BloderModer
Smash Apprentice
aBBYS can tell you what I've been trying to: It's about sex appeal. It's the thing many want to see, more sexiness. Who needs character when you have a sexy object to look at. The reason Nintendo has changed Samus is because they want her to look sexy, and you've admitted that yourself, but you wouldn't call her a "sex object", because her character is not about being eyecandy or object of desire for men or something like that. (Even though she's been designed to appeal to male gamers sexual nature.) Handcuffs-nunchaku? Oh, totally logical, she's been Chozo trained, no need for normal nunchakus (this is a metaphor, no need to take it literally, this metaphor is in the context of stereotypical BDSM-culture influences, that includes skintight suits, whips and stiletto heels)No, because there really isn't anything to be offended by.
The only qualms I see about Samus across the board are that the heels and her attractiveness are not practical or don't make sense, when the heels are practical (in context - Samus can handle them because she has super human balance, a normal person would be hindered if they moved around in them), and the body makes perfect sense (the breasts may be unnecessary, but their size is inconsequential to her movement, and they round out well with the rest of her body in a way that makes sense. Plus, the Zero Suit is keeping them nice and firm, so they don't get in her way, plus, well - Samus can't exactly help how large her breasts are if we look at this from a canon angle, unless she wants to go under the knife for that, but she has no reason to, as again, the Zero Suit is keeping them out of her way).
And if you want to split hairs, the beauty mark is an inoffensive, purely aesthetic touch added by the character designer which adds some aesthetic appeal to her (and before anyone says it, sexual and aesthetic appeal are two different things).
And here is what you're saying: High heels? Chozo trained, no need for "normal" jet boots. And high heels has nothing to do with the connotations associated with skintight suits and whips, not at all. We are still supposed to see her as a strong warrior past her recent sexualisation, which is not sexualisation, because there is absolutely no possibility at all that whips, tight suits and high heels on a woman enhanced with bigger breasts and bigger buttocks could be associated with anything remotely sexual.
Do I understand you correctly?
I've given an entirely plausible explanation for the complaints that have been aimed at this character-design, if you still deny that there could even be a reason, even if you don't agree with those reasons yourself, that people could make complaints towards this, I'm done talking to you.
Edit'd: Metaphor instead of parable.
Last edited: