Big Jiggly Boobs in Games... is it really worth all the QQing?

[Magicman10893]

Snip

I know I won't be answering you're entire post (PM me if you want a further debate on this, I would love to continue this conversation), but I would like to quote/paraphrase MovieBob here;

"I hate the sentiment of 'not everything has to be about something, man!' It's such a defeatist statement. I mean, sure, not everything has to be about something, but isn't it better if it is? Movies are all the more better when stuff is happening to people you care about."

1 - That is true, if you care about the story. Like I said, maybe I just want a game to soley enjoy the gameplay, or watch a movie soley for the action sequences? Of course if the game/movie has an interesting story it is important to have characters that you can relate to/ care about. Take Saints Row 2 for example: I put up with the sub par graphics and story for the fun gameplay. It works the other way around too: I hate the gameplay in Dragon Age, but because the story and characters are great I put up with it.

2 - It's not as simple as that. Games and movies are created with different visions in mind for the final product. They all have different goals as to what they want to portray. Movies like The Expendables were made with the idea "Bad ass, over the top action" in mind, not "Emotionally fueled drama with rich characters." If you didn't like The Expendables because it didn't have rich enough characters, then it obviously wasn't for you. Now, not liking it because the action was too few and far between, then you can criticize all you want.

That is what I'm trying to say when people complain about the company using sexuality as a selling point. If that offends you, then you definitely aren't the target audience. Now the people who DO want a game for the sexual content, or the violent content with as little story in the way as possible, the game is great! To people who want a rich and involving story with many amazing characters and excellent voice work, that you should look elsewhere. Just try and think of it as a separate genre: I personally love RPGs, but my friends hate them with a burning passion. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age and picked them up immediately after school because I love RPGs, my friends however have never even considered renting either one because the HATE that kind of game.

 

[GreyKnight3445]

No it is not worth QQing about. As I have said many times before, if you dont like a game dont fucking play it.

 

[Jumplion]

No it is not worth QQing about. As I have said many times before, if you don't like a game don't fucking play it.

It's not about not liking a game, this effects even the best of games at times.

2 - It's not as simple as that. Games and movies are created with different visions in mind for the final product. They all have different goals as to what they want to portray. Movies like The Expendables were made with the idea "Bad ass, over the top action" in mind, not "Emotionally fueled drama with rich characters." If you didn't like The Expendables because it didn't have rich enough characters, then it obviously wasn't for you. Now, not liking it because the action was too few and far between, then you can criticize all you want.

Video games and movies may be different mediums, but they do have similar aspects to them. All medium, no matter what or how it's portrayed, deals with this kind of thing.

The thing is, "emotion" is not exclusive to "dramas" and crap. That is a false dichotomy as you can have have emotional and deep characters in all kinds of genres. Inception was deep and complex, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a fun movie at the same time. Games/movies/whatever all have the capacity to make much deeper experiences and it leaves the consumer much better off.

Does every game/movie/book/whatever have to have "deep, rich characterization on the human condition"? Of course not, that would be utterly stupid and unrealistic to expect on people. There's always a place for a good ole fashioned shoot 'em ups. But that doesn't mean we should settle for good ole fashioned shoot 'em ups all the time. Times are changing, and video games need to explore new regions yet unexplored with characters and emotion.

That is what I'm trying to say when people complain about the company using sexuality as a selling point. If that offends you, then you definitely aren't the target audience. Now the people who DO want a game for the sexual content, or the violent content with as little story in the way as possible, the game is great! To people who want a rich and involving story with many amazing characters and excellent voice work, that you should look elsewhere. Just try and think of it as a separate genre: I personally love RPGs, but my friends hate them with a burning passion. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age and picked them up immediately after school because I love RPGs, my friends however have never even considered renting either one because the HATE that kind of game.

So action heavy, boob filled, sexual games must be separate from the "artsy" games and rich involving stories? Another false dichotomy, but I can't really blame you for that as everyone seems to make that dichotomy.

And even then, that's just a sad way to think (not insulting you personally, just in general). The fact that there is a target audience for that kind of crap is just a testament to how video games are still seen as cheap thrills for young, immature boys. Games can certainly include sexuality as both a selling point and a meaningful mechanic to further enrich the stories. An Extra Credits video goes over it well.

