http://store.steampowered.com/app/475490/

Never gotten around to actually buying it, because I don't know if I want to spend the full price for it.

It's an Adventure, Indie, RPG, Survival Horror, Simulation, game, where you choose what you say and where your choices matter etc.

Have any of you guys bought it? - I would love some opinions to help me decide whether to buy at full it or not.

Edit: So it seems people are misunderstanding on what I was asking.
I was asking for. I was also asking info on what other proper Furry games have you seen played before? (Along those lines anyways. I was trying to make this thread be a topic on proper Furry games, but it turned out to be a "Flame the Dev, and this is a money thievery".

FurryLover001 said:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/475490/

Never gotten around to actually buying it, because I don't know if I want to spend the full price for it.

It's an Adventure, Indie, RPG, Survival Horror, Simulation, game, where you choose what you say and where your choices matter etc.

Have any of you guys bought it? - I would love some opinions to help me decide whether to buy at full it or not.

I was never a big fan of roleplaying games so I have no idea about this one. Took the time to read the reviews and it was actually mixed between good and bad, which is kinda hard to judge. I believe this is not worth playing, but it's up to you for deciding whether it's good or not. Don't expect the best from it. The visuals are great though.

Developer deliberately censors negative reviews.

Game was taken out of Early Access while several art assets were still missing from the game, and then the game price was increased after release. Then a second copy of the game was put onto Greenlight, and then released with a price that was DOUBLED from the already increased price.

This second version of the game was released under the pretense of it being a "complete edition", but the move was made to give it a new store entry and to wipe the reviews that were previously made for the game. This is despite Steamworks devs having the ability to push updates to a game without a second store entry for the same game.

Dude also uses various copyrighted works with credit not given, including at least one background literally just taken from Google Image Search.

Mick's intellectual property, the Sergal species, was used without Klace having read the license provided for those wishing to use the species for commercial purposes. Rather than pay up a measly 5% cut of his own profits, he elected to remove the character entirely. Another character was removed from the game, and then Klace started to sell prints of that character.

So, yeah, avoid.

Stay away

dont fucking buy it, the developer is a piece of trash.

It's BADE. The whole onion if you want it https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XXhFSC0yMqvU3zXXqjwOfAayAuxVLsOTk-OaUs0JzHk/edit
Didn't write it, but it explains why I don't like it and never will try it. Maybe I would have tried it if it were not for the reasons in the document. :v

If you guys want a decent game with furry characters, I recommend Fox n Forests. It's currently in development but they have a playable prototype demo out to try.

As a game developer myself, man the developer's such a scum.

As others said.

I'd suggest waiting for Night in the Woods. Judging by the quality of writing and music in their other projects, it might turn out well. I'm getting some Undertale-vibes from it.

Developer is a scumfuck of the highest calibre

One thing bothering me is usage of two seperate steam appids for the exactly same game like @Jackalfag said earlier.

Only reasons for this I can think of are pretty much negative for end user. Seperate trading cards as two sets means twice amount of money from those as well as artificially raising price of original appids cards to get even more money. Then completely clean reviews as all the original complains of the games suddenly vanish unless user takes time to resubmit their review. Front page space on steam and some other sites, even some of my friends going "why do I see pair of fox boobs on steam right now?"

Also raising the price while disabling demo you have up and available.

Pendraggon said:
dont fucking buy it, the developer is a piece of trash.

Cactus said:
Developer is a scumfuck of the highest calibre

This is the reason I wouldn't count at all if thinking about buying something. Unless they were literally killing puppies and monetized it with money of the product, I don't see reason to judge the actual product trough its maker.

Prime example I usually raise is FEZ. Phil Fish did get tons of shit, there was tons of gossips and I didn't agree with some of the things guy said, but I still bought the game and it was really good experience.

Also if the game is actually trash, masking it being trash because maker is trash just makes me more curious about the game itself.

Mario69 said:
This is the reason I wouldn't count at all if thinking about buying something. Unless they were literally killing puppies and monetized it with money of the product, I don't see reason to judge the actual product trough its maker.

Prime example I usually raise is FEZ. Phil Fish did get tons of shit, there was tons of gossips and I didn't agree with some of the things guy said, but I still bought the game and it was really good experience.

Also if the game is actually trash, masking it being trash because maker is trash just makes me more curious about the game itself.

Thing about the FEZ comparison, though? I actually managed to grab it off the Humble Bundle, but I set his cut to $0.00 and gave it to one of the charities instead. Sure, game might've been an okay experience (my own copy softlocked once and outright crashed a second time, wasn't willing to put up with more of that), but getting a legitimate copy of the game without actually giving Fish a cent was the absolute best way to experience it without rewarding Fish for it.

It's more like "don't give him your money", not "he's a twatwaffle and everything he touches turns into absolute shit". Not that Major/Minor was all that great in the first place.

