155 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

There is no biologically or artistically feasible way to put boobs on a female turian without making her look like a mutant. Believe me, I've tried. They just don't belong. Deal with it.



The funny part here is that I actually tried.

[RethenX]

I really do hope that aliens don't read this thread. They might think twice about visiting Earth.

[ShadyKat]

RethenX wrote...

I really do hope that aliens don't read this thread. They might think twice about visiting Earth.

Or if it's "Their thing" they may get here faster.

Modifié par ShadyKat, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:31 .

[Sajuro]

RethenX wrote...

I really do hope that aliens don't read this thread. They might think twice about visiting Earth.

I would be worried about any aliens just browsing the internet... what if they happen upon 4chan?

[RethenX]

I don't know dude, we already had a couple of people talk about Turian vaginas. damn I can't believe I just typed that.

[Sajuro]

RethenX wrote...

I don't know dude, we already had a couple of people talk about Turian vaginas. damn I can't believe I just typed that.

I know, I was one of them.

[Bogsnot1]

Sajuro wrote...

RethenX wrote...

I really do hope that aliens don't read this thread. They might think twice about visiting Earth.

I would be worried about any aliens just browsing the internet... what if they happen upon 4chan?

Lets hope they have a sense of humour, and also come across this:

[Inquisitor Recon]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
The funny part here is that I actually tried.

???

[V-rex]

Because 'breasts' are something that mammals have. They store milk that they feed their young with. Some reptiles have 'teats' but that's rare and isn't common. So it would make so sense to see a Krogan (a reptilian race) to have breasts. Similarly Turians are avian, and birds give food to their young by throwing up into their mouths. If we saw breasts on a Turian it wouldn't make sense from a biological standpoint.



The point is, if all these races had breasts it would imply that game developers think that the only way we can tell a female from a male is if they have boobs, which in turn implies two things (from how I see it)

1. They aren't 'alien' enough. Surely the idea of an alien race is that they look strange and bizarre, but if you add typically 'human' characteristics to differentiate gender then it comes across as strange.

2. Breasts have long been used as something to be fetishized for shallow sex appeal. With that in mind, how messed up would it be to see Krogan breasts? It would be sending all kinds of terrible signals.



Anyway, I'm not saying this is how it is in general. This is just my personal take on the whole thing.

[Inquisitor Recon]

I'd imagine female turians have somewhat protruding chests anyway, turian males sort of do after all.

[Interactive Civilian]

V-rex wrote...

Because 'breasts' are something that mammals have. They store milk that they feed their young with. Some reptiles have 'teats' but that's rare and isn't common. So it would make so sense to see a Krogan (a reptilian race) to have breasts. Similarly Turians are avian, and birds give food to their young by throwing up into their mouths. If we saw breasts on a Turian it wouldn't make sense from a biological standpoint.

This is not a direct criticism of you, but of posts I've seen like this. A lot of posts say things like Krogans being reptilian or Turians being avian or Hanar being jellyfish, and then basing their ideas on knowledge of such terrestrial organism.

Yes, morphologically, Krogan do look like they'd belong in the Reptile class. However, biologically, they don't have to at all. Why wouldn't it make any sense for a Krogan to have breasts? Just because they look reptilian does not mean they are reptiles. We already know they don't lay eggs, but give birth (at least, this is the impression I get when they talk about all of the unviable, stillborn fetuses). There is no reason to assume they don't nurse their offspring. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean "fun bags" (sorry, folks, I prefer that to funny bumps ). The glands that provide nourishment to Krogan offspring could just as easily be in the hump, or on the legs, or in what we might consider the genital area.

Same with the Turians. They seem bird-like, but that does not mean they have to have all of the habits of the class Aves on Earth.

Same with Hanar. For all we know, they may be internal-gestating, milk-producing, warm-blooded organisms very mammal-like in their biology but merely look like Jellyfish.

We cannot draw any conclusions about alien biology based on superficial similarities to terrestrial life. Of course, this very theme is one of the big sources of complaints from those who don't like the idea of there being aliens which are physically attractive to humans, so on the flip side I can also disclaim that, while there is no reason to expect similarities to be anything more than superficial, we also have no reason to expect everything to be completely different. Evolution can do a lot of things, some of them very unpredictable, some actually predictable (e.g. we can predict that organisms which evolve to move quickly through a liquid medium will have a streamlined fusiform shape, no matter their underlying biology).

