This is the talk page for Reaper/Archive3.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.

An Idea... Edit

We know that the reapers are resemble to each other, but they were made from different species. I think they resemble because each of the species they were made of, were made by the reapers from a former. They used one species and rewrited them every time. (maybe their builders were the first to be redesigned that way). When the time came, They simply wiped out every other races, and used the created one to build a new reaper. This would explain why the protheans resemble to reapers so much: They might be created by the reapers, but for unknown reasons they became unusable. They may used the species what they created and modifided after every cycle, BUT the protheans failed. After it they decided to create the collectors, to find a new race to build from.

So... the Protheans were created by the Reapers? It doesn't make sense. We know that the Protheans evolved on their own, and that the Reapers apparently did try to use the Protheans to create a Reaper, which failed. We also know that the Reapers didn't build the Collectors as a completely new race or whatever. It's pretty explicitly stated in-game that the Collectors were once Protheans that were modified by the Reapers. So the Protheans apparently weren't that unusable to the Reapers. SpartHawg948 19:17, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
I meant that the protheans were unusable to create a new reaper, so the reapers made the collectors from them. Anyway I can't remember any source from the game what directly mentions that " the protheans evolved here and here". And 50 000 years is a long time, so even the protheans couldn't know that the planet where their ancestors lived on is not their biological home. What I thought about ( that the reapers created the races what the new reapers were made of) is something like the... err... Panzer IV. The germans used the chassis of the Pz. IV. to build Anti-Air and infantry support vehicles. these were different things, but the basis is the same. Imagine that the race ( The Panzer IV in my metaphor) were slain by the reapers and a reaper was made from them. The few survivor of the race were modifided and made in to a new race (The AA vehicle to return to the metaphor) and the reapers let them evolve. After a time they made a reaper from that race too, and made a new race from the survivors again. And it continued to the protheans, who have failed. after it they had to find a new race. Something like that. Any questions left?
Yeah. Why didn't the Panzer IV (i.e. the Protheans) work? I mean, central to your theory is that the Protheans were created by the Reapers. Why did they create a big 'ol pile of crap that didn't do what it was supposed to? I mean, we've seen that they can create things that work to their specifications. Now we're to believe that, despite all those millenia of practice and experience, they created a failed race like the Protheans? Again, there are way too many things here that just don't make sense. SpartHawg948 19:51, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Even the reapers can make mistakes. when they left the protheans on their "homeworld", they were not able to intervent in their evolution. The protheans may evolved on a different path than they should have. And imagine: after you used a paper to draw a figure, and rubber and redraw it 1000 times, the paper will be dirty, and the new figure will be ugly. the reapers used the same genetic pattern too much times, and because this, and an unknown thing on their homeworld may the protheans evolved on a way what caused irrepairable mistakes.
So, I'm confused now. Because if we're to keep following the Panzer IV analogy, the Protheans aren't a piece of paper that's been drawn on too many times. They'd be a purpose built race. Which analogy is it? The Panzer, or the paper? Either way, I'm still far from sold on the theory. SpartHawg948 07:32, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Now i understand why Liara always used that melding thing... The paper is the first race, the figure is the modifications made on the genetic structure, and the rubbering is the rewrite. the basis is always the same.
Ah, answers that don't really answer the question. So the Panzer IV analogy is out? SpartHawg948 07:44, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think we should leave it. the paper and figure thing is more understandeble. But you understand now what was i thinking about, do you?
I do, but I still don't buy into the theory. SpartHawg948 07:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
OK. but at least we understad each other now.
Indeed! :) SpartHawg948 07:54, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed something. If you look at each individual reaper in the ending fleet of ME2, you can see some subtle differences between each one. E.g.: Sovereign and Harbinger look slightly different. Could this apply to all?

The human reaper is too small to be a 2 km ship with passenger capacities, mass effect cores..etc. I think the reaper appearance we see is a shell for the part that represents the species its made from. Though it is too sentimental for them to care about how the old organic species looked it might be a possibility or the galaxy was about to get 2km human skull. --Absurdian 17:05, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I believe the reapers are probably a species that developed back toward the beginning of the galaxy, and were forced into the bio-mechanical machines they now have. It known that they have great interest in other species so they can create more of themselves (perhaps to replace others that have been killed which is a completely reasonable theory). However if you listen to harbinger in mass effect 2 he continually says things that obviously imply that they seek perfection through other species. So whatever their origin they want something and they believe they can only get it through other species.- 2:38 PM August 28, 2011

Please take theories and speculation to the appropriate places, and a talk page is not the appropriate place. Blogs and forums exist for this reason. Lancer1289 16:05, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

How did they build them?Edit

How exactly did the Reapers build the Mass Relay and the Citadel anyway? I'm assuming they built them before any other races came, considering the Mass Relays and the Citadel are vital to the cycle of extinction the Reapers hold so dear. I'm asking why because, considering the size ratio between the Reapers and the Relays, and the fact that Reaper "Arms" don't seem very flexible. They could use some kind of telekinesis, but I'm not sure. Thoughts? biomanzilla 8:35, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Possibly they had telekinesis but something more tech savvy would be a gravity beam of some sort (for example Dead Space). What has me confused is WHAT did they make it with? It OBVIOUSLY has to be a super metal of some sort but why would the Council Races NOT check what they are made out of, the metal can withstand a supernova so why not build ships with that stuff?Tj2592 02:37, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know where it says the Mass Relays can withstand a supernova, but the Protheans managed to reverse engineer the Relays to an extent (The Conduit). The Matriarch on Illium (her name eludes me) suggested that the Asari build their own Mass Relays, but the idea was rejected. Don't really know why the Council didn't do anything with the Relays though. biomanzilla 12:07, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

The Mu relay from ME one was knocked out of position from a supernova without suffering any damage. You need the Mu relay to get to Ilos to go through the Conduit.Tj2592 14:19, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

But of course you don't need to be in the middle of a supernova to be knocked around by it.

