Lurker > Piplup_Sniper

tremain07 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/ea1cdc35.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/460c3526.jpg
How can people look at these things and think "I wanna fuck it"?

In the case of the first one, I would say cuteness is a trait people find attractive. I already mentioned the eeveelutions in one of my posts and their cute design is what most likely drives them to that height even among the general public despite their bodyshape.

Revisited posted...

Lol why do you know this exists

But more importantly why is the ice cream pokemon not on that list the heck is people's priorities at

...

Wtf where is the mascot of pokemon, how is there raichu on there but not the very pikachu himself? Are they crazy?

I saw it on reddit. I think it was the stunkfist subreddit. I have a passing interest in this due to pokemon being the largest and most sexualized media franchise which is heavily driven by the Pokemon themselves. Also because when you look at the wider picture it's pretty unorthodox. The numbers are there, search bars put out the raw numbers and polls following Markiplier's crazy video also have their data in the open. An example of how unorthodox this is lies with the eeveelutions who are not only heavily sexualized but are also considered generally "smashable" in polls with sizeable number of participants. And these are polls aimed at the general public and streamers, not furries. To use Tsareena as the perfect example the eeveelutions, in particular Sylveon, Vaporeon, and Glaceon, outpace it or have pretty close scores while being far more sexualized. We are talking cutesy quadraped creatures outpacing a dominatrix plant-like humanoid which conventional wisdom would assume the opposite.

Dark_Arbron posted...

I remember after Zoroark was announced there was a picture of Lucario saying Welcome to the internet. I have a feeling were going to be seeing a lot of each other. Good luck. The expression of sheer realization on Zoroarks face was priceless.

Zoroark is really interesting because I would consider it the Pokemon that people in general find the most attractive after Lopunny if polls are any indication. It has very good consistency, often reaching top 5 status, and while Braixen and Delphox have better peaks those two keep switching positions. It's also one of the most sexualized Pokemon.

ellis123 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/df0f9d35.jpg

Funny thing, machamp isn't in the image but machoke did met the criteria.

Charged151 posted...

So is Gardevoir #1 or is it someone else?

It's Lucario.

ellis123 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/64f18577.jpg

Presumably that.

It starts to make a lot of sense when you realize it's furries who control the ebb and flow of that sphere. It's a big factor as to why Lycanroc outnumbers Tsareena by 4 times and why Tsareena didn't make the cut despite the reputation it carries. The only big surprise is the middle evolution of the sprigatito line not making it in.

Yes. I'm still a bigly fan even if I skipped 4 generations of games.

Mechu posted...

only 1000?

At minimum 1000. There's Pokemon who have over 15k pics.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e63cc6ca.jpg

The guy who compiled the chart above excluded not fully evolved pokemon who hit the criteria:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c05a1a21.jpg

Guns beat all

Gamespoht posted...

Pokemon

If Pokemon had gone with the route Takeshi Shudo wanted, sure. Shudo, the original head writer of the anime, saw Pokemon as a series about humanity vs nature, in his blog he describes the pokemon series as one about animal enslavement. This is in contrast to Tajiri's vision in which Pokemon is a fantastical idealized version of his own childhood with magical, friendly creatures that also make good pets and are dog-like in behavior. This is best seen in how in the novelization of the anime a wild female pikachu pities Ash's pikachu and sees him as a slave in a cage, by comparison Dr. Footstep in the games reveals that wild Pokemon are jealous of domesticated Pokemon.

The ending would've have involved Pokemon rebelling against their masters with Team Rocket acting as mediators.

From an interview with the late Masamitsu Hidaka, the first director of the pokemon anime:

The translator began to explain that the Japanese crew felt that Brock might be viewed as racist by the American people because of his eyes, and that they were even fearful of it when Pokemon first came to America. I asked if anyone ever complained, and he said no, but it was just that they were worried someone might eventually. So, they brought in a tall, white, Anglo-looking character to replace him, just to be on the safe side.

