Poll: Mass Effect without Reapers

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
Random Argument Man said:
Keep the Reapers. Mass effect 1 established that there's a threat beyond what we know. There's something bigger. Mass effect 2 showed that this threat can hurt you by its influence and Mass effect 3 showed you that it can kick your ass?with a boot made of spikes.

That threat is the Reapers.

I wouldn't say that a Mass effect game without the Reapers wouldn't be interesting. However, Shepard's trilogy pretty much established that the Reapers are the ones controlling the show and that you're the X factor that can go against this fate.
This, basically. However, I say that with the caveat that I hope the apparent ME sequels feature a more... localized plot. Like there's some Turian conspiracy or some shit and it's not just a front for something universe-crushing. Hell, perhaps a game centered around a few planets or just a single planet would be really interesting.
 

votemarvel

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 29, 2009
1,353
3
43
Country
England
If I could go back and change things, I would keep the Reapers but keep them far more in line with the depiction of Sovereign. In that they are unknowable and beyond our understanding.

The Reapers were an enemy that didn't need an explanation. They didn't need a back story.
 

CannibalCorpses

New member
Aug 21, 2011
987
0
0
They already did a mass effect game without the reapers...mass effect 2 :p

The first mass effect depiction of the reapers was excellent...they actually had a threatening feel to them. By the end of mass effect 3 they seemed little more than cannon fodder that you could wipe out without even trying. Big scary threat to joke in 3 games. Kinda mirrors the gameplay when you think about it...
 

MacChris1991

New member
Mar 19, 2011
37
0
0
The Reapers are the threat that ties the series together. They move the plot forward. That said I wouldn't mind changing how they were implemented in the story. Not going to harp on the ending but I probably would change that entire last big sequence. Also I would have made the Reapers more diverse. I mean they are composed of all the previous life forms that populated the universe. I would have liked for all of that diversity to show in some of the Reapers design.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
schrodinger said:
Ok escapist, i'm doing another round of the trilogy and i've been thinking, would the games be better or the same without the reaper plot?
Would the Lord of the Rings be better without Sauron? Would Star Wars be better without Vader and his folks?

I mean, without the Reapers, it's an entirely different story, a different narrative, on as as well as under the surface.

EternalNothingness said:
Take the Reapers -- or Hell, Cerberus -- away from the trilogy, and you've just made another Dragon Age 2, a game that had no overarching villain and was just nothing but subplots, such as the civil war between mages and templars, for example.
And that's a shame, because the central subplot, mages vs. templars, would have been interesting enough to carry a whole story (and neatly interweave gameplay and story on top). I thought it was the most interesting part of DA:O (well, to be honest, the only interesting part for me but I don't wanna be a hater) and I expected DA:I (I mean, it's called INQUISITION after all) to actually be primarily about this conflict. Alas, as it seems, it was not meant to be.
 

BitterLemon

New member
Jul 10, 2013
48
0
0
In the first game, I was enjoying the story much more before the Reapers were introduced, to be honest. I thought it would be a more political story, full of intrigue and tensions, humans struggling to be accepted, navigating the politics of the council...

When the Reapers were introduced, it felt to me like the standard "let's unite against the BIG EVIL" and humanity is accepted because Shepard is KICK ASS. The politics were still there, but more sidelined. My favourite subplot is the genophage by far, I totally would play a game just about that plot.
 

Lethos

New member
Dec 9, 2010
529
0
0
I would of kept the Reapers, but removed the Collectors. Or hell keep the Collectors, just have the plot of ME2 about finding a weapon to destroy the Reapers so it doesn't seem so immediate when you discover the Crucible in ME3.

Maybe instead of harvesting humans to build a new Reaper, the Collectors could be trying to find and destroy the only weapon in the galaxy that could destroy their masters. The game could then be about a race to find and protect the weapon before the Collectors do.
 

Dragonlayer

Aka Corporal Yakob
Dec 5, 2013
971
0
0
I think Mass Effect would lose much of its allure without the Reapers basically driving the entire plot but I must confess, a series that showed off more (relatively) conventional interactions, politicking and good old fashioned future war with the various races of that galaxy would still suck me in like a super-charged pool cleaner. But I am the kind of obsessive nutjob/debased heretic who would be perfectly content with a "modern military shooter"-style FPS game set in the Mass Effect universe so make of that what you will.
 

Dragonlayer

Aka Corporal Yakob
Dec 5, 2013
971
0
0
Legion said:
It would have been better to remove the Collectors in Mass Effect 2 instead, as they are what divides the story.

Mass Effect 1 = Reapers.
Mass Effect 2 = Collectors.
Mass Effect 3 = Reapers.

