I've enjoyed:
Google GGA:
|
|
Links
Alice Taylor
Clint Hocking Costik Derek Daniels The Edge electro^plankton Gamasutra Game Critics GameDevBlog GameFAQs Game Jew Game Poets Society Game Set Watch Gamevideos.com Gewgaw Got Game? Grand Text Auto Grrl Gamer Henry Jenkins Heroine-Sheik IGDA Indie Game Jam Insert Credit Invisible City Julian Dibbell KillerBetties Kim Pallister Kongregate Kotaku Lost Garden Ludology Magic Box Margaret Robinson Matteo Bittanti Memory Card Ogre Cave Penny Arcade Raph Koster Reality Panic Serious Games Shiny Shiny Slash Dot Games Surfer Girl Terra Nova ToastyFrog Tokyopia Water Cooler Games Women Gamers Zen of Design
Thank You for Donating!
If you'd like to help keep GGA afloat, we thank you!
Mascot by Penny Arcade!
|
April 02, 2005
Lara Croft Lowers her Poly Count
via Sarahlah at Athena's Legacy, who refers Kotaku, who is refering PSM... Lara Croft is finally starting to look less like a 90's comic book leading lady and more like that totally hot girl I see while running on the beach. Maestro, I say, right on. Posted by ClockworkGrue at April 02, 2005 01:45 PM | TrackBackComments
Yes, instead of cartoony irrealism we have subtlely unattainable idealism. HURRAY PROGRESS! Posted by: cypherpunk![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gamegirladvance.com/nav-commenters.gif) on April 4, 2005 09:41 PM
I think cypherpunk has a point... I know a lot of people say that what they hate about the depiction of women in games is the fact that they're physically impossible, but I don't see much difference between something that's physically impossible and something that's nigh-unattainable. It's also interesting to note that the new Croft's outfit is a lot more low-cut than her previous ones, and while the old Croft may have been horribly out of proportion, her character certainly seemed "badass"--note the insane grin on her face as she mows down badguys--whereas the new one arguably seems to say something more along the lines of "look at how ridiculously hot I am". Just because a character has smaller boobs doesn't necessarily mean they're being portrayed in a better light. on April 20, 2005 01:47 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
|
I've enjoyed:
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Category Archives
About GGA (15) Academia (26) Advertising (3) Art (25) Books (9) Business (42) Conferences (18) Criticism (22) Culture (20) Design (6) Economics (6) Entertainment (19) Events (65) Experimental (32) Fashion (25) Features (18) Food (3) Fun (16) Gender (26) Humor (35) Jane's Journal (78) Journalism (27) Law (18) Marketing (10) Military (3) MMOG (33) Movies (16) Music (18) News (16) People (37) Politics (42) Preview (4) Research (14) Review (4) Scandal! (2) Sex (12) Society (47) Technology (22) Television (4) Theory (27) Travel (1) Trends (25) Upcoming Releases (12) Web (12) WTF? (28) |