Killjoy Cutter wrote...
It's not about women having breasts, for eff's sake, so all the snide remarks along those lines can just go back in all your pie-holes.
It's about mysterious changes in appearance made to female characters in sequels.
It's about the armor being needlessly molded into individual cups, and those getting bigger in each game, in a blatant and purile stab at sexual marketing. In ME2, the Kestrel armor "left room", while in ME3, it looks like they've doubled or tripled that area in volume and remolded it to appear more obviously like a well-filled sweater.
It's about how female characters in games are so rarely just characters in their own right, and even the best seem to be required by the industry to also be sexual objects.
For eff's sake, femShep had largely avoided that, and then BOOM, "Herp derp, let's stick her in a cocktail dress lol."
That would be true if Ashley was a shallow character with nothing deeper to delve into about her, and is only a sex object. However we know this is definitely not the case. She has many interesting aspects to her character. She's not seen just as meat. She's one of Bioware's best developed characters in my humble opinion. Whether you like or not, women in general in the real world DO like to look good, smell good, etc. Why should Ashley be any different?
So how in the hell is Ashley not a character in her own right? This changes nothing about her. If anything that damn Kestrel armor is totally unrealistic. An extremely flat metal chest piece? Would seem very uncomfortable to me. There is no room there.
Your complaint about Shepard's dress is unfounded. What about the context of it? It was obvious reasons. Male Shepard got a suit, female Shepard got a classy dress.
Modifié par shinobi602, 16 décembre 2011 - 03:32 .





Retour en haut





