Poll: Mass Effect without Reapers

schrodinger

New member
Jul 19, 2013
342
0
0
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?

What if each of the games had the same elements of before, but changed to individual space adventures with commander shepard and co.
Mass Effect 1 had that feel to it since we were discovering the game's universe and the reaper plot didn't become important until the end.

For example, keep all the major plot points with saren, the geth, sovereign, Cerberus(without going super space nazis; that was just silly in 3), intergalactic war while expanding on the ethics of sentient AI and the genophage.


What y'all think? Keep the reapers or kick them for more space adventure games?
 

Random Argument Man

New member
May 21, 2008
6,011
0
0
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.
 

Erana

New member
Feb 28, 2008
8,010
0
0
I like having an overarching enemy, but I woulda kinda liked it if the series did have a little more time to meander about before the reapers did their thing. Go on more adventures, explore more places... The series is strong on the RPG side and could have done well with a little more meandering and sightseeing. Maybe have the big climax in Mass Effect 5, after Shepard gets space married or something.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
No, I think Reapers(or any overarching godly enemy) were pretty important to the overall theme. Otherwise it's just a bunch of faffing about, which, incidently, is exactly how the Council viewed Shepherd's crew. :D

Not to say a story set in the Mass Effect universe can't work without the constant threat of Reapers.
 

Vancleef

New member
Jul 6, 2010
295
0
0
I feel Shepards story would have lacked something without the Reapers acting as a main antagonist. They did their job, more or less.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
Shepard's story would not work without the Reapers I think. They helped make an important character into a galactic legend. Without them, the galaxy would not have rallied around a single human, and Shepard would have just achieved super stardom in the galaxy, not god-like levels of fame. She would have been like Captain Anderson I think without the Reapers.
 

Tuesday Night Fever

New member
Jun 7, 2011
1,829
0
0
I think the series would have been better without the Reaper plot. Honestly, my favorite game in the series is ME2, because it's the one that has the most focus on the characters and Shepard going on sweet little space adventures. Is it the game least relevant to the overarching story? Absolutely. But it's the character development and sweet little space adventures that the Mass Effect series does best in my opinion.

Generally I find the Reapers to be the most uninteresting element of the series. They often feel more like an unwanted distraction from my sweet space adventure than an actual, credible threat to be feared. The only time the Reapers appeared to be even remotely interesting was during the conversation with Sovereign on Virmire, after that things just seemed to steadily go down hill.

I should go.
 

Clowndoe

New member
Aug 6, 2012
395
0
0
It took me a second to figure out the poll, the question isn't as clear as it could be.

Anyway, I guess the Reapers can stay, but they still weren't handled super well. What really could have been done without is the Crucible. In this scenario, the Reapers don't have ridiculous impenetrable armor so much as they prey on the galaxy's lack of teamwork. Would give more meaning to the whole "unite the Galaxy" sub-plot beyond recruiting drones for Operation Human Shield.

Having said that, I'd much prefer having a looser, less dramatic story-arc. If there's one thing I appreciated from Dragon Age 2, it's giving me a break from the ultra-urgent "saving the world" shtick. A running theme would be more appreciated than a running villain for me.
 

Spacemonkey430

New member
Oct 8, 2012
59
0
0
I think the Reapers were fine in the original trilogy but I think they shouldn't even be a small part of the next game. I wouldn't even include commander Shephard.
Clowndoe said:
Having said that, I'd much prefer having a looser, less dramatic story-arc. If there's one thing I appreciated from Dragon Age 2, it's giving me a break from the ultra-urgent "saving the world" shtick. A running theme would be more appreciated than a running villain for me.
I agree. Later on, it made so little sense to be off doing any sort of side quest when the galaxy was facing imminent doom.
 

