52 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

maybe a centaur-like species.

 

One of the early concepts for the Yahg Shadow Broker was sort of Centaur-like.

 

 

I hope they reuse that concept art eventually for another species.

[Jorji Costava]

For design reasons, I imagine most aliens will be relatively human-like. It would be nice to see at least one or two really weird aliens, though. Also, ME has been at least decent at avoiding the trope that aliens most similar to us are morally superior to those that are not so similar (I generally think that that's taking the easy way out). The rachni were at least ambiguous, while the Turians, with their beady eyes and mandibles, aren't exactly conventionally attractive aliens. We'll see what ME:A brings.

[LightningPoodle]

The dominant species on a planet, from pretty much any and all references tend to stand upright on two legs and have opposable thumbs so as to hold tools. If they can't hold tools, they don't ascend to dominance. They don't conquer and evolve in the same way as humanity did. It's why animals have still remained as animals. The Elcor and Hanar, I do not know how they became dominant. Perhaps there were little to know species that presented a threat kn their respective hime world's.. A planet full of herbivores. I've never felt the Hanar and the Elcor to be believable.

[LightningPoodle]

Ugh... spelling mistakes. Screw it. They can remain.

[Donk]

The dominant species on a planet, from pretty much any and all references tend to stand upright on two legs and have opposable thumbs so as to hold tools. If they can't hold tools, they don't ascend to dominance. They don't conquer and evolve in the same way as humanity did. It's why animals have still remained as animals. The Elcor and Hanar, I do not know how they became dominant. Perhaps there were little to know species that presented a threat kn their respective hime world's.. A planet full of herbivores. I've never felt the Hanar and the Elcor to be believable.

 

Hanars have tentacles bro

 

 

And if this can ascend to success then well....

 

 

So can an elcor

[Chealec]

The dominant species on a planet, from pretty much any and all references tend to stand upright on two legs and have opposable thumbs so as to hold tools. If they can't hold tools, they don't ascend to dominance. They don't conquer and evolve in the same way as humanity did. It's why animals have still remained as animals. The Elcor and Hanar, I do not know how they became dominant. Perhaps there were little to know species that presented a threat kn their respective hime world's.. A planet full of herbivores. I've never felt the Hanar and the Elcor to be believable.

 

... based on a real-world sample set of 1 ... not exactly stringent conditions for statistical analysis.

Even then it falls short as humans have only been the dominant species on Earth for a tiny fraction of the planet's lifespan.

[UniformGreyColor]

... based on a real-world sample set of 1 ... not exactly stringent conditions for statistical analysis.

Even then it falls short as humans have only been the dominant species on Earth for a tiny fraction of the planet's lifespan.

 

I was listening to an introduction to a debate on evolution vs creationism and one thing the guy said was that if we were to double the amount of time that we have had life on this earth the difference between us and what will exist then is the same difference between what life first existed on earth compared to us. Try wrapping you head around that once, pretty spectacular.

[Halfdan The Menace]

One of the early concepts for the Yahg Shadow Broker was sort of Centaur-like.
 

 
I hope they reuse that concept art eventually for another species.

Looks like a worthy adversary of any melee warriors. I want the option to duel with the beast and pierce its heart with my greatsword.

[UniformGreyColor]

Looks like a worthy adversary of any melee warriors. I want the option to duel with the beast and pierce its heart with my greatsword.

 

I'm confused.. which one are you?

[Fortlowe]

... based on a real-world sample set of 1 ... not exactly stringent conditions for statistical analysis.
Even then it falls short as humans have only been the dominant species on Earth for a tiny fraction of the planet's lifespan.

Actually, no not a one sample set. Here on earth there have been several sample sets. Life has endured mass exctintion events, where 90% or greater of all life died out in very short order, and evolution essentially started over. The time between these events, eras, life evolved to a certain peak then died out again. Currently we, mankind, evolved in what is still a rather young era. Considering there has been no evidence indicating societies developed in any previous era to our own, that these eras were longer and more ecologically versatile than our own (given the sheer volume of variety of flora and fauna in these eras as opposed to our own), and that our society has all but short circuited the planetary evolutionary process (which is likely the case with any world dominating intelligent tool building society for the sake of self preservation), it can be reliably inferred that we posses physical traits that led to our dominance on this world.

Intelligence is key, or course, but in its raw form it alone is not enough to explain our position as the apex lifeforms. If it was, then perhaps the velociraptors or a species of cephalopod (squids, octopus, etc) or even arachnid might have developed into a society. To be fair velociraptors evolved rather late into their era, but cephalopods and arachnids have actually lived through multiple eras, still with no evidence of civilization.

So if intellect is fundamental to civilization, but its presence does not make civilization a matter of course, we have to look at our other traits, specifically those we don't share with other species that have demonstrated a capacity for intelligence and problem solving to find a baseline set of characteristics for developing civilization on a world like our own. Intelligent, social, warm blooded land dwelling, bipedal, omnivores, apes in another word, have been the only success story for civilization on this world in all the time life has existed here. This means that that list of baseline characteristics is probably rather narrow. Which means that that narrow focus is likely to carry over to other worlds.

Worlds with a similar gravitational, magnetic (em field), and luminal profile (speed of worldy rotation and distance from the sun) to our own would likely run a similar course to civilization. Worlds very different from our own would, if intelligence were even possible to evolve under other circumstances, produce results so vastly different that interaction would almost assuredly be limited to mutual observation or abject hostility for the sake of self preservation. That being the case, if we were to include our civilization into another galaxy spanning civilization, its members are most likely to be made up of creatures that evolved on worlds similar to our own. This is the only practical outcome. Even that is rather far fetched. As friendly as these creatures may want to be to each other and us, our biologies will be inherently hostile to each other. So unless everyone agrees to go full volus, there won't be much interaction no matter how amiable we try to be to each other.

That or Tom Cruise and his folks are right and it's all Xenu's doing.

[Gothfather]

I find it highly unlikely that the majority of things on the citadel have 4 appendages, have a relatively small body size, walk on two legs and have a neck that supports a head. I know its somewhat hard to relate to things that are so different from ourselves, but why not mix it up a bit? I am sick and tired of every sci-fi anything I see have aliens look almost exactly like humans only with a few differences. What's the deal with this anyways? More creatures like the guardians please.

 

Stories be they film, tv, books or games as designed to be told to HUMANS. It is often more powerful to use a lie in storytelling than the truth. This is what makes myth and legend so powerful. It isn't important for creatures to be different from humans and in fact it is very important for them to actually be similar to humans when telling a story. A truly alien alien is unrelatable to humans. You can not explain colour to a person blind at birth. You need a similar frame of reference. This is why almost all aliens in sci-fi are just guys in suits with exaggerated human traits so we humans for whom the story is written for can relate. The only time aliens are truly alien is when they are "the other" like the blob or when they are 'the mystery' the unknown. And it this type of story the alien is not what is important it is how the Humans interact with each other and the alien, the mystery alien could just as easily be replaced with a magical item, a god or devil. 'The mystery' and 'the other' forms in literature are often malevolent to create drama and risk.

 

The key is that literature uses guys in suits as aliens for a very specific reason because it makes for better storytelling for humans. And given that the market for all known forms of storytelling is marketed at only humans why would they make any story harder for their target audience to relate to?

[Han Shot First]

Any new species will probably have a humanoid body design if they play a major role in the story or gameplay. It just makes sense from a game design perspective, because they wouldn't have to spend additional time and resources animating them. 

 

That said I think it would be interesting if these species looked very different from humans, despite sharing a similar body design. The Star Wars series, despite also having aliens that look more similar to humans than the Asari (Chiss, Zeltron, ect) has a few good examples.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[UniformGreyColor]

Actually, no not a one sample set. Here on earth there have been several sample sets. Life has endured mass exctintion events, where 90% or greater of all life died out in very short order, and evolution essentially started over. The time between these events, eras, life evolved to a certain peak then died out again. Currently we, mankind, evolved in what is still a rather young era. Considering there has been no evidence indicating societies developed in any previous era to our own, that these eras were longer and more ecologically versatile than our own (given the sheer volume of variety of flora and fauna in these eras as opposed to our own), and that our society has all but short circuited the planetary evolutionary process (which is likely the case with any world dominating intelligent tool building society for the sake of self preservation), it can be reliably inferred that we posses physical traits that led to our dominance on this world.