Since it's a sci-fi video game, I'm happy to just go with it. Asari look like humans and are attractive and attracted? Thanks, random chance of evolution. Hanar look like jellyfish? Err...thanks, random chance of evolution. Quarians have fun bags (or at least some kind of female morphological feature that resembles breasts, whether or not they share the same function)? Well, the talimancers say thanks, random chance of evolution. Drell males have features that human (among other) females may find attractive? Well, I'm sure some of the ladies who play this game are happy to say, thanks, random chance of evolution. Turian females don't have breasts? No big deal, but thanks for mixing things up a bit, random chance of evolution.

Modifié par Interactive Civilian, 21 janvier 2011 - 08:09 .

[didymos1120]

adam_grif wrote...

In ME1 Asari looked so human it was sickening, they are literally a human body with head tentacles and blue skin. The probability that such a thing would occur is staggeringly low, and their design is completely awful and poorly thought out.

OK, they weren't poorly thought out.  You're making the mistake of thinking that biological plausibility was actually one of their design goals for asari. Well, it wasn't. Never was.  They were always intended to be ridiculously human "green blue space girls".  They were supposed to be as close to human women as possible but still have just enough of the exotic to qualify as alien.  You may think that wasn't a worthwhile goal, but nonetheless, it's one they successfully attained.

Modifié par didymos1120, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:04 .

[Xaijin]

MrDizaztar wrote...

Female Turians don't have boobs period because they are not MAMMALS.

Turians aren't from Earth, period. No one says Palaven has to follow earth in any way shape or form and Turians =dinosaur/birds is just as moribund as Turians = anime humans, where males are bestial and females are humanized.

Modifié par Xaijin, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:03 .

[Moiaussi]

[quote]adam_grif wrote...

So um, how is that different from what I'm doing here? Guessing likely outcomes based on what is known? Also, quite a few things in physics are probabilistic not deterministic, i.e. have probabilities of neither 1 nor 0, but that's beside the point here.[/quote]

After the fact, either something happened or it did not. There is no going back in time to see if it would have happened differently if watched again, and even if there was a way to go back in time, the very act of reobserving would change the circumstances at the level you are talking about.

The inability to predict an outcome does not mean the outcome wasn't deterministic.

[quote]We can easily draw inferences based off life on Earth and make rational arguments by examining what characteristics are going to be required for a successful technological civilization to appear and what characteristics are posssessed by us, but not required for a successful technological civilizaiton to appear. The former are traits that we should expect to see in other civilizations, the latter are ones we should not.[/quote]

We only have one example. Us. That isn't enough to draw any inferences, really, unless you have an absolute definitve answer (not a theory, mind, but a proven answer) as to why we are the only such civilization on this planet.

[quote]The supermajority of all life on Earth is non-Mammalian. They are also highly successful. Mammals are no more successful than any other family, with the sole exception of humans who are successful not because of their breast feeding, but because of their large brains. Actually, the most successful species are bacterial, but...[/quote]

But are you trying to argue that it is likely that bacteria would be able to become spacefaring? When you say the majority is non-mammilian, you have to examine the relative complexity (or lack thereof) of said majority. Otherwise you are using statistics out of context. After all, the vast majority of matter on Earth isn't alive at all, so we are back to 'life itself shouldn't exist.'

[quote]What kind of argument are you making? We know humans exist because humans exist. What we're arguing is that other life should not automatically be like us, and they most certainly should not be so much like us we are sexually attractive to them and vice versa, given that the only species on a planet with billions of species (who we actually share a common ancestry with) that is attractive to an average human is... humans. There are a few eccentrics here and there who are attracted to dogs and horses, and if a small number of people get turned on by an Elcor or Volus that's to be expected. What isn't to be expected is that we will see this:[/quote]

You are arguing that you can prove a negative, that you can prove a non-zero probability can't happen. Many things in reality aren't 'expected.' Pictures don't make your point.

[quote]A species so physiologically like human females that they fit into the same armor with no problems.[/quote]

In ME1 there was actually different armour for Turians, Quarians, and Krogan. Don't use ME 2 as an example because it is generally criticized for tossing armour out in favour of silly costumes.

[quote]There are a huge number of characteristics that are unique to any given species, that have nothing to do with said species evolutionary success. These characteristics are "luck of the draw", and any given configuration of them is exceedingly unlikely, however it must have a specific configuration by virtue of existing. But that another species would happen by chance upon the same or even many of the same arbitrary characteristics is exceptionally implausible.[/quote]

Each and every one of them was an attempt at evolution though. Quit worrying about the similarities and explain what about the human form is so unlikely or 'un-useful' that it wouldn't develop pararllel on other species? In particular, breasts?

