The Blonde blacksmith (Gemma) is over sexualised

[Clint NoNerdyW✪✪D]

I'm not sure why the blonde blacksmith in the game has to look like an adult film star, there was the same issue in FF15 i believe with the mechanic. You'll never see women like this in day to day life and the other women in the game look normal. I don't get this characters place in this game and setting and I likely won't be letting my teenage son play it now with the sexualised content...

[Makima]

Opprinnelig skrevet av beartech28:

Looks at self, looks at gemma, looks at self, looks at gemma. So you are telling me, Im also an adult film star? Yikes bro. I think Jr will be ok seeing a woman. Your obviously fishing.

show us or get out

[Gargoyle]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Clint NoNerdyW✪✪D:

I'm not sure why the blonde blacksmith in the game has to look like an adult film star, there was the same issue in FF15 i believe with the mechanic. You'll never see women like this in day to day life and the other women in the game look normal. I don't get this characters place in this game and setting and I likely won't be letting my teenage son play it now with the sexualised content...

Grow up.

[76561197988918266]

instruction unclear installed gemma nude mod from nexus

[Makima]

Honestly 72 jesters, thats 14.4k steam points. good job OP.

[Netsa]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Makima:

Honestly 72 jesters, thats 14.4k steam points. good job OP. :mhwgood:

Yep. Little known fact: the best bait is the opinion that's easy to defend but not widely held. People do oroboros backflips to disprove it even though it's subjective, a word nobody on the internet knows the definition of.

[Etch-e-Sketch]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Netsa:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Makima:

Honestly 72 jesters, thats 14.4k steam points. good job OP. :mhwgood:

Yep. Little known fact: the best bait is the opinion that's easy to defend but not widely held. People do oroboros backflips to disprove it even though it's subjective, a word nobody on the internet knows the definition of.

Subjective does not mean unchallengable, person who claims to know what the word means. And 'not widely held' is as irrelevant as your implication that subjective takes can't be argued against - an ideas merit, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the number of people that do or do not hold to it.

[Netsa]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Etch-e-Sketch:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Netsa:

Yep. Little known fact: the best bait is the opinion that's easy to defend but not widely held. People do oroboros backflips to disprove it even though it's subjective, a word nobody on the internet knows the definition of.

Subjective does not mean unchallengable, person who claims to know what the word means. And 'not widely held' is as irrelevant as your implication that subjective takes can't be argued against - an ideas merit, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the number of people that do or do not hold to it.

True, but that's how you end up with 500 comments and 84 awards. And whether the opinion is popular is very important: If this was a widely-held opinion, no one would care and we wouldn't be talking about it.

People don't argue against these opinions as if they're subjective, they argue against them as if you would have to be the dumbest person on the planet to believe it. Remember, this is Steam Discussions. Read the comments, the OP might as well be a flat earther or something.

[Etch-e-Sketch]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Netsa:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Etch-e-Sketch:

Subjective does not mean unchallengable, person who claims to know what the word means. And 'not widely held' is as irrelevant as your implication that subjective takes can't be argued against - an ideas merit, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the number of people that do or do not hold to it.

True, but that's how you end up with 500 comments and 84 awards. And whether the opinion is popular is very important: If this was a widely-held opinion, no one would care and we wouldn't be talking about it.

People don't argue against these opinions as if they're subjective, they argue against them as if you would have to be the dumbest person on the planet to believe it. Remember, this is Steam Discussions. Read the comments, the OP might as well be a flat earther or something.

I have read all of the comments, actually, and responded to a number of them. I've had the tab open for the better part of the day and refresh it on occasion for my own amusement.

And who cares if the OP gets 500 comments and 84 awards? As if people should not shoot down or argue against an idea just because the original person presenting it might get vacuous internet clout out of it. Great, if that is OPs goal, give them their jesters.

The OP, whether or not the post is bait, how many steam points are spent on it, aren't the point and arguably shouldn't be. The idea being expressed, that a woman with bare cleavage and midriff in a video game should be classified as an adult film star, is.

[Fluffy Monster Thing]

Many why noone going off about the 9ft tall lady in Suja?

