|
Post by Garamoth on Mar 20, 2010 9:22:52 GMT -5
Why are there no featheries?
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Mar 20, 2010 12:21:58 GMT -5
Why are there no featheries? lol "furries" is a blanket term for the fandom around anthropomorphic (human-like) animals. Few people use "scalies" or "featheries" or other derivatives, but, trust me, they're still quite popular.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee of Zur-En-Arrh on Mar 20, 2010 13:55:08 GMT -5
Actually, I might as well admit something to put this all into perspective. While I do find furry art icky, I definitely dig robo-chicks, so I suppose it's some of the same thing. (Aegis, Kos-Mos, etc) Some dudes might find that disgusting (although they look mostly human, so it isn't nearly the same, imo).
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Faptastic on Mar 20, 2010 14:36:25 GMT -5
Any red-blooded man who says he does not want to fuck a sex robot is a liar.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 22, 2010 3:05:13 GMT -5
Well, I was only speaking of furries online since that's the only exposure I have to them, and I can't make any assessment of them if I don't know they're furry in the first place. That's kind of an odd notion to me, though. If someone is a big enough fan to refer to him/herself as a "furry", then wouldn't they express that in some way? I mean, practically everything I do online expresses my interest in games at least in a very small way. I'd figure a big furry fan, if not being on actual furry sites/boards, would at least represent their interest in their avatar/sig/user name/etc. or post in topics related to furry stuff. If a furry is keeping every bit of their interest private, then that makes it seem like some dirty little secret.
So, yeah, I was only assessing people that I can tell are furries, obviously, and even then I'm not saying I have beef with all of them. There are definitely normal fans, sure, but I wish there were more of them or that they'd be vocal enough to overshadow the obnoxious ones. Of all the people I come across that are vocal about their interest in games, I find a much smaller percentage annoying. The only problem I see is that a lot of people are far more judgmental of furries than I am, so maybe the normal furries are keeping quiet because they know they're going to be lumped in with the weirdos. Same kind of deal with Tail Concerto. People instantly assume it's designed to cater to furry fetishists, when it's just a normal game that shouldn't even be regarded as a "furry game" in the first place. I mean, the character designer is Nobuteru Yuuki, who's just a normal manga/anime artist with no catering to furries unless you count a couple anthropomorphic animals in his various works, which is nothing unusual in the industry.
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Mar 22, 2010 4:26:57 GMT -5
If someone is a big enough fan to refer to him/herself as a "furry", then wouldn't they express that in some way? I guess I subtly express it! I do usually have a Nala icon on Xbox and I occasionally use sorta "furry" characters in my icons (I've considered using art of my character before, too). I don't know, I just think that expression of being furry is often irrelevant. I can't really think of any instances on here where it's really been necessary to bring up, other than a few times where the fandom is getting harped on and I step in to say it's not all so bad. Video games are a bit more commonly relevant to people's interests and a lot more socially accepted, too. Sometimes bringing up anything furry tends to upset other people, so I (and many others) generally keep quiet about it because of that. Considering the very vast majority of furries are furs partially because of sexual orientation toward animal/human hybrids, it tends to be a pretty iffy subject in most communities (which generally strikes me as fairly hypocritical, since attractive anime girls are frequently used for icons on many forums and are widely accepted while attractive furry icons are often openly remarked upon as being "disgusting" or "offensive"). I don't think of it so much as a "dirty little secret" as just avoiding conflict. As much as furries do overreact toward being persecuted and treated unfairly (and often bring it on themselves by acting out and demanding people not only accept but also like them), there is a lot of unfair bigotry directed toward the entire fandom and we're at the receiving end of a lot of cruel jokes and criticism. Because of this, furries are actually aslo terribly divided amongst themselves, constantly trying to sort out what degree of being furry is acceptable (i.e. it is okay to role play, but fursuiting is for freaks, etc.). Video game fans are often elitist about the genres and series they like most, but with furries, it gets a lot more intense. So many furs are so uncomfortable with being persecuted that they go very out of their way to try and make it so they're deemed as "one of the good ones." The standards that make you a "good one" can be absolutely ridiculous, ranging from how open you are about being a fur to what other fetishes you're into (which is extremely hypocritical for a group that revolves mostly around a fetish to do... It breaks my heart that so many people try to justify THEIR fetishes and then go to ostracize anyone with fetishes they deem grosser/more morally corrupt, and furs constantly exhibit this behavior). Anyway, the real bottom line I'm trying to get across is that despite often sharing similar habits, the fandom is incredibly diverse. It is full of different people with different habits and different ways of thinking, which is why I took some offense to the stereotyping. The reason I brought up furs making standards on which "the good ones" are is because I strongly feel that people need to stop saying things like that about any group they're in. Getting over being persecuted means getting over elitism, and I really hope I've helped you see past the vocal group that is quite elitist. Saying that some people are the "good ones" is like giving people an excuse to hate everyone else. I could easily try and excuse the common behavior you've seen by saying "don't worry, the furs I like are cool, everyone else is okay to hate," but like any group, we're all individuals, and I think embracing our diversity with humility is very important (especially if we ever expect to stop being mocked to the extent that we are). Most of the poor behavior you see is just from younger or more immature furs acting out - usually because the idea of being "special" appeals to them. It's not unlike the flamboyant "gay" men you'll see exaggerating what people stereotypically imagine is the homosexual lifestyle... They often do it not because of any actual orientation they have, they just like the attention/sense of community/attraction to conflict/etc. The perception of the gay man has changed profoundly over the last decade, and I hope that the perception of the furry fandom eventually begins to change, as well. Simply being into the fandom doesn't really define us but in a small way. Being a "fur" is an incredibly general term, which is why I'm getting so wordy in trying to defend stereotypes against us and help educate that most of us take things pretty differently. To sum up what I said: we're all diverse and there are a lot of us, and I really hope you'll see it that way and not let those annoying stand-outs get to you. I sincerely apologize if I've gotten a little too descriptive and lengthy on you, it's just that we often get hit with some really nasty stereotypes and I really try my best to attempt to clear them up so we can be judged on an individual level. It's fine to continue disliking any fur you don't like, just please don't do it because you hear they're a fur.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Mar 22, 2010 6:09:30 GMT -5
Damn... that was beautiful, Dual! Most impassioned and well-worded defense of furry fandom I think I've ever read. Good show!
-Tom
|
|
|
Post by syntheticgerbil on Mar 22, 2010 15:49:46 GMT -5
You can't put war pictures on a screen without glamorizing them, and you certainly can't put anything sexy in a film, even as a parody of sexiness, without it actually being sexy. If the filmmakers didn't understand that, they were the one missing the point. (plus, like it or not, actual porn is all about exaggeration anyway) So everything in a film or picture is full of glamor just for appearing? That's silly, illogical, and makes no sense. The words "gratuitous," "absurd," or "over-the-top" exist for a reason, you know. There are different levels to everything and endless ways to portray anything. That's how art works. People have riffed and joked on sex and appearance since the dawn of time. Just because something is parodying or riffing on sex doesn't mean it's inherently sexy at all. Your statements of "truisms" are nauseating. Suggesting the people who animated or designed the characters of Roger Rabbit missed the point of their own movie? Give me a break. The point of this is, in relation to the game Inherit the Earth, which I guess I'm the only one here who actually played it besides the article writer, is that it is very possible to draw anthropomorphic animals without making them sexualized beings. The game has furry overtones I find disturbing, and I wasn't the least bit surprised that the head artists working on the games had galleries of furry porn on their personal websites. I'm never going to find people who are interested in sexing up animals for the purpose of getting off to them acceptable, I don't know what to say here. I guess this is wrong around here to feel that way, since I've already stated multiple times what I find to be the games true merits and what I find not to be. If Inherit the Earth is supposed to be more along the line of Aesop's fables as the director's intention seems to imply, I don't know why they hired a bunch of people who might masturbate to Aesop's Fables, Porn is also not inherently about exaggeration just because you say it is or because a lot is depicted that way... but that's even further from what's going on in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by syntheticgerbil on Mar 22, 2010 17:01:08 GMT -5