Oh, I had forgotten about that. biomanzilla2:51, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Things like this belong in the forums or a blog post as this isn’t what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 (talk) 13:00, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Origins Edit

In my opinion, the Reapers used to be simple ships used by an ancient spacerafing race. The ships were also designed to control minds, the power of indocrination. Then their creators installed AI programs like EDI inside them. One day the AIs rebelled, much like what the geth did to the quarians. The next thing the creators knew, they were being indocrinated and wiped out by their own machines. I don't know if this theory is correct, but its the only one that makes sense. The geth refer to the Reapers as the Old Machines, Sovereign also said that the Reapers were non-organic life forms. Let me know what you think. --FIKUS96 19:02, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

So... why the apparent need for organic material in their construction? And why does EDI tell Shepard he (or she) is incorrect in assuming that the Reapers are mere machines, commenting that they are actually machine/organic hybrids? SpartHawg948 20:44, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FIKUS96's construction part, perhaps they where biologically engineered to be organic/mechanical hybrids, like the main ship in farscape. Beamonde 16:47, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I have a theory on Reaper origin that I don't think has been tossed around yet. In 2000, a sci-fi novel called "Calculating God" discussed an ancient race of alien beings that seemingly vanished without a trace. What one of the protagonists determined, however, was that they had uploaded their personalities to virtual reality machinery in order to live forever. In an attempt to protect themselves from any explorers that might tamper with their machinery, the transcended species caused the red giant Betelgeuse to become a supernova early, threatening to eradicate all life in the interstellar community.
This is what I think the Reapers are. Unlike the idea that a rogue artificial intelligence enslaved its former masters, I think the first Reaper was created to house the consciousnesses of an ancient species that either sought immortality, or made a last-ditch effort to survive an impending mass extinction. Evidence suggesting this is presented by Legion's assertion that the Reapers function like the Geth: "One ship, one will, many minds." On its own, this evidence isn't much to go on (since Legion could simply be referring to software A.I.); but combined with the fact the Reapers are created from the organic material of living things (along with the fact that despite full implantation and takeover by the Reapers, Paul Grayson of ME: Retribution was still conscious and aware of his actions), this supports the idea that the consciousnesses of various species are now represented digitally inside the Reapers.
Once this ancient species "went digital", however, it likely changed their thought processes. With the combined computing power of thousands of organic minds and the ability to process thoughts and calculations in a fraction of a second, their intelligence likely evolved over time and decided that such a process is necessary for the survival of all worthy organics. As implied by Reaper dialogue in ME2 and ME: Retribution, the Reapers see this conversion as a gift rather than a punishment. They seek to preserve humanity during the next cycle, rather than let them fade with the rest of the "lesser" species. Which makes one wonder: to what end do the Reapers continuously purge and (presumably) conserve the species of the galaxy as their own? The same reason as any other organic: to survive.
What do the rest of you think? --BurntCoffee1986 09:44, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that one's been brought up before. Back in October and November of 2009, an editor proposed a nearly identical theory both on this page and on my talk page. The gist of it was that the Reapers were originally organic, and that at some point, they decided to upload their consciousnesses into ship hulls/machine bodies for the purpose of attaining immortality. The editor further proposed that the Reapers don't actually destroy the races they target, but rather that they take them and transfer their consciousnesses into other hulls, in an attempt to "uplift" the species in the manner in which the Reapers themselves did. In essence, the Reapers are bestowing a gift or a blessing on the lesser species, instead of simply eradicating them. So yeah, pretty much the same theory was brought up about a year and a half ago. As I made clear at the time, I really don't think the theory carries much weight, as the comments of the Reapers (discounting the propogandistic Indoctrination statements used by the Reapers speaking to Kahlee Sanders via Paul Grayson's body) make pretty clear that they are intent on wiping out all life. I could be wrong, but right now I really don't think so. SpartHawg948 09:51, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
That unidentified editor wouldn't be me, now would it, Spart? If you recall I made a somewhat similar theory about the Reaper's origin, once being energy beings born in the Big Bang, and as matter and energy seperated they were forced to create themselves physical bodies? I may be wrong about that part, but the events of ME2 prove the latter part of my theory: The Reapers do, indeed, harvest organics to convert into Reapers, evidenced by the Human-Reaper Larva. If the Reapers are assulting Earth in ME3, it is likely to either convert them into Reapers as a blessing/gift/acension, or to eradicate them for all the trouble Shepard's stirred up. Either way, Let us hope BioWare won't be so devious to allow players to either fail in stopping the Reapers, or worse yet, (in my view), allow them to do so willingly.--Nra 'Vadumee 01:17, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
Sigh... do I really have to keep saying this? It is theorized in ME2 that Reapers harvest organics to convert them into Reapers. Theorized. Not confirmed. We see one Reaper being created this way, and it's an emergency-measure Reaper being created to keep their plans from being too badly derailed by the destruction of Sovereign. There are problems with this, as we've seen all Reapers to be fairly similar looking, despite EDI's theory that Reapers assume the shape of the beings that go into them. We have no idea if the actions that led to/were involved in the creation of the Human-Reaper were at all typical of previous Reaper attacks/cullings/whatever you want to call them. So, if you want to consider the events of ME2 supporting evidence for your theory, do so. Just don't say that a theory from ME2 (an unproven theory based on a single observation) proves your theory. That's just plain bad science. SpartHawg948 01:46, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
My bad, my theory is hardly original and I figured it had been thrown out there before; it was just surprisingly difficult to find. Still, I have to respectfully disagree; the more I consider it, the more I think the "ancient species" theory is plausible. You could be right about Reaper dialogue simply being propaganda (including Harbinger's line, "prepare these humans for ascension", which is a personal favorite), but I like to hope the writers have a bit more depth than that. The whole "machines hate organics die die die" theme is a little stale without something of a twist. Either way, I like the uncertainty, myself; the speculation is what makes it fun. I'm just basing my theories on, as you say, the tentative, unconfirmed info we're given so far. I just hope that if they do reveal the origins of the Reapers, this won't be the Matrix Revolutions of Mass Effect.--BurntCoffee1986 06:10, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not the dialogue I was talking about. I was more referring to the lines used by the Reapers when speaking to Kahlee Sanders via Paul Grayson's body in Retribution. Many have taken the lines, most of which involve the Reapers doing organics a favor by basically "uplifting" us to a higher state of being and all that, as genuine, and as a straightforward explanation of what the Reapers are doing. In other words, they take the comments at face value. However, it's pretty clear that the whole conversation is one great big attempt by the Reapers to Indoctrinate Sanders, an attempt that nearly succeeds before being disrupted by a convenient shotgun blast. As such, it seems most likely, to me anyways, that the Reapers are lying and telling Kahlee nice little lies to help with the Indoctrination process. That's more what I was referring to. SpartHawg948 06:20, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant. I have to agree with you on that dialogue though, because it started making sense to me until Kahlee started to believe it made sense. Then, my reaction was, "Ah, crap. Goodbye, credibility." :P It's more dialogue that, in and of itself, isn't much to go on but when added with lines like the one I mentioned last, it seems more convincing. We'll see. Even if this "uplifting the species" theory is true, I doubt the Reapers will want to do anything now but blast humanity to smithereens after ME2. :P On a side note, Calculating God was written by Robert J. Sawyer, a Canadian author, like Drew Karpyshyn and Bioware... maybe there's a connection...? Okay, now I'm really splitting hairs. :) --BurntCoffee1986 07:45, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

