This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Elai
Pages: 1 ... 371372373 374375 ... 633
11161
« on: December 17, 2015, 05:05:50 PM »
Honestly if some retard wants to buy it I dont care, its fueling 343's money supply so that they can give us huge amounts of content for free. But when Bungie does it, it's a bad thing. Okay.
11162
« on: December 17, 2015, 03:30:40 PM »
If it's true, it's going to be hilarious how no one here will give a shit, yet we're all up-in-arms about Bungie doing the same thing.
11163
« on: December 17, 2015, 03:26:37 PM »
11164
« on: December 17, 2015, 03:23:56 PM »
Is this true?
11165
« on: December 17, 2015, 03:12:34 PM »
Bunny hood and Keaton mask becomes relevant in Majora's Mask.
I had a suspicion they might.
11166
« on: December 17, 2015, 09:11:43 AM »
12/16/2015
Didn't get as much done today, but that's alright. Christmas break starts tomorrow so I'll have lots of time to finish this and Wind Waker.
Anyways, I remember saving my game at Hyrule Field, but when I loaded up the game, I was back at Kokiri Village. I ran all the way back to Hyrule Field and tried to get past the Zora's River area, but there were boulders blocking the way and that Owl guy told me to go find Saria. So, I ran all the way back to Kokiri to find her. Spent about 5 minutes looking around, then I realised she's probably in the Lost Forest. Having previously explored that area (in my initial play session), I already knew where I had to go. I learnt her song, and made my way back to Hyrule Field to approach Kakariko Village. The guard laughed at me to get to Death Mountain until I showed him the letter from Zelda, at which point, he opened up the gate. Heeding his advice on buying a Hylian Shield from the Market, I returned to Hyrule Castle. I tried to get his son a popular mask, but it seemed like I couldn't at this point in my playthrough. I saved after returning to Kakiriko.
11167
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:39:23 PM »
i mean if you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "lalala i cant hear you" thats fine but it doesn't make you right Explain to me how low-cut shirts are explicitly designed to accentuate tits. Not sports-bras, any low-cut shirt. i just hope you get over this verbatim dickriding phase you're going through I honestly don't understand this sentiment, but okay.
11168
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:37:31 PM »
The lowcut shirt isn't going to do much accentuating if you're wearing a sports bra. Well, yeah, but low-cuts in general are designed for that specific purpose. I'm sure this is for "comfort". As for low-cut sports bras, I honestly don't see how a few inches of fabric makes any difference whatsoever. Things like this exist for a reason. I'm not really trying to argue sides here, just doing some fact checking lol.
Much obliged.
11169
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:33:07 PM »
its low enough that cleavage would show if she wasnt like 110% muscle Not really, that shirt wouldn't fit her if she had tits, at which point, she could just buy another regular-cut shirt. way to just ignore everything else too verb
None of the other stuff was really necessary to reply to. Small amounts of fabric don't make a difference, low-cut shirts are designed to accentuate tits. That isn't limited to tank-tops. Any shirt that's low-cut is designed that way for one purpose only.
11170
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:27:59 PM »
The girl in the photo isn't wearing a low-cut shirt.
11171
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:26:02 PM »
Why the fuck ain't the people you looking at wearing sports bras? A lowcut shirt doesn't do much for holding shit together lol, and sports bras do the opposite of "accentuating" breasts Are you supporting me or no? I'm confused by your post.
11172
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:20:53 PM »
From what I'm told, it is a lot more comfortable. I just fail to see how. A v-neck t-shirt is no more comfortable than a regular-necked t-shirt. Why are low-cut shirts any different?
11173
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:19:56 PM »
I mean, people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want given that everyone affected are consenting human beings.
11174
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:18:26 PM »
By thinking women only wear that to attract you, you're treating them as a sexual object. I fail to see how. Women do things other than just to accentuate their tits. Obviously.
