Half-Life 2 mod replaces Alyx with Krystal from Star Fox and it's the original actor.

[neatoman]

https://www.pcgamer.com/star-fox-actor-comes-out-of-retirement-for-a-half-life-2-mod-that-replaces-alyx-with-a-sexy-blue-fox/

In case you're wondering, this mod does not replace all the characters with Star Fox characters, it is not an overhaul to recreate SFA in the Source engine, it does not add any weapons from the Star Fox games and I don't think it adds anything else at all. All this mod does is replace Alyx with Krystal from Star Fox, it's not even a very good model and it doesn't mesh well with the art style of the game, it's only noteworthy because the original actress reprised her role and I'm assuming that's why PC Gamer bothered to write an article about it. And the only reason I started this thread about it is because I think it's too bizarre not to bring to anyone's attention. I don't know, I guess it's compatible with other mods in case you want to play a version of Half-Life 2 that is totally bananas? Otherwise... I'm guessing the appeal is for people who felt Half-life 2 was really good but the one element it desperately needed was a blue alien fox?

... Did you know that Krystal's last official appearance outside of Smash was in 2006?...

rrgfncP_tlM
cc2I1UehLa8

[Leo656]

More Krystal in anything and everything can only be a good thing.

[Sumac]

As much as I consider furries mentally ill people, who should see doctors, I must admit, they certainly do have devotion.

[Prowler]

As much as I consider furries mentally ill people, who should see doctors, I must admit, they certainly do have devotion.

I, too, don't understand furries at all. I know they're not actually sexually attracted to real life animals and just to fictional ones, but it's still odd.

I mean, they're harmless and all, but I don't really get it.

[neatoman]

My problem with this isn't that it's made by furries, I'm just confused why they decided to mod Krystal into Half-Life 2 of all things. Alyx isn't even that much of a presence in the main game, the parts shown in the videos is pretty much all she does until the prison section. Most of the game can be described as "Valve presents Post-Apocalyptic Vehicle and Physics Puzzle simulator starring Gordon Freeman", she is in most of the expansions though.

Surely there must be some game that makes more sense to mod Krystal into, right? Ratchet and Clank maybe? Sonic the Hedgehog? Crash Bandicoot? It's not exactly that difficult to think of examples where she wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb.

[DarkFell]

The person (or people) that created the mod are simply flexing their creative muscle. Modded games and characters have been around for a quite a while.

[Sumac]

I, too, don't understand furries at all. I know they're not actually sexually attracted to real life animals and just to fictional ones, but it's still odd.

I mean, they're harmless and all, but I don't really get it.
I feel like zoophelia plays a part in this, but mostly its just some weird infantilism.

[Leo656]

I like butts and I like boobs. Lots of cartoon characters have 'em in spades. Some of them have "extra accessories" like a tail or whatever, but I can't get too hung up on that. Butts and Boobs. If they're drawn well, that's swell, I'm into it.

What confuses me isn't the people who look at "furry" art and get worked up about it specifically; I do think that on some level once you're open to the idea of fapping to a cartoon character, the rest is just splitting hairs. Maybe that's an oversimplification but it's how I've always looked at it.

No, what I don't get are people who make it a Lifestyle. I mean, I'm not mad at 'em, but... the whole deal with making the costumes, going to conventions, all that... that's like Actual Work, man, and it just seems like a very extreme way to show enthusiasm for f*ckable cartoons.

BUT, then again, on some level I suppose someone could easily turn my own logic back on me and say, "Well, people go to conventions wearing elaborate Superman or Wolverine costumes, too, so once you're okay with that then the rest is just splitting hairs, same as your earlier analogy about fapping to cartoons; One is as good as The Other." And okay, fair point I guess, but I need to also point out that part of me is just as bewildered by the time, money and effort that people who do "regular" cosplay put into their hobby as well. Again, ain't mad at 'em, but I find ALL of it a bit overwhelming just because whether the person is dressed up like Krystal or Jubilee, in my head I'm thinking of all the investment into it and thinking, "Jeez... that's a lot, right there." Like it's not something I, myself, could ever fathom.

A friend of mine once said to me, "I wish there was a separate term for people who just like 'sexy' cartoon characters even if they're anthros, and people who actually make the whole 'furry' thing a lifestyle." And I totally get what they meant because I'm the same way. I don't think looking at cartoon porn is that weird, it's not like the person is hurting anyone or letting it take over their life. But once you're spending an exorbitant sum on expressing your enthusiasm for this particular kink, I do kinda side-eye that just a little.

