Bioware General (Mass Effect/Dragon Age/Other)

[Joblom]

Problem is the a good portion of BW villains are pretty stereotypical evil and don't have much character, sometimes they even take potentiel future evil characters that has at least good chance of becoming interesting and turn basically what they did with the TIM in ME3 or the Shadow Broker in ME2 (where they are just evil because the script demands it and don't have much reason beyond that).

Oh no argument there but it's no fun to speculate about how things can be ruined; I'd rather imagine how things could be great. The "what if's" are fun for me. It's entertained me for years doing that.

Bioware needed fresh writers and producers, to let them try out some fresh ideas. I'd love more smaller scale stories set in the Mass Effect universe as well. You could even make a few games just based on the lives and histories of some of the squadmates. A mutli-decade spanning tale about the adventures of Zaeed Massani, or a stealth-based thriller where you play as Keiji, Kasumi's boyfriend. Of-course I see no reason you couldn't do a game as Archangel on Omega and meet and run his squad. I suppose the ending to that one would need to be done carefully though.

[TTTX]

Oh no argument there but it's no fun to speculate about how things can be ruined; I'd rather imagine how things could be great. The "what if's" are fun for me. It's entertained me for years doing that.

Bioware needed fresh writers and producers, to let them try out some fresh ideas. I'd love more smaller scale stories set in the Mass Effect universe as well. You could even make a few games just based on the lives and histories of some of the squadmates. A mutli-decade spanning tale about the adventures of Zaeed Massani, or a stealth-based thriller where you play as Keiji, Kasumi's boyfriend. Of-course I see no reason you couldn't do a game as Archangel on Omega and meet and run his squad. I suppose the ending to that one would need to be done carefully though.

true enough, it's always fun to speculate.

Problem with the ideas you suggested is that most of them would be more suited for other geners of gaming then RPG's (which is what BW makes) and EA wouldn't agree to that as they couldn't put mircotansaction in them.

[Joblom]

Problem with the ideas you suggested is that most of them would be more suited for other geners of gaming then RPG's (which is what BW makes) and EA wouldn't agree to that as they couldn't put mircotansaction in them.

Oh I agree, EA would never let a studio do anything interesting or potentially risky. Soon as something makes money it is to be used to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible and if that ruins the IP that doesn't matter. Mass Effect could easily produce games in several genres, but if it gets more games I fear that will stay as pure action with only light RPG flavor to it. We'd be lucky to ever get back to the level of dialog present in ME2.

[TTTX]

Oh I agree, EA would never let a studio do anything interesting or potentially risky. Soon as something makes money it is to be used to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible and if that ruins the IP that doesn't matter. Mass Effect could easily produce games in several genres, but if it gets more games I fear that will stay as pure action with only light RPG flavor to it. We'd be lucky to ever get back to the level of dialog present in ME2.

Personally I would like to see what CD Project Red could do with the ME IP, if for nothing to get at least a good RPG out of it, that might let us play as something other then human.

[FrozenShadow]

I've always felt that Mass Effect has a rich enough setting with plenty of conflict to allow for epic and satisfying stories without the Reapers. Really, in a lot of ways I find them to be the least interesting aspect of the setting. The stakes are interesting, but the big Old Machines themselves? Eh, not really. They're more like a force of nature.

Think about it though, it wouldn't be that hard to re-imagine the Saren and his plot as him being a sort of Palpatine-ish figure who attempts to overthrow the Council in a violent way so that his own people can take charge. The batarians and their slavery and terrorism could easily form the basis for another game, as could the Quarians and their battle to retake their homeworld. Then you could bring things full circle with a Cerberus/TIM plot where this time the Palpatine is one of our own people. The whole series could be an anthology about the first human Spectre and how s/he shaped humanity's role in the galaxy. Then you wouldn't even need to nuke the setting at the end.

Problem is the a good portion of BW villains are pretty stereotypical evil and don't have much character, sometimes they even take potentiel future evil characters that has at least good chance of becoming interesting and turn basically what they did with the TIM in ME3 or the Shadow Broker in ME2 (where they are just evil because the script demands it and don't have much reason beyond that).

Saren and the Arishock from DA2 are probably the best villains that BW have created so far only because those can understand where they are coming from and their plans weren't completely idiotic compared to the other villains plans (Like the Collector one that makes no sense in the grand scheme of thing) BW have made over the years.

There is also the thing that BW don't really writ stories that doesn't have a like chosen one vs the ultimate evil guy who wants to end the world, the only RPG where it's really the case is DA2 and that story could really be disjointed at times (because the game was put together in less then 2 years) and most fans didn't like that among other things from DA2, still not a bad game, it just had problems.

You know why BW and pretty much all other game companies likes to use big stereotypical aliens with goal of world destruction as main antagonist, while you have chosen hero to face and potentially beat them in the end? To do so is simple and something that most gamers will accept without much complaining. Sure, some will complain, even loudly. Yet majority just wants to be hero saving the day.

But most of all its safer for these game studios to use bad guys like these, because they will avoid the minefield that is politics. I mean, just look at the general outrage the DA4 received, when they said politics would be heavily involved in the story. Yet people seem to forget that if you want understandable, sympathetic and sensible villain, chances are that politics are somehow involved, either behind the characters actions or motivation to do something. That's always dangerous territory.

If we have a villain with sensible reason for their villainly actions, it's more than likely there are political reason behind it and that some of the players will find those acceptable, while some will vehemently oppose.Good example of this is Cerberus from ME2. Cerberus in ME2 was in many ways flavored with political views. To some they we near real life nazi bad, while some people found the ideals and action of Cerberus more than acceptable, even something they could've rallied on. As matter of fact, you could have found multiple thread debating Cerberus badness vs goodness on old forum, before ME3 was released. I actually think that this support Cerberus and their ideals in the game story was part of the reason BW went full on evil with Cerberus in ME3.

Sure, ME games do have lots of political themes in them (Anything Quarian related, Genophage, Council races vs Humanity), but all of these are just on the background, something left to players to decide on. But imagine what the situation would be, if your games villain would not only have political motivations behind them, but you as a player could choose to defeat or join them during the game. Some people players might find it really interesting, but it's also guaranteed to cause a huge shitstorm on internet, when people start fight over politically motivated agenda is right and wrong. And no matter what side you're on in this debate, the studio making the game will receive negative attention by being overly political. None of the studios wants this, which is why it's so much safer and easier to have space villain/stereotypical megalomanic super evil as villain of the game.

[FrozenShadow]

Oh no argument there but it's no fun to speculate about how things can be ruined; I'd rather imagine how things could be great. The "what if's" are fun for me. It's entertained me for years doing that.

Bioware needed fresh writers and producers, to let them try out some fresh ideas. I'd love more smaller scale stories set in the Mass Effect universe as well. You could even make a few games just based on the lives and histories of some of the squadmates. A mutli-decade spanning tale about the adventures of Zaeed Massani, or a stealth-based thriller where you play as Keiji, Kasumi's boyfriend. Of-course I see no reason you couldn't do a game as Archangel on Omega and meet and run his squad. I suppose the ending to that one would need to be done carefully though.

true enough, it's always fun to speculate.

Problem with the ideas you suggested is that most of them would be more suited for other geners of gaming then RPG's (which is what BW makes) and EA wouldn't agree to that as they couldn't put mircotansaction in them.

Actually, I would argue that Bioware haven't made RPG games for years. Yes, they started with them like Baldur's gate and Neverwinter Knights. But then they moved from pure RPG to action RPG and they got in trouble. ME1 and DA:O were still successful RPG games, though more of action oriented, but after that there had been nothing new.

Sure, there had been games like ME2, DA2, ME3, DA:I, ME:A. Yet, all of these had been sequels to established RPG games, so they could really remove RPG elements without angering the fans. Though if you look at these games and timeline, BW and EA sure had done their hardest to remove and simplify the RPG elements game after the game, while adding non RPG elements like co-op MP.

And you know what all of this had lead to? What's the Biowares first new game in over a decade?
Anthem.
A game that seems to barely have anything to with RPG, while actually being just another general first person shooter.

