91 réponses à ce sujet

[KBomb]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Maybe because it poses a serious danger to her health in combat? Haircuts for armed personal are short for a reason.

Thats fine, since Shepard is YOUR character; Ashley is not. Most of us are upset that this "new" Ashley appears to be contradicting previous traits and examples of her ME personality.

Poses a serious danger to her health in combat? Really? Dramatic much? She can’t move it behind her ear? She isn’t working with heavy machinery here. She has shoulder length hair with a swoop of bangs. She isn’t Repunzel. I see no more of a hindrance than Tali’s hood, or Wrex’s ability to not see behind him without turning completely around.

So, my Shepard can have a serious danger to my health and Ashley can’t because….? I don’t get this. My Shepard who fights just as hardcore as Ashley, can have long hair, but no one else can? Odd.

Also, what makes you think she isn't the same Ashely?

Modifié par KBomb, 08 juin 2011 - 11:59 .

[GunMoth]

Last thing I'm going to say since a lot of these arguments are kind of absurd. "U DONT KNO ASHLEY HOW WULD U KNO WHAT SHE WEARS?!"

To repeat my first post: Ashley is dressed the way she is probably for Shepards trial or because of her promotion to Spectre status - then the reapers landed. It makes perfect sense WHY she's dressed that way and I hope they implement that into the story a lot more. My main complaint was before I knew these details, her character design change came out of no where. If you disagree with me on that, I don't know what to say to you.

[Rip504]

Whats not practical about being safe and looking good?

Also there are shields, biotic barriers, and such in the future. Yes even for the Soldier. So you could walk around naked and still be protected from gunfire and such.(In a sense. As long as you have the device to activate the shielding.) So how is it "practical" to wear unneeded heavy armor? I wouldn't say it isn't practical to add extra protection,but it's extra. As long as she feels safe with the amount of protection that is provided,anything else is extra. Yea it may have a practical use,but that doesn't make it a necessity. Ashley feels safe, and confident about her looks. The makings of a strong female role. The majority of the human race wants to feel safe and look good. Now Ashley can do both.

I do not see this hurting her character. Just opening her up to more fans. Her clothes do not judge her personality. her actions do.
Her personality is what makes the character we love. Bioware stated all characters that were important to us will return,and judge Shepard based on past events. No indication of personality change anywhere.IMO. Why change the personality of the character? No reason. Why change her look? I don't know anyone who rocks the same look for 3 years. It's time she changed her armor,like Garrus and the rest of us.
Ever hear of the saying " don't judge a book by it's cover."?

Modifié par Rip504, 09 juin 2011 - 12:09 .

[GunMoth]

Rip504 wrote...


Whats not practical about being safe and looking good?

Also there are shields, biotic barriers, and such in the future. Yes even for the Soldier. So you could walk around naked and still be protected from gunfire and such.(In a sense. As long as you have the device to activate the shielding.) So how is it "practical" to wear unneeded heavy armor? I wouldn't say it isn't practical to add extra protection,but it's extra. As long as she feels safe with the amount of protection that is provided,anything else is extra. Yea it may have a practical use,but that doesn't make it a necessity. Ashley feels safe, and confident about her looks. The makings of a strong female role. The majority of the human race wants to feel safe and look good. Now Ashley can do both.

Character continuity. Despite popular belief, a lot of women don't enjoy dressing like that. Me being one of them. But like everyone else pointed out - even though you're practical - you can still be impractical. Or something. 

[LiquidGrape]

Ashley's new look is my one major issue with ME3 at this point. I can't say this enough; flowing hair and skin-tight combat attire simply doesn't mesh with her characterisation.

At a stretch, it was acceptable in the cases of Miranda and Samara, because we were either given some degree of contextual reasoning behind their respective outfit, or allowed to infer ourselves.
Part of Miranda's strategy is to make use of her looks, and Samara...Samara is Asari. They're just strange that way (and perhaps the exposed chest is meant to indicate a kind of invitation for potential wrongdoers; attempt to take her life before she takes yours, her heart is exposed).

Ashley, though?
She's a marine. A hardened soldier. Regardless of what her current status might be, I can't see her abandoning all that experience and better knowledge for the benefit of form-fitting latex and a marketing gig at L'Oréal.

Also, and I know this point has been raised elsewhere; isn't there something rather problematic about the fact that Ashley, previously seen wearing heavy armour due to her soldier status, ends up in that little number; whereas Kaidan, a sentinel restricted to the light variation, turns up in full gear?

