Anatomically correct creatures in games

Seriously? What part of "realism" do you people not get?

Why are games pushing the hole realistic look if some things are too taboo for every person in the world? I guess everyone here hates zoos (the places you go to see animals that don't normally live in your city or town). It's sad I had to explain that too.

"Holy shit that animal has a scrotum, quick quick run for your lives women and children first!"

No I don't mean there dicks but I do me anything that would be "normal" (not in this world apparently) in the wild. Male and female.

I'm really having a hard time understanding why this makes me a sick fuck. Why does "normal" sicken everyone so much?

>>>/furry/

Checked, and /thread.

Ohhhhh, I just realized that this board was made for kids you haven't hit puberty yet.

I'm sorry everyone for rocking the boat to much and thinking this question was ok in a "G" rated area. I wish I had known that before asking a reasonable question and hoping for, at the very least, a reasonable answer.

I understand I stepped on all the kiddies little toes here and I'm being an adult and saying sorry and walking away.

This thread made my day. Could only have been better if it had "asking for a friend"

This is why video games will never be art. If everyone just laughs like a bunch of teenagers at some horse balls, then how can anything be taken seriously?

I don't think that nigger is anatomically correct

If by "anatomically correct" you mean it shows their genitals, then you're on the wrong board and you should check out /hgg/ instead.

The reason I'm saying this is because genitals introduce nothing in terms of gameplay since in videogames you have far more ways to spell out information for the player than mesh geometry and you usually go for the simplest form that's still informative enough.
And even then, this question is only pertinent when it's a part of the gameplay or world building in one way or another.

For instance, in terms of worldbuilding, a game might introduce a species that sees the females and the males act differently (have different stats or strategies or uses) and because of this, it creates a very large but simple signal like the females having blue or green fur while the males have red or yellow fur. The contrast between cool and warm colors is clear enough that the player can tell the gender apart even from a greater distance, something you wouldn't have if you were using a small part of the mesh for identification instead.

In terms of gameplay, some games do feature breeding of some kind and this becomes important, especially if the concept of dimorphism is included or simply the context of females becoming far more valuable as womb carriers.
However the genital mesh itself has no bearing on this. A simple signal on a HUD or very basic signs like horns on the male are more than enough to make the distinction and let the player decide what to do.

The only context where animal genitalia is expressly required and the base minimum of detail required is if the genitalia and not the gender is the focus of the attention itself. In other words, if the entire point of the game or at very least it's main focus is zoophilia or strictly animal biology.
The first one is best fulfilled with lewd games that appeal to that fetish, ence my suggestion of /hgg/, the second one could probably be met with educational videogames but to be honest, I doubt anyone actually makes educational videogames about animal genitalia since anyone that needs to know about that stuff is better served learning from a book.

Another alternative would be /d/, but only the most tame parts of it that still feature strictly just the animal itself.

I don't think there's that much interest in the whole anatomically correct animals, hence the lack of balls and scrotums and mammary glands.
First, it's definitely extra time to model those, then they're gonna have to worry about some overly sensitive person who's gonna cause some non controversy over the exposure of it.

So since there's no interest, it takes time and they don't want some controversy happening even in the slightest, they pretty much just opt not to model them completely.
I mean, it's not even that important unless there's a mechanic for them to piss and poop, have sex and give birth anyway, which no game has so they don't add it.
except furries

Dude, I'm pretty sure OP is just looking for a /zoo/ thread. Not sure if I should give it to him or not

The Witcher 3 has male and female deer. Never checked if they have balls.
Also since most games don't have it any game that had realistic balls and vags would attract furries, in turn causing normal players to stay the fuck away from the game.

That's pretty insulting to gorillas.

Go on and visit the boards real quick, you'll find they are very different.

Aw man you had a good thread going, now you made the bait too obvious.

Can't read IDs, newfag?

...

Yes op, I too wish for vidya with musky horsecocks, and gushing marepuss.

You've got it the wrong way around, art can never be video games.

What you are asking for is a ridiculously pointless way to show detail for the player.
Your example is about showing that a particular animal is dangerous because it's a male, correct?
Well, for one, most animals that are considered dangerous will be so regardless of danger. Lions may be more dangerous than lionesses, but these will still be enough of a danger that the distintion between both is sorta irrelevant.

And even if your intent was to indeed make the males far more dangerous than the females, who would instead run with their offsprint instead of attacking for instance, you could simply use far better signals like the lion's mane. Or simply make the males have a slightly bigger model than the female, which actually holds some ground in reality as well.

The advantage of obvious signals like these over genitals is that you don't have to be standing 1 meter from a lion to understand just how dangerous he\she actually is, plus it's far easier and more interesting anyway to draw and animate a mane than a dick.

OP is likely just shitposting or asking for a game that satisfies his fetish.
Regardless, autism is to be met with greater autism. The only way they stop this shit is if it stops being fun for them.

I don't think anyone is doing that mistake actually, check again.
It's just that one begets the other in videogame form since if you're gonna fuck an animal, it might as well be sentient, capable of speech and anthropomorphic enough that it reminds you of your mother.

...

So this…is the power…of furry autism.

Nope, it's like half the thread saying this shit.

There's nothing strictly wrong with what you're saying or anything wrong with a game having anatomically correct animals. No one is actually going to complain if a game models male horses to have male genitals. Folks just tend to get suspicious when you have a specific complaint about the absence of animal genitals, because realistically 90% of people with that specific complaint are disgusting zoophiles.

(furfag digits)
So much could be crammed under the label "furry" depending on who you ask that it's almost funny.

Oh yeah.

Try to visit >>>/zoocore/
Jim is not against the board despite it being against US law.

I see Slof is still up to his old tricks. Goddamn was he fucked up.

How is it different and what about it breaks US law?

If sharing videos of human beings being murdered isn't illegal (half of what's on Liveleak), then sharing videos of animals being abused shouldn't be, either. The laws against "crush" pornography is nothing more than inane kink-shaming on the part of a conservative politic that pretends as if putting the FBI in everyone's bedroom to make sure they aren't "sinning" isn't the perfect example of obtrusive "big government".

You mean sex. Animals and creatures do not have "gender" because gender is a human social phenomenon.