So yeah, I would say Bioware doesn't actually make RPG games anymore and you could say they haven't made for over a decade now.

[TTTX]

You know why BW and pretty much all other game companies likes to use big stereotypical aliens with goal of world destruction as main antagonist, while you have chosen hero to face and potentially beat them in the end? To do so is simple and something that most gamers will accept without much complaining. Sure, some will complain, even loudly. Yet majority just wants to be hero saving the day.

But most of all its safer for these game studios to use bad guys like these, because they will avoid the minefield that is politics. I mean, just look at the general outrage the DA4 received, when they said politics would be heavily involved in the story. Yet people seem to forget that if you want understandable, sympathetic and sensible villain, chances are that politics are somehow involved, either behind the characters actions or motivation to do something. That's always dangerous territory.

If we have a villain with sensible reason for their villainly actions, it's more than likely there are political reason behind it and that some of the players will find those acceptable, while some will vehemently oppose.Good example of this is Cerberus from ME2. Cerberus in ME2 was in many ways flavored with political views. To some they we near real life nazi bad, while some people found the ideals and action of Cerberus more than acceptable, even something they could've rallied on. As matter of fact, you could have found multiple thread debating Cerberus badness vs goodness on old forum, before ME3 was released. I actually think that this support Cerberus and their ideals in the game story was part of the reason BW went full on evil with Cerberus in ME3.

Sure, ME games do have lots of political themes in them (Anything Quarian related, Genophage, Council races vs Humanity), but all of these are just on the background, something left to players to decide on. But imagine what the situation would be, if your games villain would not only have political motivations behind them, but you as a player could choose to defeat or join them during the game. Some people players might find it really interesting, but it's also guaranteed to cause a huge shitstorm on internet, when people start fight over politically motivated agenda is right and wrong. And no matter what side you're on in this debate, the studio making the game will receive negative attention by being overly political. None of the studios wants this, which is why it's so much safer and easier to have space villain/stereotypical megalomanic super evil as villain of the game.

Well there is nothing wrong with a hero saving the day, but when the villain wants to destroy the world and don't have a good reason other then just because or very weak one like Reapers did it's very hard feel like the hero saving the day when the villain feel so for lack of a better crazy and should even have all that power or followers to begin with (at least that gets explained for the Reapers and Darkspawn).

Well DA4 was always going to be political as it takes place in Tevinter which is a slave nation in the DA world, it's was more because they are going to put current identity politics in it, because no real good reason pretty much like Dorian's personal quest in DA:I is about him being gay and his father tried to change it for some reason, it feels out of place in the world of DA where same sex relationships are perfectly fine and it's not that well explained in Dorian's case and you have imagine or think as to why it happened in the first place.
As for the or at least one of the villains of DA4 is going to be Solas who wants to destroy the world to set it back to what it was so the elves can rule again as they did before, man came and pulled them down from glory, which is understandble (not something I agree with) considering the racism elves get in the DA universe.

The problem with Cerberus in ME2 was that they should have been working with the Collectors as they had more motivation and reasons to so then then the Shadow Broker (who's only real motivation was "I don't want to die so I'm going to make a deal with thing so I get to live." which is pretty bad considering he wasn't indoctrinated like Saren was, but TIM has Reaper tech in his eyes and he doesn't go insane to screw everyone over until ME3.). Mind you the main plot of ME2 is Michael Bays leve of dumb from beginning to end with explosions, eye candy and of course lots of action, still fun, but it's dumb.

The problem is that BW story struktur is to similar from game to game, to the point it's very boring as pretty guess all the beats of them at this point (they don't much with it.), sometimes they don't give good reasons for the hero being the only person for it other then because the script demands it which is pretty much what happened to Shepard in ME2, where they are the only person to lead a team of people and aliens into a suicide mission against the collector is there any good reason for them to be the only person for the job other then the game telling they are "special" none what so ever.

[TTTX]

Actually, I would argue that Bioware haven't made RPG games for years. Yes, they started with them like Baldur's gate and Neverwinter Knights. But then they moved from pure RPG to action RPG and they got in trouble. ME1 and DA:O were still successful RPG games, though more of action oriented, but after that there had been nothing new.

Sure, there had been games like ME2, DA2, ME3, DA:I, ME:A. Yet, all of these had been sequels to established RPG games, so they could really remove RPG elements without angering the fans. Though if you look at these games and timeline, BW and EA sure had done their hardest to remove and simplify the RPG elements game after the game, while adding non RPG elements like co-op MP.

And you know what all of this had lead to? What's the Biowares first new game in over a decade?
Anthem.
A game that seems to barely have anything to with RPG, while actually being just another general first person shooter.

So yeah, I would say Bioware doesn't actually make RPG games anymore and you could say they haven't made for over a decade now.

I would argue that DA:O isn't like ME1 as you can chose your avatars race, have more speech options and was pretty much the last "true" RPG BW made until EA bought them.

but other then that I don't disagree, BW pretty much became Bethesda who also remove RPG element from their games as time goes on, it's one of the reasons why Fallout 4 is so boring and Skyrim can be that at times simply because it's so simplfied.

At least it looks like CD project Red and Obsidian seems to be picking up the slack of making RPG games.

[FrozenShadow]

1) Well there is nothing wrong with a hero saving the day, but when the villain wants to destroy the world and don't have a good reason other then just because or very weak one like Reapers did it's very hard feel like the hero saving the day when the villain feel so for lack of a better crazy and should even have all that power or followers to begin with (at least that gets explained for the Reapers and Darkspawn).

2) The problem with Cerberus in ME2 was that they should have been working with the Collectors as they had more motivation and reasons to so then then the Shadow Broker (who's only real motivation was "I don't want to die so I'm going to make a deal with thing so I get to live." which is pretty bad considering he wasn't indoctrinated like Saren was, but TIM has Reaper tech in his eyes and he doesn't go insane to screw everyone over until ME3.). Mind you the main plot of ME2 is Michael Bays leve of dumb from beginning to end with explosions, eye candy and of course lots of action, still fun, but it's dumb.

3) The problem is that BW story struktur is to similar from game to game, to the point it's very boring as pretty guess all the beats of them at this point (they don't much with it.), sometimes they don't give good reasons for the hero being the only person for it other then because the script demands it which is pretty much what happened to Shepard in ME2, where they are the only person to lead a team of people and aliens into a suicide mission against the collector is there any good reason for them to be the only person for the job other then the game telling they are "special" none what so ever.

1) While true, this was one of my points. Most of casual gamers just wants to feel hero that saves to day (probably one of the reason why so many people were angry with ME3 endings. There were nothing close to saving the in any form).

2) Actually, I found that much more interesting scenario. Shadow Broker willingly worked with Reapers to save his own hide, while TIM who affected by Reaper tech actually actively worked against Collectors and Reapers. Basically, first shows how you can willingly join evil and latter shows you can fight against it even against the odds. Though, ME3 made sure this part was completely pointless.

Besides, I personally never saw Shadow Broken working for Collectors/Reapers, it was more acting like he always did. Making deals with best profit for him. And delivering Shepard's body was rather simple deal on paper.

3) Shepard being only to something against Collectors in ME2 actually made sense. Lots of galaxy thought Collectors were just a myth, none of believed in Reapers (though that itself wasn't the most believable idea from writers), TIM and Cerberus kept things as close to vest as possible because he had his own agenda for Collectors (be that Reaper tech motivated or his real belief, no one knows for sure), Shepard being partially persona non-grata witth him/her having died and resurrected by terrorist organization and of course Shepard being only one with specialized Reaper IFF. While some of these could be called a game telling you to directly do something, lots of them also works as proper reason for why Shepard had to do it Solo.

So, while I do think that ME2 story and reason for his/her actions makes sense game and its story wise, it's completely different story in ME3. Because good heavens, Shepard soling in ME3 made so very little sense and near purely just because story forced him to do something or go somewhere.