After reading about the "Virtual Aliens" I believe that maybe the reapers started out in a similar way, that perhaps the species that built the first reaper(s) uploaded their consciousness in an attempt to get away from some big disaster, as a result of this process each reaper became "a nation". As for how they uploaded: they may have not only produced the reaper by melting themselves down into pasty goodness, they may have simultaneously uploaded themselves and become the reaper itself. Now as for Sovereign's "real" name of Nazara that may be the original name of the species, and Nazara's form may be what they used to look like. Now after a few million years it might get boring, or you might go a bit crazy being with the consciousness of the same people with you, and might come to think you can offer other species the same "gift" you have by melting them down into paste as well and to help facilitate this you might want to aid them, in their "ascension" bye helping their minds adjust and become more compatible with the process of becoming a Reaper, thus indoctrination was invented. This is all speculation and yes I read the above comments this is similar to what others posted. -- 19:50, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

A "Virtual Aliens" theory seems very logical to me. Most likely to save their own race from some sort of destruction or extinction. They then would actually view doing the same to other races an "Ascension", saving them from fates of eventual death. It would also explain why each Reaper is billions of organic minds. Falcon87456 22:19, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Direct Control Edit

I noticed that Reapers seemingly have an ability to control "Reaperfied" beings like Collectors or subjects with a great deal of implants like Saren. All points to another potential ability of the Reapers: Direct Control. A reaper can control one of their implanted servants, allowing them to be extremely powerful and easily overwhelm all resistance while amplifying their combat abilities. Of course it has a side effect of permanently damaging the lifeform when under control and if killed will disintergrate completely. Of course the only known exception was Greyson.

But the Reapers weren't able to control Saren. Certainly not like they did the Collectors. They only had direct and full control over Saren's corpse. He himself was still able to exert control over his own body while alive. And what happened to Saren and what happened t Greyson appear to be two very, very different things, and both of those are vastly removed from what happened to the Collectors. Not really strong evidence for a potential new ability. SpartHawg948 07:27, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah they had 50,000 years give or take, to modify the Protheans into the Collectors and had pretty much direct control over what happened with them. In those 50,000 years, the Reapers could take their time and as Mordin states, replace things with tech, which allowed them to directly control the Collectors. This is a completely different case from Saren and Grayson.
Both Grayson and Saren of whom were controlled in different ways. Sovereign could only control Saren's corpse, as Saren fought and depending on your actions, killed himself while still under Sovereign's indoctrination. On the other hand, Grayson was transformed, thanks to Cerberus, and slowly indoctrinated, which we know with the latter, can be extremely hard to resist. See Matriarch Benezia for one example of that. So I also don't think this is a new ability, just something they could do with the Collectors because they had the time to control their "evolution", what happened with the "species", and make sure they did it right. Lancer1289 13:08, December 3, 2010(UTC)
It was more about excessive implanting (as in receiving full reaper implanting rather then just indoctrinated). While Indoctrination is part of the package. Only those with reaper implantation has a chance of control, and even then it was more of a desperate measure by Reapers when their subject is dead (Saren) or dying (Collectors) 18:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
No, it seems to me that it's not excessive implanting so much as it is two entirely different processes, with what happened to the Collectors being a third and entirely different process altogether. You have to figure, in implantation, like what happened to Grayson, the Reapers do exert direct control, at least once they have superseded the person whose body they were implanted in. However, in the case of indoctrination, such as what happened to Saren and Benezia, we have seen no evidence whatsoever of direct control on the part of the Reapers. Merely strong mental suggestion. What happened to Saren's corpse after his death had nothing to do with indoctrination. Rather, it was due to implants which Saren appears to have received because the indoctrination was not working. And then there's the Collectors. I don't think anyone can argue that anything that happened to Grayson or Saren even remotely resembles what was done to the Protheans who became Collectors... SpartHawg948 20:49, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
I can't even see the resemblance between the three. What happened to the Collectors is completely different to what happened to Saren and Grayson. If it boiled right down to implants, then wouldn't have Benezia and her commandos have to have the same level of implants as Saren or Grayson did? I can't remember Benezia mentioning anything about implants, and I'm certain that the writers wouldn't have left that out. Lancer1289 21:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
That was because most of their indoctrinated folks weren't implanted, but Collectors, Saren and Grayson were. The conclusion is that reaper implants can allow a direct takeover and power boost which comes at the cause of permanent body damage. If their subject dies the reaper will suffer from the feedback and the host is destroyed as we saw from the countless collectors controlled by Harbinger and Sovereign: reduced to ashes. Surprisingly Grayson was intact
No... that conclusion only flies if you very, and I mean very, selectively cherry-pick the evidence from those cases. "The conclusion is that reaper implants can allow a direct takeover and power boost which comes at the cause of permanent body damage." Nothing about that sentence matches with Saren. Nada. At no point in time did the Reapers directly take over or assume control of Saren. Once he was dead, they reanimated his corpse. That's it. From what we've seen (and Paul Grayson and the Reapers give us a phenomenal example of this when the Reapers, acting through Grayson, attempt to work their Indoctrination magic on Kahlee Sanders, only to be interrupted by Anderson), Indoctrination and implantation are two totally different things. And, given the unique nature of how it works for the Collectors (i.e. we never witness Harbinger taking over a Collector drone directly, it always happens via the Collector General), that would appear to likely be something else as well. Perhaps, as the Codex posits, biology is a factor in the case of the Collectors. SpartHawg948 07:07, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Well Collector Drones are protected by biotic type barriers, not kinetic shielding which gives a hint that all Collectors have some sort of biotic modification to them to allow Harbinger to not only grant his vessel a second wind but also biotic potential.
It doesn't "hint" at anything of the sort. The above comment is outright speculation with no real underpinning in fact. Again, you'll note that we never see Harbinger itself directly assume control of any Collectors other than the Collector General. Any time Harbinger assumes control of a Collector Drone, it does so via the C.G., which hints at biology being a factor, with the C.G., which appears to occupy a position akin to the queen of a hive, serving as a conduit to allow access to other, lesser, Collectors. This theory is also speculation, but one that at least has a few bits of canon to back it up. SpartHawg948 17:32, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
In both instances of the "takeover", the Reaper often openly makes his declaration that he is here to settle this personally. Sovereign does this during the battle of the Citadel after Saren died and uses Saren's cybernetic remains to do battle with Shepard. And for Harbinger, he speaks about doing this personally. Not telling the Collector General to control the minion and says that he is releasing control when the Collector failed in dispatching his task. The difference between Saren and the Collector is how much time they had to modify them but they often declare they are directly taking control of the fight. 04:43, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but to quote an old cliche, actions do speak louder than words. And, even if it (since we have no idea whether Harbinger is a male, female, or non-gendered) has to operate through the C.G, it is still assuming direct control, meaning that its statements to that affect would still be true. Harbinger can assume control via the Collector General and still truthfully openly make its declaration that it is here to settle this personally. Well, mostly truthfully, as obviously Harbinger is not there in person (or should we say "in hull"?). You'll note that I never said that Harbinger merely "tell[s] the Collector General to control the minion", or anything of the sort, nor do I say anything even remotely suggesting that Harbinger wasn't controlling the C.G. the entire time, as you seem to be insinuating. In fact, I stated several times in my last post that Harbinger was controlling them! It was merely doing so using the C.G. as a conduit. Your last comment and my last comment are not mutually exclusive. SpartHawg948 15:36, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warning Edit

