Recently it came to my attention that some people find that anthropomorphic animal races scream lazy developers / are aestheticly unappealing.

What do you think?

 

Are you fine with having humanoids with animal traits as playable characters or NPC-s in games in general / Project Eternity?

 

Also, I would like to know whether you find it boring that you have humans as playable race in nearly all/every RPG?

Tolerate? yes, why not? I'm always ok with more variety and options, that said, I don't think that the devs are planning on adding any more playable races.

 

About the humans... I don't think that it is arrogant at all, I think that it just makes it easier to fantasize about worlds that have something that we are familiar with (ourselves), That said... I wouldn't have any problem if there weren't humans at all, but that won't be the case for PE so I don't really care too much.

I'd rather avoid the plush toy head on a human body-type anthropomorphic races. If they must exist, they should be sufficiently different that most equipment meant for humans won't fit them properly and they should have some very different thought patterns and ideas of proper and/or moral behavior. If you're going to have a non-demi-human race, then they ought to be sufficiently alien in thought and deed to reflect their significant differences with the more standard races (e.g. humans, elves, dwarves, etc.).

 

As for humans somehow being boring, I'd disagree. Humans are the baseline against which all other races are compared, but culture can make humans nearly as different from one another as they are from the other races populating any given fantasy world in question.

no, and no. But I suppose my stance on this matter was already perfectly clear.

Would I like "anthropomorphic" races in PE? Short answer: NO.

 

I suspect you know my position already, so I won't elaborate any further.

Edited November 19, 201213 yr by Mandragore

As NPCs, sure. As long as they're not of the Petting Zoo People variety.

My votes disappeared? I voted "How About No" and No.

I voted yes, I would tolerate it. I'd prefer if it isn't "toy head" on human body. But a bipedal relative, more sophisticated version of the animal. Kind of Humans versus the primitive equivalent, Monkeys. Elephans would also be more sophisticated but keep some of its primitive Elephant anatomy.

 

Do I think it's arrogant that we place ourselves into the world? Yes and no. It makes sense on many levels, but it could be done differently, must humanity be the governing force in every game?

I voted "Furries, begone!".. because... seriously.

 

Also, "ourselfs" ?

no, and no. But I suppose my stance on this matter was already perfectly clear.

 

I made this topic so we could get a bigger picture. BTW I never actually took sides in this matter. Beastlike humanoids just don't bother me. When I was playing Morrowind as a kid I found them to be cool, I just don't understand how suddenly an innocent notion as beastlike humanoid races became utterly disgusting in ppl's eyes. When did Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny, and the Thundercats turn into beastiality?

 

btw i'm not a native English speaker, so forgive me for the spelling errors

no, and no. But I suppose my stance on this matter was already perfectly clear.

 

I made this topic so we could get a bigger picture. BTW I never actually took sides in this matter. Beastlike humanoids just don't bother me. When I was playing Morrowind as a kid I found them to be cool, I just don't understand how suddenly an innocent notion as beastlike humanoid races became utterly disgusting in ppl's eyes. When did Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny, and the Thundercats turn into beastiality?

 

btw i'm not a native English speaker, so forgive me for the spelling errors

 

When furries started masturbating to them? I thought that was pretty clear.

Beastlike humanoids just don't bother me.

I hate to nitpick, (not really), but these and their packmates that continue to infest the ES games were always human-like beasts...

 

The Argonians may have had pretend tails but they still moved and spoke like humans. Because we are spectacularly well-equipped to empathise with other humans. A trait evolved to detect deception...and developers be lazy and prefer the cut-and-paste approach to modelling...

 

As awful as the Mass Effect games were, they at least attempted to move away from this silliness..

 

Folks who get bent out of shape arguing for the inclusion of human-like animals *generally* do so for the simplest of reasons. Sexual deviancy. Which is fine but does nothing for immersion or entertainment.

My stance can be summed up by this picture:

 

I've already explained my opinion several times, but for the sake of consistency: I like non-human races. Add much needed variety beyond the anthropocentric elves, dwarves and orcs.

No because furry ? I don't really get it. It's not like you'll see any sexual deviancy if there's any. Real beast races (not anthro) could be nice, though; plus, Khajiit and such are TES trademarks.

Khajiit and such are TES trademarks.

... with prominent breasts... and only 2 such prominences... like a real people! But with fur! :/

 

I honestly have nothing against novel races if they're there to encourage immersion, add challenge or even variety...

 

When they're there to pander to the mouth-breathing social deviants, I see "meh"...