Intelligence is key, or course, but in its raw form it alone is not enough to explain our position as the apex lifeforms. If it was, then perhaps the velociraptors or a species of cephalopod (squids, octopus, etc) or even arachnid might have developed into a society. To be fair velociraptors evolved rather late into their era, but cephalopods and arachnids have actually live through multiple eras, still with no evidence of civilization.

So if intellect is fundamental to civilization, but its presence does not make civilization a matter of course, we have to look at our other traits, specifically those we don't share with other species that have demonstrated a capacity for intelligence and problem solving to find a baseline set of characteristics for developing civilization on a world like our own. Intelligent, social, warm blooded land dwelling, bipedal, omnivores, apes in other word, have been the only success story for civilization on this world in all the time life has existed here. This means that that list of baseline characteristics is probably rather narrow. Which means that that narrow focus is likely to carry over to other worlds (At least worlds with a similar gravitational, magnetic, and luminal profile to our own; worlds very different from our own would, if it intelligence were even possible to evolve, produce results so vastly different that interaction would almost assuredly be limited to mutual observation or abject hostility for the sake of self preservation.

That or Tom Cruise and his folks are right and it all Xenu's doing.

 

 

Stories be they film, tv, books or games as designed to be told to HUMANS. It is often more powerful to use a lie in storytelling than the truth. This is what makes myth and legend so powerful. It isn't important for creatures to be different from humans and in fact it is very important for them to actually be similar to humans when telling a story. A truly alien alien is unrelatable to humans. You can not explain colour to a person blind at birth. You need a similar frame of reference. This is why almost all aliens in sci-fi are just guys in suits with exaggerated human traits so we humans for whom the story is written for can relate. The only time aliens are truly alien is when they are "the other" like the blob or when they are 'the mystery' the unknown. And it this type of story the alien is not what it is important it is how the Humans interact with each other and the alien, the mystery alien could just as easily be replaced with a magical item, a god or devil. 'The mystery' and 'the other' forms in literature are often malevolent to create drama and risk.

 

The key is that literature uses guys in suits as aliens for a very specific reason because it makes for better storytelling for humans. And given that the market for all known forms of storytelling is marketed at only humans why would they make any story harder for their target audience to relate to?

 

If I were to say Elcor=Elephants what would you say? Elephants have ginormous brains that are also quite complex in structure. They also have characteristics of being gentle, caring, compassionate, helpful, good problem solvers, use of tools, highly communal, social, live in groups, have developed emotions, can know it is themselves when they look into a mirror and can paint realistic works of art. This is a species that lives on earth, has high intelligence and has a body structure that looks nothing like ourselves - and people love them. I see no reason why the writers can't incorporate species' of sentient creatures that look nothing like us and have a very different form of intelligence like, say, an octopus.

[Fortlowe]

If I were to say Elcor=Elephants what would you say? Elephants have ginormous brains that are also quite complex in structure. They also have characteristics of being gentle, caring, compassionate, helpful, good problem solvers, use of tools, highly communal, social, live in groups, have developed emotions, can know it is themselves when they look into a mirror and can paint realistic works of art. This is a species that lives on earth, has high intelligence and has a body structure that looks nothing like ourselves - and people love them. I see no reason why the writers can't incorporate species' of sentient creatures that look nothing like us and have a very different form of intelligence like, say, an octopus.

Elephantidae is an excellent example of my point. They are obviously intelligent. Their family has existed far longer than our own. And they have a dexterous (read crafting capable) appendage. Yet no civilization. I think it's because they are quadopeds, that they have just the one crafting appendage (we, mostly have two), and most importantly, that they are herbivores. The consumption of meat provides for a far faster metabolism. That faster metabolism allows for far greater mental processing speed, if not capacity. So elephants can understand many things, but are not nearly as quick whitted as say a dolphin or an octopus.

[UniformGreyColor]

Elephantidae is an excellent example of my point. They are obviously intelligent. Their family has existed far longer than our own. And they have a dexterous (read crafting capable) appendage. Yet no civilization. I think it's because they are quadopeds, that they have just the one crafting appendage (we, mostly have two), and most importantly, that they are herbivores. The consumption of meat provides for a far faster metabolism. That faster metabolism allows for far greater mental processing speed, if not capacity. So elephants can understand many things, but are not nearly as quick whitted as say a dolphin or an octopus.

