, which in a way isn't much better.

Again, I'm trying to be a goodguy. Being told I'm "the worst kind of furry" is just making me feel depressed. How would you feel if I just stopped posting and died because I've lost any self worth after being told "I'm the worst kind of furry?" You think that feels fun? I'm not trying to insult you guys just because I'm pointing out that you're being too negative.

[Halei-Helai]

Basically, all I've heard from you guys as to why good games aren't allowed to exist are excuses. People aren't willing to make an interesting game because "waaah! it's too hard!" so you think it justifies the excuse to make the SAME FLIPPING GAMES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER! There's only so many times a game about space marines, military men and monster hunters can be made before people besides me are sick of those settings. People like me are begging for games with anthro heroes because it's different, it's something new, it's something we haven't seen a lot of since the SNES/Genesis days. I mean, seriously, you have to admit you'd like an anthro game/want something different than just more of the same. Please tell me honestly WITHOUT going into the whole "but..." thing.

If it was such a trivial prospect to make, market, and sell anthro-centric games, then wouldn't we have a larger proportion of them versus other games?

[Nrein]

Right, but saying that I'm "not a real furry" is so much better than being the worst kind of furry.

You are literally taking me saying "This is the developers, not us" and saying "IT IS YOU, IT IS YOU. YOU'RE MAKING EXCUSES FOR DEVELOPERS SO YOU'RE JUST AS BAD (If not worse) AS THEM." You *wonder* why you're treated like that, if that's how you're going to respond to anyone that has a counterargument to what you're saying?

And no, it is that we don't see eye to eye. I could say a ton of things positive about anthros being in games, but I would most likely just be reiterating what has been already said, and *not adding to the conversation.*

And I'm sorry, can you tell me where I said that humans are the absolute good in media? You seriously need to figure out who you are gonna focus that frustration on, because focusing it on *furries* in a *furry fandom* that *understand where the issues come from* really isn't gonna help you.

If people never have anything positive to say about furries without saying something negative, what am I supposed to think?

But you ARE making excuses. And again, you're adding to the frustration of never being able to get an interesting game by saying these things.

That has nothing to do with it. Plus, you're not adding anything by saying all the negative things that have already been said, especially when there are positive things that haven't been said yet because people are too busy being negative.

You're telling me that devs shouldn't waste the time making something original instead of "humans are the absolute good" type stories because of what you think the media is willing to make. You keep saying "it's the media, not us," yet you're ALSO justifying those ideals, which in a way isn't much better.

Again, I'm trying to be a goodguy. Being told I'm "the worst kind of furry" is just making me feel depressed. How would you feel if I just stopped posting and died because I've lost any self worth after being told "I'm the worst kind of furry?" You think that feels fun? I'm not trying to insult you guys just because I'm pointing out that you're being too negative.

NO. Holy crap, can you actually read what I write, instead of read what you THINK I am writing?

I AM NOT SAYING DEVS SHOULD NOT WASTE THE TIME. I AM SAYING DEVS MOST LIKELY SEE IT AS A WASTE OF TIME.

TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

I am NOT JUSTIFYING THEM, I am trying to say I'M NOT THE ONE WHO THINKS IT, THEY ARE.

I'm done. I'm done trying to argue with you because you will continue to FILL MY MOUTH WITH LITERAL GARBAGE THAT I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH.

You have literally "justified" anything I could say in regards to any grievance with furries that I could post on here, as to what I could have a problem with them for. In fact, people in general. Literally, my hatred for people in general is summed up in the way you've handled this entire discussion.

Thank you for doing nothing but reading what you want to believe I think/am saying.