My biggest issue with the Mass Effect story arc.

[80sboy]

No, not going to talk about the ended of ME3. If you want to talk about that, feel free to use the search engine and try out the 50 godzillion threads that were made in that name... lol

Anyways, this is something that had really bothered me from the start. All the way back when ME1 came out.

Now when it comes to big sprawling sci-fi adventures, there's two camps that usually any series can fall under: the Star Wars archetype, or the Star Trek archetype.

Now of course, you can argue there can a lot more to it than just that. There can other examples, and also, combinations. And you'd be 100% right to feel that way. But generally, a lot of sci-fi nerds will stand by this format, simply because it works for them. I'm one of those nerds that feels that way.

Now with Star Wars, you had your space opera. You had less emphasis on exploring ideals and dishing out technobabble, and more on telling the tried old story of the hero's journey. It's more fantasy like. It could have swashbuckling action. And it's more about the drama than it is about the science stuff and details.

Now with Star Trek, it's mostly about the science. It's about the finer details like how warp technology works, or, the deeper understand of Klingon politics. The stories told here aren't about bad guys trying to blow up worlds or taking over the universe (yes, I know that's what most of the Star Trek movies were about, but I'm talking about what we got from the TV series here, not Kirk yelling "KHAN" at the top of his lungs), but about prime directives and the ethics behind exploring new worlds and civilizations.

Anyways, with Mass Effect, most of us nerds got the feeling this series belonged in the Star Trek category. There's a lot of emphasis on technology and how it works. A lot more emphasis on inter-species politics, and the working understanding of their culture. The Krogans had their history and characteristics, and we got to see how that correlated with the Salarians and theirs.

In Mass Effect, we had this, and then we had giant ancient space bugs wanting to destroy all life in the universe (all life that had achieved interstellar travel - mind you). Now, I'm not saying this doesn't work or can't work... but what I am saying is it just didn't work for me (that well).

I mean I still bought into it, and I still liked the last two Star Trek movies. But honestly, if they had decided to keep out the whole giant ancient space bugs thing, and focused more on Shepard NOT saving the universe, and working on solving inter spices relationships (Krogans and the Genophage, Quarians and their conflict with the Geth), I would have been a lot more happier with the series as a whole.

Now, I know why this was done. It was the same reason that Star Trek movies started to have characters like Nero blowing up (wait, that would be a spoiler) something...0.o. I mean, who wants to watch a movie or play a game about boring politics or listen to the Klingon's rendition of Hamlet, when you can shoot lots of bad guys and blow shit up. So, I know why they would do this... but honestly... it's also the same reason why I like Star Trek 1, 4, and 6 the most, and really didn't have that much enthusiasm for the rest.

Now, like I said, this is just opinion. And I just felt like expressing it to see what you guys would think... so, with that... what do you guys think?

 

[Toxic Sniper]

Now when it comes to big sprawling sci-fi adventures, there's two camps that usually any series can fall under: the Star Wars archetype, or the Star Trek archetype.

There really isn't much difference between the two.

Fantasy does not require a hero's journey archetype. When you think about it, Star Trek has just as many, if not more, fantastical elements as Star Wars. They're just named more "science-y" things. You've got trickster gods, "energy being" ghosts, and even analogues to the typical orks and elves in the hilariously human-like klingons and vulkans.

Now with Star Trek, it's mostly about the science. It's about the finer details like how warp technology works, or, the deeper understand of Klingon politics. The stories told here aren't about bad guys trying to blow up worlds or taking over the universe (yes, I know that's what most of the Star Trek movies were about, but I'm talking about what we got from the TV series here, not Kirk yelling "KHAN" at the top of his lungs), but about prime directives and the ethics behind exploring new worlds and civilizations.

It's not mostly about the science. It's about the drama. Star Trek has never been very scientifically accurate in the way something like 2001: A Space Odyssey was. The overuse of technobabble is testament to this. What the "science-y" stuff did offer is a tone and backdrop for the real meat of Star Trek. In Star Trek, the meat was adventure in a pulp fashion. In TNG, the meat was more inter-character drama dealing with ethics.

I'd say Mass Effect is much more like TNG; there isn't really much adventure, but there is lots of inter-character drama dealing with ethics. At the same time, it has a lot of elements of a cop movie in the Shephard character, elements of cosmic horror, and elements of more action-driven sci-fi in the battles and climaxes of the games.

I think you're not alone in how the drama of Mass Effect appealed to you more than other aspects. Personally, I'd like to see some more real cosmic horror games.

