安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
166 
举报此帖
Why make them look so idealized and attractive then? Because the designers of the androids were going for aesthetics. Their appearance basically serves propaganda purposes, rather than functional necessity.
That's the in-world explanation at least. The real explanation is because Yoko Taro likes the way they look, and that, from a creators perspective, is all the reason you need.
As for whether she's... ahem... anatomically correct. Well some things are left to the imagination still.
And being attractive as hell
They even question why they look the way they do and state it was probably 'to the appeal of their creators'.
A2 is supposed to suggest this a bit more showing its rot/degradation. I think applying a gender to robots is more a commentary about us than them.
However with that having been said, robots made in the image of animals are often made to be substitutes for the real thing, so they are often referred to as if they are the real deal. That is largely just a game of pretend though. No different from treating G.I. Joe action figures as real American manly-man soldiers, or Barbie dolls as quintessential valley girls.
Dr. Katherine Pulaski was technically correct to call Data an "it" though.
aye, but i just like A2 because shes the kaine expy.