Combustion Kevin

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,206
0
0
The reaper threat basicly gets the ball rolling, so to speak, there isn't really any motivation to involve yourself in the politics of the other races nor any way to force a resolution without this threat.
Without them, the entire galactic community would still be divided, Cerberus would just conduct illegal experiments for eternity, the Krogan remain largely sterile, and the Quarians and Geth will continue their slapfights.

If not the Reapers, then something else of that scale, remember, Shepard is an Alliance commander and only inducted as a spectre because of the Reaper's involvement, other race's concerns are not his unless he needs them for something big...Reaper size big.
 

Risingblade

New member
Mar 15, 2010
2,893
0
0
The Reaper plot was important in the first game. Hell you see a giant Reaper in the sky when you first get there. The only reason the Geth are there to begin with is Reaper influence.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
I think the Reapers are a neat enemy in concept. It's cool the way they descend upon planets like these godlike hands of death.

That being said I think they're an odd villain for Mass Effect, a series revolving around small scale cover based combat, and dialogue. They're the main antagonist in the series and it's impossible for you to actually fight them directly. So instead they toss out lots of embarrassingly weak minions at you to give you something to do.

Not to mention the Reapers were seriously demoted in strength for ME3. The way they were introduced in ME1 they were virtually unstoppable godlike beings, they should have taken Earth easily in a matter of hours if not minutes. Instead they became these big sluggish robots that could be blown up with well directed conventional weapons, including a handheld gun at one point. Their only intimidation factor became their size. Lame.

I still think the Mass Effect games should have had sections where you fly the Normandy around in aerial combat. There are so many situations in the series where Joker has to do some epic flying with the Normandy and we're forced to sit by and watch it all happen. Fighting a Reaper from inside the cockpit of the Normandy would have been a more realistic and direct boss battle.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
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...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. Mass Effect could have been just as awesome if the first game was about Shepard helping humanity chose to either join The Council, The Terminus Systems or, forge their own identity by banning together with lesser races. You can still have Earth getting invaded at some point too! A machine race that wants to destroy all life though just seems like it's too much, too big and, too soon...it's going to be difficult to top.
 

Brown Cap

New member
Jan 6, 2009
714
0
0
If you removed the reapers, it simply wouldn't be Mass Effect.
That's like getting rid of the Ring in Lord of the Rings, or removing Darth Vader in Star Wars.

The reapers are what the game (essentially) is about: you wouldn't have the same game without them. A reaperless mass-effect game would just be a Shepard trying to impress people and hitting on women. Unless, that's your kind of game...
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
I tend to think that the Reapers have now done their job. If you have them in the next series it's going to start to feel samey.

We now know enough about the ME universe that we could start to have deeper stories based on frictions between some of the races. Instead of having black and white/good vs evil you could potentially tell a much deeper story by having decisions for Sheperd revolving around defending Earth-interests vs doing the morally right thing.

So no reapers for me and please no monsters that are like reapers only a bit different.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
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.
 

Radoh

Bans for the Ban God~
Jun 10, 2010
1,456
0
0
I don't really get this line of thinking.
So, you want to remove the Reapers from the trilogy to make it more space adventures with Shepard.
Wasn't one of the major complaints in Dragon Age 2 that you didn't do anything until the last hour or so of the game?
This seems like you'd break up each act of Dragon Age 2 into different games, it wouldn't really work.

Now if this question is trying to ask if you can have Mass Effect without the reapers, then yes you can. Just not Shepard's journey.
 

dangoball

New member
Jun 20, 2011
555
0
0
The Reapers were important - heck - central to the plot, so they get to stay. I just don't like what they did with them and how they were explained.

I still prefer my head-cannon where Reapers are actually a data storage for the universe, coming in cycles and harvesting civilizations to create more Reapers. "We are each a nation" - every Reaper is the whole of one race that dominated the galaxy at a time, also supported by the human-reaper embryo in ME2, because otherwise that civilization, it's culture and all that jazz, would eventually disappear (either by conquest of another or fall apart like a rotting corpse) and be forgotten.
Way better than "we kill you so you don't kill you" bullshit.