(Also, the prime directive is terrible and is one of the worst excuses for character conflict I've seen in a tv show. Star Trek always is best when it stays far, FAR away from the prime directive)

 

[Marlon Petty]

A damn good point. I agree that the story went in the wrong direction with its characters. Like the Star Wars prequels and Darth Vader, Shepard became space Christ, their to die for our sins.

Personally, I'm a fan of Babylon 5 and would have liked the Normandy to become a sort of roving version of that, going around the galaxy negotiating everyone's problems away where possible and ONLY getting into firefights if you screwed up with your negotiations.

Also, in a nod to Star Trek, I would have liked to see something akin to the "Alien of the Week," with Shepard going to minor civilizations (Raloi and Yahg anyone?) and convincing them of the merits of galactic citizenship. Only periodically would there be political wrangling with other major powers, but when it happened you knew you were in for a ride.

 

[MacChris1991]

So I always looked at the Mass Effect Universe like this, a Star Trek Universe Facing a Star Wars problem. It works for me. It explains how everyone in the universe can hear this story and just dismiss it, because its to crazy even for them, its a plot that belongs in a fantasy setting, and it throws the universe for a loop. Anyway I can't say I am upset by the reapers being the major bad guys throughout the trilogy, it works well enough until the bloody ending, and I can't help but feel that a game series that was only about the inter-species politics would have felt hopelessly disjointed and ultimately disappointing. I think a part of the reason we enjoyed working with the different factions in Mass Effect 3 was because of the anticipated pay-off, that we only had because we had a bigger centralized plot driving antagonist. I agree that I would have liked more of these pieces in Mass Effect, but that has more to do with wanting more Mass Effect in general, I wouldn't want to replace anything with the politics.

 

[Zhukov]

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from.

The whole Reaper business was an okay if uninventive way to keep everything moving, but I was always more interested in the content that had its basis in characters and the setting. The genophage, Wrex uniting the Krogan, Liara becoming the broker, the Geth and their various issues etc etc.

 

[HellbirdIV]

Mass Effect was always more Babylon 5 than Star Trek, and the Reapers are the equivalent of the Old Races (The Vorlons, The Shadows, The First Ones, The Walkers, et al).

 

[Joseph Harrison]

I think the Reapers were a catalyst in order to make things more dynamic. If the Reapers weren't there then things would have just continued to proceed as they had for the past several hundred years. If there were no Reapers then the Genophage wouldn't have been cured, No Geth and Quarian peace, Cerberus would have had no reason to become militaristic and would have stuck to the shadows. SO I understand your point but I disagree.

 

[Frotality]

you know you are 100% correct. the reapers have been nothing but an afterthought and a HILARIOUSLY failed plotline throughout the whole series. saren was the main baddie in one, and it shouldve stayed that way: ME1 shouldve been about a turian radical gathering a geth army, ME2 about the terminus races and their struggles, and ME3 about all the races finally resolving their issues, not always happily or in they way they want, but resolving in some way.

if they devoted resources entirely to the characters and inter-species conlficts akin to TNG... damn, thats an entirely different and better series. definitely something the industry should learn going forward, considering the only thing that save ME3 from complete and total failure is that all the character stuff outside the main plot was pretty damn good.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

I think that was kinda the point of the series, actually. Fleshing out the technology, the races, the people, the backstory, everything. Make it all relatable and real. Then place that against something so eldiritch and alien as the Reapers, and you got a lot of tension. The reason people sill talk about the writing of 1, made sure the "suicide mission" went off perfectly in 2, were mad about the original ending of 3, is because we cared about the universe. You can cram in so many threats to the universe that it seems it's doomed on a daily basis, but that won't make people care about it, it'll just make them annoyed. Doctor Who's been suffering from this recently IMO. You make people care about it by making the world likeable, so that when the big evil doomsday villain shows up, people will be invested in making sure the world they know and love makes it through ok. They built the world in the first game, they built the characters in the second, and in the third it's all under threat so you feel compelled to protect it.

 

[Requia]

The reapers were really needed. Without them you have no way to move things along in the third game, because there has to be an enemy for the kinds of change that happen by the third game (you could conceivably do Sarren+Geth in the first, and collectors alone in the second). Nobody is going to help cure the genophage without the desperation of the Reapers, nobody is going to broker peace between the Quarians and Geth (because as far as I can tell, the galaxy would have been happiest if both sides had been wiped out). There's just nothing to move the Galaxy's problems along without the war of desperation.

Where they fucked up 3 was the crucible, some dumb ass superweapon instead of uniting the races being the actual means to destroy the reapers. The Protheans already broke the cycle by preventing the keepers from shutting down the relays, from there its a matter of using the numbers that a united galaxy has to beat the Reapers before the Reapers tear the galactic supply chain to pieces. (Or hell, keep the superweapon, but every faction with the resources tries to build their own, while Shepard runs around trying to convince them that the crucible is actually a Reaper trap, something to make the galaxy throw resources into a dead end instead of enough conventional weapons to take out capital ships).