But then again, at that point to me it's not that much different from a person who spends thousands of dollars looking at "regular" porn; like, "This is extreme behavior regardless, the specifics are secondary to the fact that this is now a bit compulsive."

But no, on the whole those people don't bother me. I noticed as kids it was a thing most people I knew went through - tons of the boys had crushes on like Cleo from Heathcliff or Gadget from Rescue Rangers, and all the girls had "their" Ninja Turtle for example - and then some kids grew out of it and now they think that stuff is "weird" or "gross", and then others simply never grew out of it at all and so to them it's no different from any other kink.

I don't buy the whole "zoophilia" angle though. Going by how much furry porn the internet contains, and how poor most peoples' impulse control is, there'd be millions of people getting busted constantly for f*cking dogs and horses or whatever, and then in turn while they were being investigated their browser history or hard drive or whatever would be full of anthro art. If that happened a lot, I'd say maybe there was something to that theory. But it happens so rarely, or at least only gets reported in the news so rarely, I have to kinda call that one bunk. There's just no proven link, just assumptions.

Y'know what I DO read about a lot in the news, though (by "a lot" I mean I see it once or twice a year in my feed), is women who work at the vet or animal shelter who get caught f*cking dogs in their care. Every time it happens, the article makes it a point to mention, "This happens more often than people might think", and will cite other cases.

And yet, we don't automatically assume, "Well, if a woman works at the vet's office she must be getting it on with the dogs," because we know that's kind of a leap. BUT, it apparently happens a decent amount of time, so we COULD just make that assumption if we wanted to. Just like we could assume, "Well, SOME priests molest kids so by extension they ALL do."

It's just weird how with stuff like that, even when confronted with factual data that says "Yes, this happens A LOT," we say, "Well, you can't generalize, that's not fair."

But with other stuff, in this case a specific kink or fetish that isn't to everyone's taste, it makes perfect sense to just say, "Ah, yeah, the guy said he faps to that Star Fox chick, so clearly he f*cks animals," even though statistically we've got very little evidence to say that even as an assumption. It's just projection, objectively.

I mean, I'm admittedly kind of a Libertine about stuff like this, anyway. :lol: I just can't help but note the double standards at play, is all. I know people WANT the whole "Furries are Zoophiles" theory to be true, I simply don't think it is. I'm sure it has in fact happened but I don't think it's happened enough, at least that we know of, to make it fair game to jump to those kinds of conclusions.

Most of the "hardcore" ones I know just fap to cartoons. To my knowledge I've never even spoken to one who ever did the convention deal. Of course, I don't KNOW what they get up to in their private time. :lol: But I can say I know a lot of people who will admit (privately or otherwise) that they have at least one "furry" chick on their list and I've never heard of any of them ever getting into any impropriety with an actual animal in real life. So there's that.

Like, if someone told me their kink was Hardcore Rape Porn, I'd honestly think THAT was a bit weirder than furry porn. I wouldn't say so out loud because I try not to kink-shame people, at least not to their face, but yeah, I'm more comfortable hanging out with the guy who just thinks Krystal's got nice tits versus the guy who jerks off to women getting choked and spit on. But that's me, y'know? ((Shrug))

[Sumac]

Furry detected?
Furry detected.
:ohwell:

[Prowler]

Yeah the ones who make elaborate costumes and attend conventions together... I find that a little strange. Before anyone mentions cosplaying as Batman being the same thing, well if I see a guy dressed as Batman I don't assume he wants to **** him. And even if he did, that certainly is more normal than wanting to **** Fox McCloud :lol:

Anyway, who cares if some dudes want to **** Lola Bunny from Space Jam.

People who are actually attracted to real life animals are just weird, though. They probably have some sort of mental illness that needs to be checked.

[Sumac]

Cosplay is a one thing, dude or dudette wanting to dress as a creepy cartoon animals is just weird. Its hard to see it as attractive or just interesting.

[Leo656]

Furry detected?
Furry detected.
:ohwell:

:lol: I wouldn't go that far but then I'm not a big fan of labels. :trazz:

[TigerClaw]

Some people are attracted to fictional anthropomorphic characters, Because they probably find other humans unappealing.

a lot of the furries identify themselves as either Hetero or LGBTA+

[Leo656]

Some people are attracted to fictional anthropomorphic characters, Because they probably find other humans unappealing.\

I've never heard anyone say that one, either. Jesus, where do some of you folks hang out?

Like I don't doubt that those people exist but I haven't led a sheltered life and somehow I don't encounter or come across these people.

Yeah, I wouldn't say I'd side-eye anyone who wanted to bang Krystal, BUT if someone flat-out said they weren't attracted to human beings at all and only liked furries, that's definitely pretty strange. That sounds like it would be symptomatic of a larger antisocial disorder, quite frankly.

[DarkFell]

:lol: I wouldn't go that far but then I'm not a big fan of labels. :trazz:
Labels generally suck. A lot of people misspell the words, the barcodes are smeared, and the glue irritates my skin. :trazz:

As for the furry costumes, they're alright. Some of them are just wild and even creative. I have gone to several Six Flags theme parks: since costumed characters are generally a staple within those attractions, they don't bother me. In fact, I would find it odd if I don't see at least one posing with a few kids for a picture.

[Sumac]

There is a difference between "costumed characters", like in Disneyland and furries.

[Leo656]

True story, but that mostly comes down to 1. Setting, and 2. I've actually seen pictures of stuff people made that's far beyond Six Flags level. So even though it's not my thing, I admire good craftsmanship when I see it, regardless.

My wife had a Summer job as a Six Flags character for a while, many years ago. Mostly Marvin the Martian. I made it a point to get a picture taken with Lola when I went there to visit my wife at work the one time; I thought I was being cheeky and clever in my typical "Oh, you" fashion, but come to find out EVERY guy would get their picture with Lola, to the point that character requires more "handlers" than the others do. :lol: :ohwell: Like apparently all the characters require handlers, both to keep kids from messing with them and sometimes to help them walk in a straight line with those goofy heads on... but Lola requires extra support staff because people get grabby.

I thought that was a bit weird. "People know it's not REALLY Lola, right?" :lol: I mean it's not even that "great" of a suit! I mean it wasn't BAD but like I said, I know for a fact that some "enthusiast" with too much free time could and probably has done a better one. Kinda weird to risk a lifetime Six Flags ban for getting grabby with a character in a Lola costume I'd say was 7/10 at best. Needed bigger boobs, for one thing.

I asked my wife if the girl in the costume was at least hot, and she's like "Not really, actually" and that was a bit of a disappointment. :lol:

I got to learn a lot about that stuff through my wife. For example, how Marvin is almost always a girl because girls tend to have skinnier calves. My wife had a pretty thick butt, though, so that kinda broke the illusion, too. :lol: That was before she gained weight; she got the Marvin gig because she was like 115 and had skinny legs. There's a whole weird "system" they use for who gets to be Who.

[ProphetofGanja]

I like butts and I like boobs. Lots of cartoon characters have 'em in spades. Some of them have "extra accessories" like a tail or whatever, but I can't get too hung up on that. Butts and Boobs. If they're drawn well, that's swell, I'm into it.

What confuses me isn't the people who look at "furry" art and get worked up about it specifically; I do think that on some level once you're open to the idea of fapping to a cartoon character, the rest is just splitting hairs. Maybe that's an oversimplification but it's how I've always looked at it.

No, what I don't get are people who make it a Lifestyle. I mean, I'm not mad at 'em, but... the whole deal with making the costumes, going to conventions, all that... that's like Actual Work, man, and it just seems like a very extreme way to show enthusiasm for f*ckable cartoons.

BUT, then again, on some level I suppose someone could easily turn my own logic back on me and say, "Well, people go to conventions wearing elaborate Superman or Wolverine costumes, too, so once you're okay with that then the rest is just splitting hairs, same as your earlier analogy about fapping to cartoons; One is as good as The Other." And okay, fair point I guess, but I need to also point out that part of me is just as bewildered by the time, money and effort that people who do "regular" cosplay put into their hobby as well. Again, ain't mad at 'em, but I find ALL of it a bit overwhelming just because whether the person is dressed up like Krystal or Jubilee, in my head I'm thinking of all the investment into it and thinking, "Jeez... that's a lot, right there." Like it's not something I, myself, could ever fathom.

A friend of mine once said to me, "I wish there was a separate term for people who just like 'sexy' cartoon characters even if they're anthros, and people who actually make the whole 'furry' thing a lifestyle." And I totally get what they meant because I'm the same way. I don't think looking at cartoon porn is that weird, it's not like the person is hurting anyone or letting it take over their life. But once you're spending an exorbitant sum on expressing your enthusiasm for this particular kink, I do kinda side-eye that just a little.

But then again, at that point to me it's not that much different from a person who spends thousands of dollars looking at "regular" porn; like, "This is extreme behavior regardless, the specifics are secondary to the fact that this is now a bit compulsive."

