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.

Text redacted as inappropriate and rude. -Mannahnin

BobbaFett wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:

For a major example, look at this model:

I still dont get what is so sexy about the little robot

Kanluwen wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Lormax wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Working on my computer.

No, your pics are broken. They are still in the cache in your computer, thus YOU can see them. Check your links and try again.

They came directly from the Infinity site.

Infinity doesn't allow hotlinking, hence why I was using URLs.

Sad

Also Cannerous, not all of us can handle sex in every aspect of our life like you can

Slarg232 wrote:

Also Cannerous, not all of us can handle sex in every aspect of our life like you can

The Mistress was yelling at me for that yesterday actually But seriously, why is over the top violence okay but skin isn't?

Sometimes, I feel sorry for the Spess Mahreens and their lifes full of war and no sex at all.

If I was a Marine and face one of the Infinity females I will get rid of my armor somehow and feth that sexy chic Ultramarine style.

Well this thread was pointless from the start, considering BobbaFett here already spun it off in the wrong direction.

Kanluwen wrote:Well this thread was pointless from the start, considering BobbaFett here already spun it off in the wrong direction.

Start your own then. Correct the wrong. Go on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Also Cannerous, not all of us can handle sex in every aspect of our life like you can

The Mistress was yelling at me for that yesterday actually But seriously, why is over the top violence okay but skin isn't?

Something about a good book, a lord and sheep?

BrookM wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Well this thread was pointless from the start, considering BobbaFett here already spun it off in the wrong direction.

Start your own then. Correct the wrong. Go on.

And then have it get shut for spamming, with me getting a warning?

Yeah. That ain't happening.

Simply put: the idea that someone can object to skin on a miniature simply because of "being a prude" or "finding sex offensive" is silly.

Infinity is the closest thing we have to anime inspired scifi, these minis are superbly executed and concept wise fit like a glove into the range... and it has been happening for a long time now, I see no reason to complain about it... Someone may not like it, but that does not mean these don't fit the range... they just don't fit someone's personal tastes.

As far as I'm concerned I'm glad Corvus belli embraced mainstream anime concepts to its full extent. Humor included.

BobbaFett wrote:Cheesecake: is it is suitable for wargaming or completely inappropriate?

Why is this being raised in response to the Infinity models? I suggest you look at the Daemonettes, Slaanesh, Dark Elves, and Dark Eldar wyches (among others) in 40k.

"Cheesecake" has been around for as long as fantasy miniatures (yes, 40k is fantasy, it's just fantasy in spaaaaaaace). It's not going anywhere.

If anything, Infinity is raising the bar. Admittedly, they're making models more attractive with clothing than a lot of sculptors do without, but that speaks more to their skill, not to any creeping perversion.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Also Cannerous, not all of us can handle sex in every aspect of our life like you can

The Mistress was yelling at me for that yesterday actually But seriously, why is over the top violence okay but skin isn't?

Several reasons for me, actually.

First of all; it's impractical on the serious side of things; flesh won't protect as much as a suit of armor, and it's not like your going to impress anyone dressing like that on a battlefield. There is no reason for it, at all.

Secondly, and this is more important to the discussion; why do women have to be half naked to be seen as "Sexy"? I love sexy chicks with guns. I love http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/reverend-custodiers/ model, and I want to get it (In fact, I have already talked to Neal who has ordered it for the Warstore so I can buy it). That's a sexy female model, it has her being able to fight due to having armor, but she's fully protected and everything.

Now compare that to say http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/daktaris-campaign-doctors/. Whats wrong with this model? Exposed midriff (Impractical for battle, see the first point), and the "Sexy" pose. She's in a stripper nurse outfit...... I don't mention the tail or ears because let's face it, that's something different all together. Is it furry fanservice? Possibly, but that's not SOLELY because of the tail.....

Thats why for me.

I have no problem with the pictures in the original post; they are robots, and they aren't falling out of their clothing. But when you have to put something like that Daktaris right next to something like that Reverend Custodiers......... It's pretty ridiculous....

I don't play Infinity, nor have i read much of the source material for it, but from the figs and art I HAVE seen these seem pretty typical for the setting and seem right in line with the manga/anime vibe this game is exploiting (which traditionally is built upon this sort of imagery).

Thus I have no issue with with models like this being present in Infinity models/art.

I'm not really a fan of anime/manga so I choose not to play Infinity, its just not that interesting to me as a whole, cheesecake or not.

I see this as a totally diffeent discussion however to the one about sexualizing models in an inappropriate context such as naked commissar models intended to be used in 40k, etc. The setting does not support this asthetic, and doing so seems really forced, immature, and usually so speaks more about the person using/making said models then it does about my objection to it imho.

Then again I desire to maintain a faithful representation of the established and official visual asthetic of the game settings I play/collect.

It isnt about being upset/uptight/offended by boobs on a 40K model, it is more about the mentality and behavior of some of those that perpetuate and venerate said models that is embarrassing/sad at times...

