Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:

The Posthumans are "bad design decisions" simply because out of all 3 models, none are actively doing anything which makes sense...
Whoever greenlit those three models made a poor decision...

Whoever greenlit these made a great business decision. You're assuming only gamers buy their models. Infinity also has a huge painter/hobbyist market, much like Confrontation did, or McVey miniatures, or Smog or Raging Heroes etc.

Minature-based game aside, Infinity minis are known for crisp detail, realistic, consistent proportions (given the material and scale), and a range of individual, dynamic poses that make any piece worthy of painting up as a display piece. On top of all that they have a cleaner "high" sci-fi aesthetic that's so different from the popular bulky, grim-dark low-tech sci-fi.

Point is, assuming these are only gaming minis, and should therefore sacrifice aesthetics for practicality, misses out on a big piece of their hobbyist market. It's quite easy to build a complete army several times over without having to resort to a single cheesecake model, so I think CV's doing just fine catering to more than a single market.

It's nowhere near as easy as you'd suggest for three specific factions to build an army without "having to resort to a single cheesecake model".

Especially when you consider things like ALEPH, where they have very little in the way of the models in the army range since it's new.

Kanluwen wrote:It's nowhere near as easy as you'd suggest for three specific factions to build an army without "having to resort to a single cheesecake model".

Especially when you consider things like ALEPH, where they have very little in the way of the models in the army range since it's new.

Then play a different faction. Or substitute models from a line you prefer. Or convert your models. That's par for the course in 40k, why does that stop being an option in Infinity?

Choosing to play ALEPH, and complaining that you object to the models, is silly. The sculptors at CV have chosen "sexy" females as their guiding aesthetic for that army. This doesn't suit you. Pick another.

CB, Corvus Belli....I'm not sure where CV fits in.

Delephont wrote:CB, Corvus Belli....I'm not sure where CV fits in.

Yep, just hit the wrong key, meant to say CB.

Lots of good conversation in here, mostly on topic and polite - sort of!

The bottom line is that, shockingly, tastes differ!

I know this is the internet and it is tough but we've got to avoid being so confident in our opinions that we're willing to take our personal preferences as universal truth.

Other than that - well done!

I am grateful for everyone's contributions to the site - and I am especially grateful for everyone who keeps the INFINITY news and rumors thread up to date!

Aleph doesn't only have 'sexy' females. It also has oversexualized males.
Look at the male Deva in comparison to the female Deva. They're both posing for the camera with their well-contoured torsos that show through their clothing.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/devas/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/devas-2/

Look at the male Daysu in comparison to the female Daysu.
The male is practically shoving his butt out in a compromising position. If the crouching model had been female, people would be using it as an example of 'cheesecake'.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/dasyus/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/dasyus-2/

Look at a female Myrmidon Officer in comparison to the male Myrmidon Achilles. The female features are rather subtle and she looks competent whereas Achilles looks like Fabio.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/myrmidon-officers/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/achilles/


My main complaint about the Posthumans is not their sexualization but their poses in terms of believability. The entire Aleph line looks like ideal and attractive bodies because that's what they are. Those bodies are manufactured. Regardless, each model looks competent and confident. They all have an alien oddness about them... it's a sort of robotic-Eldar thing. Even the not-sniping Naga Sniper is doing something incomprehensible yet deliberate with a soulless expression.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/nagas-2/

The Posthumans just look incompetent. Two are tripping over nothing and one is slouching with a sniper rifle (while posing for a photoshoot.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/posthumans/

Even the hyper-sexualized Asura model looks competent. It's not wearing clothing, it is staring soullessly, and it's standing confidently with a large gun.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/asuras-2/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/asuras-2/

Cheesecake is completely fine in wargaming, but I doubt many casual onlookers will take anything seriously with gratuitous amounts of pointless cleavage and skin tight outfits on females with huge guns.

Infinity has gone a decent way in making guns more sensibly-sized. Large weapons such as HMGs and Panzerfausts are shown on newer models to either be showing a bit of weight or the carrier is abnormally strong/armored/teched.

Thankfully, nobody carries Anime-sized swords. Even the Highlanders' claymores are shown to have a bit of weight and not carried by ambiguously male 12-year-olds named after weather phenomena.

Sidstyler wrote:
Because Infinity is more blatantly sexist. That's what bothers me the most about them, they objectify the gak out of women and act so shameless about it.