It broke up the overarching plot too much.

Alternatively they could have made the Reapers simply more prominent in the second game, so that it was still obvious they were the actual threat.
I've never understood this particular complaint - I honestly don't see how the Collectors (acting as agents of the still far-away Reapers) break the story. I'm not trying to belittle you or this idea, I just need clarification!
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,568
4,371
118
Geth Reich (Yakob) said:
I've never understood this particular complaint - I honestly don't see how the Collectors (acting as agents of the still far-away Reapers) break the story. I'm not trying to belittle you or this idea, I just need clarification!
You don't learn anything new about the Reapers, other than that they enslaved the Protheans who are now the Collectors. But they all get blown up by the end anyway, so that knowledge loses all its value.

Shepard doesn't discover any kind of weakness or even deal any sort of blow to the Reapers other than destroying that human-Reaper thing. Which... what was the point of that thing again? And nothing Reaper related you did in ME2 (what little of it there was) even gets followed up on in ME3, other then Cerberus having the human-Reaper corpse hanging in their headquarters.

If not for your team mates, you could've jumped from ME1 to ME3 and not have missed anything from the main plot.
 

Quazimofo

New member
Aug 30, 2010
1,370
0
0
Shoggoth2588 said:
Mass Effect really didn't need Reapers...They're an awesome force to reckon with but right out of the gate, how are they possibly going to be topped? The Galaxy is a huge place after all and humanity is new to that stage, there are dozens of smaller ways things could have gone...(snip)
Why does it need to be topped? Why must they only go bigger and bigger and bigger? Shepard is done. His/her story is over, so why must you top it and not re-adjust with a new set of characters in new situations? Company of Heroes for example. You had the great first game which covered WW 2 at the climax (in europe), from Normandy to the Battle of the Bulge. The expansions however, particularly the second one Tales of Valor, are about progressively smaller more personal stories from smaller sections of the war. Both expansions were about on par -quality wise, not size- with the original game while scaling down and even showing the perspective of the "enemy".

Just because a game has a sequel or expansion does not mean it must top the original in terms of scale, it just has to be good.
 

Jeyl

New member
Aug 10, 2010
62
0
0
The first Mass Effect game I played was "Mass Effect 2" for the PS3 and two years later I played the first one on the PC. The first thing that came to mind about the Reapers was that they were a very, VERY patient race. When you stopped Sovereign from using the Citadel as a means to bring the Reapers into that part of the galaxy, I expected that the invasion was centuries off, not two and a half years. And that's what got me thinking.

What if the Reapers were still centuries away from invading the galaxy and the third game just dealt with finishing off Shepard's loose threads from the first two games? To be quite honest, I never looked at Shepard as a character who should carry the series since a lot of what makes the character unique is based the player's actions, and a character who is solely dictated by your actions isn't really a character who goes through much growth. From the moment I saw Shepard walking on the bridge of the Normandy to the very end of Mass Effect 3 shooting at a tube, I never saw a changed character. I saw the same exact person who was as committed to their job from the very beginning. Not that much of an interesting character personally.

But there IS character growth in just about everyone else, especially Liara. If the story played out that the Reapers were still centuries away and Liara is very young for an Asari (100 something in a +1,000 year lifespan), you think the series could have "moved on" from the character of Shepard and begin with an entirely new character that took place decades, or centuries later? You would have a slew of new characters including a new lead with (potentially) only Liara as a returning character, who's personality is shaped by the events which transpired in the previous games.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,981
118
I liked the level of the threat of the Reapers in ME 1. And ME 2 didn't really have the Reapers as a threat at all, and it was fine. ME 3 however, the Reapers were so relegated to the background (sometimes literally), that they were really a none issue. I personally think the problem with how the Reapers were presented, was that they became too big, too clunky of a threat by the end. They were incapable of actually utilizing them as a threat in game, and instead had you fighting...well, pretty much everything and anything else. Every once in a while you might fight a Reaper as a hostile environment kind of thing (Tuchanka for example), but for the most part, they weren't actually in the game as an Antagonist.

I'd like to see games in the ME universe, without the OMG EPIC SIZE GALAXY THREAT!! aspect. There are plenty of stories and dramas that could be played out, on a much smaller scale (planetary, solar system) and could be just as tense and dramatic. It would also allow you to use just about any group of soldiers/agents anywhere in the universe, and it wouldn't overshadow the original trilogy.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
The side plots were pretty compelling but something was needed to tie them all together. If not Reapers, then something else. The reason all these side plots became as important and compelling as they were was to bring in a sense of unity to strive against an implacable foe. Without that impetus there was no reason for any of the side plots to be all that compelling at all.