Source: https://www.pokebeach.com/2008/07/second-pokemon-interview-with-masamitsu-hidaka-many-interesting-points

This is also something the late Takeshi Shudo, the head writer of the original anime, also talked about:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e17a2590.jpg

Here's the fly section
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/7/6/AARO5TAAE_Qc.png

bioshockjack posted...

https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Animals_in_the_Pok%C3%A9mon_world

The Trivia section of this page mentions Takeshi Shud claiming that the real world animals were due to "the animation staff not paying enough attention." According to him, the idea was that real animals went extinct and eventually Pokemon took their place. The cited source for this leads to a 404 page, but based on the url it seems to have lead to an interview with Shud during the making of the third movie (the one with Entei).

It's not an interview, it's part of his blog which he mentions twice in a span of two years
via Google Translate and Deepl:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/2/4/AARO5TAAE3W8.png This is strengthen by the fact that he mentions he wanted to write an episode about a slowpoke being lazy and wanting to add flies as part of a gag but couldn't do that due to Pokemon having no equivalent of flies. He was the guy in charge of the original anime writing.

An animation error according to the late Takeshi Shudo.

We're about the same height.

Alteres posted...

Either that or furries really don't give a fuck if it's anthro or not.

I don't think this is all on furries since PokeSmash is aimed towards a more general crowd with just one quick look at the layout. If you go on YouTube and twitter a bunch of streamers were using that site so I think in general it reflects a more general attitude rather than one demographic. Markiplier video on smash or pass for Pokemon sits at 16 million views and inspired a bit of a craze over smash or pass for Pokemon which is why the site was created. Given the way the site works, the order is by Pokedex, and the fact that both Vulpix and Jigglypuff have low smash numbers while Ninetales sports one of the best smash precents, I think it says a bit about the attitudes towards Pokemon.

Also wanted to add that the developer of that website mentioned that he was getting huge amounts of traffic on the website.

ai123 posted...

I never understood the Vaporeon thing.

The others are blatant bait, but Vaporeon is a just weird dog/fish.

Oh boy, when it comes to Pokemon attraction people are a lil weird about it. I'll let this image speak for itself
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/5/2/AARO5TAAE3wY.jpg
This comes from PokeSmash, a website created from the aftermath of Markiplier pokemon video. There's other big polls with smaller sample sizes but the eeveelutions, in particular Vaporeon, Sylveon and Glaceon, are top tier scoring pokemon in that category, beating the majority of bipedal pokemon. There's only four pokemon that constantly score higher than any of the eeveelutions and that's Gardevoir, Lopunny, Zoroark and Braixen/Delphox who are the most consistent top placing pokemon. As to why, who really knows. My take is that people find cuteness attractive no matter if it walks on four legs.

ArsGoetia posted...

na i meant catgirls (ohmes raht) like the one i was shit talking lol
one of the most popular skyrim companion mods is one
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/7/4/AAfc_TAAE5l6.jpg

Don't ohmes raht lack cat ears and instead have elf ears? I think they're suppose to look like furry bosmers with tails.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/9/9/AARO5TAAE55D.jpg
lmao

ArsGoetia posted...

such as? and how do they contrast w/ say breath of fire, as was mentioned ITT?

Do you have an example of a character that you consider to be a "silly character design"?

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

The non-human characters are the worst in most JRPGs.

In what way?

bump

harley2280 posted...

Which is stupid because as the poster you replied to demonstrated those types of characters have always been around.

The point of the tweet isn't that they weren't around but more the fact that they're becoming more rare in favor of human and cosplay tier designs.

PowerOats posted...

Chrono Trigger's Frog?

FF7's Red XIII and Cait Sith?

Pokemon's Everything?

I'm sure they're talking about modern jrpgs.

https://twitter.com/bwillettcomics/status/1708867231340535861

I feel in Lola's case she transcents into more general appeal. I don't think any other character, like say that one bunny from zootopia, would've gotten the response Lola did over her redesign over social media.

Now thinking about your original question I think I can give some insight.

You already gave a good answer in your original post. Cute and simple designs go a long way, it's a big factor as to why anime style is so popular, and Pokmon is king of cute creature design. One of the more unique aspects when it comes to Pokemon sexualization is the prevalence of quadraped designs.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/5/2/AARO5TAAE3wY.jpg
The eeveelutions are a prime example of this as Glaceon, Sylveon, Espeon and Umbreon score fairly high in polls like these with a noticeable sample size, even outperforming pokemon like Tsareena both in "smashability" and how much NSFW is produced, and in this merit it's by a very sizeable amount, without having big memes around them. I think given the way Pokemon are conceptualized the stigma over quadraped designs is a lot less severe especially given their cute designs. The vaporeon meme being so widespread might go beyond meme reasons based off these results.