[FrozenShadow]

I would argue that DA:O isn't like ME1 as you can chose your avatars race, have more speech options and was pretty much the last "true" RPG BW made until EA bought them.

but other then that I don't disagree, BW pretty much became Bethesda who also remove RPG element from their games as time goes on, it's one of the reasons why Fallout 4 is so boring and Skyrim can be that at times simply because it's so simplfied.

At least it looks like CD project Red and Obsidian seems to be picking up the slack of making RPG games.

That's true about DA:O, though it was also first BW game released under EA ownership. Not sure, if majority of game was made before EA influence, but still.

I also don't have much hope for CD project Red and Obsidian. First had been target for many AAA companies for years, and once they fall in any of their hands because someone in the company gets greedy, it's beginning of the end for them. As for Obsidian, they already lost their independence as Microsoft bought them sometime in 2018. And while Microsoft haven't yet truly fucked up from AAA companies, it's just matter of time now.

[TTTX]

1) While true, this was one of my points. Most of casual gamers just wants to feel hero that saves to day (probably one of the reason why so many people were angry with ME3 endings. There were nothing close to saving the in any form).

2) Actually, I found that much more interesting scenario. Shadow Broker willingly worked with Reapers to save his own hide, while TIM who affected by Reaper tech actually actively worked against Collectors and Reapers. Basically, first shows how you can willingly join evil and latter shows you can fight against it even against the odds. Though, ME3 made sure this part was completely pointless.

Besides, I personally never saw Shadow Broken working for Collectors/Reapers, it was more acting like he always did. Making deals with best profit for him. And delivering Shepard's body was rather simple deal on paper.

3) Shepard being only to something against Collectors in ME2 actually made sense. Lots of galaxy thought Collectors were just a myth, none of believed in Reapers (though that itself wasn't the most believable idea from writers), TIM and Cerberus kept things as close to vest as possible because he had his own agenda for Collectors (be that Reaper tech motivated or his real belief, no one knows for sure), Shepard being partially persona non-grata witth him/her having died and resurrected by terrorist organization and of course Shepard being only one with specialized Reaper IFF. While some of these could be called a game telling you to directly do something, lots of them also works as proper reason for why Shepard had to do it Solo.

So, while I do think that ME2 story and reason for his/her actions makes sense game and its story wise, it's completely different story in ME3. Because good heavens, Shepard soling in ME3 made so very little sense and near purely just because story forced him to do something or go somewhere.

1) maybe who knows or could just the endings literally came out of nowhere aside from one mention of an Prothan VI speculating the Reapers weren't the master of the cycles.

2)And that's one of the reasons why it doesn't work, well that and because the lead writer thought it was cool and interesting to work something like Cerberus, didn't work in execution though.

Yeah because the best information Broker works with someone or an underling who wants to kill everyone in the galaxy and even go as far as claiming it to be a mutral beneficial partnership, yeah sorry it's bad writing to give something for Liara to do, nothing more nothing less.

3) Shepard didn't even know the collectors existed until they blasted his ship to pieces and with Cerberus managed to find the one colony where there were some evidence for TIM to confirm it, even then Cerberus was already trying to find out who were taking the colonist and stopping them before Shepard was even revived (also the council knew about the Reapers Citadel DLC confirmed that, they were just assholes to Shepard about because of the script demanded Shepard was on their own in ME2 and they arrest Shepard for Working with Cerberus for no real good reason other then the game demands it).
Also Shepard doesn't know more about the Reapers aside they are coming and that's bad (Cerberus found was the one who did all the work and basically pointed Shepard to where they should go), we could literally had a Cerberus loyalist fill the same shoes as Shepard and all it really change about the story is all the drama about Shepard working with Cerberus and a few other things but other then that the main plot would stay the same.
Shepard isn't important for the main plot of ME2, the game just says they are without giving a reason for it other they saying they are special for merely existing which isn't not good enough at least in ME1 Shepard had the visions and later the cipher, in ME2 they don't have anything hell most of the crew and squad mates (aside from Garrus and Tali) don't even join because of Shepard they do it because of Shepard tells them about this issue he needs them for and they generally agree to go.

[TTTX]

[
That's true about DA:O, though it was also first BW game released under EA ownership. Not sure, if majority of game was made before EA influence, but still.

I also don't have much hope for CD project Red and Obsidian. First had been target for many AAA companies for years, and once they fall in any of their hands because someone in the company gets greedy, it's beginning of the end for them. As for Obsidian, they already lost their independence as Microsoft bought them sometime in 2018. And while Microsoft haven't yet truly fucked up from AAA companies, it's just matter of time now.

it was for like years before EA bought BW.

We'll see, no one can see the future.

[Joblom]

If we have a villain with sensible reason for their villainly actions, it's more than likely there are political reason behind it and that some of the players will find those acceptable, while some will vehemently oppose.Good example of this is Cerberus from ME2. Cerberus in ME2 was in many ways flavored with political views. To some they we near real life nazi bad, while some people found the ideals and action of Cerberus more than acceptable, even something they could've rallied on. As matter of fact, you could have found multiple thread debating Cerberus badness vs goodness on old forum, before ME3 was released. I actually think that this support Cerberus and their ideals in the game story was part of the reason BW went full on evil with Cerberus in ME3.

Good stories have nuance and recognize that every villain is the hero from their perspective. (generally speaking) I think the popularity of games, of franchises, has ruined them. When you appeal to a wider and wider you audience you usually wind up diluting that which made it appealing in the first place. ME1 had political nuance and its villain had nuance too.

The problem with Cerberus in ME2 was that they should have been working with the Collectors as they had more motivation and reasons to so then then the Shadow Broker (who's only real motivation was "I don't want to die so I'm going to make a deal with thing so I get to live."

I've seen this idea brought up before and I really like it. It makes sense that Cerberus would deal with the Collectors to try and get their tech, believing the sacrifice is worth it. Then at the end the choice Shepard would have might be more impactful in terms of tone. Could replace Harbinger's taunting with... TIM I guess? Have to re-write the lines to not be so irritating. Or just scrap that concept. A villain that you debate with periodically through the game, who is trying to sell you on joining him and justifying his actions, might be interesting. Same thing Saren did, only we get to spend more time arguing the point with them. Or do something different with the villain and consider if the game even needs one with a face. There are lots of possibilities.

[magnuskn]

Good stories have nuance and recognize that every villain is the hero from their perspective.

That's a somewhat simplistic and reductionist view of storytelling. There can be good stories with completely evil antagonists (f.e. Lovecraftian horror). The Reapers actually fell on that spectrum, with their appeal being an (almost) unstoppable and enigmatic antagonist who for unknowable reasons wants to end all civilized life in the galaxy. It's only when BW came up with their stupid reason as to why they were doing what they did in ME3 that they became a bit lame. Sovereigns big speech to Shepard in ME1 still counts as one of the most terrifying villain speeches in the history of fiction to me.

[Joblom]

Good stories have nuance and recognize that every villain is the hero from their perspective.

That's a somewhat simplistic and reductionist view of storytelling. There can be good stories with completely evil antagonists (f.e. Lovecraftian horror). The Reapers actually fell on that spectrum, with their appeal being an (almost) unstoppable and enigmatic antagonist who for unknowable reasons wants to end all civilized life in the galaxy. It's only when BW came up with their stupid reason as to why they were doing what they did in ME3 that they became a bit lame. Sovereigns big speech to Shepard in ME1 still counts as one of the most terrifying villain speeches in the history of fiction to me.

Perhaps I should have said that a lot of good stories have nuance? Mass Effect had lots of nuance. The Reapers weren't, though I never found the Reapers themselves that interesting. It was more so the threat they posed and the scale of their atrocities that I found compelling, as well as the stakes. I always assumed the Reaper's motives were probably fairly simplistic and didn't amount to much more than survival over the very, very, very, very, very, very, long term. As in, "survival to the heat-death of the universe and beyond if possible". I think trying to explain their motivations was a mistake and that doing so was never necessary.

