Of Course There's A Reason Why Tekken 7's Android Has Breast Physics

Tekken 7

Tekken 7's Alisa Bosconovitch looks like a woman, but she is certainly a robot. So recently, a confused player asked Tekken producer Katsuhiro Harada why, despite being synthetic, Alisa's breasts bounce.

Most people might assume the design is to turn people on. But Harada actually attributed some essential functionality to those jiggly robot breasts:

Huh! That's a new one. It's a little weird because Alisa's creator, um, designed her in his daughter's likeness. But, hey, maybe Harada is pulling a Hideo Kojima, and in fact, we will eventually be ashamed for bringing Alisa's uncanny anatomy into question.


    My view: if you're going to put breasts on something, do it properly!

    I really wish they'd keep the manufactured outrage trash from the US Kotaku site off Kotaku AU.

      ...and Kotaku won't even show us the offending breasts.

    It's a little weird because Alisa's creator, um, designed her in his daughter's likeness. But, hey, maybe Harada is pulling a Hideo Kojima, and in fact, we will eventually be ashamed for bringing Alisa's uncanny anatomy into question.

    Wait... are you actually body shaming in some strange way?

    Don't you normally espouse this is abhorrent behaviour?

    So what if a female character has breast physics, don't you normally champion this sort of thing?

    Pretty shitty Kotaku, pretty shitty.

    Last edited 06/07/17 3:47 pm






      It's also amusing that the types who would normally reply to an article concerning the objectification of women in gaming with "its only a game, get over it" are all of a sudden criticising this article for the kind of thing they'd usually be staunchly defending. I know you don't stand by your body shaming outrage, stop with the contrarian hot air.

        There's no 'body shaming outrage', there's an observation that Kotaku shouldn't try to have it both ways. That's a fair observation. Constructive critique, fair and valid. Kotaku regularly champions the opposite opinion to what they've presented here. Your assumption, and it is also only an assumption, that I've ever said 'it's only a game get over it', couldn't be further from the mark. As they say, never assume.

          I wasn't referring specifically to you with the "only a game" criticism, that was a blanket fire generalisation and, fair call, I've seen your posts and you don't fall under that. But I think it's a long bow to draw to say that any of this article is body shaming and highlights hippocracy in the Kotaku editorial team. You'd really have to be stretching for that argument to fit. If it's the "uncanny" bit you quoted, I think it's pretty accurate to call an android with a realistic bust "uncanny".

            Or it's the week before I start teaching and I'm really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bored and should have better things to do? lol

              Could well be that haha. I've just come off exams and now don't know what to do with my time, so hey comments sections it is!

        You got me. I'm a shameless contrarian.

        But I also like boobs :-)

          I'm an English Teacher, it's in my nature to be contrarian. :D

      Don't you find these justifications from game developers at least a bit amusing though?

      In both this case, and the Kojima case, the characters were obviously designed the way they were so that (some) players find them attractive. It'd be fair enough if the developers gave that as a justification. But instead they come up with something ridiculous that is obviously working backwards from the real decisions.

      If you are designing a character from scratch with the brief that they use photosynthesis to feed, do you really think you'd end up with Quiet? And if you were designing a robot character that needed shock absorbers, would you immediately equate that to jiggle physics?

        Oh I find some of the reasonings hilarious :)

        Indeed, if we were to use a character with the brief they gave for Quiet, we'd actually have a completely naked character instead of skimpily clothed.

        As for 'jiggle physics', I applied the logic of the Terminator to it, living flesh over a metal endoskeleton, meaning they went to the extent of giving it a convincing exterior, not really a major stretch? Look at how we're trying to go with robotic experiments, female 'robots' that have been devised in real life already, they've already tried to make, of all things, realistic looking breasts, for some reason. Doesn't truly worry me, it feels almost puritanical for people to worry about this to be honest?

        Last edited 06/07/17 10:18 pm

          So in that case, the robot's creator wanted to give it a human appearance so people would be more comfortable with it. That by itself would be a reasonable explanation for a fictional robot's appearance.

          Also, I took the "you will be ashamed for ..." line from the article not as the writer moralising, but rather paraphrasing Hideo Kojima's tweet in a tongue in cheek fashion:


    There is no explanation needed. Sex sells. Put tits in something, Teenage boys will buy it.

      thats it.. if you are going to do it at least have the guts to say you just want to see breasts bounce

      ...and also shameless dudes in their 30s *shifty eyes*

      I like the Nier Automata's dev's honesty on this issue

    Why would a game developer put breasts on a female? That makes no sense!

    ofcause theres a reason. the majority of game developers and gamers are guys. its called wanting to see some cheesecake fan service.

    Its similar to going to some blokes garage and seeing a girly calendar on the wall.

    not saying its right as i don't like how it could influence a young girls attitudes about how they should look but if they make it, perves gonna perv.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now