11175
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:17:01 PM »
why do you want to oppress women by forcing them to wear more clothing? You really need to stop putting words in my mouth, breh. I never said women shouldn't be allowed to wear whatever they want -- I'm saying that low-cut shirt are designed to accentuate tits no matter how you slice it. Cleavage also happens to be a sweaty as fuck area when excercising Again, not sure how 3 inches of less clothing on the area of the tits where you sweat the least is going to make a difference.
11176
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:12:37 PM »
the thing about body heat is....it happens all over your body I'm sure 3 inches of clothing really make a difference when it comes to releasing body heat.
11177
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:08:10 PM »
except supporting breasts while letting their skin breathe You can let your skin breath without showing cleavage.
11178
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:05:47 PM »
Like go to a gym and look around. 99% of the women will be in a low cut tank top or just a bra.
And? they're low-cut because they want to accentuate their tits. That's it. Having a low-cut shirt provides no benefit whatsoever other than "oh look, a female with tits."
11179
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:04:45 PM »
they are go ask a girl right now lol Are low-cut shirts using a different fabric? Are they woven differently? Do they allow for more freedom of movement? No to all. I'm sure all the woman in the pictures I posted are wearing that because some man forced them to
Lol where tf did I say this.
11180
« on: December 16, 2015, 07:00:09 PM »
maybe if you and verb ever actually talked to a girl you would know they're more comfortable as well  No more comfortable than non-low-cut shirts, I reckon.  such exploitation, wow basically nude
Cool. Now if only they promoted their character like that.
11181
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:45:22 PM »
Calling a tank top sexualization is where I get off you and verbs crazy train
Well I mean, it is. It's small, but it still is. Low-cut shirts exist to accentuate tits -- that's it.
11182
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:44:37 PM »
because that's what someone who does the things she does wears Yeah, I'm sure that was the reason behind make her wear a tank-top. Uncharted actually handles this kind of stuff really well. Chloe is no less a physical badass than Lara, yet she wears a t-shirt and jeans. The devs took the opportunity to put her in a tank-top because it marginally makes her a more attractive character. Bottom line.
11183
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:41:35 PM »
Bayonetta chose her clothing, she is meant to be an expression of sexual freedom. Yeah, I'm sure the developers consulted a fictional character about her choice of clothing before they designed her.
11184
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:35:06 PM »
So women can't wear tank tops? Why was the creative decision for Lara to be in a tank top made? The answer the that question is what fuels my complaint with her design.
11185
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:33:48 PM »
That really is scraping for a complaint... Like. Quiet is a different story entirely. For sure, I only made the comparison because both are justifications for cleavage no matter how you swing it. What more do you want? The developers have literally every choice under the sun when it comes to creating their game, which means they actively chose to have cleavage in the game. Why not just make her wear a t-shirt or something? It's different in real life considering those people choose to wear tank tops. But in a game where the character doesn't have the choice, it's kinda like "Okay, we KNOW someone actively chose to dress her this way. What does this look achieve for us?"
11186
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:31:42 PM »
I really do think this is just nitpicking. Obviously. I just said that it was. Lara's new design was perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with it. That implies perfection -- and it isn't perfect. Wanna see a perfectly designed female character? Here: 
11187
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:29:53 PM »
New Lara =/= Quiet tho
Correct.
11188
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:29:29 PM »
Quiet is a perfect of hyper sexualizing a character for no reason. She wasn't a strong character at all and the lame ass excuse of her breathing through her skin is insulting. Yup. Just not sure what the difference between Quiet and, say, Bayonetta or Zero Suit Samus is. Why condemn the look of one but not the other?
11189
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:16:53 PM »
Many archaeologists wear tank tops... Generally because where they are working is a hot environment. Ehh. Quiet has to wear a bikini so she doesn't suffocate. There's pretty much no good reason to sexualise a character at all unless it progresses the story in some way... I mean, I'm really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to complaints about her design, but she's not perfect.
11190
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:03:34 PM »
What would make it "fully there" then? I'm curious. He simply wants there to be a good reason for her to look like that. And there never is a good reason. I mean, a tank top is better than a bikini, but a t-shirt is better still and would fit perfectly fine with Lara specifically.
Pages: 1 ... 371372373 374375 ... 633
|
Show Posts
