completely respectable and understandable position to hold!
...indigo park is 100% a furry game tho. like if we're being real. (something like poppy playtime tho, probably not.)
Viewing post in Feralpals is NOT a FURRY game :) comments
I think you are correct. However, I think in the case of that game, the connection to the "Furry" aesthetic is so strong that it supercedes any strict intention. If you took out Rambley tho, I wouldn't call it a furry game.
As for your game, that same "furry aesthetic" isn't quiiite as strong. So I would say you're mostly in the clear there.
Well now I'm curious haha - What makes you say that? From an outside perspective, at least for me, Furry was one of my first thoughts when I saw this game but I don't recall ever thinking that in any way when playing Indigo Park. Not that any of this matters to me as far as being an interesting game or not, just wondering. 😅
It's a simple test that proves it I think. Consider something like FNAF, a series that was not intended to be a "Furry" series but nonetheless holds a lot of sway in the furry community. If you look at some furry art of FNAF, you'll notice that quite a lot (if not most) of the character art uses heavily interpolated designs. Something like making Freddy and Bonnie more traditionally attractive so they can kiss, or whatever (no shade to artists drawing that btw, just how it is).
But anyways, if you look at Rambley from Indigo Park... fanart of him is usually 1:1. His design required no modifications to be taken into the furry community, it was basically already perfect.
That's basically how I'm considering this. "How much would a furry need to modify the base material in order for it to suit their aesthetic/interest?" It's not a binary "Furry or not Furry" so much as it's a sliding scale. In that sense, I'd place Indigo Park vaguely on the Furry end and this game vaguely on the Not Furry end.
Also, I like your YouTube channel. :p