The council was perfectly happy to leave the Quarians as space gypsies, even going so far as to evict them from uninhabited worlds they tried to settle on ( read that tidbit somewhere). the geth were happy being geth and building their Dyson sphere. The status quo about the Krogan was likewise being happily continued. Without re-writing the whole setting there was no reason for any change to happen to any of these situations according to the stodgy, conservative and idiotic Citadel council.

So the question becomes, if no reapers, What?
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
I could have done without the Reapers. Yeah, it would take some tweaking to make each story standalone, but I think it would be worth it. I'm tired of big trilogies where everything ends on a cliffhanger until the next game. The Final Fantasy games came made dozens of sequels with their own continuities, the Ratchet and Clank games are almost all standalones, why can't we do this with Mass Effect?

Mass Effect 1: A rogue Spectre named Saren has found a way to control the Geth in order to exterminate humans in a genocidal campaign. No need for the Reaper plot whatsoever. You have your primary antagonist and his army of goons right there staring you in the face, no need for a puppet master.

Mass Effect 2: Aliens called the Collectors are attacking human colonies in the terminus systems. A black ops organization called Cerberus shanghais you and your crew to take them out before they can enact their nefarious deeds. Main antagonist is Harbinger and the Collectors' Hive Mind. There you go again, primary antagonist, army of goons, no need for Reaper influence.

Mass Effect 3: If a game did need to have the Reapers, it would be this one. Since the games already insisted on making the Reapers unstoppable without Space Magic, I would have changed the plot from building a "We-have-no-idea-what-this-thing-does-but-let's-try-it-anyways" device, to trying to discover the Reaper's origins, be they extragalactic, or a super powerful race that has lain dormant for millennium.

The games already have their own antagonists, they don't need some generic robot cthulu aliens to pull the strings every fucking time.
 

Alarien

New member
Feb 9, 2010
441
0
0
Honestly, if you think that the Reapers are unimportant to the entire point of the Mass Effect trilogy, then you missed the point. Shepard would not have been necessary and the decisions that you are supposed to be making would not be difficult without the perceived threat of galactic wide advanced sentient life-form genocide. Basically, the entire series is about "what would you sacrifice to save everyone?"

While I loved the universe, politics and characters and I could actually see more things set in that universe absent the Reapers, the story of Commander Shepard demanded them specifically.

Also, they were pretty compelling as enemies, since they were amoral (not immoral, for clarification) and were actually bent (in both the completed version and in Karpyshyn's version) entirely on the concept of preservation of life, even if it was in a completely bizarre manner.
 

Angelous Wang

Lord of I Don't Care
Oct 18, 2011
575
0
0
Mass Effect need some kind of Reapers, but that doesn't mean it needed the actual Reapers.

Mass Effect needs an major overarching threat to the galaxy, but I'd have preferred it if it didn't result in the end of Mass Effect universe.

That is pretty much the worse thing ME3 did in my book regardless of the other ending complaints.

Mass Effect's universe had Fallout potential.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
Shoggoth2588 said:
for example, despite having read a few of the books, I have no idea what The Terminus Systems are, how they're divided by Council space and indeed, what the major beef is.
What, have you never read this?

Codex/Planets and Locations/Region: Terminus Systems said:
The Terminus Systems are located on the far side of the Attican Traverse, beyond the space administered by the Citadel Council or claimed by the human Systems Alliance. It is populated by a loose affiliation of minor species, united only in their refusal to acknowledge the political authority of the Council or adhere to the Citadel Conventions.

Their independence comes at a price; the Terminus is fraught with conflict. War among the various species is common, as governments and dictators constantly rise and fall. The region is a haven for illegal activities, particularly piracy and the slave trade.

At least once a year, a fleet from Terminus invades the nearby Attican Traverse. These attacks are typically small raids against poorly-defended colonies. The Council rarely retaliates, as sending patrols into the Terminus Systems could unify the disparate species against their common foe, triggering a long and costly war.
How is there any confusion about the political disposition of the Terminus Systems? It's just an area where there are a bunch of little nations independent of the Council hegemony that are scared of being forced to join it.
 

Raikas

New member
Sep 4, 2012
640
0
0
I would have enjoyed ME without the Reapers - I think a lot of the strongest stories were the subplots, and the world is interesting enough that I'd be happy just playing a "getting to know the universe" game.

That said, I don't know that it would be as popular overall - I saw a fair number of people has "It wasn't epic" as one of the flaws of DA2 (while I personally thought that was one of the things that game actually did well), so I think a non-reaper ME would face the same criticism.