Another aspect is what I touched up on the rowan post and that is the master aspect. In the series this relationship is contextualize as one of pet and owner but in the context you ask of it's sexual in nature which given the dynamic of a Trainer and Pokemon relationship is it might not sit right with some but might with others.

Third, and I think this might be one of the biggest factors, is furries. Pokemon is a series that is heavily entrenched in Furry culture. The furry fandom is very much an art focused community with a sizeable NSFW presence. Take for example Renamon from Digimon that has over 20k tagged nsfw pictures in comparison to Angewomon measly 800. That one list of most sexualized characters had Sonic characters, Pokemon and Renamon in the top 5 only being beaten by Tifa from Final Fantasy. But as I said Pokemon attraction is heavily tied to the furry identity so much that there's music videos talking about it in the millions:
https://youtu.be/CVqsQ-9GLLE?si=AGlZDLKcPAOJlcNI
https://youtu.be/4YSVyA_CgKA?si=eP0KoBjsblwvz2A0
The lyrics of that song make use of words like "yiff", the title of the song itself, the cameo from Ankha and Renamon and the crowd has a furry in it on top of the song being all about banging Pokemon. The furry community is the biggest driving force behind the sexualization of Pokemon.

Here's some translation from DeepL from Shudo's blog if anyone is curious on what Shudo said:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/2/4/AARO5TAAE3W8.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/2/5/AARO5TAAE3W9.png

FortuneCookie posted...

There has been official artwork of normal animals alongside Pokmon. Cats and fish, things like that.

Somebody posted a bunch of them recently. I can't remember who or else I'd @ them.

Most of those depictions are from the anime and they pretty much disappear as the series went on. Compare the appearance from the original anime and notice the big decrease over time:
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Animals_in_the_Pok%C3%A9mon_world

Takeshi Shudo actually wrote about this at least twice in his blog, mentioning that it was a mistake on the artist's part when it came to those depictions found in the anime. According to Shudo real world animals don't exist in the Pokemon world because Pokemon take on that role. Similarly the Pokemon Company in the leaked 2013 guide pretty much said the same:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/4/6/AARO5TAADSUG.jpg

We have to consider that there was less control back than over the Pokemon series. Given that Takeshi Shudo was in charge of the writing he would've been perfectly aware on their status.

BloodMoon7 posted...

In Gen 4, there's a book that suggested there were unions between humans and Pokmon and the two were considered equals. I don't think it specifies they had children but it does imply they lived as family units.

It's also part of the canon that people eat Pokmon though. That book is just one of the region's myths anyway.

Various Pokedex entries have described that people do eat Pokemon. However it's something they don't want to bring attention to. The late Takeshi Shudo, the man in charge of writing the original anime, wrote in his blog that it wasn't something they were allowed to show so domestic Pokemon ate berries and Pokemon food, the thing that looks like dog food, wild Pokemon only ate berries and humans weren't suppose to eat meat products. The leaked product guide from 2013 mentions that it's not something they show too. So it's there but it isn't something they bring to the forefront, when asked about it Masuda implied it's not real meat or something like that.

The other thing is pretty much a folk tale that's only been referred once and has no context behind it. I don't think it's anything serious and would only bring up more questions like the shift in attitudes from that to Pokemon being essentially pets for humans.

FortuneCookie posted...

They were originally going to whip Pokmon?

Was Mario actually punching Yoshi in Super Mario World? I always thought he was pointing forward, signaling for Yoshi to stick his tongue out and eat enemies, but the graphics were defined enough. Now I'm starting to think that he is literally punching the poor Yo'ster.