Well, of course its sexist, it delineates its portrayal of men and women according to their sex. It certainly objectifies women, but it also objectifies men. The appeal of the badass in the longcoat with the sawed-off shotgun isn't any less about the object of that person than the woman in the tight pants and midriff baring top.

Sidstyler wrote:
It tells me that their idea of women is that they aren't meant to be combatants, that they exist only as "pretty bodies" and little else.

Are you telling me that this...



...guy is meant to be a combatant in any realistic setting?

Sidstyler wrote:
I personally don't think they look good, I think they're pandering by doing stuff like this, and honestly I'm not going to be convinced otherwise.

I think that the entire line, and essentially every other miniature line, is pandering to some segment of the population. I also think that much of the objection to the cheesecake is based on squeamishness regarding sex.

Sidstyler wrote:
...wait, what? Can you elaborate please, which new model are you talking about?

Top right.

Its a weapon, but I doubt that the placement, and design, are accidental.

Sidstyler wrote:
I was talking less about the obvious physical differences between men and women and more about game stats and equipment, where I imagine men and women probably don't differ too much to make a difference.

I'm not familiar with the rules, but if Infinity portrays women as being significantly weaker (in terms of physical strength) than men, then they are being both sexist and accurate.

Sidstyler wrote:
Based on all that I'd expect a woman going into a warzone would be less concerned with looking sexy and more with giving herself adequate protection and not being a walking target.

I would also expect a man going into a warzone in which advanced projectile weapons are prevalent to avoid burdening himself with a sword, or a longcoat for that matter.

Sidstyler wrote:
I'm not saying that. I object to you labeling the DE wyches "cheesecake" in the first place, because if it is it's not very good cheesecake...the models are so ugly, even the new ones apparently, that many people have actually been put off doing an army of them because they aren't "sexy" enough, whereas Infinity's cheesecake models are apparently their best sellers (IIRC the Daktari is the highest selling figure isn't it?).

Being bad cheesecake doesn't make something not cheesecake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Wow. Never thought I'd see Sidstyler take dogma apart in a debate. Makes me wonder if D is just playing devil's advocate.

Sort of. I'm generally of the mind that people overemphasize the the degree to which women are objectified, and ignore how men are portrayed in a similar fashion. Its much like Brad Pitt's line in Fight Club regarding, to paraphrase, "Is this a man?" And further consider most positive, cultural depictions of gender to be about objectification (the badass longcoat I mentioned to Sid).

The critical difference, and I fully acknowledge this, is that women have a long history of being relegated to a status of second class citizens. But still, it strikes me that we aren't terribly concerned about objectifying people so much as objectifying women, regardless of whether or not that said objectification is bad. We objectify, collectively, Angelina Jolie and that gives her quite a bit of personal power and, while that's not good, it certainly doesn't hurt Angelina.

Kiwidru wrote:Hello all, as a neutral on the subject (old enough to not care if I encounter cheesecake, but not old enough to have kids that encounter it), I find the arguements bland an redacted.

1. Arguing plausibility of a fantasy is silly and redundant, as plausibility is a subjective concept within the artists framework. (I find it plausible that there might be a few people in the vast universe that want to dress sexy in the future, rules be damned)
2. This is a fantasy setting, in a real war everyone would look roughly the same and be wearing helmets (have you ever seen a 'feminine' soldier?)... Thus the only differance would be hair... Which would probably be cut down to fit in the helmet... So boom, all your male models now double as female. Now if there is a desire for distinctly female models we arrive at an impasse...
3. No one gives a hoot that all men have huge bulging arms (an overtly masculine feature), or chiseled abs (also a feature that is considered 'sexy'). Why should only women be criticized for overdone features?
4. Much like modern times weapons outevolve armor... That's why we have flak jackets, or bullet proof vests... You protect the most vital organs, while admitting it is impractical or flat out impossible to make the bearer impervious to harm. Once someone is aclimated to the dangers around them they often cut corners in regards to personal safety.
5. It's fiction. If you arnt a fan, and you have every right not to be, then don't consume. Learn to model, learn to greenstuff over the things you don't enjoy, paint them in a way to take the emphasis off parts you don't like, proxy from another range. Anything past this makes one seem like a hater who is too lazy to do anything past complain, which again everyone is entitled to, but should at least have the awareness of self to realize it is happening.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. But I'll add just a bit more so that this isn't just a me too post.