[TTTX]

I've seen this idea brought up before and I really like it. It makes sense that Cerberus would deal with the Collectors to try and get their tech, believing the sacrifice is worth it. Then at the end the choice Shepard would have might be more impactful in terms of tone. Could replace Harbinger's taunting with... TIM I guess? Have to re-write the lines to not be so irritating. Or just scrap that concept. A villain that you debate with periodically through the game, who is trying to sell you on joining him and justifying his actions, might be interesting. Same thing Saren did, only we get to spend more time arguing the point with them. Or do something different with the villain and consider if the game even needs one with a face. There are lots of possibilities.

I would probably also change the Collector plan into something that makes sense like they are trying to bring back the Reapers, by turning their space station into a new citadel relay so at least the plan makes some sort of sense and keep the whole Reapers are trapped in Dark space. We can even keep the whole kidnapping colonists and melt them down just to make parts instead of a Reaper which would be rather crappy as it could raise the question are all the relays made from organic beings?
Then at the end one collector ship escapes and is later used to make a makeshift relay that starts ME3 where there are now may like a hundred reapers or so in the galaxy instead thousands and it's more easy to beat the conventional way.

[FrozenShadow]

I would probably also change the Collector plan into something that makes sense like they are trying to bring back the Reapers, by turning their space station into a new citadel relay so at least the plan makes some sort of sense and keep the whole Reapers are trapped in Dark space. We can even keep the whole kidnapping colonists and melt them down just to make parts instead of a Reaper which would be rather crappy as it could raise the question are all the relays made from organic beings?
Then at the end one collector ship escapes and is later used to make a makeshift relay that starts ME3 where there are now may like a hundred reapers or so in the galaxy instead thousands and it's more easy to beat the conventional way.

That's actually a brilliant idea. Not only Collectors would've used their space station as relay, they would've needed a Reaper to open it up as it's only thing powerful enough to open relay to a Dark Space and Citadel or Collector base in this would've been just something to power it up.
This was it would've made sense that Collectors were gathering humans to build a Reaper to open the new portal.

[TTTX]

That's actually a brilliant idea. Not only Collectors would've used their space station as relay, they would've needed a Reaper to open it up as it's only thing powerful enough to open relay to a Dark Space and Citadel or Collector base in this would've been just something to power it up.
This was it would've made sense that Collectors were gathering humans to build a Reaper to open the new portal.

Why thank you, it's nice to get a compliment from time to time.

I came up with the idea for potential ME fan fiction I toyed with some years ago nothing has come of it yet, because I work very slowly and I'm working on another fanfic for some years now.

[Joblom]

I would probably also change the Collector plan into something that makes sense like they are trying to bring back the Reapers, by turning their space station into a new citadel relay so at least the plan makes some sort of sense and keep the whole Reapers are trapped in Dark space. We can even keep the whole kidnapping colonists and melt them down just to make parts instead of a Reaper which would be rather crappy as it could raise the question are all the relays made from organic beings?

I like the colony abductions because they are strange and indirectly showcase the Reaper's power. They catch you out of left field and are not something anybody anticipated in ME1 days. However I find it a stretch that people can be manufactured into complex technology. It just makes no sense to me. I have a few times toyed with the idea of the Collectors being cousins of the Keepers, hiding in the galactic core and between cycles harvesting species and converting them into digital versions that they upload into a vast archive. It's a form a of record keeping and they might even view it as their way of saving species from being totally consumed by the Reapers and lost to the universe. Maybe they're survivors from the old days or maybe they are just doing work for the Reapers? I've never finished fleshing out the concept. I like the idea of Shepard being forced to choose between destroying the archive and somehow harming the Reapers or preserving it for moral reasons and forgoing gaining an advantage. The details though... I don't know.

I do agree that ME2 should have been about how the Reapers can still return to the galaxy while at the same time explaining how this "Option B" for them has made them weaker. Perhaps they have to cannibalize themselves in Dark Space to jury-rigg a new relay, with the geth or collectors building the counterpart in the core or behind the Perseus Veil? As another measure of security the Reapers gave the geth the knowledge to manipulate Mass Relays and lock other species out of them, separating them from the Citadel. So to get passed them Shepard has to figure this out too and a consequence of this is that Shepard can spread this knowledge/tech and when the Reapers finally invade they will have forgone the tactical advantage of capturing the Citadel. The Mass Relays are all independent now.

I have a pastebin that I filled with some ramblings of this nature. Rewriting Mass Effect to have a better planned and structured story is hobby of mine, I suppose. There are so many different approaches you could take. https://pastebin.com/u/cloudray12

[TTTX]

I like the colony abductions because they are strange and indirectly showcase the Reaper's power. They catch you out of left field and are not something anybody anticipated in ME1 days. However I find it a stretch that people can be manufactured into complex technology. It just makes no sense to me. I have a few times toyed with the idea of the Collectors being cousins of the Keepers, hiding in the galactic core and between cycles harvesting species and converting them into digital versions that they upload into a vast archive. It's a form a of record keeping and they might even view it as their way of saving species from being totally consumed by the Reapers and lost to the universe. Maybe they're survivors from the old days or maybe they are just doing work for the Reapers? I've never finished fleshing out the concept. I like the idea of Shepard being forced to choose between destroying the archive and somehow harming the Reapers or preserving it for moral reasons and forgoing gaining an advantage. The details though... I don't know.

I do agree that ME2 should have been about how the Reapers can still return to the galaxy while at the same time explaining how this "Option B" for them has made them weaker. Perhaps they have to cannibalize themselves in Dark Space to jury-rigg a new relay, with the geth or collectors building the counterpart in the core or behind the Perseus Veil? As another measure of security the Reapers gave the geth the knowledge to manipulate Mass Relays and lock other species out of them, separating them from the Citadel. So to get passed them Shepard has to figure this out too and a consequence of this is that Shepard can spread this knowledge/tech and when the Reapers finally invade they will have forgone the tactical advantage of capturing the Citadel. The Mass Relays are all independent now.

I have a pastebin that I filled with some ramblings of this nature. Rewriting Mass Effect to have a better planned and structured story is hobby of mine, I suppose. There are so many different approaches you could take. https://pastebin.com/u/cloudray12

sounds interesting.

yeah there should at least be an explanation and some consequences for that in ME3, but there isn't and it makes Sovereign plan looks rather dumb since he didn't just call his buddies and said "the relay is busted, you need to take the long way instead", but then again BW hadn't really planned out the trilogy lots of stuff changed from game to game including the lore.

[Sinekein]

I do agree that ME2 should have been about how the Reapers can still return to the galaxy while at the same time explaining how this "Option B" for them has made them weaker.

Isn't that the end result between Arrival and 3? I mean, even though it's not the main topic in 2, the Reapers don't get to walk over the galaxy because they are weakened - they don't control the Citadel and thus all FTL movements through the relays.

It's not clearly explained because the details of how relays work and what is the exact role of the Citadel remain nebulous overall - to limit the technobabble I assume - but it's still stated by Vigil on Ilos as early as ME1.

[Joblom]

Isn't that the end result between Arrival and 3? I mean, even though it's not the main topic in 2, the Reapers don't get to walk over the galaxy because they are weakened - they don't control the Citadel and thus all FTL movements through the relays.

That's technically true but Arrival is a cheap DLC when it ought to have been the full game. What was the purpose of ME2's story? I enjoyed the characters and lots of the side content but the main plot felt like a waste of time. It's even worse if you blow up the Collector Base. Nothing useful was learned. Nothing that changes anything.

It's a plot hole in ME3 that the Reapers don't prioritize capturing the Citadel. If they did that they'd win the war pretty much instantly.


All that said, ME2 would fit really well as a prequel to ME1, or as the first Mass Effect game. A few additions or changes to its storyline and it would serve its purpose quite well as an introduction to the setting, teasing at the Reapers, but leaving that revelation for the next game.

[Someone With Mass]

If anything, Mass Effect 2's characters and side stories made me not care about the Reaper plot and I honestly don't think it's a bad thing. It proved to be a bad thing when the dozen sub-plots had to be crammed into the sequel, but I liked the heart of it all.

Reapers are trying to plot something to invade the galaxy, yare yare, I'mma go hang out with my crew at the nightclub and get smashed and then help some of them reconnect with their families because they're awesome.