<_<

The original concept of Pokemon, Capsule Monsters, was more in-line with a traditional RPG and the Pokemon themselves were more like traditional monsters and the player would've fought too. The context of the picture I posted from Tajiri's biography was about Tajiri not approving of the way Sugimori was drawing the Pokemon world, and given the context it's possible he was drawing Pokemon acting aggressive. This is around where Pokemon as these friendly, magical pets starts to develop which is further corroborated by the statement from that one book from the GameFreak developer, Tajiri's own book he published in the 90s and a section on Pokemon from Pokedex from the late 90s which describes Pokemon as friends to humans like cats and dogs. So the player character went from monster tamer to pet owner in a way.

cjsdowg posted...

Time out, Pokmon are as smart as humans. That is horrifying. So humans make these animals with the brain capability of humans fight. They keep them as slaves, then when they don't want to use them. They put there soul into computer in place of letting them go.

That is fucked up.

Pokemon aren't forced to fight, they like fighting and to them it's more like a play thing. In the anime, for example, Pokemon just get up like nothing happened after battles.

They're also not kept as slaves, they're pets. From Tajiri's 2019 manga biography:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/3/8/AARO5TAAE3UC.jpg
From a book written by a GameFreak employee:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/3/9/AARO5TAAE3UD.jpg

If you pay attention to the way the series works this is anything but subtle. The anime is pretty open with the idea of pokemon being pets, for example:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/4/0/AARO5TAAE3UE.png

Here you have a variety of different pokemon eating the same way cats and dogs do in the real world.

This isn't any more slave like than Snoopy or Courage the Cowardly Dog, two highly intelligent dogs that are still their owner's pet. In fact Pokemon are alright with this as they can easily escape and the series has dealt with pokemon that were abandoned by their owners instead:
https://youtu.be/iM4UrcNUvaM?feature=shared

This all plays with what I've said in my previous post and as to why people have issues with Pokemon sexualization because it's essentially sexualizing a creature that's a pet, and this is even more potent giving the way pokemon behave.

the_rowan posted...

A lot of the designs are just really appealing for the same reasons other furry stuff is appealing. I don't give a shit about Pokemon in general, but I absolutely love how Decidueye, Talonflame, Corviknight, Noivern, etc. look when artists draw them.

What I do absolutely hate is the creepy-as-fuck thing in the porn where every Pokemon calls the person they're banging "master" as if they're a will-less sex slave. I don't care if you make a character use a feral body as long as they're a fully sapient and equal being, but if you add in the whole Pokemon "trainer = master" thing, it doesn't matter how humanoid or animalistic they are, it's just creepy to me.

That's the thing, the usage of master is correct. There is pokedex entry refers to the trainer as a "master":
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/8/9/AARO5TAAE3TR.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/0/AARO5TAAE3TS.jpg
The talking Lucario in the 8th movie also referred to it's trainer as it's master too.

Fundamentally the relationship between Pokemon and Trainer is that of a pet and owner which goes back to Tajiri's conception of Pokemon as being innocent and friends to humans like pets, or more specifically cats and dogs. This is something he put emphasis in his 2019 biography and something he talked about in the 90s in a book he wrote. GameFreak wrote the same in the 1990s Japan only Pokedex and a GameFreak employeewho wrote a book on game design mentioned how they started to conceptualize Pokemon Trainers as being more like pet owners.

In the games and anime Pokemon behave and are treated as pets, from the food they eat, they eat dog food off the floor in the anime, to their dog and cat like behaviors in the games, like chewing on grass, barking and having zoomies, to the activities the player has with them, like playing fetch. A big part of the issue comes from this, Pokemon are conceptualized as being pet-like animal-like creatures, which has been admitted by the people who run and worked on the series, so it's natural that in those scenarios you describe those types of terms are used because they're apt based off the series. The problem comes with trying to use them in sexual context which comes off as creepy and manipulative.

PraetorXyn posted...

Ive never understood the appeal of Pokmon. Shin Megami Tensei came way earlier, and you recruit demons, evolve some of them, and fuse them together to make bigger badder demons, then you make them fight for you.

Pokmon is the same thing but with dorky baby monsters instead of cool demons.