It's sad how we have to separate the games with sex in them to the deeper, enriching ones. What you're basically saying is "If you don't like porn, don't play it!" which I know you don't really mean to say that, it just comes off that way to.

But that's not the exact problem here. The problem is that developers/publishers are using hypersexualized portrayals of women (and men, this is not gender exclusive) to sell a game. It has it's place, I'm sure, but that only makes them seem like they're pandering to the lowest common denomenator and video games can do so much better than this.

I may have ranted and rambled on a bit, so I apologize if I don't make complete sense or get my full point across. Go ahead and PM me if you'd like, I'd love to continue with this conversation.

 

[Littaly]

Is this thread about boobs or is it about the new Lara Croft?

I'll comment on boobs. To me, there is nothing wrong with gratuitousness, but it becomes a problem when it's the only thing you have to offer. I like tits as much as the next guy, and a little extra cleavage is never wrong, but if the video game medium cannot feature women without making them overly sexualized, there's something wrong. And for a long time that has kind of been the case, not that video game characters are generally known for their depth and complexity, but female characters in particular have almost exclusively been cast as "eye candy". It kind of makes for an immature medium. And like I said, immaturity for the win, in moderate doses. If video games are to be held in the same regard as movies or other forms of entertainment, there must be more to video game chicks than just tits.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

If you've played the Tombraider games then you'll know her knockers aren't what makes it great. That's just how she is, thats her look. You play the game because it is well crafted and fun and shes also a stellar heroine.

It makes me sad that they feel the need to reduce her cup size and change her look especially for the upcoming game. So how are Crystal Dynamics going to explain her breast size changes in terms of the series timeline? Did Lara get a boobjob after escaping this island that CD are harking on about?

Here's a tip CD, I'd focus more on making a good game for once, because it isn't her boobs/look that are enticing/putting off people from buying it.

I'll buy a game for the gameplay, Lara is the character, her breasts are part of her look but in no way influence my decision to buy the game. Same applies for all other games, if the game is good I don't care if the main character is just a giant pair of tits.

 

[Lukeman1884]

Still, you've gotta wonder where this invisible line is that defines whether or not a character becomes "Overly sexualised". I do agree that making every single female character in a game have D-cups isn't a good idea, but then what SHOULD they look like? Is there some kind of attractiveness threshold?

 

[The Wykydtron]

Hmm I believe my Avatar would have something to say on the subject XD

 

[Magicman10893]

Video games and movies may be different mediums, but they do have similar aspects to them. All medium, no matter what or how it's portrayed, deals with this kind of thing.

The thing is, "emotion" is not exclusive to "dramas" and crap. That is a false dichotomy as you can have have emotional and deep characters in all kinds of genres. Inception was deep and complex, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a fun movie at the same time. Games/movies/whatever all have the capacity to make much deeper experiences and it leaves the consumer much better off.

Does every game/movie/book/whatever have to have "deep, rich characterization on the human condition"? Of course not, that would be utterly stupid and unrealistic to expect on people. There's always a place for a good ole fashioned shoot 'em ups. But that doesn't mean we should settle for good ole fashioned shoot 'em ups all the time. Times are changing, and video games need to explore new regions yet unexplored with characters and emotion.

That is what I'm trying to say when people complain about the company using sexuality as a selling point. If that offends you, then you definitely aren't the target audience. Now the people who DO want a game for the sexual content, or the violent content with as little story in the way as possible, the game is great! To people who want a rich and involving story with many amazing characters and excellent voice work, that you should look elsewhere. Just try and think of it as a separate genre: I personally love RPGs, but my friends hate them with a burning passion. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age and picked them up immediately after school because I love RPGs, my friends however have never even considered renting either one because the HATE that kind of game.

So action heavy, boob filled, sexual games must be separate from the "artsy" games and rich involving stories? Another false dichotomy, but I can't really blame you for that as everyone seems to make that dichotomy.

