This jiggle is unnatural.

«1

Comments

  • brucebruce
    edited October 2006
    They don't obey gravity >.<
  • Amoeba BoyAmoeba Boy
    edited October 2006
    Good lord, not even Jell-O acts like that.
  • godgod
    edited October 2006
    It's like... a fat guy in a vibrating massage chair.
  • AgentcelAgentcel
    edited October 2006
    They each bounce separatly. Ew.
  • Professor MacJakeProfessor MacJake
    edited October 2006
    Dear God, its as if they move independently of not only the girl's body but also each other.

    Who the hell is aroused by this shit?! Someone must be if they keep making games like this.

    Jesus. What an age we live in.
  • Amoeba BoyAmoeba Boy
    edited October 2006
    I get the feeling that they're just seeing how bad it can get before they've given an Adults Only rating. Some of those girls could very easily be naked.
  • SerephelSerephel
    edited October 2006
    Real boobs do not move independently!

    It's not arousing when they move like that. It's just... laughable.
  • mjc0961mjc0961
    edited October 2006
    And then the hair... If I can borrow this graphic from Tim Buckley over at CTRL+ALT+DEL:

    itakagi.jpg

    The only problem with this graph is that he gave too big a slice for everything else.

    I'm still really sickened by all the times one boob goes up while the other sags down. :(
  • BehemothBehemoth
    edited October 2006
    That wasn't as bad as you guys all amde it sound. While the jiggling was way over-exagerated, it wasn't too unnatural. It's just not that often that you run into women of those proportions, not wearing something to provide more support.
  • mjc0961mjc0961
    edited October 2006
    I don't care how big the boobs are and how little they are supported, one does not go up while the other goes down. Not naturally.
  • SerephelSerephel
    edited October 2006
    Some of them just moved while the girl wasn't actually doing anything.

    They reminded me of that Simpsons episode when some researcher poked Homer's gut and timed how long it jiggled.
  • Professor MacJakeProfessor MacJake
    edited October 2006
    "Woo, look at that flubber fly!"
  • brucebruce
    edited October 2006
    Sadly, that isn't the reaction the game makers were going for...
  • jcjc
    edited October 2006
    I don't get it. The jiggling is actually worse now. They've gone back to DOA1 physics.
  • SilverwardSilverward
    edited October 2006
    I just know that one of these days Playboy is going to have a very special spread.
  • jcjc
    edited October 2006
    Anything would be better than the Z-list game characters they have in their ridiculous yearly "Women of Video Games" (or whatever they call it) feature.
  • mjc0961mjc0961
    edited October 2006
    ... Playboy actually does that? Ugh.
  • NukivajNukivaj
    edited October 2006
    Ewwwwwww, boobies, ewwwwww....

    Actually the hair annoys me more...
  • jcjc
    edited October 2006
    Yeah, they do. I'm sure Google will help you if you're curious. But yeah, they have featured the same character from Darkwatch two years in a row, if that gives you an idea of the kind of high-profile characters whose awkward, disgusting nude renders they feature.
  • mjc0961mjc0961
    edited October 2006
    Thanks, but no thanks. I'm sure Google will show me anyway. All I have to do is be searching for something completely innocent and it'll pull up some nasty Final Fantasy chick in Playboy so that I can be scared for life (again).
  • BehemothBehemoth
    edited October 2006
    ha ha, silly javi, boobs are great! but yeah, I agree, the hair really did annoy me the most.
  • SerephelSerephel
    edited October 2006
    Well no one wants to watch hair jiggle! Silly Behemoth!
  • jcjc
    edited October 2006
    I want to watch weird ribbony hair pass through solid objects!
  • Amoeba BoyAmoeba Boy
    edited October 2006
    Then you, my friend, have come to the right place!
  • AgentcelAgentcel
    edited October 2006
    mjc0961 wrote: »
    Thanks, but no thanks. I'm sure Google will show me anyway. All I have to do is be searching for something completely innocent and it'll pull up some nasty Final Fantasy chick in Playboy so that I can be scared for life (again).

    I've been scared for life like that a couple times. I typed in:

    Tap dancing-a dancing penis came up

    Jaws- self-explanitory

    Oh, and if you search for "zelda", a top-naked girl will come up. Not for reference or anything.
  • mjc0961mjc0961
    edited October 2006
    Agentcel wrote: »
    Jaws- self-explanitory

    Not quite self explanitory, but please, don't feel obligated to go into details on my account.

    I once did a search for "pie" and got a topless woman who was sitting in a slice of pie... Thanks, google. -_-
  • X'o'LoreX'o'Lore
    edited October 2006
    I do believe google does have filters to help prevent that sort of thing. It defaults to "moderately safe" or something like that.
  • jcjc
    edited October 2006
    The googles do nothing.
  • mjc0961mjc0961
    edited October 2006
    XoLore wrote: »
    I do believe google does have filters to help prevent that sort of thing. It defaults to "moderately safe" or something like that.

    Yeah, I have those on. And still, I get sick things like naked pie ladies or whatever Agentcel saw when he googled "jaws." (I'm not going to try it, but I bet it'd be htere)
  • BehemothBehemoth
    edited October 2006
    How can they filter images? Webpages have content, their easy to categorize and block, but images can really only be IDed by their title.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2023