This. I've always felt something peculiarly wrong with "furry" art as opposed to non-furry anthropomorphic design in occidental caricature, something common enough to be an instant telltale that renders it deeply unappealing at a glance. Even comparing more realistic, less "cartoony" styles non-furry designs, like the first two pics, versus the third, a typical furry pic. I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong, but I think it has something to do with combining human eyes/skull with animal nose/jaw/ears awkwardly (and, often, hair on the head), as well as using the most unaltered human frame possible below the neck in the most mediocre and gangly physique.
It wasn't something we embraced by choice, but to defend the medium. In the form we took it, "gamer" didn't correspond to some sort of Cheeto Dew-guzzling lifestyle identity eager to reflexively preorder the latest Call of Halo, but people who play and tinker with games, appreciating them for what they are (interactive) rather than what they "should" be ("meaningful", "story-driven", "socially conscious", "accessible", etc.). GG was about fighting and purging parasites who deeply hate games as a medium, and wish to drown it in the same passive mediocrity that stifles prior media in their little crit theory-driven "indy" festival circlejerk, killing games for their own incestuous self aggrandizement.
When gamers rejected "art", it meant, rather, accepting the true essence of art: Art for art's sake