 

My point stands. To put so much stock into opposable thumbs seems a bit silly to me. It is debatable which species is more intelligent between elephants and Cetacea. Octopi have a completely different kind of intelligence than either of those two (and ourselves). Also civilization =/= intelligence; it is not a correlation coefficient. As far as how important civilization making species is to making a story about technology, space and social dynamics is a matter of debate. I am hoping for big things from BW on the front of different species/environment/group dynamics/social hierarchy. I would like to have playing ME:A kinda like playing a game that has some elements of what its like watching a nature show.

[Fortlowe]

My point stands. To put so much stock into opposable thumbs seems a bit silly to me. It is debatable which species is more intelligent between elephants and Cetacea. Octopi have a completely different kind of intelligence than either of those two (and ourselves). Also civilization =/= intelligence; it is not a correlation coefficient. As far as how important civilization making species is to making a story about technology, space and social dynamics is a matter of debate. I am hoping for big things from BW on the front of different species/environment/group dynamics/social hierarchy. I would like to have playing ME:A kinda like playing a game that has some elements of what its like watching a nature show.

I actually meant our hands, not just the thumbs. Thumbs are not all they are cracked up to be, we agree on that. Koalas have four of them. It's how we use those thumbs, along with our other attributes that makes us what we are. But tentacles would be far more useful than hands if they were practical out of the water.

As far as intellectual performance between an elephant and an octopus, you're right, it is apples to oranges. Give the them both the same problem to solve, the octopus will do it faster, but the elephant can teach its family to solve it.

So far as why civilization is so fundamental to the discussion we are having, at the risk of putting to fine a point on it, this story takes place in space. If we encounter a species that for all intents and purposes is on the same societal level as the elephants, then they are for all intents and purposes likely to be categorized as elephants are: as animals. Not a whole lot of narrative pressure there. Best to move on to something more pressing.

[Han Shot First]

It isn't so far-fetched that aliens could have a humanoid body design. Besides being rather ideal for tool use, necessary for building any civilization, the human body is perfectly designed for land-based endurance hunting.

 

Any alien species humanity would encounter would most likely have evolved from apex predators. There are couple different strategies that predators obtain to hunt prey. Some are ambush predators for example, using stealth and their brawn or fangs and claws to overpower prey. Our ancestors were endurance hunters, chasing prey over long distances until the prey animal collapsed from exhaustion. The kill at the end of the chase was merely the coup de grace. 

 

If an alien species evolved from endurance hunters like us, it would be difficult to come up with a body design more well-suited for endurance hunting than our own. Two legs are better than four for long distance running (four are better for sprinting) and our lack of body hair and sweat glands gives us one of the best systems for thermoregulation in the animal kingdom. The freeing up of limbs not used in running allows for the carrying of water, further adding in thermoregulation, and for the hunter to craft and wield spears with which to safely make the kill. 

 

Some wild canids like wolves or African wild dogs are as fearsome in the endurance hunt as our ancestors would have been, but by being four-legged they could never evolve into something that could also build a civilization, at least without evolving into bipedal creature first.

[UniformGreyColor]

I actually meant our hands, not just the thumbs. Thumbs are not all they are cracked up to be, we agree on that. Koalas have four of them. It's how we use those thumbs, along with our other attributes that makes us what we are. But tentacles would be far more useful than hands if they were practical out of the water.

As far as intellectual performance between an elephant and an octopus, you're right, it is apples to oranges. Give the them both the same problem to solve, the octopus will do it faster, but the elephant can teach its family to solve it.

So far as why civilization is so fundamental to the discussion we are having, at the risk of putting to fine a point on it, this story takes place in space. If we encounter a species that for all intents and purposes is on the same societal level as the elephants, then they are for all intents and purposes likely to be categorized as elephants are: as animals. Not a whole lot of narrative pressure there. Best to move on to something more pressing.

 

So we agree on more things than originally thought, that's good.