Jackalfag said:
{...}

Mick's intellectual property, {...}

just going to say that intellectual property is a vague term. you may be referring directly to "copyright". it's pedantic, i know, but the words you use matter when talking about the law.

i don't care much about the drama so long as the game ends up not being bad - as a bad game is bad forever, and the circumstances surrounding the game becomes faded over time. but given that the creator didn't take a stand against such copyrights, it seems to me they don't have the competence to make a good game.

^ a lot of people refer to copyright in this kind of context, but is copyright really about the design of something (beyond a very literal sense)?

With my modest understanding of law, I had the impression that copyright could apply to a particular image of a sergal, not to 'sergals in general', and that trademarks could apply to a more generalized character design (if used in a promotional/trade context), but still not the species per se.

IOW Mick may have thought up sergals, but copyright isn't designed to protect ideas but expressions of ideas. In fact, considering sergals as Mick's "Intellectual Property" seems like it may be equally nonsensical as the practice of software patents[1].

[1] Which if you don't know, is nonsensical because patent law considers mathematics as specifically unpatentable. Software patents only exist because the relevant people don't get that software is exactly and only math. Hopefully the thrust of my argument (that 'species' is similarly too general/universal to deserve legal protection, and AFAICS it actually isn't legally protected) is apparent.

It would be interesting if someone with legal training could comment on this and similar situations (eg fakemon - technically prosecutable under copyright law, trademark law, neither?)

savageorange said:
^ a lot of people refer to copyright in this kind of context, but is copyright really about the design of something (beyond a very literal sense)?

With my modest understanding of law, I had the impression that copyright could apply to a particular image of a sergal, not to 'sergals in general', and that trademarks could apply to a more generalized character design (if used in a promotional/trade context), but still not the species per se.

IOW Mick may have thought up sergals, but copyright isn't designed to protect ideas but expressions of ideas. In fact, considering sergals as Mick's "Intellectual Property" seems like it may be equally nonsensical as the practice of software patents[1].

[1] Which if you don't know, is nonsensical because patent law considers mathematics as specifically unpatentable. Software patents only exist because the relevant people don't get that software is exactly and only math. Hopefully the thrust of my argument (that 'species' is similarly too general/universal to deserve legal protection, and AFAICS it actually isn't legally protected) is apparent.

It would be interesting if someone with legal training could comment on this and similar situations (eg fakemon - technically prosecutable under copyright law, trademark law, neither?)

A species can't be copyrighted, as such its complete and utter nonsense how people treat "closed" species in general and sergal in particular. AFAIK the only problem arises if your creation is deliberately close enough to cause confusion and is used to damage the reputation/creations of another.

Code also isn't just mathematic formulas, because you have bits and pieces that don't do calculations and are only used in said calculations. Otherwise you could make the argument that placing the text of a book inside the text output of a hello world program would circumvent copyright because it's just a simple mathematical formula.

NotMeNotYou said:
A species can't be copyrighted, as such its complete and utter nonsense how people treat "closed" species in general and sergal in particular. AFAIK the only problem arises if your creation is deliberately close enough to cause confusion and is used to damage the reputation/creations of another.

So the question is, who exactly was the "Sergal" character? Were they mentioned as being a Sergal?

I just know that as soon as I read the plot synopsis, it was not a game worth playing.

For those who haven't seen it or read it, the plot, as described, was shamelessly Persona 4.

NotMeNotYou said:
A species can't be copyrighted, as such its complete and utter nonsense how people treat "closed" species in general and sergal in particular. AFAIK the only problem arises if your creation is deliberately close enough to cause confusion and is used to damage the reputation/creations of another.

Code also isn't just mathematic formulas, because you have bits and pieces that don't do calculations and are only used in said calculations.

That's just breaking the math into subsections, not making it non-math. Pretty normal, see for example the use of f in this formula

Otherwise you could make the argument that placing the text of a book inside the text output of a hello world program would circumvent copyright because it's just a simple mathematical formula.

You're confusing patent law and copyright law.
No program should be patentable, since it is wholly abstract / mathematical (same thing). Programs certainly can infringe copyright. These two don't interact, because patent law doesn't need to specifically enforce copyright law -- it has copyright law to take care of that for it.

(ie. math is perfectly able to infringe copyright)

MT_r34 said:
If you guys want a decent game with furry characters, I recommend Fox n Forests. It's currently in development but they have a playable prototype demo out to try.

As a game developer myself, man the developer's such a scum.

sigh... I was on steam I saw the "new game" I bought it, I played it and I liked it. It was the first visual story type game I ever played and it was pretty relaxing, all I had to do was read, oh and make the occasional life or death choice. It's kind of a lame excuse but I was just having fun and not thinking. That being said, I had no idea this other stuff is going on in the background. That one point about the Dev not crediting an artist,not cool, I regret my enjoyment. Does this make me a bad person?