Slashdot, Slate, The Discovery Channel, The Escapist, GameSetWatch, Good Deal Games, AtariAge, ClassicGaming.com, Las Vegas Review Journal, GAMERadio, The Mercury News, Maxim and many more popular media outlets!
Heavy makeup, breast implants and unshapely legs that remind me of toothpicks and Mikado sticks.
Blessing or not, these pictures don't pleasure my European eyes as they look more like US porn VHS covers of the 90'ies.
Meh, I wouldn't go that far! There definitely is an artistic quality to these photographs. However, none of the females, while attractive in the "general" sense, were particularly my taste. The stern looks on their faces, the sort of generic "look" about them (I thought they all were the same girl at first... or maybe they were!), the "fakeness" of their look, etc. Give me Tina Fey over any of these girls!
As for the "Ultima" inspiration, I'm not a big enough Ultima junkie to catch the connection. These photos appear to be of generic fantasy settings, not unlike something you'd see on a fantasy book cover, Boris Vallejo or Brothers Hildebrandt painting, or whatever.
As an "artistic" expression of fantasy, these images are (largely) successful.
Matt Barton wrote:
To be silly about it, I thought Princess Fiona (from Shrek) was more attractive as an ogre than in her human form. :P
Meh, I wouldn't go that far! I see your point, though. For someone to be your "mate," as opposed to being your "fantasy," there has to be a lot of personality compatibility, i.e. someone "real." Women (or men!) who concentrate all on presenting the "fantasy" probably hits you on some psychological level, rendering them unattractive in your mind.
Bill Loguidice wrote:
I don't think it's just Americans in particular, it's humans in particular, if not animals in particular. Beauty rules and probably always will. It doesn't make it right, but there's some instinctual thing probably related to mating that makes us value outer beauty so much.
The general scientific consensus, as far as I've read, seems to be that judging a mate's physical attractiveness is a way to instinctually judge the "fitness" of a mate in order to have healthy offspring. A lot of "facial symmetry ratios" and such.
It is also said that we tend to end up with mates that are around the same level of attractiveness as we are.
Bill Loguidice wrote:
I'm one of those who believes you have to have some basic level of attraction in order to be with someone. Liking the person's personality and other attributes is what you keeps you together. If you don't have that basic level of attraction first, I think the rest can very easily fall apart.
Agreed, I think. Heck, I don't know, I've been very poor at maintaining relationships. Wow, that's a whole other can of worms, but as "unfair" as it may be, I've learned not to waste my time (or especially theirs) if I am not attracted to them on some initial level. And I'm very wary of women who express interest in me... it may not seem obvious to them at first, but I *AM* a geek, and I like it that way. Personality wise, I'm most likely not compatible with them in the long run. Needless to say, I think I'm screwed in this department. :-)
To summarize: Meh...
Blessing or not, these pictures don't pleasure my European eyes as they look more like US porn VHS covers of the 90'ies.
Meh, I wouldn't go that far! There definitely is an artistic quality to these photographs. However, none of the females, while attractive in the "general" sense, were particularly my taste. The stern looks on their faces, the sort of generic "look" about them (I thought they all were the same girl at first... or maybe they were!), the "fakeness" of their look, etc. Give me Tina Fey over any of these girls!
As for the "Ultima" inspiration, I'm not a big enough Ultima junkie to catch the connection. These photos appear to be of generic fantasy settings, not unlike something you'd see on a fantasy book cover, Boris Vallejo or Brothers Hildebrandt painting, or whatever.
As an "artistic" expression of fantasy, these images are (largely) successful.
Meh, I wouldn't go that far! I see your point, though. For someone to be your "mate," as opposed to being your "fantasy," there has to be a lot of personality compatibility, i.e. someone "real." Women (or men!) who concentrate all on presenting the "fantasy" probably hits you on some psychological level, rendering them unattractive in your mind.
The general scientific consensus, as far as I've read, seems to be that judging a mate's physical attractiveness is a way to instinctually judge the "fitness" of a mate in order to have healthy offspring. A lot of "facial symmetry ratios" and such.
It is also said that we tend to end up with mates that are around the same level of attractiveness as we are.
Agreed, I think. Heck, I don't know, I've been very poor at maintaining relationships. Wow, that's a whole other can of worms, but as "unfair" as it may be, I've learned not to waste my time (or especially theirs) if I am not attracted to them on some initial level. And I'm very wary of women who express interest in me... it may not seem obvious to them at first, but I *AM* a geek, and I like it that way. Personality wise, I'm most likely not compatible with them in the long run. Needless to say, I think I'm screwed in this department. :-)
qoj hpmoj o+ 6uo73q 3Jv 3svq jnoh 77V