One should have a really sad colourless life if a fraction of a second glimpse of stripe of extra skin drives him/her that crazy... especially considering we are talking about pixels :rolleyes:

What about Alice Liddel then? Would you call her "not sexualized" (according to your definition)?

It's incredible how some people can cling to one small episode and make an elephant of a fly... when some games are entirely IQ insulting :mis:

Sigh, it's a child, can't you grasp that? That's just wrong.
It doesn't drive anyone crazy, it's just that a lot of people agree that it was unnecessary and wrong move.

I'm not sure why you say that they are just pixels. Porn on my screen is also just a bunch of pixels.

Er, what are you on about? :confused:

Actually, you're pretty much the only one who doesn't agree with us on this matter.

How old is Lara supposed to be in the Ireland section of Chronicles?

If you think it's "porn" when someone is getting ready to go to bed or merely changing their clothes (as it appears in that cutscene), then you need to see a therapist or something :p. It's all about context ;)

Well, Lara was born in 1968 in the Core bio and according to this trailer the Ireland events took place when she was only 11.

Who said it's porn? I just followed EscondeR's line of logic that they are merely pixels. Nudity is nudity and Lara was definitely underage at that time. Yes, she was about to go bed, but that's irrelevant. Core didn't need to show it, this doesn't develop the Ireland story, it's just there for the sake of it.

If that scene in question was from TR2013 I wonder how different some people would sound.

That's the answer I found too, at Stella's TR timeline. I couldn't believe it though, she doesn't look eleven. She looks the same age she does during the Angkor Wat thing in Last Revelation, apparently she was sixteen then.

Yeah, it really sounds very young. I'd say 14ish sounds better.
The fact that she was 16 in Angkor Wat is irrelevant IMO. Core didn't have the resources/didn't bother to make a new model so they just reused it. Fair enough.

You compared it to porn... Should I quote?

I see you have a very wide definition of nudity.
Exaggeration is exaggeration. Period.

Nope. You said they are just pixels. I said that porn for example is also just pixels. Yet there is a huge difference between them. Just because the FMV is made of pixels is no excuse.
Right, bad wording. Suggestive material?

It's the context that you're getting wrong, saying it's suggestive gives the impression that scene is in some way purposely titillating. It isn't, it's just a girl getting changed (for whatever reason). There's nothing suggestive or titillating about that context.