Of course, but how creators/designers/artists portray something is not going to be congruent to how everyone in the audience perceives it, that's true. The creator has no control over it but I think the intention of the designer/creator should always have some sort of merit. Even if someone perceives ever depiction of sex and violence as glamorous doesn't mean everyone will or that that was what was being aimed to portray. This is why blanket censorship laws are not very helpful. You can't damn the gratuitous trash without getting rid of disturbing depictions that have merit. I just think if Talin, the game director, were looking to design this game with this intention: www.furryvideogames.org/part-two.html I have never been part of the central core of furry fandom. While I do collect things like Rhidipurrt/Elfquest/Cerebus, I consider a lot of the art that is passed around at conventions kind of, well, crass and lacking subtlety. Pornographic rather than erotic. While I appreciate the sensuality of furred forms, I am not into XXX drawings. However, I have a lot of friends who are furry fans. I wanted to take the energy and intensity of furry fandom and "whitebread" it, that is make it acceptable to a mainstream audience. I also wanted to emulate some of the feeling of Watership Down or Beatrix Potter. Then why would he go on to hire Lisa Jennings who draws this kind of shit on her free time: us.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Lisa-Jennings/ (really not safe for work!) And then say this in the same interview: I think whatever his intentions were originally got mixed up upon making Lisa Jennings the lead character designer and artist. I get that he was trying to tell a moral story above all else about human life, yet all the sexual overtones that comes with a furry drawing still are apparent in this game to me. I think adding that sort of content becomes distracting to the actual tale that would not have happened if the game were handled much closer to the manner in which Watership Down was. As an artist myself working on games for kids, I have a hard enough time not drawing women sort of sexed up, and I'm certainly not overexaggerating them like Jessica Rabbit in order to create the opposite effect. I stand by the statement that this game could have been handled better, design aside, by hiring artists who weren't furries, or at least furries that weren't into it for the sexual nature of it.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Mar 22, 2010 17:05:16 GMT -5
I'd have to disagree, if they were trying to sexualize this, the girl fox's tits would be like three times the size. Compare that to Krystal from Starfox: (Why did I Google Image Search that with SafeSearch turned off. ) Krystal doesn't really bother me, even though she is overtly sexualized. But Inherit the Earth is much tamer than that, regardless of the artist's extracurricular activities.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Mar 22, 2010 17:16:48 GMT -5
Video game fans are often elitist about the genres and series they like most, but with furries, it gets a lot more intense. So many furs are so uncomfortable with being persecuted that they go very out of their way to try and make it so they're deemed as "one of the good ones." The standards that make you a "good one" can be absolutely ridiculous, ranging from how open you are about being a fur to what other fetishes you're into (which is extremely hypocritical for a group that revolves mostly around a fetish to do... It breaks my heart that so many people try to justify THEIR fetishes and then go to ostracize anyone with fetishes they deem grosser/more morally corrupt, and furs constantly exhibit this behavior). Boy, was there ever a better occasion to post the geek hierarchy? GEEK HIERARCHY by Lore Sjöberg (from www.brunching.com/geekhierarchy.html)
|
|
|
Post by syntheticgerbil on Mar 22, 2010 17:28:21 GMT -5