[Sinekein]

I agree with SWM. ME's strength is in its characters and the side stories, not the giant plot of doom around the Reapers. Even if the Reapers somehow had the most original reason ever for being gigantic destructive aliens, they would still be plot elements required to move the story forward.

ME2 managed to make someone like Jacob Taylor interesting during his side mission, which is no small feat because there is nothing interesting about Jacob Taylor.

Even in 3, the best part was Citadel. And for me, if the Rannoch and Tuchanka plots were great, it's not because you cured the genophage or broke peace between geth and quarians, it's because you had Mordin's sacrifice or Tali getting to see her homeworld free. The little things.

I can make a comparison with Game of Thrones: the true nature of the White Walkers is mostly irrelevant. Sure, it might be a great fit into the universe, or it could be some wacky explanation worthy of a Z-movie, but the result would be the same: they exist to force characters to unite their forces and work together. It's not their backstory which will make or break the books/the show.

[Joblom]

I agree with SWM. ME's strength is in its characters and the side stories, not the giant plot of doom around the Reapers.

Indeed, I would say the reason the series strength is not the Reapers is because the story about the Reapers is not told very well after ME1.

ME2 managed to make someone like Jacob Taylor interesting during his side mission, which is no small feat because there is nothing interesting about Jacob Taylor.

I think he's an interesting character that is wasted because he won't share anything and isn't presented with enough conflict.

Rather than only the little things being good, I'd like the little things and the central conflict to be compelling. There is no reason this should be an "either/or" dilemma. We can have a good central conflict and have good side content and characters. None of those things are mutually exclusive.

Your Game of Thrones comparison misses the point. If Game of Thrones has the White Walkers defeated in the last season by Jon and Dany suddenly finding out about an artifact that will destroy them... then that is bad story telling. I don't like bad story telling. It's true, that I will have enjoyed much of the non-White Walker stuff in Game of Thrones (well I did anyway, I think it has become terrible), but there was no reason the story had to be so poorly put together as to render the White Walkers uninteresting.

I'm not sure I understand the opposition to this idea that everything ought to be written in a compelling way. I mean I get why you can live with it as is because you are more focused on the character stuff. For me though, I want the central conflict to also be juicy and satisfying. That's what I was sold on when ME1 was still being teased in trailers and such; an epic story that would span several games with choices in each game carrying over. After ME1 was I psyched to continue the series because the Reapers had been established as a genuinely terrifying and intimidating threat, beings intent on destroying the very setting I'd fall in love with. So I was dismayed and underwhelmed at the end of ME2 when I realized that as far as the Reapers were concerned nothing had really happened.

If anything, Mass Effect 2's characters and side stories made me not care about the Reaper plot and I honestly don't think it's a bad thing.

Why don't you think that is a bad thing? If you were writing ME2 and ME3, or even ME1, would you even put the Reapers in the story? (I wouldn't) What would the point be in having a story element that is not well written? I kind of agree with you about this, actually, the non-Reaper stuff is all the best stuff in the games, outside of ME1 anyway. However there is no inherent reason the Reapers can't be interesting and it is certainly not a good thing that ME2 fails to develop them in a useful way (to the narrative). It is this failure that helped to sabotage ME3 because that game had to accomplish everything that ME2 ought to have, plus end the series in a satisfying way.

[Sinekein]

I'm not sure I understand the opposition to this idea that everything ought to be written in a compelling way. I mean I get why you can live with it as is because you are more focused on the character stuff. For me though, I want the central conflict to also be juicy and satisfying. That's what I was sold on when ME1 was still being teased in trailers and such; an epic story that would span several games with choices in each game carrying over. After ME1 was I psyched to continue the series because the Reapers had been established as a genuinely terrifying and intimidating threat, beings intent on destroying the very setting I'd fall in love with. So I was dismayed and underwhelmed at the end of ME2 when I realized that as far as the Reapers were concerned nothing had really happened.

I agree that the plot of ME can be improved, but I am not sure it can be made "compelling". At the end of the day, when you create a galactic-level threat, then you'll have to solve the problem by getting away from the characters to look at ships, fleets or planets, and it's harder to make that compelling than it is when Shepard is facing Tela Vasir or Kai Leng.

To go back to GOT, while it is true the WW plot can be solved in a sucky way, I am not sure that its resolution will actually be the crux of the series. In all likelihood, what will top everything will be Cersei's demise - if it happens. Okay, you will have the dragon vs zombie dragon duel too, but that will happen no matter how good the resolution of the WW plot is.

I honestly can't think of a "doomsday scenario" in fiction made compelling by itself. The closest I can think of is Fullmetal Alchemist, but it's because it's one being that wants to cause the Apocalypse, and that being has been very well defined.

[Joblom]

I agree that the plot of ME can be improved, but I am not sure it can be made "compelling".

We know that it can because the first game did exactly that. The second game has all the ingredients to make a compelling plot, but the execution was very flawed. I think what causes it to fail is two things:

No meaningful twist that changes how we perceive the conflict between Shepard and the Reapers, and the failure to ever properly introduce us to the Collector General or Harbinger. Eventually they turn up in the codex as entries and Shepard somehow learns about them, but we never actually see Shepard interact with them in a back and forth until Arrival. As well, Harbinger feels less intimidating when he bothers to shit talk us in every encounter in contrast to Sovereign who had much more important things to do. Perhaps Harbinger's ability to command his minions should have been explored in greater detail? There are lots of options. The point is, the character stuff in ME2 is good, it is just the motives and meaning of the enemies that fails. They dont' necessarily need to be developed as characters or even made the focus of the story. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the core plot should do something productive. Even something simple and incidental like having to master how to manipulate Mass Relays to bypass the Omega IV and reach the Collector Base would have important implications in ME3. What if we could use our IFF combined with EDI to turn relays on and off at will, or to make them recognize Reapers as hostiles? If we could deny the Reapers the use of the Mass Relay Network as a result of what we learned to do to complete our mission in ME2, then ME2's main plot would be more than justified. We'd have acquired a real weapon to use against the Reapers and a strategic advantage.

To go back to GOT, while it is true the WW plot can be solved in a sucky way, I am not sure that its resolution will actually be the crux of the series. In all likelihood, what will top everything will be Cersei's demise - if it happens. Okay, you will have the dragon vs zombie dragon duel too, but that will happen no matter how good the resolution of the WW plot is.

That begs the question. Why have the White Walkers at all? Emotionally I think we are all invested in the characters and their human struggles against other people. Even Jon's storyline is enjoyed not for the Others, but for his internal struggle with responsibility and pragmatism vs his principals and familial ties.

I think I have chosen my words poorly and given you the wrong impression. I was never suggesting that the Reaper stuff in Mass Effect should overshadow the characters. Not at all. I only mean that it should constructive story-telling. You know, if I tell a story about people escaping from a burning building I don't write the story and flesh out the fire itself as a character. However while I flesh out the survivors and their struggle I ought to present the spread and danger of the fire, and the characters escape from it, it a believable and logical way that plays to the protagonist's strengths and character arc.

Here is all I wanted the games to do with the Reapers:

ME1: Establish the threat
ME2: Set down the chess pieces for the climactic confrontation
Me3: Resolve the threat

ME1 and ME3 both do this, albeit ME3 doesn't do it in a satisfying way in my opinion. However ME2 does nothing. ME1 established the Reapers as being very powerful and trapped in dark space. What does ME2 do with that? It doesn't do anything. It didn't tell us how the Reapers were getting back and it didn't tell us (much) about how we might overcome their overwhelming firepower and numbers. As has been suggested earlier, if the Reapers had to consume themselves to create a new way to the Milky Way, reducing their numbers, and in if what I suggested about Shepard learning how to manipulate relays was used, then ME2 would serve a narrative purpose as far as the main plot is concerned. We were told the story of ME2 to see how Shepard would gain the tools and tactical advantage he'd need in final battle.

It isn't actually necessary to explore the Reaper's motivations or even their origins; we only need to learn these things if this knowledge has a useful purpose.

[magnuskn]

I personally found ME2 compelling, but different touches for different people, I guess.