Edited November 20, 201213 yr by rustypup

NO, just no , I mean no anthrophomoric race will be ever interesting, because even when developers, will spend months to make them in the end it will always, be human with wolf head, acts like human but have wolf friendship, end other such bullcrap, the only interesting beastmen that I know tried to change some thing in this topic are beastmens from UFO: afterseries,

I have no strong feelings towards furry races. They don't bother me, but that's because when picking a race i don't really care how it looks, I weigh prerformance and\or roleplaying. In Skyrim, for example, I did play khajit because they had bonuses to skills I needed for the character I intended. On the other hand - I like playing dwarven monks(dwarves in general are rowdy, brash and drunk - that's why I like this race\class combination - it defies general preconceptions) even though dwarf isn't the best race for being a monk.

So if there are beastmen with some interesting features\backstory or traits to them-why not?

 

About humans being boring-I consider them boring as hell in a Sci fi setting like Star Wars, no matter what colour they are(TOR, I'm looking at you).

But in a fantasy setting, especially DnD one, I find humans very appealing. Especially in 3.5 - there I consider humans wiith their lower inteligence requirements(because of free skill points and therefore less points are needed to be invested in Int),a free feat at lvl one and no class restrictions(since I like wierd multiclassing with lots of splash classes and their prerequisite feats) to be my favourite race. Their versatility wins the day for me.

If PE has humans close to that - than I'm most likely playing one. Or a dwarf. I just like dwarves, dwarves are cool.

FURRIES!!! NO! Expunge them.

Anthros are lazy design, instead of designing a new race from scratch they mush two already existing races together and then use the beast traits as an excuse for personality. I'd rather strange ones like the guild of Weavers from Loom (they were supposedly human but don't look under their hoods), jawas (yes the ones with sand crawlers, guess I have a thing for hoods and glowing eyes, as thats two races with them now), fae like the Sidhe (proper ones, not like the elves), skeksis and mystics from the Dark Crystal etc.

When did Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny, and the Thundercats turn into beastiality?

 

 

I blame the Cadbury's caramel bunny personally.

 

To restate from another thread I like Beast-like races. Mainly I like to have races that are distinct from humans rather than just humans with pointy ears or different color skin. I don't think 'antros are lazy design' anymore than I think halflings are. One is a shrunk down human, one is a bipedal (usually) animal. The things that make the design lazy are the implementation of the race in the game world not the look of the race itself. I prefer a few beast races for the sake of variety in addition to the fact that to me it just seems more plausible that in a world filled with all sorts of fantastical monsters that the only civilizations to have risen are not all populated by hairless apes with very slight variations. That said I wouldn't ever want more than 2 or 3 beast races in a given game anymore more than that is just too much.

Edited November 20, 201213 yr by Pshaw

I'll never understand any of the justifications and excuses I've seen from the people that consider Humans boring. I've heard countless reasons why people think Humans are boring - you know what's boring and uninspired? Writers so talentless, uninspired and lazy that their last resort for new races is to mash a Human and a random animal together bug me. Most non-Human races in games, to me, come off as Humans, Human cultures and societies, with a random non-Human visual slapped on them. As such Human, to me, typically come off as the more creative, and it's only the very rare and very creative non-Human races that come off as worthwhile.

Edited November 20, 201213 yr by Umberlin

I have no issue with anthropomorphic races in general. After all my favorite kind of anthropomorphic races are aking to the Naga in Warcraft. IE snakewomen with varying degrees of human appearance with the only universal trait for them being the fact that they have a snaketail instead of legs(look at my avatar for the basic idea of what I mean. Though half-draconic'ish races like the ones that showed up in IWD2 are also good. I used to mod the game so my character had their avatars). I also like cat girls(to use that as an example of the fur sort of anthro's) more or less, but I'm not overly fond of the Kahjiit in the slightest as they are presented in Oblivion and Skyrim because of the aesthetics of their heads just don't look particularly good in my opinion. That said I'd still champion their inclusion regardless as just because I don't like them it doesn't mean no one else should be able to experience them. After all it is just as valid a taste as mine is. Only difference is I prefer scales over fur(granted I gave up on finding a game that allowed me to play a naga/lamia).

 

As for humans, I don't find them boring per se. It more comes down to what their culture is like in the setting and the overall aesthetics of said culture. They are however rarely my go to race unless I find the other race options to fall short. It also depends heavily on what aesthetical choices we have available for the customization of the characters appearance. I know I play humans more often if I can give them exotic combinations in terms of skin, hair and eye colour(that and as long as they don't look Liefeldian).

(granted I gave up on finding a game that allowed me to play a naga/lamia).

 

Well Warcraft 3 TFT has some naga missions.

Plus NWN2 introduced pureblood yuan-tis as a playable race. They don't have tails per se(would've been awsome if they had) but in your head you still know that they are snake people.

Also HoMM series had naga units since forever.