[quote]If you roll a 6 sided die 1000 times in sequence, you will get a sequence whose likelyhood of occuring was ~7.05 E -779. And yet, every time you roll the dice 1000 times, you get a sequence of the same miniscule likelyhood. This relates to the above - the idea that two species that are wholly unrelated could evolve to be so physiologically similar is astoundingly unlikely. Here is a species that not only evolved on Earth, but is very closely related to us and fills the same evolutionary niche that we did when we were developing:[/quote]

Again, based on that logic, we shouldn't exist let alone anyone else. Probability isn't that exclusive, and the deck is stacked in favour of traits useful to survival.

[quote]That's a mother and baby chimp. Awww innity cute? But look at the mother. She is actually a mammal, yet she doesn't have perfect D cup breasts that would fit into a human armor. Isn't that strange! So, even given breasts, why do these aliens all look like modern human standards of female attractiveness?  You sure you want to defend this?[/quote]

So.... you are using a species not just built closer to the ground, but considerably smaller than humans for comparason, completely ignoring the issues of why that species is considered a lower order animal to man. If you look at a species with at least similar stature, such as the great apes, they don't have perfect d cup breasts, but they do have breasts much more similar to human. By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but most humans don't have perfect d cup breasts either.

[quote]Derp derp. Mammary glands are not better for passing nutrients to a child than regurgitating partially digested fish into their mouths. The point isn't that mammary glands are useless, it's that they have nothing to do with humans becoming as successful as they have been, has nothing to do with them evolving the level of intelligence that they have, and has nothing to do with constructing a space-faring society. We have them because we evolved from other species who had them, not because it's some intrinsic requirement to get to where we are today. [/quote]

Really? So the fact that the food matter passes through the mouth and through the air, and thus is exposed to a wider degree of bacteria isn't a disadvantage? Or that species using that method have much more limited diets? (I could be wrong on that, feel free to provide counterexamples). No it isn't an 'intrinsic requirement', but that doesn't mean there isn't any advantage to it as a biological system.

[quote]Already posted a picture above. [/quote]

I am not aware of any chimps with similar size to the average human. Posting pictures while ignoring scale explains why you are posting pictures.

[quote]Yeah, the probability of Shepard guessing the combination to a 400 digit hexidecimal electronic safe is also exceedingly small, but if that happened in game I'm sure we'd all be complaining about how implausible it was.  List of races that are attractive to humans:

- Quarians
- Asari
- Drell

Compared to the 9 that aren't (not counting things like REAPERS and GETH for obvious reasons). So what, 25% of randomly chosen non-human species are generally attractive to us? What kind of ridiculousness is that? Zero percent of non human species on Earth fit the bill <_< If you want to bring up bestiality, then I'm going to bring up Fornax.
[/quote]

We don't get to see Tali's face. Shepard could simply be a xenophile. As for your earth example, zero percent of non-human species on Earth are meaningfully tech using. The main issue with beastiality is relative cognizence (with a secondary issue of practicality, lol). There are certainly many species on the planet considered 'cute' or aesteticly pleasing. I could post cute cat or dog pictures, but I'll leave the cheesy theatrics to you.

[Aeowyn]

This thread reminds me of Barney Stinson.



That being said, boobs on turian females would look ridiculous. Agreeing with the post of adam_grif here.

[Aurica]

I'm against having mammary glands on alien races because it seems like its being done for one specific purpose.  Fanservice for testosterone charged heteorsexual male audience. 

So if we are going to give one more race of female aliens boobs.  Then it is only fair that we get a LI thats strictly Male to Male or an entirely monogendered masculine alien race.   It may not make sense but then so is having boobs on female aliens.  Anyone saying otherwise is just plain hypocritical.

[masterp1975]

Aurica wrote...

I'm against having mammary glands on alien races because it seems like its being done for one specific purpose.  Fanservice for testosterone charged heteorsexual male audience. 

So if we are going to give one more race of female aliens boobs.  Then it is only fair that we get a LI thats strictly Male to Male or an entirely monogendered masculine alien race.   It may not make sense but then so is having boobs on female aliens.  Anyone saying otherwise is just plain hypocritical.

Or they're attracted to females... with funny bumps.  The majority of consumers of this type of media are heterosexual males between the ages of 15-30.  It's a smart business decision to use funny bumps to reel us in.  Honestly, will I want to pay 30-60 bucks and then sit for a 20-40 hour game and look at something aesthetically pleasing, or something that isn't?

I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it is the way it is for a reason.  I see valid points in the various arguments and complaints against, sure.  However, it will not change that fanservice is how not just bioware, but most media outlets, make their money.  As unfortunate as it is, that's what make's the 'verse go 'round.