Having already played ME2 This article had no surprises except that following the ME1 spoiler warning there is none for ME2, just take a look at the first section and you will find that it is almost nothing but spoilers for ME2 (such as the fact that reapers use sapient races for reproduction) unfortunately i have no idea how to add the tag but a spoiler tag is needed or any section containing ME2 spoilers has to be moved below the existing tag 23:51, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the ME2 spoiler tag to the top of the page. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:53, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yeah the tag probably needs to be moved. There is one in there, further down, but there are apparently some further up. Moving to just below the ToC. Lancer1289 23:56, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

To kill a Reaper... Edit

File:Dead Reaper.png
Heres a thought that i have considered for some time while playing mass effect 2, their machines, that means that they are vunrable to EMP, as they use electricity and other forms of energy that could be vunrable to EMP. it would be interesting to see some kind of weapon of mass destruction used to kill the reapers across the galaxy... useing there own technology against them (mass relays)to deploy these EMP weapons and then cause them to go off simultainiously or otherwise and kill the reapers... In Fact (according to the story) the citadel is an inactive mass relay to where the reapers dwell, if the events of mass effect 2's end took time then they could kill the reapers before they even got there. please input other ideas or modifications to this idea below this idea.... i look forward to the feedback.

Beamonde 16:09, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah one problem with the EMP theory, ships and tech can be shielded against EMPs, and I think the Reapers, remember they are capitalized, are probably shielded. They wouldn't leave themselves vunerable to an EMP, considering they are machines. Lancer1289 18:14, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we can already shield against EMPs today. I highly doubt that Reapers would be susceptible to something so basic, and so obvious, as an EMP. SpartHawg948 18:49, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

They also use Mass effect cores to power themselves, and those things are powerful, I don't know if a magnetic pulse could take one down. Agow95 20:50, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic sounds decent, how would you use it as a pulse though, what if some other type of weapon stripped them of there shields. the magnetic idea reminds me of magnetic rockets from crimson skies on the old xbox.

  • Idea: Mass Effect cores, could a mass effect core be used as a weapon, as Agow95 mentions, and in mass effect 2 when that thing goes out there goes the reaper, any ideas...

Beamonde 15:15, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

They probably wouldn't use EMPs, but about Mass Effect cores, maybe not as a bomb, but couldn't you crash a ship into a Reaper at FTL speed like that one planet on Cerberus news. --Paladin cross 16:13, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Good luck hitting a moving target that way. It worked against a planet because planets are more or less stationary, their orbits and rotations plotted out and easily predictable. A moving ship? Not so much. All the Reaper has to do is move... SpartHawg948 17:02, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah good luck in hitting that. Hitting any moving target is extrememly difficult. Lancer1289 17:39, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

what a bout a kind of mass effect pulse, there is a way, what do you guys think. refering to the image, the mass accelerator cannon seemed to work well agains that reaper so maybe its not that easy to move... Beamonde 18:22, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Except that modern shielding against EMPs is not like that kind of shielding. Sure you can strip away kinetic barriers, but the EMP shielding probably needs to be shot off, and it would be highly protected. As to the Mass Effect Core, yes we know they can be used as a nuclear weapon, but that really isn't an effective weapon. You would need to not only be accurate, it would need to be extremely powerful. Both of those are either extremely difficult, or extremely unrealistic respectively. As to a Mass Effect Pulse, I have no idea what you are talking about. Lancer1289 18:24, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
As to the Mass Accelerator Cannon, that was probably a one and a million shot. And you know how often those happen. And I'm not sure what you mean by it's not that easy to move. Lancer1289 18:25, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I figure its a large ship that and that manuverability would be an issue, therefore relativly easy to hit but you do have a point... Paladin cross mentioned FTL ramming but one could be shot down by the reaper... not to mention when sovereign attacked the citadel with the geth fleet it rammed a turian cruiser and blew right past it with no issue... what do you think... how to kill a reaper... Beamonde 18:31, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

More problems. We know that Sovereign is capable of making turns that would sheer any Alliance Ship in half. Now we don’t' know if that is the case for other Reaper ships, but I'm willing to bet it is, so I highly doubt maneuverability is an issue. Just because something is large, doesn't mean that is isn't maneuverable or that it is easy to hit. FTL Ramming is a one an a billion, probably more, shot against a moving target, there are so many things that you would have to get right, and in the right sequence for that to work. As to the armor of a Reaper, while we only have Sovereign for comparison, we can assume that it is extremely strong. After all. We know that Sovereign wasn't, or couldn't be damaged until after Shepard and the squad took down Saren's corpse...thing. Lancer1289 18:39, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

i was thinking about harbinger.... i agree on manuverability after all there not like other ships ingame. However, could a small-medium ship out-manuveur a reaper, one that is specifically capable of engageing a reaper. also you mentioned that saren's husk(?) thingwas crucial to sovereign's existance is it possable that the reapers coming in the next game dont having similar things... so wouldent they be vunrable? or would they already have those Beamonde 15:11, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

We don't know about a Reaper's maneuverability so we don't know if a ship can outmaneuver them. Saren's implant corpse thing was not crucial to Sovereign's existence, considering it survived without it for quite tome time, which if it was crucial, then Sovereign couldn't have survived without it. However Sovereign was probably stunned, or the machine equivalent, when it was killed, leaving it venerable. I highly doubt the Reapers have similar weaknesses considering they have been sitting in dark space for about 50,000 years so how could they acquire those, let alone why would they repeat the mistakes that one of their own did, resulting in its destruction. The Reapers would have some type of weakness, but we will just have to wait and see. Lancer1289 16:31, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
And how would this super-maneuverable "small-medium ship" even engage a Reaper? You've given no indication other than to say that it wold be specifically capable of engaging a Reaper... which says nothing. We know Reapers can withstand even the firepower of a dreadnought, so a small ship would need some brand-new superweapons in order to even stand a chance. There's a lot more here than just maneuverability to consider. SpartHawg948 17:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

generally such shielding needs to be grounded in order to function, which would be a problem in space for the same reason they have to stop and discharge their warp cores, and doing that requires them to retract all sensors, communications arrays, and weapons. So they COULD protect themselves from an emp but would need to see it coming Andrew-108 04:43, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

I got one. Not sure if anyone still uses this but what about a computer virus that can disable the reaper shields?? This is my idea. Sometime during Mass effect 3, your able to destroy one reaper by itself. Recover the remains, find out anything useful thats still intact. Give the remains to the Salarians so they could perhaps create a weapon, in this case a virus, to either disable reaper shields or perhaps something else. It's completely possible because Salarians, with the given resources can do almost anything, they where able to create a biological virus that effects not just the entire Krogan population, but to do it twice and able to affect 99.9% of every Krogan cell in the body. Just an idea. Chris April 15, 2011

I think that this will require to have thousands of ships outfitted with thanix cannons (created from Reaper tecnology) and just focus fire until you kill them all, or having Shepard dicking around Earth while the fleet fights and have the Reapers control husks just to kill Shepard, which would cause their deaths just like Sovereign

Topics like this belong in the forums or in a blog as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 16:13, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
I  do believe a ship ramming a reaper would be able to destroy it. I do not believe all reapers are as maneuverable as Sovereign was.  In the ending battle scene for Mass Effect 3, you witness many Alliance ships firing on them, and the projectiles, take a while to reach the Reapers, the Reapers, if as agile as Sovereign, should have easily been able to make evasive maneuvers before being hit .The Reapers just took the attack, many of them suffering injuries including the loss of tentacles,etc. They seem to rely more on brute strength than their "evasive" skills. The Reapers actually appear rather sluggish. I believe this would make them fairly easy targets for a "Kamikaze" style attack. --ZOMBIE BAIT 368 02:30, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
See my previous comment about where things like this belong. Lancer1289 03:27, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Why not just use the Thrasher Maw from the krogan world to kill the reapers lol get a whole bunch of thoes and reapers are done. Sheer size will kill a reaper make something much larger then them and it can kill them anything can be crushed.

Cease commenting in this section. It is not appropriate on a talk page. I have said this three times yet no one seems to listen. Lancer1289 05:03, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 VGA Trailer Edit

Just saw it - could have jizzed. thoughts on the trailer, people ?

And this isn't the point of talk pages. Use the forums or blogs for this kind of thing please. Lancer1289 03:55, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Resistance is futile... Edit

the reapers seem to be similar to the Borg from Star Trek, the are hybrid organic/synthetics, have similar speech pattern, and well, watch this and see for yourself the biggest difference is their ship deisgn, one is based on fear and the other is based on cube. Any thoughts? Andrew-108 04:33, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Military Doctrine Edit

I was wondering if I could put some information on the "common" weapons of the Reapers beyond their indoctrinated soldiers. What I mean was by how the Reapers can convert organics into Husks and the slave races can refine the Husks to terrifying creatures such as Scions and Praetorians. The Reapers always seem to have this as their "foot soldier" of the army. While races come and go from "extinction cycles", the Husks and its varients are always a ready weapon of the Reapers. Gyrobot 05:56, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

And what common weapons do you want to put in exactly? As far as we know, husks, or at least the current version, may be unique to this cycle along with Scions and Praetorians. We do know that they can Indoctrinate their slaves, but we have no knowledge if they have done something similar in the past. I see this as one whole section that will be filled with speculation about a lot of things. And we do have that policy about speculation. Lancer1289 06:02, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think that Vigil mentions how the Reapers indoctrinated some protheans tso they could be used as sleeper agents.-- 03:42, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
The Reapers seem to always have Husks as a staple in their means to carry out their extinction cycles. The Derelict reaper was proof that Reapers have used Husks as since time immemorial, the methods are also the same, use Dragon Teeth or Reaper artifacts to turn organics to Husks. Gyrobot 08:15, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
I dunno about "time immemorial", but you are correct, the Derelict Reaper would seem to demonstrate the use of Husks, Abominations, and Scions for some time prior to the current cycle. SpartHawg948 08:26, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Length? Edit

Does anyone know their approx. length?

Quoting from Sovereign's Codex entry: "At two kilometers long, its spinal-mounted main gun is likely capable of penetrating another dreadnought's kinetic barriers with a single shot." Because it's main gun is that long, saying two kilometers is probably under its length because there are other features. However that is the closest canon thing we have to a confirmed length. Even that is slightly vague and probably not its full length. Lancer1289 02:09, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Crap. How did I miss that? Missing Mandible 21:47, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Please do watch the language in the future. Thank You. Lancer1289 21:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

What was foul about the language? 17:54, May 29, 2013 (UTC) Jade

Two years ago when the original post was written the language policy was considerably tighter. The current one is posted in the community guidlines. Cattlesquat (talk) 18:19, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

correction? Edit

my understanding of soverign's weapons was that the spinal gun (main gun) was the magnetohydrodynamic gun and the tentacles actually were directed energy like gardian lasers. this could also apply since the collector's ship and even shepard carries a particle beam weapon in ME2. or perhaps there is a continuity error. (or most likely I am wrong)

i didn't want to edit the main page because I am unsure.