The most important word found in any rule book for any war game is in the title. Game. This isn't war reality, war simulation, war practice. Its a war game. If you want everyone to wear the same unisex armor then play historicals. Where realistic weapon ranges, motorized armor speed, actual ammo count etc. is taken into account.

I play war games because its fun. I like looking at skimpy dressed girls with guns and swords. The more the merrier. Why, because again, its a game. I enjoy painting the female form. I've painted over 300 orks, 100 or so Space marines/CSM, 100 or so Firewarriors/Necrons/Kroot/etc. However, that which I really enjoyed if only to break the monotony of all that sameness is my 20 metal damonettes. I took great pleasure in painting Feora for my Menoth Warmachine army and am really looking forward to painting my Daughters of the Flame. Simply because they are not another male model in bulky armor.

So yeah, bring on the sexy ladies with laser guns and katanas in my war games, they are welcome there. And as for it not being realistic, I live by a High School, doesn't matter what time of year it is, the girls dress in what I call fashion before function. Lots of bare skin and thats in the winter. Come summer and spring, well, lets just say I have to get my dirty old man card punched and am ever so glad that I have a son.

I have to agree with you Jayden but after reading your post I imagined you doing something like:

NAVARRO wrote:I have to agree with you Jayden but after reading your post I imagined you doing something like:

lol

I tell ya, if I go home for a late lunch and don't leave until 2:30 I get stuck in my truck outside the school at one of the three cross walks. Sometimes I seriously don't know where to put my eyes. You have to watch for traffic or holes in the lines so you can move forward, but damn I tell you what, its easy to get distracted.

And since I now have a somewhat off topic post, let me just add that this thread has made me break out my wallet and I'm gonna pick up some of these inifinity models. There is just some really cool looking stuff here. Don't care if I never play the game, I just really like the look of some of the models and think that they will be a joy to paint up.

Deathly Angel wrote:

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake? (the equivalent for female gamers) We've got ripped abs and armor pecs complete with nipples a plenty while the catachans do their best village people/male stripper impressions while flexing their beefy arms.



While I agree that female models generally fill the brunt of this subgenre, it does cross the chromosomal line.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but why do people dislike the bare torso armour? This is intended to be romanticised and angelic. If this is sexualised, could the same be said of the renaissance paintings and sculptures that are widely respected and admired today?

I personally find the sculpted chests the least silly aspect of those minis. I'm more opposed to the very clunky and completely unnecessary wings, the over-sized weapons, and the silly masks. Because GW's proportions make everything squat and over-broad in order to look more "heroic", they don't so much say "elegant ornateness" to me as they scream, "I JUST BOLTED 200 LBS OF UNNECESSARY STEEL TO MY ELITE JUMP TROOPS LOLOLOLOL!"

Its in pretty much every part of popular culture so why not wargaming?

Entered thread thinking it was a discussion on eating cheesecake while playing warhams
I am dissapoint

If you find the figures offensive then you need to stop being so Your choice of language and it's influence on the tone of your message are unacceptable. Please review Rule #1 - MT11

Sovspot wrote:Please do not quote content that breaks Rule #1 - MT11

You missed the point more than the people admitting they came here for cheesecake (and ignoring prior posts to post about it).

I am fairly indifferent about cheesecake in miniature wargames - if people like it, that's fine. I personally don't much care for it, but to each their own.

What annoys me about it though isn't the presence of cheesecake - it's the lack of BEEFCAKE. Where are my half-naked, overly sexualised MALE models, hmm? If companies or whatever are going to go the cheesecake route, they could at least have some equality and do a similar amount of beefcake!

Heres what I say. I don't care. You see it everyday in real life. I mean I see alot of girls that cut off parts of their clothes to expose their belly. If you are catching my drift. There is no real problem with it. It is not against the federal laws, it is really not that big of a deal. Just means I will slap on some greenstuff onto my Sisters if i ever buy any and make it look like they are wearing gear that should be reasonable for men and women alike. I don't care about it. But I will post about

Absolutionis wrote:

Sovspot wrote:Please do not quote content that breaks Rule #1 - MT11

You missed the point more than the people admitting they came here for cheesecake (and ignoring prior posts to post about it).

I didn't understand most of your post. My post wasn't particularly directed to the people in this because I see most of saying it isn't a big deal.

Sovspot, a pm has been sent explaining things further. Do not address your warning here, if you wish to discuss, we keep it to PMs please.

Skits wrote:I am fairly indifferent about cheesecake in miniature wargames - if people like it, that's fine. I personally don't much care for it, but to each their own.