But no, on the whole those people don't bother me. I noticed as kids it was a thing most people I knew went through - tons of the boys had crushes on like Cleo from Heathcliff or Gadget from Rescue Rangers, and all the girls had "their" Ninja Turtle for example - and then some kids grew out of it and now they think that stuff is "weird" or "gross", and then others simply never grew out of it at all and so to them it's no different from any other kink.

I don't buy the whole "zoophilia" angle though. Going by how much furry porn the internet contains, and how poor most peoples' impulse control is, there'd be millions of people getting busted constantly for f*cking dogs and horses or whatever, and then in turn while they were being investigated their browser history or hard drive or whatever would be full of anthro art. If that happened a lot, I'd say maybe there was something to that theory. But it happens so rarely, or at least only gets reported in the news so rarely, I have to kinda call that one bunk. There's just no proven link, just assumptions.

Y'know what I DO read about a lot in the news, though (by "a lot" I mean I see it once or twice a year in my feed), is women who work at the vet or animal shelter who get caught f*cking dogs in their care. Every time it happens, the article makes it a point to mention, "This happens more often than people might think", and will cite other cases.

And yet, we don't automatically assume, "Well, if a woman works at the vet's office she must be getting it on with the dogs," because we know that's kind of a leap. BUT, it apparently happens a decent amount of time, so we COULD just make that assumption if we wanted to. Just like we could assume, "Well, SOME priests molest kids so by extension they ALL do."

It's just weird how with stuff like that, even when confronted with factual data that says "Yes, this happens A LOT," we say, "Well, you can't generalize, that's not fair."

But with other stuff, in this case a specific kink or fetish that isn't to everyone's taste, it makes perfect sense to just say, "Ah, yeah, the guy said he faps to that Star Fox chick, so clearly he f*cks animals," even though statistically we've got very little evidence to say that even as an assumption. It's just projection, objectively.

I mean, I'm admittedly kind of a Libertine about stuff like this, anyway. :lol: I just can't help but note the double standards at play, is all. I know people WANT the whole "Furries are Zoophiles" theory to be true, I simply don't think it is. I'm sure it has in fact happened but I don't think it's happened enough, at least that we know of, to make it fair game to jump to those kinds of conclusions.

Most of the "hardcore" ones I know just fap to cartoons. To my knowledge I've never even spoken to one who ever did the convention deal. Of course, I don't KNOW what they get up to in their private time. :lol: But I can say I know a lot of people who will admit (privately or otherwise) that they have at least one "furry" chick on their list and I've never heard of any of them ever getting into any impropriety with an actual animal in real life. So there's that.

Like, if someone told me their kink was Hardcore Rape Porn, I'd honestly think THAT was a bit weirder than furry porn. I wouldn't say so out loud because I try not to kink-shame people, at least not to their face, but yeah, I'm more comfortable hanging out with the guy who just thinks Krystal's got nice tits versus the guy who jerks off to women getting choked and spit on. But that's me, y'know? ((Shrug))

One of your better rants, Leo, 10/10 :lol:

[Leo656]

Aww, you're a swell fella. Thanks. If I had a spare Egg handy I'd gift you one. I had glitter this year.

If you liked that one you should'a been here back in the 2003 era when I had the whole bit about how the movie "Legend" is entirely about Tom Cruise wrestling with his Gay Identity. Which it is, and should be incredibly self-explanatory to anyone who watches it. But I went into this whole big step-by-step breakdown about it to prove it was a bulletproof thesis, and it was a huge hit. I could probably recreate it if I watched the movie again but it's a bit fuzzy for me right now.

The Director's Cut where him and the girl decide to just be friends, though? That's the cherry on top and I really wish I had that bullet in the chamber when I did the original rant. Sadly, by then I'd only seen the theatrical cut.

Short version: Tim Curry's devil-guy represents Tom Cruise's gayness and him collecting all the unicorn horns is because they represent dicks and he wants ALL the dicks for himself. There's a whole novella's worth more to it but it starts with that and then it's just this whole big thing which overwhelmingly proves that Tom Cruise Is Gay and that movie was his coming-out party.

Probably my finest work ever, wish I'd saved it. Ah well.

[Prowler]

All I can say about Tom Cruise is...

The guy barely seems to age. He must have had some really good plastic surgeons. Top Gun was over 30 years ago already. And he still doesn't look like he aged that much.

Must be some weird scientology experiment.

[neatoman]

So here is another mod featuring the actor:
dtmpQgG0suo