You are first incorrect as Sovereign's "arm" weapons weren't Directed Energy Weapons, see here for more on that. We don't know the specifics of the Collector Ship weapon so to say that it could also apply is just pure speculation. As to the Collector Particle Beam, we know that it is a focused radiation gun, but nothing more than that. I for one don't think there is one continuality error. Also you are incorrect in that Sovereign's main gun was just a Mass Accelerator, not what you described. So no edits are warranted. Lancer1289 03:15, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
but the arm weapons are not the main gun, the main gun was spinally mounted (unless I am reading the codex incorrectly) If you read the soverign entry just below the thanix entry on the page you linked to, it speciffically says "At two kilometers long, its spinal-mounted main gun is likely capable of penetrating another dreadnought's kinetic barriers with a single shot." and the thanix says "Sovereign's main gun was not a directed energy weapon" (emphasis added). therefore we know nothing about the "arm" weapons, you are assuming they use the same tech as the main. (and i am assuming they are scaled up particle beam weapons, as this was the impression I got from the cinematic)

also, due to the close range at the battle of the citadel, it is possible for the arms to be massive gardian lasers. the codex says "Only fighters and frigates enter CLOSE "knife fight" ranges of 10 or fewer kilometers... GARDIAN lasers become viable weapons, swatting down fighters and boiling away warship armor."

plus, if you accept my argument that the main gun is different or the only "known" tech, the the codex also supports the GARDIAN argument because it says "Neither dreadnoughts nor cruisers can use their main guns at close range; laying the bow on a moving target becomes impossible. Superheated thruster exhaust becomes a hazard."

It should be noted however that we do see cruisers using their main spinal-mounted guns at close range in Mass Effect. Given this apparent discrepancy, it seems that the Codex (in this case) was referencing norms and established procedures, not actual limitations. This seems even more likely in that the same cruisers appear to be within ten kilometers of Sovereign, which the Codex states does not happen. I'm not necessarily taking one side or the other here, just pointing out that some of the Codex tidbits cited seem to be directly contradicted in-game, and in instances where the Codex and what we see in-game clash, what we see is right, as the Codex is imperfect, and is actually imperfect by design. SpartHawg948 07:01, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Buttressing the theme of SpartHawg's point, in the wiki it states that the Reaper laser could easily carve through even an Alliance dreadnought in one shot. There's several instances (very beginning when Sheperd escapes to the Normandy on foot, final battle scene near the beginning) where an Alliance dreadnought was hit directly with a Reaper laser and not destroyed. 19:45, June 9, 2013 (UTC)Goodfoot

Oh no! Edit Pudim17 (talk - contr) 12:25, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

And this is here why exactly? This is not the purpose of a talk page and something like this is much, much more appropriate in the forums or in a blog post, but not here. Lancer1289 17:12, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

ME3 Reapers Edit

First off, I'd like to apologize for my previous edit. I now realize it wasn't nice. Sorry. Secondly, I found sufficient evidence that proves the large walking mechanical creatures are in fact Reapers. The proof is in this video- Did you notice how Shepard refers to the object as a "live Reaper"? So I think we should do an edit on that now. Wadda you say?

Reaper and husk Edit

Well, I've been thinking this through, and I think that the Reapers have another weakness. When Saren was killed, Sovereign took control of its corpse to fight Shepard, right? So, when Shepard destroyed Saren's corpse, Sovereign was killed. In that sense, Sovereign placed a significant portion of its power in the Saren husk, and when the Saren husk was killed, Sovereign lost that power, which allowed the Alliance Fleet to destroy it. Leader Vladimir 05:20, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well not really. It's like in ME2 when Harbinger takes control of the Collectors. When the collector dies, Harbinger remains just fine. I'm just thinking that Sovereign new he was in trouble when he saw that Saren, who was supposed to deactivate the Citadel defenses, was killed, he knew that there was no more purpose in staying, and that if he did stay he would die. So he began to detach from the tower and began to attempt to escape, but was then mauled by the fleets of ships.
Speculation and topics like this belong in the forums or a blog post, and not here. This isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 00:18, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Article Inaccuracy Edit

This paragraph in the article (in the "Reapers and the Collectors" section)...

"With the Human-Reaper destroyed and the Collectors defeated, the Reapers lost any chance of using the Citadel mass relay to quickly return to the Milky Way Galaxy. Harbinger and the rest of the Reapers awoke from hibernation, and began the long journey towards the Milky Way, setting the stage for Mass Effect 3."

... has now been proven wrong by Lead Writer Mac Walters on Twitter!/macwalterslives/status/106469649889247232

First of all, the notion that the Human-Reaper was a replacement for Sovereign has absolutely ZERO basis in either in-game or external sources, and why you have let it remain in the article is quite frankly beyond me. It would do this wiki real good to not include erroneous information that is based on baseless claims and fan speculation.

Secondly, the idea that Harbinger and the rest of the Reapers woke up from hibernation at the end of ME2 is also a notion based on baseless claims and fan speculation which have been persistently allowed to remain on several articles.

Since you obviously can't do your jobs properly on this wiki, I have decided to correct your mistakes for you. -- 21:39, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Another correction, yet another rude comment. Need I mention that it is possible to correct things with extremely recent information without belittling people? Lancer1289 21:55, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

You know the possibility that Reapers replenish their numbers after one has been killed is not a crazy idea. Also the collectors only began kidnapping people after sovereign's death (though i admit that was only after the reapers took notice of humanity)-2:47 PM, August 28, 2011