[Niteχ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRV0ZB5p8Ac

[Etch-e-Sketch]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Fluffy Monster Thing:

Many why noone going off about the 9ft tall lady in Suja?

You answered your own question: she is a 9-foot tall lady and so we are afraid.

[Netsa]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Etch-e-Sketch:

I have read all of the comments, actually, and responded to a number of them. I've had the tab open for the better part of the day and refresh it on occasion for my own amusement.

And who cares if the OP gets 500 comments and 84 awards? As if people should not shoot down or argue against an idea just because the original person presenting it might get vacuous internet clout out of it. Great, if that is OPs goal, give them their jesters.

The OP, whether or not the post is bait, how many steam points are spent on it, aren't the point and arguably shouldn't be. The idea being expressed, that a woman with bare cleavage and midriff in a video game should be classified as an adult film star, is.

Yes, frankly, you shouldn't be arguing against an idea that other people have already shot down in the same thread. Because it's a waste of time. It's an insignificant opinion about nothing, yet it sits on the front page of the forums in place of topics that would be more useful or interesting.

Giving the OP vacuous internet clout is a terrible use of your time, even if you don't value your time.

I'd jump in on the topic myself, but I don't care and it's already been "discussed" to death.

[Etch-e-Sketch]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Netsa:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Etch-e-Sketch:

I have read all of the comments, actually, and responded to a number of them. I've had the tab open for the better part of the day and refresh it on occasion for my own amusement.

And who cares if the OP gets 500 comments and 84 awards? As if people should not shoot down or argue against an idea just because the original person presenting it might get vacuous internet clout out of it. Great, if that is OPs goal, give them their jesters.

The OP, whether or not the post is bait, how many steam points are spent on it, aren't the point and arguably shouldn't be. The idea being expressed, that a woman with bare cleavage and midriff in a video game should be classified as an adult film star, is.

Yes, frankly, you shouldn't be arguing against an idea that other people have already shot down in the same thread. Because it's a waste of time. It's an insignificant opinion about nothing, yet it sits on the front page of the forums in place of topics that would be more useful or interesting.

Giving the OP vacuous internet clout is a terrible use of your time, even if you don't value your time.

I'd jump in on the topic myself, but I don't care and it's already been "discussed" to death.

You're making the same mistake OP is. You're acting like because its "an insignificant opinion about nothing" to you, it should also be that way for everyone else and so they should act accordingly. You're wrong. How you value the idea, and how you choose to respond to it, says nothing about how other people should value or respond to it.

And so we come full circle, where I am challenging your subjective opinion to show how it's being misapplied: being in this thread hasn't been a waste of my time - I've engaged with several others, made more clarifying points, and enjoyed myself. And if it hasn't been a waste of my time, it likely hasn't been a waste of many others'.

[不良ヌルポインタ]

LOL if this is sexualized you should see your sons, young school age girls.

[Netsa]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Etch-e-Sketch:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Netsa:

Yes, frankly, you shouldn't be arguing against an idea that other people have already shot down in the same thread. Because it's a waste of time. It's an insignificant opinion about nothing, yet it sits on the front page of the forums in place of topics that would be more useful or interesting.

Giving the OP vacuous internet clout is a terrible use of your time, even if you don't value your time.

I'd jump in on the topic myself, but I don't care and it's already been "discussed" to death.

You're making the same mistake OP is. You're acting like because its "an insignificant opinion about nothing" to you, it should also be that way for everyone else and so they should act accordingly. You're wrong. How you value the idea, and how you choose to respond to it, says nothing about how other people should value or respond to it.

And so we come full circle, where I am challenging your subjective opinion to show how it's being misapplied: being in this thread hasn't been a waste of my time - I've engaged with several others, made more clarifying points, and enjoyed myself. And if it hasn't been a waste of my time, it likely hasn't been a waste of many others'.

Look, if you don't know what counts as "insignficant", I can't help you. Not to put words in your mouth, but you're in here because you're enjoying the drama, not because you're changing anyone's opinion or weighing in on anything that matters.

And enjoying the drama is fine, it just shouldn't be misconstrued as something constructive.