138 réponses à ce sujet

[grey_wind]

You know, I liked the motives the Reapers were hinted at having in ME2. If you match what you see at the Collector Base (especially with the cut dialogue on Reaper creation) with Harbinger's endless taunts, you get a picture of a race that believes itself the apex of existence because it has found a way to unite an entire species into a singular consciousness. Not only does this explain what they're after, but in a way it also leaves them incomprehensible because you simply can't wrap your head around what would happen when billions of minds come together like they do in a Reaper. In a creepy way, what the Reapers offer is realistically transcendence for a species.

And the best part about that was that it was simultaneously deliciously ironic, because in becoming the apex of evolution, the Reapers had regressed to the most primordial of organic life processes: eating, sleeping and reproducing.

It really didn't need to be more than that.

[Nanox Vox]

I disagree OP. While the origins of the Reapers might not have been what I was expecting, I would rather have what I got than nothing. While you can't accept what was given, I can't accept that the reason that the Reapers harvest organic civilizations is...because they can and they're jerks so nyeh!

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that you have no right to hate the explanation that was given, I just think that an explanation, even a poorly thought out one, is better than no explanation at all.

Modifié par Nanox Vox, 19 mars 2013 - 09:28 .

[Vortex13]

K.I.S.S. This should be the key foundation when trying to explain something like the Reapers. Any convoluted motivation, reasoning, or explanation ruins the mythos of the character.

If a character's motivation, especially a vilian's motivation, can not be summed up in one word then you have failed from a literary standpoint (IMO).

[JPN17]

I agree. Motivations of the reapers did not need to be explained. In fact I'd go so far as to say with the way Bioware wrote ME, the reapers cannot be explained. Any attempt would would be contradictory, such as the explanation we got.

Modifié par JPN17, 19 mars 2013 - 09:55 .

[ConanTheLeader]

It is probably because there would have been massive unanswered questions if they did not explain this. I can see that point of view but I can see yours also, with mystery there is great room for fan input and speculation.

It is a fun community activity to gather on the forums while at work and discuss theories, when the mystery goes away with answering questions though, it's laid out and simply "Thats why"

[sammysoso]

Yea, the ME1 version of the Reapers was much more frightening then the ME2/3 version.

You aren't incomprehensible if a brand new character can describe you away with a couple lines of dialogue.

[L_B_123]

I actually think that if it was done well revealing the reapers could have been a high of the series, unfortunately it wasn't done well, if they had something like synthetics evolved into a reaper and started harvesting in order to grow as a species it would have worked. Rather than we stop organic extinction by killing more organics.

[SurfaceBeneath]

If you wanted them to be unknowable horrors from outerspace and have their motives go unexplained that definitely could have been a good route for the series to go. However it's not ME3 that ruined this with the Catalyst or even ME2 with the Baby Reaper. It was ME1 and having Sovereign speak with Shepard directly in the first place. The Shivans were an effective antagonist in the Freespace games because they never once even attempted to communicate with the races of the game. Also the Shivans seemed to act completely at random with seemingly no reason or justification for their actions. Them wiping out entire planets seemed almost just a side effect rather than their express goal.

As soon as Sovereign took the time to talk to Shepard, it became knowable. It became human-like. At that point Bioware had committed to a race that had a very definable goal and I think not revealing that goal would have been a disservice to them.

[whalewhisker]

Mumba1511 wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

The mistake wasn't in trying to explain them it was the ridiculous explanation we were given for them.

A combination of both. Buy yes.

[George Costanza]

It's tough to know where I stand on this. I think if you'd asked me before ME3 came out, I'd have said I wanted to know the Reaper origins. I wanted to know why they were doing it. What could possibly be so important. So incomprehensible.

But then when we get to it, it wasn't those things. It could be explained in a couple of lines of dialogue, and it was exceptionally banal. And it ruined the characters of the Reapers. They went from being a terrifying force of destruction to minions of an ancient programmers silly mistake.

[Giantdeathrobot]

It still amazes how me how much the whole thing has utterly emasculated Sovereign. I'm replaying ME1 right now, and his speech rings incredibly hollow when you know his boss's actual intentions. Not to mention that like the jerks they are, the Reaper in ME3 don't even make good on his sacrifice and take the Citadel ASAP (you know, the thing we spent the entirety of ME1 trying to prevent). They just kinda let it chill while they fly ominously above every single other planet, taking their sweet little time. They didn't even explain why a Reaper was needed to open the Citadel relay, while the Catalyst is sitting right there.

But yeah, any explanation was bound to dissapoint. I always said that making the Reapers so incredibly powerful in the first place was an error, because the only way you can ever beat them now is via contrived plot devices. Very powerful ships with more normal-sized pilots would maybe have served better, I don't know.

[SpamBot2000]

True in a way, though it might be argued that the extremely lame "yo dawg" backstory itself is just a function of the decision to terminate the Mass Effect setting, "once and for all".

[Megaton_Hope]

Yeah, I don't think they needed a motivation. Actually, I think they made about three big mistakes with the Reapers. In descending order:

1. Trying to provide a reasonable justification for wiping out all life over and over again. It took away the mystique of the reapers as a truly alien and formidable intelligence, and made them look pretty dumb to boot.

2. The entire concept of the proto-Reaper. So they wanted me to fight a big, threatening boss, I get it. Well, he's sure big. Bu the Reapers, if they are partially organic, sure maintain themselves well over 50,000 years or so beyond the galactic rim. If they aren't, what the heck is the goo for? What purpose can the goo even serve? Neural nets made of a neuron sludge have been interfaced with machines before; they even made bits of rat brain pilot a flight simulator. But that doesn't make it a necessary or desirable framework for artificial beings like the Reapers. I feel like they started with disappearing colonists and ended the question "why are the colonists being abducted, anyway" pretty lamely.

3. Reapers are too strong and too numerous, necessitating the Crucible or something like it to allow an organic victory. Or organic non-extinction. Just screws up the pacing; most of the third game was at the climax level, which made anything that comes after an anticlimax.

[Tron Mega]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

It still amazes how me how much the whole thing has utterly emasculated Sovereign. I'm replaying ME1 right now, and his speech rings incredibly hollow when you know his boss's actual intentions. Not to mention that like the jerks they are, the Reaper in ME3 don't even make good on his sacrifice and take the Citadel ASAP (you know, the thing we spent the entirety of ME1 trying to prevent). They just kinda let it chill while they fly ominously above every single other planet, taking their sweet little time. They didn't even explain why a Reaper was needed to open the Citadel relay, while the Catalyst is sitting right there.

But yeah, any explanation was bound to dissapoint. I always said that making the Reapers so incredibly powerful in the first place was an error, because the only way you can ever beat them now is via contrived plot devices. Very powerful ships with more normal-sized pilots would maybe have served better, I don't know.

agreed completely.

as soon as liara mentions the crucible in the game i couldnt help but think, "so, this is why ME3 will suck?" i did such an incredible job convinceing myself bioware would turn the crucible into something satisfying. something not stupid. well, oops on me.

for me there was never a point in the series where i though i wouldnt beat the reapers. i was never expected to beat ME3 any other way then uniting the galaxy, and sending the reapers back to dark space. literally, thats the exact reason i played this series, to beat the god damned reapers. it makes too much sense. i surely didnt need spacekid, or the crucible in my ME3. oops on bioware.

Modifié par Tron Mega, 20 mars 2013 - 12:05 .

[KingZayd]

[quote]DinoSteve wrote...

The mistake wasn't in trying to explain them it was the ridiculous explanation we were given for them. [/quote]
[/quote]

This.
A decent explanation would have been good. No explanation (only the little hints we had uncovered up to that point) would have been fine. The trilogy was ruined when the Reapers were ruined.

[Armass81]

If you didnt want an explanation, maybe you should have screamed more that "please dont explain them!". Cause as I recall a lot of people did want an explanation for them.

Bioware was in a losing position here too. Damned if they did and damned if they didnt. Not giving any explanation pisses fans off too by leaving them unanswered questions, the original ending proved that also. Also any explanation always diminishes beings that apparently work in ways "we cannot comprehend".

So there was no way to win here. Someone was about to get pissed off, either way.

BTW You cant have Cthulhu and then win over him with some heroes or armies, it doesnt work that way. Thats cause the creature or horror is then diminished by default. Lovecrafts horror succeeds cause its based on cosmicism, the unfathomable horrors and the insignificance of man, the only haven lies in ignorance of the powers that are. There is no hope in winning against the great ancients when their inevitable rise occurs and mankind is wiped from earth.

Tell me would you have liked that kind of ending? Preserving reapers as these cosmic horrors?

Also machines always have a beginning. They are not born from nothing, they certainly cant claim "we have no beginning or end" unless they are lying or are insane. They were made by someone, somewhere and given some purpose. Reapers in the end are machines. There was a reason for their existance, always.

Maybe you would have preferred not to know, okay. But a lot of people did. And in the end it was guaranteed that some of us would get pissed, no matter what.

Modifié par Armass81, 20 mars 2013 - 02:13 .

[Megaton_Hope]

They could always focus group the idea of revealing the Reapers' backstory, and some possible explanations. Not foolproof, but doesn't require justification after the fact the way "It's our game, we'll do what we want" does.

[SinerAthin]

I would be happy with their motives being 'beyond our understanding', which would have worked perfectly fine if the Reapers truly had reached the apex of evolution/developement.

Personally, I like the idea of a great, mystic and epic force that we cannot understand.

sammysoso wrote...

Yea, the ME1 version of the Reapers was much more frightening then the ME2/3 version.

You aren't incomprehensible if a brand new character can describe you away with a couple lines of dialogue.

I totally agree

Modifié par SinerAthin, 20 mars 2013 - 01:03 .

[o Ventus]

I would much prefer if they simy had the Reapers consider us to be little more than food/a source of reproduction. We are essentially cows to the slaughter.

It's motivation enough why they want to kill us, and it isn't pants-on-head retarded working on circular logic.

[Vortex13]

o Ventus wrote...

I would much prefer if they simy had the Reapers consider us to be little more than food/a source of reproduction. We are essentially cows to the slaughter.

It's motivation enough why they want to kill us, and it isn't pants-on-head retarded working on circular logic.

Pretty much how I see it.

I thought the explanation in ME 2 was all that we needed. The Reapers harvest us because we are food/a means for reproduction. I mean if the galaxy is nothing but a giant slaughter house and we're the cows, what possible motivation would the Reapers need beyond: "We eat you." 

We don't give the cows IRL a convoluted reason about how we are killing them in order to save them, we eat them because we are more powerful and cows taste good. 

Food/Reproduction these are two very simple easily digestible motivations that at the same time still allow the Reapers to maintain their sense of awe inspiring dread. I would have been perfectly fine with this as a Reaper motivation.

-SPOILERS AHEAD-

This is pretty much how the Brethren Moons are in Dead Space, they have no grand scheme in place that works for our benefit. Everything they do; the promise of limitless energy from the Markers, the promise of transcendence into the afterlife; all of it is a deception, a trap placed to allow them to consume us. 

I enjoyed the Awakening DLC, true it ended on a cliff hanger, but the presentation of the Brethren Moons as this timeless force, and their "indoctrination" of Isaac and Carver was a lot more intimidating (IMO) then the Reapers were. 

"They are hungry. They are coming." 

-SPOILERS END-

A complex motivation that requires a fifteen minute monologue to explain does not equal a deep and engaging character. The same is true that a simple motivation does not necessarily equal a compelling villain, but it is much easier to pull off, and if done poorly, does not cause as much damage as a complex motivation.

[Delta_V2]

Vortex13 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I would much prefer if they simy had the Reapers consider us to be little more than food/a source of reproduction. We are essentially cows to the slaughter.

It's motivation enough why they want to kill us, and it isn't pants-on-head retarded working on circular logic.

Pretty much how I see it.

I thought the explanation in ME 2 was all that we needed. The Reapers harvest us because we are food/a means for reproduction. I mean if the galaxy is nothing but a giant slaughter house and we're the cows, what possible motivation would the Reapers need beyond: "We eat you." 

We don't give the cows IRL a convoluted reason about how we are killing them in order to save them, we eat them because we are more powerful and cows taste good. 

Food/Reproduction these are two very simple easily digestible motivations that at the same time still allow the Reapers to maintain their sense of awe inspiring dread. I would have been perfectly fine with this as a Reaper motivation.

-SPOILERS AHEAD-

This is pretty much how the Brethren Moons are in Dead Space, they have no grand scheme in place that works for our benefit. Everything they do; the promise of limitless energy from the Markers, the promise of transcendence into the afterlife; all of it is a deception, a trap placed to allow them to consume us. 

I enjoyed the Awakening DLC, true it ended on a cliff hanger, but the presentation of the Brethren Moons as this timeless force, and their "indoctrination" of Isaac and Carver was a lot more intimidating (IMO) then the Reapers were. 

"They are hungry. They are coming." 

-SPOILERS END-

A complex motivation that requires a fifteen minute monologue to explain does not equal a deep and engaging character. The same is true that a simple motivation does not necessarily equal a compelling villain, but it is much easier to pull off, and if done poorly, does not cause as much damage as a complex motivation.

Another example that comes to mind is the Flood in Halo.  Left unchecked, it would consume all life in the galaxy, and its reason was basically "we're food".  It never needed anything more complicated than that.  Sure, an explanation that simple doesn't make for the greatest villain ever, but its better than a reason that doesn't make sense. 

If you had asked me before playing ME3, I would have been ok with leaving the Reapers' motives/origins a mystery, but I would have preferred an explanation.  The problem is, attempting to explain something that is supposed to be so alien and incomprehensible is very difficult.  If a writer can pull it off, it's really good, but if they're not up to the task, it can degrade the entire story.  Basically, explaining something the Reapers is a huge gamble - you win, you win big; you fail, you screw up everything.  Sometimes it's just better to play it safe and leave the mystery.

[AlanC9]

Vortex13 wrote...
I thought the explanation in ME 2 was all that we needed. The Reapers harvest us because we are food/a means for reproduction. I mean if the galaxy is nothing but a giant slaughter house and we're the cows, what possible motivation would the Reapers need beyond: "We eat you." 

We don't give the cows IRL a convoluted reason about how we are killing them in order to save them, we eat them because we are more powerful and cows taste good. 

I'm OK with humans = cows. The main problem with this is that Bio botched the length of the cycles. 50,000 years is all wrong unless Reapers don't care about the efficiency of their (re)production; give agriculture to caveasari, caveturians, cavemen, etc. and they'd get to the harvest stage much faster. I suppose one could make up some quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo to get around this. Say, the Reapers prefer "free-range" organics because it's more "natural", so organics have to develop technology on their own rather than be helped along.

The whole hiding in dark space thing would have to go, too; that meant that the Reapers were shaping  their lives according to the cycles as much as they were inflicting the cycles on organics. But since that was just unfounded specualtion by Vigil, it would have been simple to retcon it away.

[Megaton_Hope]

Well, this cycle has lasted especially long, because the last group of Prothean scientists tinkered with the Keepers and prevented the pathway from being opened.

Kind of hard to imagine how a society would go from square one (wearing hides, banging rocks together) to discovering spaceflight and vestiges of Reaper tech in a shorter time, though. I mean, the Asari might be an exception, because aside from their greatest minds living for ten or fifteen of our generations, and being able to directly share knowledge, they had that beacon already on their homeworld.

Raising organics specifically to harvest them would make the most sense. And you'd want especially durable breeds, if you're going to incorporate their raw materials into your superstructure. So wiping out everybody but the Krogans would make sense to me.