Now, if it turns out it's a temporary thing due to the suddenness of the Reaper invasion, that's fine, I suppose. If still questionable.

But I think this is all highly dubious, and I think it's a legitimate concern.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 09 juin 2011 - 12:17 .

[Iwantobelieve]

That would mean Bioware is more concerned about "stylish" character rather than coherent.

I'm ok with giving her a more mature character, making her look more feminine, I'd say it's even a really good idea. But pro-catsuit Ash and probably Bioware need to learn the definition of "too much".

[Rip504]

GunMoth wrote...


Character continuity. Despite popular belief, a lot of women don't enjoy dressing like that. Me being one of them. But like everyone else pointed out - even though you're practical - you can still be impractical. Or something. 

I didn't say all women wanted to dress like Ashley. Just the majority of people want to look good.
There is a difference. Now what that difference is, depends on the person.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah...why is Kaidan in heavy armor and Ash...in whatever she's wearing? If that's not her armor (and she ends up in heavier armor) that'll be the end of it but as it stands.

:/
I hate to be that guy but yeah...all the females in light armor and most of the males in heavy armor? (save FemShep, Jacob and Thane) That...that's a looking a little odd BW. 

Where's Jacob *should've* been in heavy armor (Kaidan certainly shouldn't be in it though). I just...:/ 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2011 - 12:20 .

[Rip504]

Tell me Ashley is not being sexy in tight clothes, in ME1. Later she is totally nude having an intimate moment with her commander. Yea thats very military like and showing no soft side of Ashley. Wrong. She breaks the rules,and can be very compassionate. (in this scene...)

[ADLegend21]

Hair moves now and she bent over to pick up Shepard so naturally her hair moved in front of her face. deal with it.

[LiquidGrape]

Rip504 wrote...

Tell me Ashley is not being sexy in tight clothes, in ME1. Later she is totally nude having an intimate moment with her commander. Yea thats very military like and showing no soft side of Ashley. Wrong. She breaks the rules,and can be very compassionate. (in this scene...)

How is that relevant?
The issue here is that her (apparent) combat getup is comprised of flowing hair, skin-tight vinyl/lycra/insert reflective fabric of your choice here, and what appears to be high heels.

But I think you hit the nail on the head when you say Ashley was sexy in the original Mass Effect.
Regardless of how flattering that outfit might've been, it was still reasonable. And that made all the difference in the world.

In fact, I think it makes her assertiveness in the love scene all the more enticing, seeing as it comes from someone whose desire is straining against the dress code.
All these uniform fetishes spring from somewhere, after all...

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I've got an idea that will fix this.  Keep her hair down, but put heavy armor on everybody except Liara and Kaidan. But of course, it's up to BioWare.

Modifié par Neverwinter_Knight77, 09 juin 2011 - 12:38 .

[Chignon]

LiquidGrape wrote...

Ashley's new look is my one major issue with ME3 at this point. I can't say this enough; flowing hair and skin-tight combat attire simply doesn't mesh with her characterisation.

At a stretch, it was acceptable in the cases of Miranda and Samara, because we were either given some degree of contextual reasoning behind their respective outfit, or allowed to infer ourselves.
Part of Miranda's strategy is to make use of her looks, and Samara...Samara is Asari. They're just strange that way (and perhaps the exposed chest is meant to indicate a kind of invitation for potential wrongdoers; attempt to take her life before she takes yours, her heart is exposed).

Ashley, though?
She's a marine. A hardened soldier. Regardless of what her current status might be, I can't see her abandoning all that experience and better knowledge for the benefit of form-fitting latex and a marketing gig at L'Oréal.

Also, and I know this point has been raised elsewhere; isn't there something rather problematic about the fact that Ashley, previously seen wearing heavy armour due to her soldier status, ends up in that little number; whereas Kaidan, a sentinel restricted to the light variation, turns up in full gear?

Now, if it turns out it's a temporary thing due to the suddenness of the Reaper invasion, that's fine, I suppose. If still questionable.

But I think this is all highly dubious, and I think it's a legitimate concern.

Great post, LG. That's about how I feel on this issue.

[GunMoth]

I can be compassionate, break rules, and have awesome sex all over the place.

I still don't wear cat suits. 8)

[javierabegazo]

Lets just use 1 thread for Ash please
http://social.biowar...3/index/7551793

[In Exile]

Wait, we're complaining about a ponytail vs. long hair, but not about her not wearing a helmet?