@CruFox  
Hmm… I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a game like that. Fair point, though, I suppose.
 
I still think it’s pretty easy to mistake this as saying, “Don’t make any cute, feminine female characters in your game. They all have to have the same style as the males.”
 
Furthermore, I think it really depends on the type of game doesn’t it? If you’re playing a fighting game with a big roster (think smash bros but if someone made new characters from scratch) or some kind of other game with a mixed and caricaturized art style in the first place, then I think that would still be okay, just as long as it wasn’t a pattern. Like, if a game has both real and unrealistic males, and real and unrealistic females, then I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It just means the game is kinda zany and far-out. I mean, by your own definition of what this meme is about, you’re kind of saying you’re against caricatures, which is fine, but then that just means the game isn’t for you in the first place because you’re someone who is putting realism above characterization and such.
 
I would certainly think it very tacky, uncouth, unflattering, and just downright beneath me if I were to play a game and all the female characters were cute, sexy, and unrealistic, and all the male characters weren’t.

@Anonymous #9A9C  
I think you misunderstood the point of this meme. It’s about games making female characters pretty and sexy just to appeal to their audience while sacrificing realism. If females look more like humanoids than animals but males are almost feral monsters it is just not really plausible given what we know about animals.

I like representation of different types I suppose. Like, it would be nice to have “masculine” or butch males and feminine males, Butch females and feminine females… And of course in-betweeners.
 

 
Isn’t egalitarianism about the freedom to recognize everyone as equals regardless of how they want to represent themselves? And aren’t video games better when they have a good variety of options?

@LightningBolt  
Yeah, you make a good point there. A better example might have been Fox and the Hound (specifically in regards to Tod and Vixie), but as far as I recall they didn’t divert that far from real fox designs in that film, either (even if they made their faces more expressive).

@Eragor14  
The lion king doesn’t invent a new way to sexually dimorphise lions. Lions already are to begin with.

@Philosofur  
Talk to the hand.  
Personally, I prefer greater distinctions between the sexes when it comes to animation, since it can make them easier to relate to. You see, you generally don’t relate to an animal in the same way you relate to a human because animals don’t emote in the same way humans do. But having them be more expressive in animation can make them a lot more interesting. Case in point, the Lion King.

It does get a bit ridiculous at times. I mean, no one is denying that sexual dimorphism is a thing, but there’s definitely a tendency to excessively exaggerate it in creatures where the real life difference between the sexes is a lot more subtle.

@Eragor14  
It was drawn and posted on Twitter in 2017.

“Seriously, it’s 2017 i expect better from everyone by now”
 
 
Um…it’s actually 2020 bro

Yeah, down with the inconsistencies!