I recommend reading Satoshi Tajiri's biography on the conception of Pokemon. But that's the thing about Pokemon, it's a friendly series, and it also feels familiar. As the concept of Pokemon grew from the concept of Capsule Monsters, basically a more standard RPG experience, Sathoshi Tajiri drew more from his childhood. Pokemon at it's core is a fantastical version of Tajiri's childhood which he spent at a nearby forest capturing and studying bugs, and other animals, which has mass appeal. It's about exploring nature and interacting with nature with your cool, magical pet. Tajiri also became obsessed with the idea of Pokemon as friendly creatures that are like cats and dogs, both in the 2019 biography and in works he published in the 1990s he was comparing Pokemon as creatures that are friends to humans like cats and dogs in the real world, on top of that Pokemon designs aim to be approachable and friendly which is another aspect he became obsessed with and it payed off seeing as the lion's share of Pokemon's profit come from kids buying plushies and other merchandise.

Another big push came with the original anime with Takeshi Shudo at it's helm. The anime was instrumental in pushing the Pokemon franchise, so much that GameFreak made Pokemon Yellow to more closely follow the anime. To this I also recommend reading the blog of the late Takeshi Shudo if you want a break down on the mechanizations of the original anime.

I think I have some old pokemon stuff lying around in the garage.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/6/2/AARO5TAAEyfC.jpg

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The guide isn't very old, it's from 2013 and many other unleaked product guides have been made for each generations. It was written up by TPC, you know the guys that control every facet of the franchise, and serves as a guide to educate, meaning this are statements directly from them, and set down rules as how they want 3rd parties to handle their franchise. The film makers of detective pikachu worked directly with them, and they mention they were very strict on how pokemon should be portrayed.

I also draw from earlier sources from the 90s and Takeshi Shudo's blog to show it's something that's been planned since the infancy of this series. If you want a recent source there's also Tajiri's biography released in 2018 but was only fully translated this year which gives additional context to my points from the mouth of the man behind this franchise. I don't think I'm wrong to provide context on why pokemon works the way it does especially since last gen they released new pokemon snap which treats pokemon as magical wild life and the whole game as a safari tour. Even this gen they decided to make pokemon act like domesticated pets with their actions, it's all a very deliberate image which is openly admitted by the same people who run this series.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Those guides are product guides for 3rd parties. Basically the Pokemon company introducing the franchise and setting down guidelines to follow in order for their product to get approved. I think it's quiet telling that they have a specific section about that plus the language used.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

and here we go. things are still referred to as "cat" or "dog" pokemon, and the fact that they're called "pokemon" and not "animals" is a dead give away, but sure.

Cats and dogs exist as a concept in the pokemonuniverse but instead of real dogs it's pokemon like boltund and such. The existence of those labels doesn't mean that real dogs and cats exist in universe but rather that in-universe those labels exist to describe certain pokemon.

And while they don't use the term "animal" it's pretty clear that pokemon occupy that function given their status in-universe and even to how people treat them which is why Shudo spoke of pokemon as animals and how they decided to conceptualize them. The guide even says as much because they straight up say that Pokemon replace real animals. I find the usage of the term "real animal" interesting here. To put in perspective it's like encounting alien life and they have animal life much different than earth's but they occupy the same function as life here.

They never existed. Reading various early sources make this pretty apparent with The Pokemon Company even going as far as saying that Pokemon replace real animals.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/3/1/AARO5TAAEwq7.jpg

Early on the control over the franchise wasn't as strong as it is today. The late Takeshi Shudo, original headwriter of the anime, mentions that any apperance of any real life animal was a mistake from the animation team. Instead Shudo introduces Pokemon as a group of animals made up of various creatures including plant-like, mineral-like, and object-like creatures. In his blog he states that the anime staff decided to conceptualize the relationship between humans and pokemon as that of people and real animals which made up the framework of Shudo's nature vs humanity concept he has for the series. We even see glimpses of this in Satoshi Tajiri's biography where he not only thinks of Pokemon as pets in the vain of cats and dogs but he also thinks of them in animal terms. The series draws on Tajiri's exploration of nature and interaction with animals which is projected unto the pokemon thus, just as the guide says, take on that role and real animals have no reason to exist.

I think it helps to think of Pokemon as occupying the space of dogs. Their own creator in his own biography became obsessed with the idea of Pokemon as pets in the vain of cats and dogs, so much that in his biography he imagines pokemon battles as two dog owners allowing their dogs to duke it out.