[Joblom]

I personally found ME2 compelling, but different touches for different people, I guess.

Oh I do find it compelling; in the characters. It's the way the Collector plot and the Collectors themselves that disappoint me. I just wanted it to advance the story rather than serve as filler.

[Sinekein]

We know that it can because the first game did exactly that. The second game has all the ingredients to make a compelling plot, but the execution was very flawed.

It's easy to be compelling when you don't have to actually solve anything. ME1 was the first part of a planned trilogy, and managed to keep things rather personal since Shepard faces Saren first, and then Sovereign. The "doomsday scenario" is not touched upon in ME1 proper, there is only the announcement that it is going to happen later on when thousands of Reapers (instead of just the one) invade the galaxy.

So it works because it is not a "complete" doomsday, galactic-level threat that you face, it's but the vanguard of that threat. It's the teaser of the storyline that is actually solved in 3.

And even if you expanded on the relationship between Shepard and Harbinger in 2, you'd still have just two pieces of the upcoming massive conflict. When push comes to shove, Shepard won't take down all Reapers alone, and Harbinger won't exterminate all sentient life on his own. As soon as you make the setting an apocalypse, it is impossible to keep it both large scale-high stakes, and personable. Either you have to look at the strategy rooms, which means that you'll have the stakes without it being personal, or you'll be right in the middle of the action, in which case you won't get the stakes because it's not a hit or miss on your Cerberus Harrier that will decide whether the galaxy lives or not.

That's my general issue with doomsday scenarios, Mass Effect or not. Superhero or fantasy stories do it better because the apocalypse can be caused by just the one Doomsday or Thanos or Darkseid. But in sci-fi, you need to cheat if you want to brought the two levels, personal and global, together.

[Joblom]

It's easy to be compelling when you don't have to actually solve anything.

Why do you say that solving a problem is not compelling? It's all in how you portray it and how you construct it.

In ME1 the final act of the game is all about averting the imminent doomsday. It involves going to Ilos to chase Saren and follow him as he sneaks onto the Citadel. To reach him and stop him before he opens the Mass Relay. The doomsday scenario is what establishes the stakes. It also provides the context for our primary villain, Saren.

I see no reason or basis for the belief that reacting or solving the central conflict in the series shouldn't be interesting. A New Hope did it. Return of the Jedi did it. The Matrix did it. Mass Effect 1 did it. It's not hard. ME2 already has most of it down; building the team to thwart the Collectors is fun and engaging. It's just missing some proper context and information. It just needs a little bit more work.

make the setting an apocalypse, it is impossible to keep it both large scale-high stakes, and personable. Either you have to look at the strategy rooms, which means that you'll have the stakes without it being personal, or you'll be right in the middle of the action, in which case you won't get the stakes because it's not a hit or miss on your Cerberus Harrier that will decide whether the galaxy lives or not.

This is does not follow. Honestly at this point I'm not sure I understand what you are even talking about. You're saying we can't and shouldn't care about the overarching plot because... we care about the characters and the characters are personal. So the main plot doesn't matter and could never matter and could never be interesting.

What movies are you watching? What books are you reading? What games are you playing? Get better ones.

But in sci-fi, you need to cheat if you want to brought the two levels, personal and global, together.

No, you don't. It takes creativity and perhaps some forethought, but it can be done.

[Sinekein]

I am talking about settings that are rather "hard" sci-fi, and who show some sort of apocalyptic premise.

Of course there are "apocalyptic settings" that are satisfying. But they tend not to be as hard on the sci-fi scale as Mass Effect is. The Fifth Element is an example, or Edge of Tomorrow; both are showing situations where the heroes want to avoid the destruction of Earth, but one relies on love magic, and the other on time travel, which for me don't qualify as rational explanations. I love both of those movies, mind.

I adore the Vorkosigan Saga, but Miles or his mom are solving problems of a more human level: should their missions fail, then the setting would not be destroyed. Some wars might not be avoided, some battles might be lost instead or won, some crimes might not be solved, but overall the universe would remain safe even without what they're doing. This, for me, does not qualify as an apocalyptic setting. Ditto in Star Wars: if Luke loses, then the Dark Side triumphs, which means that the galaxy remains led by power-hungry dictators...but it will still be here.

In Mass Effect, should Shepard not be here, the galaxy would be destroyed.

So if you have examples of sci-fi story arcs that both show apocalyptic settings and a compelling and engaging way to solve them, I'd like to know them, because so far I have not found any that featured both "Save the planet/galaxy/universe from annihilation" and solid science-fiction elements that explained in a satisfying way why it does not happen. The only ones that have worked for me featured characters so powerful I have a hard time considering the whole thing hard sci-fi: Leeloo Dallas, Sarah Kerrigan, Superman, etc etc.

[Raga]

I honestly can't think of a "doomsday scenario" in fiction made compelling by itself. The closest I can think of is Fullmetal Alchemist, but it's because it's one being that wants to cause the Apocalypse, and that being has been very well defined.

The only one I ever encountered was in the Wheel of Time and that's because of the sheer size and complexity of it. But even so, the logistics aren't the point. It's seeing all these characters from fourteen books fighting in the battle to end all battles. But there is pretty much no character development in the last book. It's mostly fighting.

Also at the conversation as a whole:

The fundamental problem with the Reapers is that they are a fantasy bad-guy in a sci-fi world. Bioware *wanted* them to have the overwhelming horror of a Sauron or a Dark One or Dracula or whatever, but they can't because the Reapers are scientifically explicable, and the instant they become explicable they cease to be scary in a numinous, god-like sense. They become mundane.

That's not to say that sci-fi mundane = non scary, but it does mean you can't rely on flirtation with the supernatural to make them work. A pandemic is terrifying, but it's a different species of terror from that of a haunted house.

Having once set the Reapers up as inexplicable, unstoppable Cthulhu monsters, the rest of the series is left fumbling to explain both A) that the Reapers can be defeated because they aren't inexplicable, unstoppable Cthulhu monsters and B) trying desperately to maintain that level of threat without surrenderring to a MacGuffin solution, which is the only way you can stop inexplicable, unstoppable Cthulhu monsters.

[Sinekein]

The fundamental problem with the Reapers is that they are a fantasy bad-guy in a sci-fi world. Bioware *wanted* them to have the overwhelming horror of a Sauron or a Dark One or Dracula or whatever, but they can't because the Reapers are scientifically explicable, and the instant they become explicable they cease to be scary in a numinous, god-like sense. They become mundane.

That's putting it much better than I would.

It might have been better to have a "regular" enemy to face - an outside invader similar to the Protheans, maybe - that is shown as dominant more than inexplicably powerful, but where you actually have to build the alliance between races over the games, instead of it being simply made harder for sometimes petty reasons (see: the Asari in 3).

You could still get arcs such as Rannoch and Tuchanka, but you might have to start by stopping Turians and Humans to shoot each other, or be a bit more involved with asari or salarian politics, I don't know. Here, one problem is that despite 3's goal being to unite the galaxy, you are constantly reminded that "the usual way to fight won't be enough".

[Raga]

Well, it's an old drum I've repeatedly beat, but I think a fundamental hang-up about that is because some Bioware creative high-up(s) has a hard-on for transhumanism and a firm belief in the singularity. Just about any time you see some painful shoehorning of the plot or character choice, it's so they can accommodate that particular fetish.

The reason the Reapers *need* to remain inscrutable techno-gods is because there's a didactic message baked into the plot of the whole series, especially in the ending of ME3. The instant they become *just* machines is the instant they no longer represent transcendence from our lowly meat-brain state, and thus the instant they are no longer manifestations of weirdo writers nirvana of chose.

I *specifically* think somebody at Bioware is an Elon Musk junkie.

[magnuskn]

It's pretty clear that the whole Reaper thing falls apart the second you start asking pointed questions. However, the thing where BioWare really screwed the pooch was in making them unstoppable from a sheer numbers point of view. That locked them into the "get the McGuffin!" solution for part three of the series. It would have been vastly more satisfying on a narrative level to find a weakness in the Reapers which makes them defeatable in a conventional battle.

