What is up with their outfits......?
Attachment 53733
Printable View
What is up with their outfits......?
Attachment 53733
Maybe Alexandrian citizens are very accepting folk in terms of what can be considered immodest dress.
Just looks very uncomfortable. Surely they can't be good for fighting!
Rico: Why would they give her such skimpy armor that can only protect such a small portion of her body?
Bron: How would I know? Maybe those are the only parts of her that are vulnerable! — Robotech
They've suffered the predictable side-effects of being women in video games, particularly one which involved Tetsuya Nomura in some capacity.
Much like the Chocobo Knights of FFX, it seems that only male Alexandrian warriors have femoral arteries - or indeed, any weaks spots on their legs at all - that require protection. Women apparently have thighs of titanium, and aren't afraid to let the world know.
Now, someone'll inevitably claim that "it's not sexist - Alexandria is a proud matriarchy, so their armour just emphasises their feminine strength!" which is, of course, weapons-grade bulltrout and we all know it.
Actually Nomura had nothing to do with this game. Yoshitaka Amano did the character design but Hideo Minaba was the art director and him along with a few other non-high profile artist did the background characters and redesigns of the main cast.
The only game where Hiroyuki Ito (IX's Director) and Tetsuya Nomura have worked together is FFVI. I would point out that the Alexandrian Army's outfit does bear a striking resemblance to Nomura's redesign for Celes Chere's sprite in VI. So it may actually be a shout-out to VI.
Yeah, I did think they were trying to emulate Celes. It's a stupid outfit, but when you consider that their army is almost exclusively female and that Alexandria is Queen-commanded, it begins to -- in universe at least -- have less of a sexist, masculine-dominant tone and more of a "we want to feel sexy and distract our enemies when we slay them" type thing. It certainly offers freedom of movement.
It's pretty effective armour in terms of mobility and protection of the points most likely to be involved in a fight. Leg armour really isn't that necessary, except for mounted troops.
Could have at least put on some trousers, though.
It's pretty lacking if it leaves the hips, thighs and buttocks utterly exposed like that. Tassets, or even a good layer of cloth or leather, would be better than nothing. As it stands, any stray arrow or fireball that glances their legs would certainly take them out of the fight, and even a minor blade nick to the femoral artery would virtually guarantee a bloody death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quin
Not to mention the fundamental practical issues of dressing soliders that way. Exposure, for one. Cold, swamps, mosquitoes, thorny underbrush, stony ground - all kinds of environments are that much worse if you've got big swathes of bare skin. Another big problem would be plain old basic excretion. These ladies would basically have to undress whenver they wanted to relieve themselves, which seems woefully impractical for an army on the march.
General Beatrix, on the other hand, is dressed much more sensibly and practically. Plenty of armour and leather, and full leggings underneath. Looks fantastic, too, without needing to prance around the battlefield in a swimsuit.
Pretty much my thoughts, but I couldn't be arsed typing it all out and just went with "trousers" instead.
Story of my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quin
They spent all their money on Garnet's birthday party and didn't have any gil left for leggings.
I used to think they were just wearing beige pants
I bet their hair gets stuck in their asscrack all the time.
pretty sure there was a period in my early teens where i thought this was hot as hell but now i can see the practical limitations i am not AT ALL aroused
Idk I always thought it looked pretty dumb
we all have moments like theseQuote:
Originally Posted by Parker