And even then, that's just a sad way to think (not insulting you personally, just in general). The fact that there is a target audience for that kind of crap is just a testament to how video games are still seen as cheap thrills for young, immature boys. Games can certainly include sexuality as both a selling point and a meaningful mechanic to further enrich the stories. An Extra Credits video goes over it well.

It's sad how we have to separate the games with sex in them to the deeper, enriching ones. What you're basically saying is "If you don't like porn, don't play it!" which I know you don't really mean to say that, it just comes off that way to.

But that's not the exact problem here. The problem is that developers/publishers are using hypersexualized portrayals of women (and men, this is not gender exclusive) to sell a game. It has it's place, I'm sure, but that only makes them seem like they're pandering to the lowest common denomenator and video games can do so much better than this.

I may have ranted and rambled on a bit, so I apologize if I don't make complete sense or get my full point across. Go ahead and PM me if you'd like, I'd love to continue with this conversation.

I think I have over simplified what I meant to say. I know that emotion isn't limited to dramas, but I was just using that simplified definition as an example. I should have said something along the lines of, "Movies that focus on action and movies that focus on story." Sure a movie/game can have both, but there are certainly ones that sacrifice one in order to focus more on the other. That comes back to my Saints Row 2 analogy, they sacrifice story and graphics to include more over the top ridiculousness. Rather than focus on the story as the major selling point (ex: Bioware games), they focus on the action (another example: God of War 2 & 3). And you know, that's fine. If you want a game or movie to watch over the top action, then go ahead and watch a movie or play a game with over the top action, just don't complain when the story is nothing more that a thinly spread rough draft used to connect one action sequence to another.

Now, with the hypersexuality, sure it is immature, but there are still immature people... a lot of immature people. It is kind of sad, but that is who they have chosen as their target audience. I am not upset about the character redesign of Lara, I am just confused as to why they have a character that is known for her (unrealistic) breasts, which I still contend isn't a horrible thing, and then change the size of them to something smaller (ie: more realistic). The reason that upsets me is because this implies that at some point Lara had some kind of plastic surgery to make them that gigantic. If that would indeed be the case, that implies that she was self conscious about her appearance and therefore not as bad ass as she comes off to be.

And my last point, about the "If you don't like it, don't play it" is sort of what I'm trying to say. I know it is kind of cliche or over used or whatever, but it's true. Everyone is different and has different tastes. And like it or not, there are people that will buy a game because the women in the game are all hot and half naked (or completely naked for that matter).

Finally, I am glad that you can understand my original point of not all games have to have a rich story or deep characters. It just seems that everybody expects that from every game nowadays.

 

[Bakuryukun]

I think it's kind of weird that people who get offended by this kind of thing are also the people that say that women shouldn't be judged by the size of their boobs/their bodies. Methinks I smell hypocracy.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Words like "emo" and "angsty" get tossed around so much that it's getting extremely frustrating and annoying. It seems that showing any emotion that is slightly pained, sad, or angry will be classified as "angsty". Somehow it's okay to portray emotions as blandly as possible in what I like to call "blandism". This is something that bleeds through all medium, not just video games, and it's really pissing me off and it's something I hope I'll be able to fix if I ever get in the industry.

But from what we're getting in the GameInformer article, Laura is fresh out of college and exploring lands with her fellow colleges and a professor she looks up to. Suddenly, she is shipwrecked and awakes upside down, wrapped in a cocoon, with a dead body next to her. She lights herself on fire to escape, crashes to the floor and screams in pain. Then she meets a psychotic villager and has to kill him to survive (the article states that death will have a weight to it). She's muddy, bloody, and scared as fuck.

How the hell should she react?

Whether you like this new direction is not the issue here, nor is whether or not they will succeed.

