Chrkeller said:
The inappropriate outfit(s) were not RE3 specific. RE3 was an (excellent) example. But yes. Kids are impressionable and playing games that imply girls are only fit for eye candy isn't a smart move. My girls are quite intelligent and are currently taking marital arts. So I absolutely consider the message(s) games are sending before letting them play. It is called being a responsible parent. I used RE3 because the example is perfection. Jill is a highly trained combat expert, with access to combat gear. Additionally, she survived the events at the Spencer Mansion. She is going against enemies with sharp teeth, claws, etc. She will be travelling through ruin and destruction. Shards of metal, broken glass and fire. **** me boots, tube top and mini skirt. Yeah, totally. Not silly at all. It makes as much sense as Drake running through the Gabon rainforest with only a sock over his genitals. |
So you are going to avoid any and all games that also have man behaving wrongly because as a responsible parent you don`t want them thinking man behave bad right? You will also avoid letting them see most girls using little clothing whenever they are hanging around?
There are plenty games with man protagonist using very little, unpractical or silly clothing as well.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."