 

[rcs619]

Honestly, the main issue I had with the series is that they explained too much about the Reapers, and all at the same time too. Like, in the first two games, the Reapers are these massive, mysterious, alien things from outside the galaxy. You don't know what they are, where they came from, or why they even do what they do. They just come around every 50,000 years and murder everything. They've been doing it for literally millions of years, hundreds upon hundreds of cycles and no one's ever stopped them. They transform people into sleeper agents and cybernetic monstrosities and can drive people insane just from being around their corpses for too long. I also really liked their design too, and the whole aspect of them not being aliens flying around in spaceships, but actual, mobile space-faring monsters. They had a very neat, psuedo-lovecraftian vibe to them that made them a really compelling enemy.

And for the first two games they did a great job with that. The you only really saw one Reaper in any detail, and his whole point was to drive home how alien, and how unstoppable even a single one was. I didn't like the big reveal of the second game and how Reapers reproduced... but it was still a suitably horrific thing to do to people, and yeah, there had to be some sort of goal for why they did what they did beyond just killing EVERYTHING.

Then the third game happened. And honestly, it handled the Reapers very well for the most part. Unstoppable, War of the Worlds-esque juggernauts. I didn't like the idea of having to use a magical space maguffin to beat them, but when you build something up as so unstoppable there's only so many options. Better sci-fi has done similar things, so as long as it was handled well, I could deal with it.

Then there was the ending. And this is really my problem with it, even moreso than the colored explosions. The Catalyst doesn't just tell you about the Reapers. He explains what they are, what they want, why they are doing what they're doing, where they came from, what their favorite color is, what flavor of ice cream they prefer, and so on. It removes ALL mystery surrounding them. And the story Bioware decided to run with for the Reapers isn't even all that interesting. Rogue AI's who turned on their masters. We'd already seen that done, and better, with the Geth and the Quarians. The Reapers weren't even from beyond known space, they were born and bred right here in the Milky Way.

Then Leviathan happened to put the final nail in the Reapers' coffin. Where, if the Catalyst didn't ruin enough of the mystique for you, you get to go meet the descendants of the Reapers' creators to destroy even more of the work the first two games spent setting up the Reapers as these huge, lovecraftian, bio-mechanical cosmic horrors.

Now, I'm not opposed to revealing some things about a mysterious alien menace. But it IS possible to reveal too much. I'd have been happier if they'd have just used the magical maguffin and defeated the Reapers without ever finding out exactly what they were, where they came from and why they did what they did. I think that would have made the sacrifices and the raised stakes even more meaningful. So many people died, everyone lost so much, and even though we won, we still barely understand what it is we just defeated or why they did it.

 

[oRevanchisto]

I think the Reapers were a catalyst in order to make things more dynamic. If the Reapers weren't there then things would have just continued to proceed as they had for the past several hundred years. If there were no Reapers then the Genophage wouldn't have been cured, No Geth and Quarian peace, Cerberus would have had no reason to become militaristic and would have stuck to the shadows. SO I understand your point but I disagree.

Exactly, the point of The Reaper threat was to serve as a Catalyst that allowed you to explore this vast universe, the internal politics of the various species, and attempt to solve them. I actually LOVED the idea of the Reapers in ME1 & 2 and Sovereigns speech in ME1 is one of my favorite moments in gaming history. The idea of this immensely powerful and ancient race of sentient organic/synthetic beings that had presided over the course of the galaxy for millions of years was just fascinating and their cryptic nature made it even more compelling.

Sovereign's explanation in ME1 was really all we ever needed of the Reapers, they did what they did for their own reasons which were supposedly beyond the comprehension of organic races. You got the sense of this immensely powerful and unstoppable force; they couldn't be reasoned with, you couldn't negotiate with it, you were utterly powerless, they were going to do what they have been doing for centuries and they had no intention of even attempting to explain why to you. This is true terror and it worked, by explaining their origins and reasons in ME3 the writers basically neutered the Reapers and they no longer became this terrifying foe but something to be laughed at.

The original simplicity of the villains in ME allowed the story to focus more on the other characters and the world of the universe. The Reapers were simply evil, no time needed to be wasted trying to understand their motives instead that time was spent allowing you to interact with various other characters and explore strange new worlds in an attempt to stop them. This is why I actually loved ME2 so much, at the time many criticized it for not advancing the overall plot of the Reaper threat but to me it was a chance to explore the inner working of the ME universe. In ME 1 much of the time was spent establishing the various characters and races including the villains. ME2 was a time to explore this world and participate first hand in its internal political workings before the great Reaper War squandered such a chance.

