Sheâs treated too often as an object outside of the game - I remember multiple books sheâs in/on has a very skeevy portrayal, particularly focused on her rear end for no actual good reason. Which just isnât great; but the game doesnât do this much - itâs only really in the ending.
When sheâs declared âdeadâ, her line is uh, boys, how 'bout that evac?
; which is distress more generically, but then she becomes a motivation for Jim, not even a full object. She reappears and this makes it better, though.
In the rest of the gameâs story, however, she isnât - sheâs treated as An Other more broadly, except by ex. Jim who knew her before infestation. It creates an interesting contrast to work with between the people that talk about her, but at this time sheâs treated as more closely a force of nature.
There is no reason why she should be naked - as an easy example, letâs look at Stukov, he got infested with his clothes on. Why is he treated differently in that regard?
Itâs horrible.
The answer for her to be clothesless in that scene is simply âbecause we felt like itâ and the reason to feel like it is because there was a desire to have her be that way, vulnerable, and nothing is more shorthand for vulnerable than being naked. But also it just makes her in distress and out of control again, robbing her of agency and making her be a prize instead of a human being.
She was armored
by nature of alteration. While technically part of her flesh, we consider most of the getup to be a substitute for clothes because it exhibits multiple properties of clothes or armor.
(I think itâs a terrible outfit, but it is âan outfitâ.)
In summary;
Yes. Sheâs put in a position of weakness and this doesnât do anything narratively. Itâs weak and pointless and it feels almost like âbecause naked lady!â to plenty.
However I am a guy so maybe I lack the same sensitivity women would to this kind of thing?
Yes.
Does any here feel like this scene was kind of sexist on some level?
Yes.