Skip to content
Shane_for_Wax wrote:Also known as gratuitous nudity or suggestion of such (like low-cut tops, etc.,). I mentioned this on the Google Moderator thingy but figured we could have a deeper discussion here.
I will say what I said on there: I have no problems with hookers looking like hookers. But a female raider should not look like the hooker. Likewise, any female ranger should not be there to be the token female.
Gizmo wrote:Sharkyzero wrote:But just because she's a warrior doesn't mean that she can't be exceptionally attractive...
Wouldn't a warrior be exceptionally scarred and maybe missing an eye or some fingers?
Gizmo wrote:Wouldn't a warrior be exceptionally scarred and maybe missing an eye or some fingers?Sharkyzero wrote:But just because she's a warrior doesn't mean that she can't be exceptionally attractive...
Or the warrior who fought one or more too many at a time.LtMurkyShadow wrote:That would be the warrior, who decided to mess with the wrong warrior.
Agreed. (I especially liked when he checked the water merchant's stock for radioactivity.)As for Beyond Tunderdome. That should be the reference for all things armor in the post apocalypse.
Flamekebab wrote:Female armour should be armour fitted for ladies, not stripclub-chique. As much as I enjoy scantily clad women I do not like it when it's ridiculous (well, unless it's really over the top, self-aware ridiculous).
Bonecrusher wrote:female armors should be as efficient as male counterpart of the same armor.
Bonecrusher wrote:but today, the female armor counts as simple fanservice, nothing more.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests