I used to as well until I looked into it, which is why I now know way, way more than anyone really needs to (there is… a lot.) Anyway, figured I’d explain just in case. You didn’t seem like you had bad intentions, so thanks for being understanding.
A furry is someone that identifies with anthropomorphic animal characters (or sometimes just animal characteristics). No dressing up required. Now, a lot of the people that go to cons tend to have more money, so you will see more fursuits and such, but most furries do not dress up.
You are right, but a lot of the roots of furry criticism do tend to be queerphobic in origin. It’s just something to recognize.
I’m using kink in a pretty generic way because a lot of the criticisms of furries relate to sex (e.g. beastiality or pedophilia), and thus any depiction of kink (like bondage gear) is used to demonize them that it’s a fetish (and one that is coming for your children.)
There is a significantly higher proportion of LGBTQ+ representation within the furry community than the general populace, and it makes sense why. Fursonas are another way to explore sexual and gender identities in a safe way, and furry communities tend to be pretty accepting places.
This is just my opinion, but I see kink in the furry community criticized the same way I see kink at Pride events criticized.
Isn’t that twink a Goblin, tho?
…No, it’s too easy…
You are making a silly argument that is flawed. The Witcher includes sexual themes because the book it is based on also includes these themes.
BG3 includes optional romantic themes because the game it is based on can include optional romantic themes. The game is about your involvement in the story, about how you navigate the world and its people because it attempts to mimic DnD. You can do a lot of “I seduce the dragon” and BG3 was designed to be fairly accomodating to a variety of tables.
To suggest the game would be better if it contained no romance when you haven’t played it is… bizarre? Especially with it being optional. But, that is perhaps the epitome of my argument. A lot of content in BG3 is optional. To remove any of it would be to make a game about options lesser.
I think romance is included in a lot of stories because it is a very common component in life. We have so many experiences around love, and exploring that in a fictional environment at the same time we do battle against demons is fun for many people.
TTRPGs cater to you choosing your own story. To remove the romance from this story is to say that some choices in this story cannot be made.
Also, there’s mods to remove the romance. It would be a loss to have them gone at the onset.
I disagree on pretty much every point, but I personally don’t see the problem you’re having with the game. If you don’t like the nudity, that is optional (as in, there is an option for it.) If you’re complaining about the romance, that’s like an entire genre of stories. Heck, softcore porn is also a genre of stories that is exceptionally popular. So, why would removing it for you make up for the loss of potential customers that were gained from it being there, especially since you bought it with it there anyway? Idk, seems like you disproved your own point.
Why does it matter if you’re not a Republican if you espouse their talking points? Does it make you special that you’re not a Republican?
Sorry that you’re either too angry or too dumb to have gleamed that insight. It offered commentary on your logic, that being that you don’t know or don’t care about the inconsistencies, both of which mean debating you is pointless because you’re either an idiot or a bad actor, so why bother?
Lol you all find yourselves special because you are not a “Republican”
Ohh p.s. I’m not Republican
The irony is lost on you.
Make sure you take your dog’s shoes off, too.
True. Happy holidays was accidentally inclusive, as opposed to it being designed that way. It was just used as another way to say Merry Christmas.
It is exclusively about money for Bethesda. You can tell by looking at the last time they implemented paid mods, where they took a 25% cut for doing nothing. They offered no quality control, no resources, and boy howdy were a lot of paid mods stolen content, but they didn’t care because they wanted that money.
As to the modders, the only offer Bethesda can give is a wider customer base, but the assumption that you will make more money offering your mod for a price isn’t founded. We will see a large amount of shitty mods clogging the store using asset flips to maximize returns, because that’s what makes big money on mobile right now. Mod quality isn’t going to be enhanced by this: Mods will remain the same. You will just more of the bad ones. $99 horse dicks, anyone?
Bethesda’s goal, as usual, is rent-seeking. They can’t penetrate more markets, so they need to make new ones, and what better way to do this then to hire what amounts to contractors doing gig work. They don’t even have to pay them except in commission, which is a really scummy thing to do.
Some people see this as a way for mod-makers to make money, but mod-makers already have those! Every mod I’ve seen and every modder I’ve talked to has a donation link you can send money to, and the ones who didn’t had organizations and charities you could send your money to instead.
I’m not sure I understand how that applies here or changes what I posted.