I think the problem is that Hollywood seems to have fallen as much in love with the "make it gritty and hyper-realistic to the point that it is overly dramatic" idea as they have with 3-D.
I don't mind the idea of a slightly less "comic book" approach to Laura's portrayal, and even welcome adding a bit more realism, but for f's sake, I think in the effort to elevate video games into an ART form, it seems that the industry might be in danger of over-correcting. There is nothing WRONG with a game being fantastical or even silly, as long as the gameplay is awesome.
For example, how much did people complain over the ending of Drake's Fortune? I personally heard a LOT of it. (Potential spoiler Ahead):

People felt the Nazi-zombie thing at the end ruined the overall experience. Now from a GAMEPLAY standpoint, they have a bit of a valid complaint because it changed the game's core mechanic in such a jarring manner, but without providing a way to adapt. The entire game's combat system up to that point had been essentially "hide behind objects, pop out and shoot." This became extremely hard when the enemy instead of trying to get to strategic areas came running at you faster than you could target them, and required more shots to the dome than the enemy types you had faced up to that point. That essentially broke the GAME, but I don't think it broke the STORY. In fact, it was kind of interesting and gave the game that "mystical", Indiana Jones appeal.

I guess what I'm concerned about is that it is one thing to reboot Lara.. it's another to do so by simply following lock-step with the industry trend of making heroes "super serious." Sometimes game characters are fine in their familiar format. Nintendo has felt no need to change Mario from anything more than a supercilious Italian stereotype plumber who actually does very little plumbing, and runs around jumping on top of mushrooms. Can you imagine if they decided "we need to make Mario more "mature", because that's what the audiences like" and then set the next Mario game in a realistic world, with more realistic physics, a darker storyline, and reinvented him as some max payne-esque blue collar worker tortured by psychotic episodes in his ever shattering mind as he loses his grip on reality? Nope, that would stink on ice.

Making the Tomb Raider games more graphically aesthetic is a fine idea, but I feel as if instead of working to make the GAMES better, they think that the best thing would be to make her Nathan Drake with TITS (I'm positive we'll probably hear Yahtzee say something to that effect).
The Tomb Raider games were about TOMB RAIDING, and Lara Croft was about about acrobating yourself around in these fantastic locations like a Batman supervillain until you came across something to gun down with your twin guns. Sure, some people don't like that. But not every game needs to be Modern warfare, not every character needs to be Kratos, and not every story needs to be The Dark Knight.

If it's not broke, don't fix it... and sometimes it doesn't need fixing at all, just a little cleaning up.

 

[Lukeman1884]

I've got a question. Black Ops is a popular-ish game. Who here would stop playing if they kept all the weapons and gameplay mechanics the same, but made all the multiplayer character skins girls with large breasts running around in bikinis? I'm just curious whether the community as a whole thinks over sexualisation detracts from gameplay.

 

[Jumplion]

I think I have over simplified what I meant to say. I know that emotion isn't limited to dramas, but I was just using that simplified definition as an example. I should have said something along the lines of, "Movies that focus on action and movies that focus on story." Sure a movie/game can have both, but there are certainly ones that sacrifice one in order to focus more on the other. That comes back to my Saints Row 2 analogy, they sacrifice story and graphics to include more over the top ridiculousness. Rather than focus on the story as the major selling point (ex: Bioware games), they focus on the action (another example: God of War 2 & 3). And you know, that's fine. If you want a game or movie to watch over the top action, then go ahead and watch a movie or play a game with over the top action, just don't complain when the story is nothing more that a thinly spread rough draft used to connect one action sequence to another.

And that is perfectly fine, I nor anyone else really has a problem with those kinds of games. But that doesn't mean we don't want those kinds of games to improve overall.

Now, with the hypersexuality, sure it is immature, but there are still immature people... a lot of immature people. It is kind of sad, but that is who they have chosen as their target audience. I am not upset about the character redesign of Lara, I am just confused as to why they have a character that is known for her (unrealistic) breasts, which I still contend isn't a horrible thing, and then change the size of them to something smaller (ie: more realistic). The reason that upsets me is because this implies that at some point Lara had some kind of plastic surgery to make them that gigantic. If that would indeed be the case, that implies that she was self conscious about her appearance and therefore not as bad ass as she comes off to be.

If their target audience are easily thrilled, immature people, then that's not a good sign in general.

But as I said with my original post here, Laura has aged. This is not the 90s anymore, and it just reeks of immaturity and cheap thrills if they were to keep going with Laura's old figure. There's nothing wrong with a little titillation here and there, but having an entire character's personality and emotion rest on her boobies, tities, hooters, tatas, mountains, jugs, melons....I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought, ehem, then that's just not going to cut it anymore nowadays.