And, yes, doing that would have brought them down from their Cthulhu god status, but that was done already by the end of part two where we brought down two Reapers (Sovereign and the proto-Reaper) and then exacerbated by explaining their (really stupid and easy to counter) motivations in ME3.

But, nope, some people at BioWare wanted to make it totally impossible to overcome then in a conventional way. And therefore laid the foundation of their narrative failure at the end of the saga.

[Joblom]

It's pretty clear that the whole Reaper thing falls apart the second you start asking pointed questions. However, the thing where BioWare really screwed the pooch was in making them unstoppable from a sheer numbers point of view. That locked them into the "get the McGuffin!" solution for part three of the series.

No, they were only locked into that because they didn't put enough thought into writing the main plot for ME2 or ME3. The seeds of the Reaper's undoing are there in ME1. Bioware failed to capitalize on it though. A bit of time spent thinking about the Reapers and the logistics of the situation reveal some ways of subverting the Reapers' power to the point that they are still dangerous and formidable, but something that CAN be overcome.

I am talking about settings that are rather "hard" sci-fi, and who show some sort of apocalyptic premise.

Mass Effect is not Hard Sci-Fi anyway. It's perhaps... mm... medium, maybe. Harder than Stark Trek but it does have horizontal ships with gravity.

[magnuskn]

It's pretty clear that the whole Reaper thing falls apart the second you start asking pointed questions. However, the thing where BioWare really screwed the pooch was in making them unstoppable from a sheer numbers point of view. That locked them into the "get the McGuffin!" solution for part three of the series.

No, they were only locked into that because they didn't put enough thought into writing the main plot for ME2 or ME3. The seeds of the Reaper's undoing are there in ME1. Bioware failed to capitalize on it though. A bit of time spent thinking about the Reapers and the logistics of the situation reveal some ways of subverting the Reapers' power to the point that they are still dangerous and formidable, but something that CAN be overcome.

The problem is the time scale BioWare had the Reapers be around. I'm not sure if the Leviathan of Dis was mentioned in the first Mass Effect game (I'd have to reinstall to check it out), but if that was so, they had that time scale in mind all along. But their numbers alone made the McGuffin solution the only feasible one. It doesn't matter if it would have been a "pacify all Reapers" signal or something which would make them flee the galaxy. It's still at least 20.000 Reapers from the time scale BioWare invented for them (probably because "they've been around for a billion years" sounded super scary to them). And that is too much to defeat conventionally, unless the races of the galaxy find a weapon which one-shots Reapers and can fit them on every size of ship they have.

The problem with the Reapers overall is that much of their science is bullshit, their motivations are bullshit and you can't think one second ahead of their agenda without realizing that overall they are bullshit. For example, why do they not try to police other galaxies? It's not as if they didn't have enough time to reach them. How did Harbinger alone harvest the entire Leviathan species if he was the first and only Reaper back around then and additionally the servant races? Did they all march into the Reaper gas chambers with a "herpaderpaderp, what's the worst that can happen?" attitude?

Still, they were a super scary and effective antagonist in ME1 and ME2 to me. That's mostly due to Sovereigns superb speech in ME1 and Harbinger being a fucking obsessed Shepard fan-thing when taking over a Collector drone in ME2.

*edit*: Yep, the Leviathan of Dis was in the first ME game. Just checked it out after an re-install. So the writers had the time-scale for the Reapers in mind from the start, which means that they shot themselves in the leg from day one.

[Joblom]

The problem is the time scale BioWare had the Reapers be around. I'm not sure if the Leviathan of Dis was mentioned in the first Mass Effect game (I'd have to reinstall to check it out), but if that was so, they had that time scale in mind all along. But their numbers alone made the McGuffin solution the only feasible one.

How so? Explain your reasoning. I do not see how the Reaper's age means they can only be defeated by a magic button.

The problem with the Reapers overall is that much of their science is bullshit, their motivations are bullshit and you can't think one second ahead of their agenda without realizing that overall they are bullshit.

Mass Effect science in general is bullshit but that can work for or against the Reapers. I also don't think the games ever should have bothered exploring their motivations. Better to preserve the mystique. As Vigil said, your task lies in stopping them, not understanding them. The knowledge of the Reaper's trap in the Mass Relays and the Citadel is the a big lead. It is a strategic advantage that can be turned against them if it taken advantage of. The inroad with that is the Conduit. The sequels should have had a subplot about the Council races learning to build their own Mass Relays and/or to manipulate them like the IFF does. Secondly, the sequels should have dealt with how the Reapers will return without the Citadel and what it will cost them. It should cost them a lot to hammer home the point that the Battle of the Citadel was important and at the same time it can weaken the Reapers some. The writers were on the right track with the Thanix and EDI.

Though I also think the timeline of the trilogy should have been extended. Certainly longer than just a 4 year span or so. Try like, 10, at the absolute minimum.

[Sinekein]

Mass Effect is not Hard Sci-Fi anyway. It's perhaps... mm... medium, maybe. Harder than Stark Trek but it does have horizontal ships with gravity.

When a game starts to give details on the chirality of amino acids in several species or tries to chemically explain why Turian skin protects them from radiation, it's close to hard sci-fi. Or at least it is too hard to fit in Lovecraftesque villains you cannot conventionally defeat.

[TTTX]

How so? Explain your reasoning. I do not see how the Reaper's age means they can only be defeated by a magic button.

The problem with the Reapers overall is that much of their science is bullshit, their motivations are bullshit and you can't think one second ahead of their agenda without realizing that overall they are bullshit.

Mass Effect science in general is bullshit but that can work for or against the Reapers. I also don't think the games ever should have bothered exploring their motivations. Better to preserve the mystique. As Vigil said, your task lies in stopping them, not understanding them. The knowledge of the Reaper's trap in the Mass Relays and the Citadel is the a big lead. It is a strategic advantage that can be turned against them if it taken advantage of. The inroad with that is the Conduit. The sequels should have had a subplot about the Council races learning to build their own Mass Relays and/or to manipulate them like the IFF does. Secondly, the sequels should have dealt with how the Reapers will return without the Citadel and what it will cost them. It should cost them a lot to hammer home the point that the Battle of the Citadel was important and at the same time it can weaken the Reapers some. The writers were on the right track with the Thanix and EDI.

Though I also think the timeline of the trilogy should have been extended. Certainly longer than just a 4 year span or so. Try like, 10, at the absolute minimum.

It was also proven by Sovereign in ME1 without their shields they be killed rather easily even by a small ship like the original Normandy.

Also the Levithan of dis wasn't confirmed to be a Reaper until ME3, before it was at best peculation how old the Reapers were.

[magnuskn]

How so? Explain your reasoning. I do not see how the Reaper's age means they can only be defeated by a magic button.

Numbers. If the Reapers have been around for at least one billion years, that means that we are already at least 20.000 cycles into the whole thing. That means we have at least 20.000 (minus a handful which were defeated in previous cycles) fully developed Reapers with probably at least triple that number in their smaller versions flying around. According to the Mass Effect internal database, you need the firepower of three dreadnoughts to take down a single large Reaper, and that is with those three dreadnoughts being upgraded to use the same tech with their guns the Normandy had (which was Reaper tech).

And that's the crux of the matter. Due to BioWare's overblown numbers game, the entire civilized galaxy simply did not have the numbers themselves to defeat the Reapers conventionally. So, the writers forced themselves into a corner where only a McGuffin "Destroy all Reapers" magic button could win the day.

@TTTX: If the Leviathan of Dis was not intended to a Reaper before ME3 is speculation, as far as I know. It would make sense from a storytelling perspective that the writers were already foreshadowing in ME1, even if that turned out to be a narrative mistake.

[TTTX]

@TTTX: If the Leviathan of Dis was not intended to a Reaper before ME3 is speculation, as far as I know. It would make sense from a storytelling perspective that the writers were already foreshadowing in ME1, even if that turned out to be a narrative mistake.

Well we'll never know for sure what they writer intendtion where back in the ME1 days, but one thing is for sure they hadn't really planned out the trilogy as much as they said they were.

