But you didn't... ctrl+f viroins or virinos and the only mentions of this are in your last posts. You said virions which is the same thing as a virus.I answered those complaints preemptively. I said viroins, which are different from viruses. Viroins do not exist in reality.
Then why mention virions or prions at all? Why say that you know anatomy? Seems like you wanted to reference some real world science to me. Honestly, you could have just said "protoss are made of magic particles that only exist in the starcraft universe and they are controlled by soul like entities existing as psi energy" or something. Then, yeah sure I'd agree.Where canon gets things wrong is that it references real science and gets it wrong, rather than using magical explanations with no basis in reality. I used magical explanations with no basis in reality because you cannot prove fictional magic wrong using real science.
3 bricks don't make a house but it's closer to being one than a single brickIf two things have zero sense, it is impossible for either to make more sense than the other. Their amounts of sense are always equal to zero. In other words, please stop being flippantly dismissive and disrespectful of my suggestions while elevating the bullshit that is canon. Unlike the random forum mod who first invented the photosynthesis retcon while knowing nothing about photosynthesis, I studied biology in college and know how impossible it is. That's why I liberally invoke space magic.
I don't mind if you have a legitimate criticism of my suggestions, but please stop pretending that canon is anything other than bullshit or that it is arbitrarily better than my bullshit. Bullshit is bullshit.
Anyways, my point was that you complained that canon is bullshit because it misuses science and then came back around with something that also misuses science. That's why I was dismissing you. Now you're saying that it wasn't supposed to be interpreted as using real world science and if that's the case then I retract the criticism.
That's not the definition of gender, that's the definition of a sex. In any case, we're back to my prior criticism. You're putting real life science into the specie again. Why give them sexes or genders at all? I personally prefer my protoss as they were in SC1, without any mentions of females or even males. Just protoss. You have answered the reproduction question by saying they meld their minds and bodies and out of it come a toss baby. cool. Why not leave it at that? You raise more questions by adding these details.Fungi and many microrganisms reproduce by fusing together. Protoss have different genders because they cannot reproduce with the same gender; that is the definition of a gender.
I'm not the one who wants to change them. I'm fine with them being humanoid. I think adding breasts and what not to show different genders/sexes is a bad idea.If we still want to consider this starcraft, the protoss need to be recognizable. If you want radically inhuman then refer to my suggestions for a new universe loosely inspired by starcraft a few threads back.





Reply With Quote