This is why in ME2 we get to go to Tuchanka and experience first hand the brutal nature of Krogan society and the harsh conditions they are forced to endure. It's why we get to visit the Quarian Flotilla and understand just what Quarian society is like and just why they are so hell bent on retaking the homeland. And it's why the character of Legion existed, so we could finally explore the nature of Geth society and learn that they are not in fact what we were first led to believe. ME2 wasnt really about the Collector Threat, it was about learning about the world of ME2 more in depth and understand exactly the political problems of the various races just before the Reaper War hit and would throw these issues front and center.

As for ME3 for the most part it stuck true to the principles of Mass Effect, much of the game is spent navigating the complicated political landscape of the various races and attempting to build alliances and foster cooperation. There is a reason we cared so much about creating a cure for the Genophage when ME3 came up and why we were probably so conflicted when it came time to decide the fate of the Quarians/Geth, this was all due to the wonderful world building and exploration we were allowed in the past two games. However, the end of ME3 just destroys all this. The story no longer becomes focused on the characters, the various races, and our decisions that affected them all. No, instead the story becomes completely centered on the Reapers who are actually mostly absent for the majority of the game (in terms of direct confrontation with them). Next thing you know the entire ME universe is focused on solving this one conflict which was never a main focus of the series or a major theme, and in doing so changes the entire universe and we are in no way given any insight into the various fates of the characters and races we have grown to love.

So I would disagree with you OP, ME1,2, and even a good part of 3 is about exploring the world of ME, about participating in the politics of the world, exploring social and moral issues, and attempting to solve them. It wasnt until near the end of ME3 the Reapers took over as the central issue in the series, which in turn destroyed the series. It's why I loved ME so much, it really is the perfect "Star Trek" game until ME3 ruined it. I mean the series essentially allowed us to try and solve the metaphorical equivalent to the Jewish/Palestinian conflict. That was what the series was about not Space Magic and "Artistic Integrity."

 

[Rastrelly]

You know what the REAL biggest issue is? What rank did Shepard have at the beginning of ME2? Still commander? After saving the Citadel and bringing Terrans to council?

 

[LetalisK]

I agree with your over-arching premise that Star Wars explored more typical stories in a futuristic setting while Star Trek tried to explore a variety of different themes, however...

Now with Star Trek, it's mostly about the science.

Okay, question. Is Star Trek, particularly the old series, considered scifi or science fiction? I don't watch it, but I do listen to a podcast where they absolutely love it and do quizzes about it every day and a lot of the stuff that goes on in that show sounds like it's from the Twilight Zone. From my limited experience, it seems the TNG has waaaay more technobabble and is more restrictive while the old series lets its freak flag fly and uses science as an excuse. "It's magic science!" I've always got the feeling that Star Trek is considered more "realistic" than Star Wars, but the old series makes the Force seem practical.

OT: I agree with you. I'm fine with either/or, and it feels like they tried to do a little bit of both in Mass Effect. I'm hoping the next games follow a new person who basically is trying to piece the galaxy back together bit by bit. Maybe use history as a backdrop and mirror it after the Cold War, where the galaxy is trying to rebuild after the war despite two huge political superpowers are constantly on the brink of starting another one even though they realistically can't, resulting in smaller proxy wars.

 

[Da Orky Man]

I agree with your over-arching premise that Star Wars explored more typical stories in a futuristic setting while Star Trek tried to explore a variety of different themes, however...

Now with Star Trek, it's mostly about the science.

Okay, question. Is Star Trek, particularly the old series, considered scifi or science fiction? I don't watch it, but I do listen to a podcast where they absolutely love it and do quizzes about it every day and a lot of the stuff that goes on in that show sounds like it's from the Twilight Zone. From my limited experience, it seems the TNG has waaaay more technobabble and is more restrictive while the old series lets its freak flag fly and uses science as an excuse. "It's magic science!" I've always got the feeling that Star Trek is considered more "realistic" than Star Wars, but the old series makes the Force seem practical.

As a veteran of Star Trek and science fiction in general, Star Trek is emphatically NOT based around science. Though the attitudes have changed depending on the particular season, with the original series barely mentioning the tech behind stuff to Voyager's massive overuse of technobabble, the tech in Star Trek is never used differently to magic in other settings. Its just the method by which to move characters into suitable positions for plot to take place.
So, really, Star Trek cannot be considered 'realistic' in any sense, but its technically more so than Star Wars, which tends to go under the umbrella of Science Fantasy, for self-evident reasons.