Furred animal races removed from Masters Of Orion 3
Posted by Anon on Wed 5 Dec 2001 - 17:15
From the latest "Computer Gaming World":
"We didn't want humans dressed up in animal suits", Quicksilver's Bill Fisher says, explaining the "no furries" decision that led to cutting the Bulrathi bears and Mrrshan cats.
There's a scan of the article available in this link at Pressed Fur. (Sorry for the indirect link, but the site doesn't seem to like direct links to images.)
Tags:
Comments
Looking at the scan, I'm not totally sure this is a case of removing furries in particular as humanoid aliens in general. The pictures in the scan deomstrated that the Sakkra and Klackons, which in the older MOO games were essentially implied to be humans in reptile and insect suits (respectively) at least as far as the graphics were concerned, are very non-humanoid. Same goes for the Psilon; it looks like they've tried to make them more interesting than just 'Big-headed humans'. And the Darloks, who always looked VERY human to me, are out entirely as well. I may be inferring a bit too much from a few sentences and some concept art, but it really does seem to me to be more of a "Let's make unique aliens" thing (A sentiment that I definitely approve of, even if it means no furries) than a "We don't want to be associated with furries" thing.
Pressed Fur has been wrong before, and considering the slant they put on the articles they review, I wouldn't be surprised.
Xydexx Unicorn
Furry Fandom Infocenter
It also might be just be a matter of graphics resources. While the scans do look very nicely done, they do put me in mind of the various Quake 3 Skins. Some of them are quite sophisticated, but it's all surface level. While I'm sure the overall animations of the races will look lovely as well, anyone who has seen the film Monsters Inc can get a sense of the computational power needed to do fur graphics properly. Not doing furred aliens might have just simply been a decision of the application of available resources within the game structure. I will miss the monsters though....bribing the space dragon was always a neat trick, and they reminded me pleasantly of all the old monster-of-the-Week TV series.
Well, it's not as if the original article isn't there for you to judge for yourself.
I find their take on articles cynical but not nearly as bad as some of what you see on alt.fan.furry. (I remember, when the Vanity Fair article came out, someone posting "So how much cyanide per gallon of Kool-Aid?")
It's not really the cynicism that concerns me as much as Pressed Fur's inaccuracies in their summaries. True, they're not as bad as AFF, but there's definitely room for improvement.
One would think they'd check their information a little more carefully before posting it.
Xydexx Unicorn
Furry Fandom Infocenter
You still haven't addressed why the word "furries" was specifically used here, if the article had nothing to do with the fandom. I'm not sure their analysis is all that inaccurate, except that it may have been the writer of the article who made the association with furries, instead of the person being interviewed.
Pressed Fur's inaccuracies in their summaries
Well, what to you expect from someplace that still can't get the difference between the three words, lead, lead, and led correct?
--Gene
I believe the term "furries" was used because, believe it or not, it has actually entered mainstream fandom's lexicon.
(How it's defined from one person to another, however, still leaves much room for improvement.)
Pressed Fur definitely read too much into the use of that term. I read the article and figured it just meant they were going for more unique aliens.
"Humans dressed in fursuits" has been a topic of discussion panels at many conventions, and not just at Furry cons. I believe it was a panel one year at ComicCon, and probably at a worldcon or two. It refers specifically to whether the same personality and actions could be written into the story if the character was human instead of an anthropomorph.
--Darrel.
ConFurence will again be at the Burbank Hilton, April 25-27, 2003. Visit http://confurence.net for more details on this and other events being hosted by The ConFurence Group.
You still haven't addressed why the word "furries" was specifically used here, if the article had nothing to do with the fandom.Pressed Fur claims "it's obvious" furries were pulled from MOO3 due to "associations with the furry fandom". Yet the article makes no mention of the fandom, or any reputation problem.It's also interesting to note how Pressed Fur claims by mentioning "furries" in the article, that furry fandom is "the direct reason"---then they backpedal in the same paragraph, not being sure the exactly what this has to do with the fandom at all.Also omitted from MOO3 were space monsters, and an ethos model to show how different religions permeate the galaxy. Going by Pressed Fur's standards, this is concrete, unquestionable evidence that Quicksilver's Bill Fisher doesn't like being associated with bug-eyed Martians that go to church.
Xydexx Unicorn
Furry Fandom Infocenter
That was pretty much my optomistic feeling too, that the term was well-known enough now that they were just using it as a simple description, rather than having some deeper meaning. (I've also noticed the term 'plushie' being used (correctly) in TV commercials, even!)
My pessimistic feeling, too, is still just that it was the writer of the article making any negative connections, rather than the designers, as the Pressed Fur summary seems to imply.
I'm also glad I'm not the only one who sees PF as bing somethat slanted. (How it compares to AFF I can't say, aince I don't read it) I find it to be pretty valuable as a link to a bunch of furries-in-media articles, but the summaries seem to come in two types: The mostly-con articles (by their own rating) tend to be painted as accurate 'exposals' of the state of the fandom, whereas they seem to usually consider the mostly-pro ones to be fluff boosterism at best. Sure, both of these are sometimes the case, but I feel that plenty of articles fall into other categories, too.
Matrian
While I can respect peoples opinions, I don't really see where Pressed Fur has been slanted in one way or the other. I suppose it's a matter of how you read it. Whether it was the magazine writer who stated "no furries policy" or the developers (either could be the case here.) The Pressed Fur site specifically states that they do not know what it meant here in this direct quote from their entry:
"It's a matter of conjecture whether or not "furry races" were dropped from the game because of the bad reputation of the furry fandom, or because they weren't "serious" enough for a science fiction strategy game."
They continue by saying that it is another negative slap toward the fandom, and that can't be denied. At least not be the wording of this preview.
I don't quite agree... Like I said, the removal or changing of the other humanoid races along with the furries seems to say, to me at least, that it's more trying to get out of that science fiction cliche in general than avioding furries in particular for any reason.
The day that Pressed Fur chooses to identify their editorial board, I'll take them more seriously, until then, I ignore their commentary but do value their work on maintaining the resource. Its also sort of interesting to see how their commentary has changed over time.
David Cooksey
Found this on the PF summary for the article, added today:
Oh . . . my. I didn't see a byline, but if the piece was written by the editor, Johnny L. Wilson, there might be a very simple, if odd, explanation for the use of the word "furry". I was art director of Computer Gaming World magazine from May 1990 through May 1992, when it was an independent publication based in Orange County, CA. The staff -- including Johnny -- was well aware of my furry interests; I'd been involved in furrydom for a decade by that point.
It's a small world (but I wouldn't want to have to paint it).
-- Dave Bryant
Post new comment