Suitable? I suppose so, they are of approximately the correct scale and show the weapons the figure has. For wargaming that is pretty much all that is required.

That being said, few if any of these models will find a place in my growing Infinity collection.
While I can see that the figures are suited in a lot of anime/manga styles they look totally out of place on a battlefield.
Many of the Infinity ranges already have figures that look feminine without resorting to showing any more than the male soldiers.
It also risks (IMO) turning off female games to the range - if cheesecake was the universal look for Infinity why isn't the male Caledonian Volunteer showing us what is under his kilt?

I would find it much more in keeping to see a Chimera with a smoking-hot Sister of Battle painted on the side armour

First let me say yes i think its ok

Second, Russia used female snipers in ww2 and were always often better then their male counter parts.

Third it brings in a um not lack of but i forget the word.... Variety, to the table and i like variety

Now if we are talking nude female models even as a male i believe its disrespectful and tasteless not saying i wont play, i just see no reason in having females breasts hanging out ( its also not very realistic as they would undoubtedly cover themselves up and i don't need my 7 year old son asking me why her extremities are hanging out or what they are yet).

but i really dont see anything "sad" or "embarassing" at all about the figures so far.

looks like a good balance of aesthetics to me

if infinity ONLY showed mortar-boobs and thongs then I can understand the hullabaloo. Understand mind you but not agree.

and btw the models show above can be painted a lot less provocatively. If the crossbow lady didnt have a bare bottom i doubt anyone would be making a fuss.

Im more concerned about the people making an issue out of this though.

Kanluwen wrote:Simply put: the idea that someone can object to skin on a miniature simply because of "being a prude" or "finding sex offensive" is silly.

Yeah, how dare people object to things on the basis of personal beliefs that I don't share!

Sex in wargames has always been a contentious issue, and will likely remain that way for some time. Exactly where the line is drawn is going to be different for everybody.

'Cheesecake' though usually refers to models that are deliberately provocative... scantily clad, or overtly sexualised. The miniatures posted in the OP don't fit that category, IMO. They're clearly female, but that's about all. The examples presented further down, where the females are more scantily clad than their counterparts are less ideal... although for me personally, that's not so much due to being 'cheesecake' as simply because it results in an inconsistent range of models.

to add:

I will say that what is and is not appropriate should ALWAYS be agreed upon by the people who will be dealing with the subject matter and should ALWAYS be ruled by common sense

if I'm playing against a 9 year old from Poland I wont be breaking out the Quad-boobed Slaaneshi cultists in SS Fetish-wear.

Pin-up nose-art in 3D? Think I might be buying some of those there ladies right soon. Outstanding figures. I'm particularly taken by the lasiq sniper and the scots women.

And for the record, I have more than adequate contact with the fairer sex. Grubby teen nerd fapping myself stupid to figure-pr0n, I am not.

insaniak wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Simply put: the idea that someone can object to skin on a miniature simply because of "being a prude" or "finding sex offensive" is silly.

Yeah, how dare people object to things on the basis of personal beliefs that I don't share!

Sex in wargames has always been a contentious issue, and will likely remain that way for some time. Exactly where the line is drawn is going to be different for everybody.

'Cheesecake' though usually refers to models that are deliberately provocative... scantily clad, or overtly sexualised. The miniatures posted in the OP don't fit that category, IMO. They're clearly female, but that's about all. The examples presented further down, where the females are more scantily clad than their counterparts are less ideal... although for me personally, that's not so much due to being 'cheesecake' as simply because it results in an inconsistent range of models.

IMO the ones flashing panties or midriff are clearly cheesecake. I take Kan's point that these are not realistic or appropriate to be on a battlefield, and clash with the dress of more pragmatically-constumed figures in the same line and same faction.

That being said, I do seem them as thematically appropriate for many types of anime. I'm not offended by the models. They just show that the Infinity range is more about anime, including underdressed girls kicking butt, than it is about verisimiliture in presenting a credible sci-fi setting.

I can see it on their faces: Why Won't My Hips Un-Sway?!?!?!?

They probably looked at the picture of beach bikini model and sculpted based off of that lol...

Talk about sculptors who ahve no imagination.

I must admit I've read the posts on this topic and on the similar topic recently with growing horror at the puritan attitudes that people are airing. I think sometimes we are all taking ourselves and the hobby way, way too seriously. What is evident is that we are too fixated on building armies and anything that does not meet our criteria is strongly rejected. How is showing a well defined female model unacceptable?
We all watch films which to a great extent have females shall we say less than 'wrapped up'? Do we turn away from the screen until the 'offending' images disappear? NO WE DON'T. A female advertising a product like a car, do we turn away? NO. Hell even Woman's magazines are full of glamour shots of women, do they turn away? Well considering that there is nearly a new women's magazine appearing on the newstands almost every month and that they all contain glamour shots of women, I don't think they do!
C'mon people, we are playing a tabletop game with little figures. It is not the end of the world. It really isn't.