Mind you, we didn't know how the Reapers were build before ME2 and even then it made less sense then it does now (as dumb as the reason is).

[Raga]

Mass Effect is not Hard Sci-Fi anyway. It's perhaps... mm... medium, maybe. Harder than Stark Trek but it does have horizontal ships with gravity.

Yea, most technology in Mass Effect is based on magic glowing rocks. They did put *some* effort into alien biology. However, the way the genophage and quarian "allergies" work is nonsense (at least according to my sister who has a Masters in virology and immunology).

The geth neural net also makes no sense the way Legion explains it.

[Raga]

The problem is the time scale BioWare had the Reapers be around. I'm not sure if the Leviathan of Dis was mentioned in the first Mass Effect game (I'd have to reinstall to check it out), but if that was so, they had that time scale in mind all along. But their numbers alone made the McGuffin solution the only feasible one. It doesn't matter if it would have been a "pacify all Reapers" signal or something which would make them flee the galaxy. It's still at least 20.000 Reapers from the time scale BioWare invented for them (probably because "they've been around for a billion years" sounded super scary to them). And that is too much to defeat conventionally, unless the races of the galaxy find a weapon which one-shots Reapers and can fit them on every size of ship they have.

The problem with the Reapers overall is that much of their science is bullshit, their motivations are bullshit and you can't think one second ahead of their agenda without realizing that overall they are bullshit. For example, why do they not try to police other galaxies? It's not as if they didn't have enough time to reach them. How did Harbinger alone harvest the entire Leviathan species if he was the first and only Reaper back around then and additionally the servant races? Did they all march into the Reaper gas chambers with a "herpaderpaderp, what's the worst that can happen?" attitude?

Still, they were a super scary and effective antagonist in ME1 and ME2 to me. That's mostly due to Sovereigns superb speech in ME1 and Harbinger being a fucking obsessed Shepard fan-thing when taking over a Collector drone in ME2.

*edit*: Yep, the Leviathan of Dis was in the first ME game. Just checked it out after an re-install. So the writers had the time-scale for the Reapers in mind from the start, which means that they shot themselves in the leg from day one.

There's a loop de loop problem baked into that. Bioware needs some reason why previous cycles *haven't* defeated the Reapers while also having a reason why this cycle finally manages that doesn't amount to love magic or "we tried extra hard." This is one of the things I think they sorta, kinda did right in that the Crucible was iterative; it was the product of modification across many cycles so technically this cycle *didn't* magically defeat the Reapers on its own. It took the accumulated effort of multiple cycles worth of undertaking.

But no matter how you come at it, there's problem baked into the Reapers that comes from the psuedo-god status - problems of scale, size, & power.

[TTTX]

There's a loop de loop problem baked into that. Bioware needs some reason why previous cycles *haven't* defeated the Reapers while also having a reason why this cycle finally manages that doesn't amount to love magic or "we tried extra hard." This is one of the things I think they sorta, kinda did right in that the Crucible was iterative; it was the product of modification across many cycles so technically this cycle *didn't* magically defeat the Reapers on its own. It took the accumulated effort of multiple cycles worth of undertaking.

But no matter how you come at it, there's problem baked into the Reapers that comes from the psuedo-god status - problems of scale, size, & power.

Well as far as we know the Citadel trap is pretty much the reason why the Reapers always won, by cutting of the systems from one another or at least make it hard to travel between them as it take more resources, travel time, etc. expect for the Reapers who can just use the relays as they please as they now control them.
Sovereign didn't want to get to the Citadel and fix the problem right away, without and army on his back, pretty much out of fear of getting destroyed of a united galaxy.
Not to mention the galaxy isn't tied up in Galatic war before the Reapers as the Protheans were which means they aren't tired with fighting on two fronts at once outside of Cerberus but they suck and is more of an annoyance then anything else and the cycle is a lot more diverse unlike the Protheans who basically were join and become us or die.

In the current cycle which seems to have a lot more going for it as far as we know.

Hell despite how god like the Reapers are they are in the machines, very powerful and advanced, but machines none the less, which means they still need resources to function, hell even Vigil states they strip planets bare of resources when they harvest which suggest they need a lot of fuel to do what they do and other things to keep being so powerful, hell if anything that trip from Dark space should have taken a lot more out of them then ME3 neglected to even think off much like the whole Citadel being the control station for all the relays, because at the end of the day BW writers kept changing the main story from game to game because none really planned that far ahead and sometimes just put stuff in them because they followed the Rule of Cool or at times forced drama to tell story that became more of a mess because they did that.

[magnuskn]

Mass Effect is not Hard Sci-Fi anyway. It's perhaps... mm... medium, maybe. Harder than Stark Trek but it does have horizontal ships with gravity.

Yea, most technology in Mass Effect is based on magic glowing rocks. They did put *some* effort into alien biology. However, the way the genophage and quarian "allergies" work is nonsense (at least according to my sister who has a Masters in virology and immunology).

The geth neural net also makes no sense the way Legion explains it.

The same goes with the whole food thing, where eating Quarian and Turian food can be up to lethal. According to what I've read, at most it can give you diarrhea.

In the current cycle which seems to have a lot more going for it as far as we know.

Which in of itself is a bullshitty storytelling device. Across 50000 cycles this was the first one we got someone of Shepards talent and force of personality?

[Mazder]

Which in of itself is a bullshitty storytelling device. Across 50000 cycles this was the first one we got someone of Shepards talent and force of personality?

First of all was it 50000 cycles or 50000 years?
I always thought of it more as "In 50000 (cycles/years) there weren't so many that listened to their "prophet" character/archetpye enough."
Like, some did, but not enough, or not in enough time to make a difference.

And TBH in ours we only just squeak through, so we might have been the highest point on an already climbing trend. I mean the Prrotheans did okay in terms of amassing power, their only flaw was a lack of diversified power.

[TTTX]

Which in of itself is a bullshitty storytelling device. Across 50000 cycles this was the first one we got someone of Shepards talent and force of personality?

First of all Shepard didn't everything themselves, let's make that perfectly clear and Javik existed before Shepard (who is bascially faild-shep with an attitude) but he tell why they failed, they weren't united the current cycle was, they were already fighting a war before the Reapers came, they couldn't adapt to new situation, etc. in other words there most likely Shepard like characters that didn't have the advantages before they were even born, Shepard did.

Shepard didn't stop the Reaper signal from activating the Citadel trap in the first place, some of the last Prothean survivors did because the Reapers over looked them because of luck and probably some of their arrogance blinded them after millions of years of victory and than Shepard just so happened to come across the beacon which set them on the path.
So it's more like a combination of luck, skill and the Reapers being overconfident for during that same thing for millions of years.
Even before that Shepard didn't build council to begin with or even shape galatic history until they were close to 30 and even then it was just as much luck as skill to pull it off and they weren't alone in doing so.

For the first time in probably ever during a cycle the Reapers having been able to spring their trap and have all the advances, now they have to fight a united galaxy, while possible weaken by taking the long way home and this time they won't have all the galaxy mapped so they won't know what is on the other side of relays that have not yet been activated.

[Joblom]

Numbers. If the Reapers have been around for at least one billion years, that means that we are already at least 20.000 cycles into the whole thing. That means we have at least 20.000 (minus a handful which were defeated in previous cycles) fully developed Reapers with probably at least triple that number in their smaller versions flying around.

That's an assumption. You don't know that Reapers create new ones in each cycle. Remember, where are talking about alternate ways you could have developed the Reapers to weaken them. For all you know the Reapers haven't built new ones in many, many cycles. Only replacing the odd one that gets destroyed, assuming Sovereign wasn't the first. (derelict Reaper isn't canon until ME2). As well you are pointing out the database and how Bioware wrote the Reapers to be too strong and entirely missing my point. DON'T WRITE IT THAT WAY. That's what I'm saying. Instead you write your canon to be that Thanix Cannons or some new weapon enable one Dreadnought to match the Reaper equivalent 1 for 1. You're still probably outnumbered, but you've got something to work with now. You write other story events or constraints on the Reapers that reduce their numbers. Does that make sense?