Krystal doesn't really bother me, even though she is overtly sexualized. But Inherit the Earth is much tamer than that, regardless of the artist's extracurricular activities. I'm not saying the game is a sexual one or that it's the exact same as Starfox. I'm saying that the majority of the artistic crew's "personal" interests were clear to me before I even did my research and found their furry porn galleries. As someone who has never been interested in furries, that adds a layer of disturbing to me. For instance, I could totally depict the same scene in Inherit the earth without using the stock furry face both the Stafox and ITE characters are using or making the proportions so human and achieve the necessary art assets for the same tale Talin was trying to tell without that layer completely. By humanizing the characters so much with proportions we find appealing biologically, you start sexualizing them. I think it only detracts from the game and seems to be missing out on more audience members because of it. Basically to put it plainly, had the ingame art looked uniformly like the cover art, I would have not got the furry fandom connection at all. By putting up the geek hierarchy, you guys are all making it seem like I just spend my time running around bashing furries for my jollies. I was just truthfully commenting on what I felt about a game I played a few times through over the years as someone who is not a furry and who likes good adventure design.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 22, 2010 17:49:24 GMT -5
No worries about going in-depth. It's interesting to take a serious look at it rather than dealing with childish furries that aren't capable of replying with anything more than "You don't like furry characters, so I don't like you" or "Why are you so mean? T_T Can't we all get along? *huggles* ^_~"
Although if any furries think that I'm a part of the problem, I think they have bigger fish to fry. I'm equal opportunity in my casting judgment. :P I find all fetishes creepy, even down to innocuous stuff like foot fetishes or yellow fever. Some are obviously grosser than others, though, and a lot of people think of bestiality when thinking of sexualized furries. Even with the differentiation, those that get sexual gratification out of furries are turned on by some animal quality that normal humans don't have, which most people would find much grosser than fetish for feet or S&M or such. But then even a furry fetish isn't as gross as, say, a scat fetish, in my book. But beyond levels of grossness, I don't make much distinction. I wouldn't say one fetish is great and another is wrong. I'm just as inclined to cast a funny look to an adult man using some moe or sexed up anime avatar as one using a furry avatar. Anime culture can definitely be just as creepy and/or annoying as furry culture any day of the week.
It really comes down to how one approaches their interest. I think it's the obsession with characters that leads to me thinking people are abnormal. I mean, with games, I like them because they test my reflexes and/or mind, and with my favorite games, I'll play them a lot, discuss them on boards, recommend them to people, collect some merchandise, maybe draw some fan art, that's about it. With Tail Concerto, I think it's got a charming world, with endearing characters, and nice art, so I can see people taking interest in the characters and their designs both in and outside the furry fandom. So from that perspective, I can totally understand someone being a furry because they enjoy character designs like that and in turn enjoy viewing/drawing more art like that. Most Americans grew up enjoying something that could be considered "furry", be it Looney Tunes, Disney, TMNT, Sonic, etc., so I can also see where that interest is fostered. But it's when people get so obsessed with characters, whether pre-existing or self-created, that they pretend to be them that I start raising an eyebrow. Game and anime fans do it too, but I think it's even more extreme with the furry community, what with the fursonas and fursuits and such. I know a lot of people would try to defend that stuff claiming it's normal, but I don't think I'll ever be able to see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Mar 22, 2010 18:03:14 GMT -5
Can we at least all agree that this discussion has more or less reached a standstill? And get back to either talking about the game or just letting this thread drop off? Either would be grand.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Mar 22, 2010 18:27:23 GMT -5
Actually, from what I understand, they DID kinda miss the point of the original novel, which had a lot more sex, violence, and gritty social commentary in it. (: I think it makes sense to hire an accomplished erotic furry artist if your game contains anthropomorphic characters, since in all honesty, the best way to learn how to draw a character is to draw him/her nude first, in order to figure out exact body proportions, then add the clothing on top of that. Since erotic furry artists deal in nude anthropomorphs, it seems entirely logical that they'd be better-suited to draw non-nude anthropomorphs as well, since they'd likely do a better job of representing body shape accurately and "realistically." That having been said, though, they should've picked someone whose art doesn't kinda suck. (: I've seen erotic furry art that's been AMAZINGLY well-drawn, and absolutely gorgeous from an artistic standpoint... and yeah... Lisa Jennings art ain't it, based on a quick perusal of that link. -Tom
|
|