[klossen4]

so some here want racni quuen to have boobs too then i guess and volus too maybe even elcor?

[Drowsy0106]

screw that gief Hanar female with 8 boobs!

[klossen4]

reaper with boobs

[adam_grif]

Prepare your scroll wheels people, this page is about to get loooong.

The inability to predict an outcome does not mean the outcome wasn't deterministic.

The probabilistic nature of qm is widely accepted in physics. The only deterministic interpretation that has any kind of notable support is many worlds, in which all possible events have a probability of 1 when factoring in all time-lines. It's not really fair to just shout "EVERYTHING IS DETERMINISTIC" when most people in the physics community would disagree with you.

We only have one example. Us. That isn't enough to draw any inferences, really, unless you have an absolute definitve answer (not a theory, mind, but a proven answer) as to why we are the only such civilization on this planet.

See, this is wrong, because while we don't know any other civilizations that have achieved spaceflight, we do know what our common ancestors looked like (Neanderthals, various proto-humans), and we have a huge, absolutely massive array of species, some of them even tool using (octopus, various monkeys and great apes, some birds), who never developed civilizations despite having many of these things in common with us.



Even without this, it's not difficult to work out what was responsible for our success and what wasn't purely through examining our own abilities. The list of things that you need to become a technological civilization:



- The ability to live on land

- A large, human-like brain

- The ability to communicate ideas from person to person (language)

- The ability to manipulate tools in a complex manner (hands or something with similar functionality, thumbs or similar as well)

- The ability to record information (written language)



That's the bare essentials to reach bronze age civilization. To get beyond that you'll need:



- Abstract thinking

- A numbering system that contains the concept of zero

- Basic philosophy



To get to space you'll need:



- Advanced philosophy

- The scientific method

- Easy access to fossil fuels or similar high-energy source



So long as you have the physical means (dexterous manipulators such as human hands) the mental ability, and the right environment, there is no reason to think you shouldn't be able to develop a technological civilization. No boobs? That's fine, it's not a requirement to get to the moon.

But are you trying to argue that it is likely that bacteria would be able to become spacefaring?

Absolutely, that's 100% my argument.

When you say the majority is non-mammilian, you have to examine the relative complexity (or lack thereof) of said majority. Otherwise you are using statistics out of context.

I wasn't using statistics at all, lol, I was pointing out that Mammals are a tiny minority of all life on Earth (~500 species total). Regarding complexity, there is no shortage of non-complex mammals, nor is there any shortage of highly complex invertebrates. The standard example of non-mammalian intelligence is the octopus, although several related species are also quite intelligent, and many birds are highly intelligent too.



Regarding the frequency of mammals vs non mammal "complex species" (although I'm not sure what you're defining as 'complex' here), I wouldn't even begin to know where to look for the kind of complex population statistics necessary to investigate this. But I can tell you that all invertebrates are non-mammalian (and invertebrates are already a majority over vertebrates), and that of Vertebrates, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians are all major groups that are highly successful and numerous.

Again, based on that logic, we shouldn't exist let alone anyone else. Probability isn't that exclusive, and the deck is stacked in favour of traits useful to survival.

The point I'm making is that some characteristics are arbitrary, and because of this we shouldn't expect a breast like this:







... to appear on aliens we encounter, simply because the same functionality can be replicated with so many other different things. Even if they have breasts they probably won't look anything like human breasts. The same goes for most facial characteristics too.

So.... you are using a species not just built closer to the ground, but considerably smaller than humans for comparason, completely ignoring the issues of why that species is considered a lower order animal to man.

"A lower order"? What exactly does that mean? They're our closest living relatives. They spend more time hunched over, what of it? Human female breasts are the proportionally larger than any other known species, whose mammaries generally only protrude out from the body during breast-feeding. Other species also have 4, 8, 10 or even 18 (?!) mammary glands on their bodies in the case of pigs.



But all of this is irrelevant - the only thing that matters is that boobs have nothing to do with becoming an advanced civilization. Most species don't have them and do just fine, and of the species that do have them, we're the only one that's capable of doing calculus (and thus will not be experimented on by Mordin).

If you look at a species with at least similar stature, such as the great apes, they don't have perfect d cup breasts, but they do have breasts much more similar to human.

Got pics? Sounds hot.

By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but most humans don't have perfect d cup breasts either.

And yet, every Asari and Quarian female seems to. Maybe this is an example of our (apparently amazing by galactic stadnards!) genetic diversity in action! The secret to human dominance in MEverse is clearly variable breast size.