What annoys me about it though isn't the presence of cheesecake - it's the lack of BEEFCAKE. Where are my half-naked, overly sexualised MALE models, hmm? If companies or whatever are going to go the cheesecake route, they could at least have some equality and do a similar amount of beefcake!

You haven't seen the Catachan line? There's enough beefcake in there for the whole industry. It's a whole army of beefcake.

Check dem guns.

I'm still thrown by the idea that quasi-porn is somehow worse than war-porn.

Did anyone say that, though? I think one of the obstructions to the reasonable exchange of ideas in this thread has been people getting too defensive and talking about prudery.

With maybe one or two exceptions, the people objecting to the cheesecake models haven't been saying that cheesecake is inherently bad or wrong.

From my position, and I know its odd that I'm taking an explicit position, many people have been doing exactly that. Not to pick on Sid, as he is really just the guy I've read the most of (also he has expressed himself well), but I'm left wondering why blatantly impractical male poses are somehow less objectionable than blatantly impractical female poses. I am certainly being obtuse in calling these things war-porn and quasi-porn, respectively, but still. Why is shotgun-fireaxe man less unusual in a warzone than midriff girl? And, if neither is unusual, then why is the objectification of both not equivalent?

If GW can sculpt females anywhere worthy as Infinity, GW fans will be making songs and praises. So nope, Infinity is fine, and classy as well!

-Loki- wrote:

Skits wrote:I am fairly indifferent about cheesecake in miniature wargames - if people like it, that's fine. I personally don't much care for it, but to each their own.

What annoys me about it though isn't the presence of cheesecake - it's the lack of BEEFCAKE. Where are my half-naked, overly sexualised MALE models, hmm? If companies or whatever are going to go the cheesecake route, they could at least have some equality and do a similar amount of beefcake!

You haven't seen the Catachan line? There's enough beefcake in there for the whole industry. It's a whole army of beefcake.

Check dem guns.

Spoiler:

Unfortunately, they're not attractive beefcake, at least not IMO. Nor are they in provocative poses, or just generally catering to "sex sells". They're so macho it hurts, heh.

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
Because Infinity is more blatantly sexist. That's what bothers me the most about them, they objectify the gak out of women and act so shameless about it.

Well, of course its sexist, it delineates its portrayal of men and women according to their sex. It certainly objectifies women, but it also objectifies men. The appeal of the badass in the longcoat with the sawed-off shotgun isn't any less about the object of that person than the woman in the tight pants and midriff baring top.

Good point. I now notice there are a lot of male models in Infinity that are guilty of the same thing. I guess I was just doing what a lot of people and ignoring the male objectification entirely.

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
I personally don't think they look good, I think they're pandering by doing stuff like this, and honestly I'm not going to be convinced otherwise.

I think that the entire line, and essentially every other miniature line, is pandering to some segment of the population. I also think that much of the objection to the cheesecake is based on squeamishness regarding sex.

Also a good point, one that I admittedly didn't think of. In the end most of these companies are pandering to someone, I guess. As for the latter, I can only really speak for myself but that's not why I object to it. I'm not squeamish about sex, it just seems like there are a lot of these cheesecake minis (not just Infinity) and not enough "serious" female soldier minis to balance it out. I mean there are a lot of male models in the range that are just as guilty of blatant sexism, but there are also a lot of male models that aren't, whereas with the female models it seems the ones that aren't are a lot rarer.

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
...wait, what? Can you elaborate please, which new model are you talking about?

Top right.

Its a weapon, but I doubt that the placement, and design, are accidental.

...I never noticed that before. You've got a point about the design, too.

I kinda hope that's an accident, personally. I don't want to think that GW could be that damn immature. In any case that's all I'll be able to think about now every time I see that weapon: a big whippy penis.

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
Based on all that I'd expect a woman going into a warzone would be less concerned with looking sexy and more with giving herself adequate protection and not being a walking target.

I would also expect a man going into a warzone in which advanced projectile weapons are prevalent to avoid burdening himself with a sword, or a longcoat for that matter.

Touche.

Kanluwen wrote:
Except I'm not saying the figures don't fit in the game.
I'm saying they don't fit in the ranges they are put into nor do they fit when put into comparison with females from the other armies.

And this is worth all the whinging that you've put into it, why?

Face it, they threw in some T&A to attract folks who don't go for unremitting realism, so what? I really fail to see how this spoils the game or mini range...

In short...



Deal with it....