This is a retcon, by the way, as far as I can tell. It's a whole new origin story. And it's not like the Tomb Raider series were ever known for their wonderful characterization of Laura outside of "She's sexy, but she's also smart! That way we're not objectifying her! Suck it, femenists! Wait..."

And my last point, about the "If you don't like it, don't play it" is sort of what I'm trying to say. I know it is kind of cliche or over used or whatever, but it's true. Everyone is different and has different tastes. And like it or not, there are people that will buy a game because the women in the game are all hot and half naked (or completely naked for that matter).

I dislike the sentiment of "If you don't like it, don't play it!" Why should I have to miss out on a potentially good game because the game is pandering to the lowest common denominator? Sure, I could not play it, but if a company alienates an entire section of the public because of their immature use of sexuality in games, then they're just burying themselves a deeper hole.

Finally, I am glad that you can understand my original point of not all games have to have a rich story or deep characters. It just seems that everybody expects that from every game nowadays.

I think that's more of a misunderstanding on your side of the argument. Nobody has ever said that all games must have rich stories or deep, developed characters (though there's nothing wrong with that), it's just that the opposition take that argument to the extreme and paint them as if they want nothing but "Braid"'s or "Limbo"'s.

 

[Jumplion]

I think the problem is that Hollywood seems to have fallen as much in love with the "make it gritty and hyper-realistic to the point that it is overly dramatic" idea as they have with 3-D.

Hopefully I can fix that when I get in "da biz" ;o

I don't mind the idea of a slightly less "comic book" approach to Laura's portrayal, and even welcome adding a bit more realism, but for f's sake, I think in the effort to elevate video games into an ART form, it seems that the industry might be in danger of over-correcting. There is nothing WRONG with a game being fantastical or even silly, as long as the gameplay is awesome.

Eh, it's still a growing medium. Developers have yet to truly master a balance with mechanics for "artistic" kind of games.

People felt the Nazi-zombie thing at the end ruined the overall experience. Now from a GAMEPLAY standpoint, they have a bit of a valid complaint because it changed the game's core mechanic in such a jarring manner, but without providing a way to adapt. The entire game's combat system up to that point had been essentially "hide behind objects, pop out and shoot." This became extremely hard when the enemy instead of trying to get to strategic areas came running at you faster than you could target them, and required more shots to the dome than the enemy types you had faced up to that point. That essentially broke the GAME, but I don't think it broke the STORY. In fact, it was kind of interesting and gave the game that "mystical", Indiana Jones appeal.

I actually really liked that twist, I didn't see it coming to be honest. Though I hadn't thought about it from a gameplay standpoint, but I hadn't heard anyone complain about it either.

I guess what I'm concerned about is that it is one thing to reboot Lara.. it's another to do so by simply following lock-step with the industry trend of making heroes "super serious." Sometimes game characters are fine in their familiar format. Nintendo has felt no need to change Mario from anything more than a supercilious Italian stereotype plumber who actually does very little plumbing, and runs around jumping on top of mushrooms. Can you imagine if they decided "we need to make Mario more "mature", because that's what the audiences like" and then set the next Mario game in a realistic world, with more realistic physics, a darker storyline, and reinvented him as some max payne-esque blue collar worker tortured by psychotic episodes in his ever shattering mind as he loses his grip on reality? Nope, that would stink on ice.

But Mario stands the test of time. Laura does not. Yahtzee mentioned that Laura/Duke Nukem are testaments of their time, but nowadays would just seem juvenile and immature nowadays. Mario was, and always is, about fun for everyone that stands the test of time. Tomb Raider in the 90s was about Laura's buxom figure, with archeology on the side, and severely punishing controls for the actual act of raiding tombs.

Making the Tomb Raider games more graphically aesthetic is a fine idea, but I feel as if instead of working to make the GAMES better, they think that the best thing would be to make her Nathan Drake with TITS (I'm positive we'll probably hear Yahtzee say something to that effect).
The Tomb Raider games were about TOMB RAIDING, and Lara Croft was about about acrobating yourself around in these fantastic locations like a Batman supervillain until you came across something to gun down with your twin guns. Sure, some people don't like that. But not every game needs to be Modern warfare, not every character needs to be Kratos, and not every story needs to be The Dark Knight.