And after they lost their quick way into the galaxy. After all, that was what Sovereign was. It's pretty obvious (IMO at least) that the Collectors began kidnapping people to build a new Reaper to replace Sovereign as their gateway to the galaxy. SpartHawg948 07:52, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
If the Collectors were building the reaper despite knowing that the reapers were on their way to the milky way, then it's unlikely that the human reaper would have been a sovereign replacement, besides following the discovery of the conduit, it would have had to find another backdoor way into the Citadel which may have taken centuries of research. It's more likely that the human reaper was simply an experiment to test the viability of using humans to produce reapers so that the reapers would know whether to wipe out humanity or abduct more using their collector allies. And more obviously, the reaper would simply be another weapon to be used against organics when the main reaper fleet finally arrived.--Grandmaster Chen 02:38, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
And talk pages are not the appropriate place to discuss theories like this. Take them to the forums or a blog post. Lancer1289 02:43, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
My point still stands though that the human reaper was not a sovereign replacement. This is fact not a theory.--Grandmaster Chen 18:17, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't you are speculating as to what the purpose was, and that doesn’t belong here. A talk page is not "a substitute forum" or "a space to post theories without fear of deletion". Please take your theory to the proper place as this isn't it. Lancer1289 18:44, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
? Mac Walter's tweet states that the reapers were traveling to the milky way immediately after Sovereign's destruction. This is official confirmation from the lead writer.--Grandmaster Chen 19:11, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
You are posting a theory based on your interpretation of the evidence at hand, and this isn't the place for it. "It's more likely that the human reaper was simply an experiment..." That isn't stating facts, that's you guessing and posting your theory about what the Human-Reaper's purpose was. That doesn't belong here. So again, and for the final time, please abide by the Community Guidelines and take your theories to the proper place, because this isn't it. Lancer1289 19:16, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
My possible explanations were indeed theories, but after you pointed that out I then stated: "My point still stands though that the human reaper was not a sovereign replacement. This is fact not a theory." Again, I must point out that Mac Walter's comment disproves the statements that the human reaper was a sovereign replacement- this is fact. So the statement on the article that the OP pointed out should be removed.--Grandmaster Chen 19:23, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Still a theory based on a somewhat vague statement. Who knows what they planed to do with it afterward. Need I mention that it is still in the wrong place. I will not discuss this further. Take it to the proper place.
As to the conflict, it was resturcted to reflect the new information. A quick examination of the article, and the history, would have shown that quite clearly. Lancer1289 19:28, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
From the article: "With the Human-Reaper destroyed and the Collectors defeated, the Reapers lost any chance of using the Citadel mass relay to quickly return to the Milky Way Galaxy." This is speculation. It is never stated in-game that the human reaper was to attempt to re-open the Citadel relay. Needs to be deleted.--Grandmaster Chen 19:31, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
And I suggest you take another look at the statment and the events of Mass Effect 2. If anything, only a small part of it may need to be deleted. Evidence to support a large part of the statment is present in the game with the Arrival DLC pack. Lancer1289 19:36, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to the part where it implies that the human reaper was a means to open the citadel relay. This is never stated in the game or the DLCs. In fact we don't know for certain why the human reaper was constructed, only theories exist and the human reaper being a 'second vanguard' is just another theory (and an implausible one when you take Mac Walter's comment into account).--Grandmaster Chen 19:42, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I noticed there wasn't a proper explanation for the Reapers' state of being despite there being clear canonical evidence stating that the Reapers are "transcended flesh" and are essentially 'shells' for billions of uploaded minds. This is not cut dialogue, just so you all know.

ME3 section Edit

Someone has made a recent edit adding a ME3 section I was going to deleate it but I thought we should discuse it first. We will need a ME3 section soon so might as well keep it. However the problem is there is not alot to go on other than they attack earth. At this momment in time we do not know if they are attacking other planets. We do know that one will be incounted on a Geth controled world (Or is it Cerberu). Source also have to be added (I dont know how to). So I am leaving this up to you admins. I do think though we should have an ME3 section. User:JediSpectre117 18:43, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

I just did a little rewording on the "Return to the Galaxy" section. Is it any better?--Captainhu 02:41, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

            Anon: Hey, just wanted to tell that Reapers attacked Batarians before
                  Earth in ME 3, hence the "Cannibals" in demo (Batarian Husks). 
                  This is also evidenced by reading AllianceNewsNetwork tweets
                  :!/alliancenewsnet. Sorry about way of let-
                   ting you know, I realize this isn't by the book but I'm in a 
                   bit of a hurry so excuse me this time.

Legion briefly elaborates on the design and goals of the Reapers Edit

This is actually a fairly easily missed piece of dialog, however, Legion basically describes a reaper as a machine with billions of organic minds uploaded into it ( ), and then directly quotes Sovereign by saying each reaper is a "nation". This definitely sounds like something worth keeping an ear out for in ME3, since it sounds like a reaper is more of a hive mind within itself rather than a singular sentient being. Shadowdragon00000 20:01, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

It is already noted in the article and if you want to discuss it, then please take it to a forum or a blog post. That second purpose is not what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 20:08, November 16, 2011 (UTC)
My bad, I thought that bit of information would have been posted in the main article, presumably in the design/technology section, rather than the trivia section. Shadowdragon00000 20:22, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Origins of the reapers. Edit

i think that they might have either been from another galaxy or were once a organic race but made themselves giant metal machinces this would make sense cause other wise who created them or where did they came from

You should take comments like these to the Forums or a User Blog post where they can be properly discussed. Article talk pages are reserved for discussing the upkeep of articles only. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:13, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Section: Purpose Edit

The Section "Purpose" contains no source, but I recollect that there was some "fanfiction" on the BW-Forums years ago, that proclaimed a similar "purpose". Imho, this section should be deleted as long as there aren't any reliable sources.

And I'm just pointing out that just because you haven't seen it yet while playing ME3, doesn't mean it isn't real. There have been a number of editors that have edited that section, so there is more than likely some validity to the statement. If it does prove to be incorrect, then it will be removed. However, good faith must be assumed here. I should also point out that most of our information comes directly from the games, therefore sourcing is not needed outside of specific circumstances. Lancer1289 18:58, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that the "purpose" stated by the crucible AI makes absolutely no sense? And actually acomplishes what it is supposedly trying to prevent? FeckThisShyt 23:06, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I am not saying that in a "boo hoo I am an anti ending nancy boy!" way (though I am certainly an anti ending nancy boy!). It is factual. The stated goal is to prevent synthetics wiping out organic life. The current generation of synthetic life cant be the one they mean, because they wipe it out with synthetics. So they must mean preventing synthetics from wiping out any future life, but the constant cycle of technological advancement, resource use and then destruction will leave the galaxies resources depleted in very short order. FeckThisShyt 23:26, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

The Reapers' goals are to prevent all life in the galaxy from being obliterated by synthetic intelligences; it is their assumption (and by the look of it, a correct one) that synthetic life is inherently incompatible with organic life. They accomplish their goals by preventing organic civilizations from creating AIs sophisticated enough to take over the galaxy. This allows non-advanced organics to keep on living and advancing, while preventing the AI problem altogether. The Reapers themselves are not synthetics - not really - because they are organic minds and bodies reconfigured into machines. Anyway, my point is that the goals as stated in the article are not "nonsensical" or contradictory - they make quite a lot of sense, really OperativeKlause 23:50, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

They dont make sense, you obviously havent thought it through.
"The Reapers themselves are not synthetics - not really - because they are organic minds and bodies reconfigured into machines."
"In general, the noun synthesis (from the ancient Greek σύνθεσις, σύν "with" and θέσις "placing") refers to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new; alternately, it refers to the creating of something by artificial means." Both of those apply to reapers, in more ways than just thier material construction. So they are synthetic AIs wiping out life to prevent synthetic AIs from wiping out life.
Moreover, if you take the long view, IE that they are trying to prevent synthetic/artificial life from destroying all organic life, then they contradict themselves there too, because thier repeated cycles of destruction would deplete the universes resources, thus eventually making life impossible. 50k years seems like a lot to short lived creatures like us, but in terms of galactic processes is less than the "blink of an eye" FeckThisShyt 02:00, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

'"In general, the noun synthesis (from the ancient Greek σύνθεσις, σύν "with" and θέσις "placing") refers to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new; alternately, it refers to the creating of something by artificial means." Both of those apply to reapers, in more ways than just thier material construction. So they are synthetic AIs wiping out life to prevent synthetic AIs from wiping out life.'