[AlanC9]

Megaton_Hope wrote...
Kind of hard to imagine how a society would go from square one (wearing hides, banging rocks together) to discovering spaceflight and vestiges of Reaper tech in a shorter time, though. I mean, the Asari might be an exception, because aside from their greatest minds living for ten or fifteen of our generations, and being able to directly share knowledge, they had that beacon already on their homeworld.

Right. So you don't leave them wearing hides and banging rocks. You teach them agriculture, maybe bronze working, maybe writing. Cut out 45,000 years of banging rocks and get right to the good stuff -- more importantly, get to the population explosion.

[CaptainCommander]

DecCylonus wrote...

CaptainCommander wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

I think an ending without an explanation would have been unsatisfying.Villains with no motivation are the things of children's cartoons. ME deserved better than that. I enjoyed the mystery for two games, but I wouldn't want to win the war and not understand what I had fought.

I don't know a theme that has existed in all ME games is the unknown and it ties with Humans being the newest race to join the Citadel. ME1 is about finding the Prothean's relics and finding out who this giant ship is. ME2 you have these unseen Collectors and you go on a search to find them. ME3 starts out with the unknown Crucible and you continue with an unknown victory type feel (pulling hairs for ME3).

ME is about the unknown. And the Reapers to me symbolised that! They were humanities fears of the unknown galaxy confronting them and we had to defeat them. And you could easily add a conversation with Harbinger in ME3 where you don't get an explanation of motives and creation but rather an understanding of the Reapers. Say Harbinger tells you that they require the technology and resources of the cycles to survive in between the cycles. Or even have Harbinger say we collect the knowledge of the galaxy and preserve it for what ever reason that could be ME4. 

But the Reapers should never had been these apex race's answer to trying to stop a conflict. In Leviathan Shepard even says something along the lines of you made the same mistakes as the races you tried to protect and Leviathan just answers "You can't understand us!". Its something you say to an annoying child.

Should of stayed a mystery and you would have positive speculation on this board instead of everyone trying to fix the game with collective head-canon.

I agree that the unknown was a major theme of the trilogy. It was well done and I liked that theme. I disagree that leaving the Reapers as unknown would have been a satisfying conclusion. The biggest reason is that we would not have had closure at the end of the game. Sure, Shepard beat the Reapers, maybe sacrificing himself and / or major parts of the galaxy in the process. But if we don't know where they came from, then there is always a chance there are more out there. So the whole epic end of Shepard's story arc could be for nothing. I don't think such an end for a character so beloved as Shepard would have sat well with the fans.

It also would have locked Mass Effect into forever being about the Reapers, and I don't think Bioware wants that. They created a rich fiction of the galaxy with plenty of interesting things besides the Reapers going on. Those things, and not the Reapers, are the major reasons that the fans love the series. I think Bioware wanted to free the franchise to explore those other things, and they had to bring a final end to the Reapers to do that.

As far as everyone trying to "fix" the game with their collective head cannon, I think the only way to avoid that would have been a conventional victory.

Shepard's whole story is about the Reapers. Its why he becomes a Spectre, its why he collects his teams in ME1 and 2. You can't say that the Reapers are not a big part of ME. The entire universe exists because of their technology. The Reapers are a HUGE part of ME. 

And the ending doesn't give you closure at all. The game ME3 doesn't even give itself closure. Stopping Rachni doesn't decrease the Rachni enemies in game, same with Banshee's etc. You don't find out about the Cerberus data, you don't see Emily Wong, Corporal Toombs and so many other things are just left or given 1 or 2 lines. Its amazing that all those elements that need closure never got it but the Reapers who have said SO many times you'll never understand their motives are really just some AI's solution to AI's killing everyone.

As previous posters have said them being an Apex race corrupted or nothing would be better. But the Reapers are basically Leviathan's seeing that races create synthetics that kill organics, so they create a synthetic that basically kills organics (God knows how they made Leviathan in Harbinger when we have seen how easy it is for them to destroy a Reaper with a thought). 

They should of stayed the devil in the dark. I would far better have understood how the Relays work, how indoctrination works, how the keepers were built. Reaper aspects and technology explained not the Reapers.