Pshaw, none of the Tomb Raiders were ever about raiding tombs, most were just about some McGuffin artifact or something

I think you're giving the original Tomb Raider games a little too much credit. Seriously, this is like when they announced the new reboot of Devil May Cry and how everyone bawled and whined about Dante's "betrayal of character". Bull. Shit. Dante was never a "deep" character, he was a cocky asshole in the most basic sense. Nothing wrong with that, but defending Dante (or Laura in this matter) as a "deep" character with redeemable personality traits is like defending a Booby [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby] as an actual mammary gland (yes, I know that made no sense, just work with me here).

If it's not broke, don't fix it... and sometimes it doesn't need fixing at all, just a little cleaning up.

Oh please, the Tomb Raider games were severely broken, both in terms of storytelling and gameplay. The Tomb Raider games have not aged well, that's for sure, so I think a reboot is necessary for the survival of the franchise.

 

[Magicman10893]

And that is perfectly fine, I nor anyone else really has a problem with those kinds of games. But that doesn't mean we don't want those kinds of games to improve overall.

They can certainly improve overall, but I'd rather see the core mechanics improve. Games that focus on the story should work on making the stories good enough to convince assholes like Roger Ebert that games are art and deserve the same respect that films receive while games that focus on over the top action should focus on the action. Now I am definitely over simplifying things again, but I am just trying clearly get my point across.

If their target audience are easily thrilled, immature people, then that's not a good sign in general.

But as I said with my original post here, Laura has aged. This is not the 90s anymore, and it just reeks of immaturity and cheap thrills if they were to keep going with Laura's old figure. There's nothing wrong with a little titillation here and there, but having an entire character's personality and emotion rest on her boobies, tities, hooters, tatas, mountains, jugs, melons....I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought, ehem, then that's just not going to cut it anymore nowadays.

This is a retcon, by the way, as far as I can tell. It's a whole new origin story. And it's not like the Tomb Raider series were ever known for their wonderful characterization of Laura outside of "She's sexy, but she's also smart! That way we're not objectifying her! Suck it, femenists! Wait..."

I am not saying that Lara's entire character is based off of her boobs, I'm just saying that they are a major (and by major, I mean easily recognizable feature) part of her character's appearance. Like how Darth Vader's helmet is easily recognizable part of his appearance and how Kenny's orange parka is part of his appearance. If you suddenly have Darth Vader wearing a Storm Trooper Helmet or Kenny suddenly wearing clothing similar to Cartman's then that kind of fucks things up.

Also, I don't like retcons in general. I'd rather them make a reasonable excuse for why something changed. Like how in Mass Effect they had you going from using guns that never run out of ammo, to guns that need to be reloaded. It was a major game play change, but they came up with a reason for why it's that way in the game's story compared to just changing it without explanation. And yes, I realize changing Lara's breast size is going to be a pretty hard thing to explain in the context of the game apart from plastic surgery.

I dislike the sentiment of "If you don't like it, don't play it!" Why should I have to miss out on a potentially good game because the game is pandering to the lowest common denominator? Sure, I could not play it, but if a company alienates an entire section of the public because of their immature use of sexuality in games, then they're just burying themselves a deeper hole.

As I said, that really is a bullshit move on my part, but there is a nugget of truth behind it. In this case that does suck because of what you said, why should you be depraved of fun game play because they use tits to sell their game. But again, if you don't play it, as well as everyone else that is offended by the exploitation of Lara's appearance, then the developer will know to stop doing that. We can see that they are abandoning the sexual exploitation somewhat in this game, so you are winning in that sense.

I think that's more of a misunderstanding on your side of the argument. Nobody has ever said that all games must have rich stories or deep, developed characters (though there's nothing wrong with that), it's just that the opposition take that argument to the extreme and paint them as if they want nothing but "Braid"'s or "Limbo"'s.