 

At risk of sounding too open minded, I don't mind immersing myself in a game that isn't solely dedicated to sentient beings (though that should be the focus) and I would like to see the devs really go out on a limb and create some really creative type stuff.

[Spectr61]

I see much in these posts that amount making assumptions about our genera and it's rather limited experience. Then much extrapolation of these assumptions. Probably why most of our sci-fi ends up with aliens that look, talk and think like us.

Conversely, and interestingly, T. Metzger, author, writes much about sentience, intelligence and consciousnesss in his books.

Another author, this time in fiction, P. Watts, bases an alien on Metzinger's concepts in "Blindsight". The Scrambler, as he calls it. Mind-blowingly alien.

And not an opposable thumb or brain stem in sight.

I hope MEA explores some of these concepts.

[Fortlowe]

I see much in these posts that amount making assumptions about our genera and it's rather limited experience. Then much extrapolation of these assumptions. Probably why most of our sci-fi ends up with aliens that look, talk and think like us.

Conversely, and interestingly, T. Metzger, author, writes much about sentience, intelligence and consciousnesss in his books.

Another author, this time in fiction, P. Watts, bases an alien on Metzinger's concepts in "Blindsight". The Scrambler, as he calls it. Mind-blowingly alien.

And not an opposable thumb or brain stem in sight.

I hope MEA explores some of these concepts.

 

I read the synopsis and a few reviews. The book sounds rather interesting, though the inclusion of a vampire seems somewhat out of sorts. Still, I think I'll pick it up. 

[HSomCokeSniper]

Don't you dare question the sheer brilliance of these alien designs:

 

 

That said, I think Mass Effect's aliens were surprisingly varied in appearance.

Only thing that bugged me (Fixed in Frostbite 3) was the engine limitations that didn't allow for different heights.

Grunt and Miranda at same height when the other is literally supposed to weigh a ton and stand over 7 feet tall.

[ABASOVA]

I understand why they are restricted mostly to bipedal, but why not add some more anatomically interesting and useful abilities other than bent legs, three fingers, and hunchbacks. How about thin-boned bipedal organisms that have wings and can fly:

 

[RakhanaBby]

I understand why they are restricted mostly to bipedal, but why not add some more anatomically interesting and useful abilities other than bent legs, three fingers, and hunchbacks. How about thin-boned bipedal organisms that have wings and can fly:
 

Wait, didn't they have another avian but more bird-like alien in the ME lore? They were mentioned in the Codex as "recently having discovered interstellar flight", but apparently, they reclused themselves from the galaxy when they heard about the Reaper invasion.

[ZipZap2000]

I understand why they are restricted mostly to bipedal, but why not add some more anatomically interesting and useful abilities other than bent legs, three fingers, and hunchbacks. How about thin-boned bipedal organisms that have wings and can fly:

Would bang.

[Chealec]

Actually, no not a one sample set. Here on earth there have been several sample sets. Life has endured mass exctintion events...

 

True but I think the "recent" geological periods have been conducive to developing intelligence as a survival strategy; for pretty much the whole of the Cretaceous period Earth was too warm for there to be any significant ice-cover. There was a nice stable environment (bar volcanic activity) so life evolved in ways best suited to coping with that. Evolution seemed to be largely an arms race between predators and prey rather than animals vs environment.

 

So when things changed "rapidly", which on a geological scale could be a million years or more, the dominant creatures couldn't cope, they just weren't bright enough or adaptable enough; whether that was the Siberian Traps or the K-T boundary event.

 

 

However, when the dinosaurs largely went bye-bye it was mammals that stepped into the gap; as the climate was cooling. Over the next several million years Earth had both snowball and greenhouse environments and I suspect it's those diverse and varying environmental conditions that pushed animals towards getting smarter, getting better at surviving in harsher conditions - until eventually a group of savannah apes worked out what happens when you bang flints together over some straw...

 

I'm not sure there's any reason to assume that if life evolved on another Earth-like planet, but with a more stable climate, that an intelligent tool-using species would evolve beyond where Chimps and New Caledonian Crows are today... or if they did that it wouldn't take them a lot longer than the 4 million years or so it took those savannah apes to develop the Internet.

 

... and if the planet was significantly different, all bets are off - there might be no intelligent life or there might be psychic, space-faring octopuses