I'm always slightly intrigued by what nay-sayers of any given sculpt would prefer to see?

Logically, a good percentage of future military types could be women with as little as a severe hairstyle. Some military women are built like the lorries they drive. Others are drop-dead gorgeous stone-cold killers. I prefer to paint the second.

I vaguely recall a conversation many moons ago about female miniatures and their "features" where it was pointed out that at 3ft "wargaming" range some things have to be exaggerated in order to be visible.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm always slightly intrigued by what nay-sayers of any given sculpt would prefer to see?

Logically, a good percentage of future military types could be women with as little as a severe hairstyle. Some military women are built like the lorries they drive. Others are drop-dead gorgeous stone-cold killers. I prefer to paint the second.

I vaguely recall a conversation many moons ago about female miniatures and their "features" where it was pointed out that at 3ft "wargaming" range some things have to be exaggerated in order to be visible.

I would prefer the women be posed in ways which do not look painful.

You know, so that they don't have their hips shoved out past their shoulders while holding a gun taller than they are.

Standing in a more natural relaxed pose would be much better.

It's a show of utter laziness by the sculptor that they essentially use bathing suit models as their basis for poses. It's like the link I posted above, how many lazy comic book artists did the same thing and resulted in poses which looked dumb and out of context.

Slipstream wrote:I must admit I've read the posts on this topic and on the similar topic recently with growing horror at the puritan attitudes that people are airing. I think sometimes we are all taking ourselves and the hobby way, way too seriously. What is evident is that we are too fixated on building armies and anything that does not meet our criteria is strongly rejected. How is showing a well defined female model unacceptable?
We all watch films which to a great extent have females shall we say less than 'wrapped up'? Do we turn away from the screen until the 'offending' images disappear? NO WE DON'T. A female advertising a product like a car, do we turn away? NO. Hell even Woman's magazines are full of glamour shots of women, do they turn away? Well considering that there is nearly a new women's magazine appearing on the newstands almost every month and that they all contain glamour shots of women, I don't think they do!
C'mon people, we are playing a tabletop game with little figures. It is not the end of the world. It really isn't.

You've posted in the wrong thread, I think. This one is in response to comments that I made, which had nothing to do with morality or nudity. Just poorly fitting models in a range.

I'm always slightly intrigued by what nay-sayers of any given sculpt would prefer to see?

Logically, a good percentage of future military types could be women with as little as a severe hairstyle. Some military women are built like the lorries they drive. Others are drop-dead gorgeous stone-cold killers. I prefer to paint the second.

I vaguely recall a conversation many moons ago about female miniatures and their "features" where it was pointed out that at 3ft "wargaming" range some things have to be exaggerated in order to be visible.

Those are some good and reasonable points, but if I want a set of mixed male and female soldiers who look like possible combatants in a far-future war, I don't expect any of them to have their underwear showing.

Those kind of minis can be lovely and great and fun if I'm trying to game in the kind of setting some anime movies portray, but it's a direct conflict with realistic sci fi. No knock on Infinity if they've chosen their genre and they're not interested in being "realistic" sci-fi. That's fine. But it is a disappointment to folks who see some of their range as fairly realistic, and would like to use the game with a more sober and serious setting/tone.

Yeah, anime is quite frequently completely and utterly mind-blowingly stupid like that.

Especially since they complain about how teenagers tend to torrent/pirate their shows but they still market to teenagers despite the fact that adults buy their shows (and the only thing they market to adults is... well, porn). Executive stupidity is not unique to the US, that's for sure, Japan has plenty to throw around too.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I am also trying to figure out how the posthumans are not appropriate for a line that already includes.







*scratches head*

I'm trying to figure out if that's skin or a really tight leggings... Also, why are they wearing high heels?

Surtur wrote:I'm trying to figure out if that's skin or a really tight leggings... Also, why are they wearing high heels?

Because they're sculpted by horny, lonely men who don't know anything about moving around in high heeled boots?

Mannahnin wrote:

They just show that the Infinity range is more about anime, including underdressed girls kicking butt, than it is about verisimiliture in presenting a credible sci-fi setting.

Science fiction has many faces and all are credible within their graphic codes IMO... thats why some love realistic scifi and others prefer more fantastic science fiction... Anime is just one of the many scifi faces and I dont believe it to be better or worse than others science fiction expressions. One thing is personal preferences another is looking at things in a wider perspective and accept everything as part of a bigger reality. Funny we speak about verisimilitude and credibility in Scifi settings when in its essence Scifi is the perfect excuse to project conjectures on hypothetical futures, hey?

Those three sets all appear to be wearing boots with a raised heel to give the effect of high-heeled shoes. Ie, to put the leg and the backside more on display, at the cost of impairing the wearer's balance and mobility.