It may be a misunderstanding on my part, by most people in this forum that complain about Lara's over sexualized nature or that defend the developer's choice to redesign her seem to think that every game needs to have those deep and rich characterization. You are right, there isn't anything wrong with having that rich story and characters, but not every game needs it.

 

[chibivash]

i've never been interested in tomb raider before. i'd play it at a friends house a few times. never like the contorls, very clunky. but this reboot looks interesting to me. i'll probably follow it for a bit longer, see if the game play is good or not. it does seem more realistic, which is a nice change of pace.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

If their target audience are easily thrilled, immature people, then that's not a good sign in general.

Being easily thrilled and childlike can be a charming characteristic. More appealing than applying a sort of fake cynicism to things based on a superficial judgement anyway. It's a characteristic of a person with an open, friendly attitude.

i've never been interested in tomb raider before. i'd play it at a friends house a few times. never like the contorls, very clunky. but this reboot looks interesting to me. i'll probably follow it for a bit longer, see if the game play is good or not.

You should try Guardian of Light. Very fluid controls.

 

[Jumplion]

I am not saying that Lara's entire character is based off of her boobs, I'm just saying that they are a major (and by major, I mean easily recognizable feature) part of her character's appearance. Like how Darth Vader's helmet is easily recognizable part of his appearance and how Kenny's orange parka is part of his appearance. If you suddenly have Darth Vader wearing a Storm Trooper Helmet or Kenny suddenly wearing clothing similar to Cartman's then that kind of fucks things up.

Again, those things really stand the test of time (though Kenny, I'm not too sure). Darth Vader is cloaked in a black, metallic suit. In the most basic sense, it symbolizes darkness and evil, and painting him bright red or something would probably betray his character. Laura does not stand the test of time. She is a product of the 90s culture of mullets, motorcycles, and mammary.

With that, I think we've come to a close with this discussion. We both get each other's points, so continuing from here will probably just result in going around in circles. Thanks for the discussion, my fingers were getting twitchy from no typing

 

[Jumplion]

Being easily thrilled and childlike can be a charming characteristic. More appealing than applying a sort of fake cynicism to things based on a superficial judgement anyway. It's a characteristic of a person with an open, friendly attitude.

Which Tomb Raider is not, it's just a product of the 90s. That's just giving the Tomb Raider games a bit too much credit in my opinion.

 

[Marmooset]

What? People are quitting every game with big beasts? That's what QQing means, not crying.

Apologies if I'm not the first to point this out, but QQ'ing does mean crying. It's two eyes with tears in the corner.

Contrary to popular belief, QQ is not a set of crying eyes. It actually originated with the advent of Warcraft II. On battlenet, you could press ALT+Q+Q to immediately exit the match and program. Thus the term "QQ" was to tell people to just quit because they are unskilled. The term later developed and lost it's origin and is usually mistaken as crying eyes.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=QQ

No offense, but I could give a rat's ass what Urbandictionary and 4000 hair-splitting nerds think. At the risk of sounding Yogi Berra-esque, it means what it means. Gay once meant (and technically still means) festive. But if somebody now says "you're gay", it's hardly likely they're celebrating your ability to party. (Well, maybe in a way - but you know what I mean.)

Think logically about it. Somebody says "QQ moar". Are they saying "quit more", or "cry more"? Which one makes more sense? Quit's not really a quantitative meaure, is it. Once you quit, you've quit. Can't really quit more. But people can cry a lot more - trust me.

So, regardless of what anybody with a chip on their shoulder about the meaning of QQ has to say, it now means cry, and is used almost exclusively that way by anyone not trying to make a pretentious point.


And if anyone doesn't like it, they can QQ moar.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Being easily thrilled and childlike can be a charming characteristic. More appealing than applying a sort of fake cynicism to things based on a superficial judgement anyway. It's a characteristic of a person with an open, friendly attitude.

Which Tomb Raider is not, it's just a product of the 90s. That's just giving the Tomb Raider games a bit too much credit in my opinion.

Not sure what you are responding to here. You were saying that games shouldn't be made for people who are easily amused and not mature because those people suck. I say that those people don't suck and a lot of young people of both genders, and young at heart people, had a lot of fun with Tomb Raider games.