This is a philosophy found even in the earliest of sources from the 90s such as the Japan only Pokedex which has a section stating that "Pokemon are friends to humans just like cats and dogs", which is a statement directly from GameFreak. A staff member from GameFreak wrote on a book how the staff started to see Pokemon trainers as being closer to pet owners than monster tamers. Indeed in the games the behavior of Pokemon and the way you interact with them mirror that of real world cats and dogs. It's a thing in the lore that wild Pokemon are actually jealous of domesticated pokemon and Legends of Arceus shows that Pokemon are naturally inclined to be close to humans just as dogs and even in universe pokemon don't actually hurt themselves during battle but only become tired as seen in the anime.

I think in this context it starts to make a little more sense. Of course not everyone thinks Satoshi Tajiri's vision of exploring nature with your magical pet and capturing other magical pets is perfect. Takeshi Shudo, the original headwriter of the anime, had quiet a take on Pokemon, in his blog he calls Pokemon a series about animal enslavement and he didn't see eye to eye with the whole battle aspect. He conceptualized that aspect as humanity vs nature, and in the novelization of the anime, which should be seen as fan fiction, there's a part where Ash's pikachu is viewed with disgust by a wild female Pikachu for being a slave in a cage.

Karovorak posted...

My take:

If it has smooth skin on the thights and other areas, and no fur there, I'm fine. So I would not even classify the semi-furry from the image above as semi, but already full-furry.

Extra fluffy ears or tails are literally extras, and not taking away the stuff that arouses me.

Yeah I always found that chart strange because the semi image is very much not semi by any standards.

From my own observations into various subcultures dealing with anthropomorphic characters the point of contention is the face of these characters. Generally if they retain a pretty human-like face, as in a human jaw and nose, people will argue that it doesn't count as furry even if a character is covered head to toe in fur, like the Thundercats, or has inhuman body plans such as harpies, centaurs and lamias.

If a character has an animal nose it start
to reach the borderline and if it has a muzzle of some sort it already passed it hence why Disney dogfaces like Roxanne from A Goofy Movie count despite their only trait being having a dog nose and snout but no tail and human ears.

Solar_Crimson posted...

The original writer for the anime, Takeshi Shudo, wanted to make a show enjoyable for both kids and adults, but as the brand became more and more popular, he was forced to go in a more formulaic approach to appeal almost-exclusively to children and eventually quit the show during the Johto arc.

Takeshi Shudo did have some interesting takes on the Pokemon world. In his blog he mentions that both adults and children should get sense of nostalgia from the show. His outlook on the pokemon world, which is shown in the novelization of the anime, and one that he admits is more or less his own fanfiction, is interesting especially when compared to Tajiri's vision of an idealized world where children explore nature with their magical pets.

The movie stayed pretty true to the original designs.

bump

dancing_cactuar posted...

This chart looks like something pulled outta someone's asshole, so much stuff seems too high while other things not high enough from what I've encountered.

It comes from one of the biggest rule 34 archives on the net, that website uses bots to scrap pictures from other sites. I omitted parts of the pic because it names the website and it would get this thread deleted.

LinkDaLunatic posted...

this list makes me sick. judy hopps and fucking lopunny but no lola bunny? what the shit
i'm only furry for one character and she's not even on the list but two of her direct inferiors are????
internet. we need to talk.

I'd wager Lola Bunny has more mass appeal than furry appeal if that makes sense. Furries are more inclined to draw Pokemon and Judy Hoops over Lola but Lola has a much wider cast of appeal than both that extends past furries.

I4NRulez posted...

I saw this yesterday and was talking to my friend about how there's way too many pokemon on that list

Pokemon has the advantage of being massively popular and furries, notice how Renamon is in the top 6 despite coming from a much less popular franchise.

https://imgur.com/a/qdZ185D

Crazy how MLP still manages to be this strong in that front, bronies really did something alright.

VampireCoyote posted...

Pokemon is based on games a lot of kids in poor countries play where they just capture insects and make them fight each other

more dangerous insects are rarer and more valuable, not as easy to catch in the wild

Satoshi Tajiri never mentions bug fighting as an inspiration despite being aware of it. It's more like a combination of bug catching and dog fighting.