Really? So the fact that the food matter passes through the mouth and through the air, and thus is exposed to a wider degree of bacteria isn't a disadvantage? Or that species using that method have much more limited diets? (I could be wrong on that, feel free to provide counterexamples). No it isn't an 'intrinsic requirement', but that doesn't mean there isn't any advantage to it as a biological system.

It's obviously not an impediment to the majority of species on the planet. If breast feeding is so evolutionarily advantageous, then why do only mammals utilize it? Can you think of any reason why breast feeding would be necessary to develop advanced technology? I certainly can't, and I don't think there's any good reason why anybody would think that they do, except for some reason you seem to be determined not to divorce any human characteristic from human successes, as though if even one thing were different we would have failed as a species and started flinging poo around like a bunch of monkeys.

There are certainly many species on the planet considered 'cute' or aesteticly pleasing. I could post cute cat or dog pictures, but I'll leave the cheesy theatrics to you.

In an amusing inverted example, Orangutans have been documented to have raped or attempted to rape human females on several occasions.



Also, adorable animals:







And in the spirit of a thread all about boobs:

[Aurica]

masterp1975 wrote...
Or they're attracted to females... with funny bumps.  The majority of consumers of this type of media are heterosexual males between the ages of 15-30.  It's a smart business decision to use funny bumps to reel us in.  Honestly, will I want to pay 30-60 bucks and then sit for a 20-40 hour game and look at something aesthetically pleasing, or something that isn't?

I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it is the way it is for a reason.  I see valid points in the various arguments and complaints against, sure.  However, it will not change that fanservice is how not just bioware, but most media outlets, make their money.  As unfortunate as it is, that's what make's the 'verse go 'round.

Or they could just do away entirely with romancable alien squadmates.  Male or female.  That means no romancing with Garrus, Thane, Tali & Liara AT ALL.  This will put an end to all the controversies and what not.  Well maybe.

When I first bought Mass Effect.  I had no idea what to expect, as in I didn't know that Romance was an element of ME nor did I know Ashley can be romanced by manshep / Kaiden by femshep... etc..

So I highly doubt that people will be forking out 30 - 60 bucks just for make believe pixelated romance.  More like people are paying 30 - 60 for the game itself.  The romance component is just additional fluff thrown into it, the romancable aliens even more so. 

I wonder then.  If Tali never looked so similar to humans. I.e: with breast and a feminine voice.   Would she have that much fans?  Fans that would clamour for her to be made into a romancable squad member?  If right at the start all aliens look truly alien and nothing like what we see now.  Will we have this discussion in the first place?.

[Dean_the_Young]

adam_grif wrote...

Really? So the fact that the food matter passes through the mouth and through the air, and thus is exposed to a wider degree of bacteria isn't a disadvantage? Or that species using that method have much more limited diets? (I could be wrong on that, feel free to provide counterexamples). No it isn't an 'intrinsic requirement', but that doesn't mean there isn't any advantage to it as a biological system.

It's obviously not an impediment to the majority of species on the planet. If breast feeding is so evolutionarily advantageous, then why do only mammals utilize it? Can you think of any reason why breast feeding would be necessary to develop advanced technology? I certainly can't, and I don't think there's any good reason why anybody would think that they do, except for some reason you seem to be determined not to divorce any human characteristic from human successes, as though if even one thing were different we would have failed as a species and started flinging poo around like a bunch of monkeys.

There has been sociological theorizing that nursing is one of significant factors in organizational structures in nature: a biological impetus to socializing and working together, as it were, which is a significant first-step towards gaining competitive advantage. Species that nurse/care for their young tend to be far more inclined towards organization than those that don't. Species born from eggs that are born with nearly all their skills, for example.

In this sense, 'breast feeding' is an advantage, or at least an qualifier into an advantaged field.


It isn't an exclusive advantage, of course, and the bigger overall category is 'species that need to take care of their young': birds (eggs), colony-insects (who brith larva), or simply non-breasted mammals (dogs, wolves). But animals that do take care of their young do seem more inclined towards cooperation and organization than those that do not, and breasts (and breast feeding) are a part of that.

By the way, this may come as a shock to you, but most humans don't have perfect d cup breasts either.

And
yet, every Asari and Quarian female seems to. Maybe this is an example
of our (apparently amazing by galactic stadnards!) genetic diversity in
action! The secret to human dominance in MEverse is clearly variable
breast size.

<3

If there was a way to shorten this into a witicism, I totally would.

[Kolos2]

Drowsy0106 wrote...

35.000 years ago some jackass thought it would be funny to carve boobs in stone, it's been a issue ever since.

this