You are correct; I meant that they are not "synthetic" in the sense that they are derived from organics. They are made up of millions of organics uploaded into a machine, as opposed to synthetic intelligences built from scratch. Because of this, they have a common origin with organic life, and can't really be said to be the same as the synthetic intelligences they wish to prevent from wiping out all life.

'Moreover, if you take the long view, IE that they are trying to prevent synthetic/artificial life from destroying all organic life, then they contradict themselves there too, because thier repeated cycles of destruction would deplete the universes resources, thus eventually making life impossible. 50k years seems like a lot to short lived creatures like us, but in terms of galactic processes is less than the "blink of an eye'

Again, you are correct, but look at it this way: if the Reapers were not to wipe out the galaxy's space-faring civilizations, then (assuming the Reapers' logic is correct) those civilizations would be destroyed by the synthetic intelligences they would go on to create, which in turn (because of the AIs' inherent incompatibility with and superiority to organics) would either exterminate or subjugate every living thing in the galaxy. Assuming the Reapers never existed in the first place, that would give organic life about 50,000 years after the first species achieved spaceflight (I'm going by the timing of the cycles for this guess) before it ended. With the Reapers' system in place, organic life has been able to exist for millions of years in the galaxy, and even though the galaxy's resources would eventually be exhausted one way or another, there'd still likely be millions of years worth of cycles before that happened. Besides, decay is a fact of life - even if the Reapers weren't involved and the AI problem didn't exist, the galaxy would eventually become depleted and stagnant anyway.

On top of that, though, I'm not sure how the Reapers would be using up the galaxy's resources in the first place - they seem to be pretty self-sustaining OperativeKlause 03:13, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

They are the same as any other synthetic life however. If you performed a CAT/MRI (whichever measures neuron firing, I am no doctor) scan of my mind and then uploaded it to a computer, it is still a computer, it is still synthetic. My mind is not on that computer, only a recording, and a partial one at best. The same is true of the reapers process. If you claim they arent synthetic because organisms provide some of the raw materials, that is true of nearly everything.
And "and can't really be said to be the same as the synthetic intelligences they wish to prevent from wiping out all life." is not true really. If I found out you were going to be stabbed tomorrow, and decided to prevent that by kidnapping you, locking you in my basement and starving you to death, that would still be me killing you. The same is true in essence, the reapers actions will lead to the destruction of life, just in a more round and about way.
And another point that I havent touched on yet is the simple fact that the reapers nonsensical plan has no effect on AIs originating from other galaxies. If it is a certainty that AIs will eventually decide to wipe out all life, they will eventually move to other galaxies. So thier plan leaves our galaxy at a set technological level, and if a more advanced AI comes from another galaxy (which isnt impractical) then leaves us completely defenceless. So if it is a certainty that AIs will always seek to wipe out all life, they are purposefully leaving life in this galaxy defenceless for no apparent reason.
Also, it is not the reapers using up the resources, it is organic life. You dont think those planet wide megacities conjure themselves out of thin air do you? :P Of course, the reapers themselves will also use up resources, but nowhere near the rate at which developing species will. As an example, we have almost entirely depleted some resources on earth (oil, copper, helium for instance are the ones I am aware of) over the course of a few hundred years of fairly inefficient resource gathering. What do you think the resource draw of a galaxy wide community with ME level tech will be.

FeckThisShyt 23:11, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

In response to your original question, no, you cannot state in the article that the Reapers' goal makes no sense because that's your own opinion. All that matters is that the Reapers think their plan makes sense. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:26, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Nice attempt at a cop out, but that simply isnt true. These are the 2 definitions for the term "Make sense" 1. To be coherent or intelligible: an explanation that made sense. 2. To be practical or advisable: It makes sense to go now. Neither of those apply, and thus it makes no sense. Now you can say the reapers (well the writers anyway) THINK it makes sense, but that does not change how sensical or not the original idea is. FeckThisShyt 23:47, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm simply informing you that expressing personal opinions like "the Reapers' plan makes no sense" is not permitted in articles such as this.
Now, if you wish to continue discussing whether or not the Reapers' plans make sense, I strongly suggest taking this to the forums or a user blog. Article talk pages are reserved for discussing the upkeep and improvement of articles only. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:30, April 29, 2012 (UTC)
And the point I am making is that "The Reapers plan makes no sense" is NOT PERSONAL OPINION. Look it up, in order to make sense, certain criteria have to be met, I mentioned them in my last post by the way (but I advise you to look it up yourself if you do not beleive me). The reapers stated purpose does not meet those criteria and thus makes no sense. Unless you dont understand the meaning of opinion, in which case look that up. FeckThisShyt 23:43, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

First off, you are coming off as very condescending. Second, Whilst I do agree that their reasoning is stupid (I have even written a blog about it), it does check out logically. By destroying Synthetic life they believe they are allowing Organic life to continue and thrive, even if only for a limited time.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 23:49, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I do try to be condescending when people try to falsely use "IT ARE OPINIONES!!!" as a get out of jail free card for faulty logic and such. And no, it doesnt check out logically. Doing exactly what you are attempting to prevent in order to prevent it is not logical in any sense, and seeing as the reaper plan does this in both the immediate short term and the long term, there is no way in which it is logical.
Now, when you say that they beleive it is logical and correct, that is valid (and in my opinion ancient highly advanced intelligences doing incredibly stupid things because of faulty logic is interesting, and I would like to see it expanded upon). But their false assumption does not change the fact that the reapers goals are nonsensical, which is where this started. It is a nonsensical goal regardless of what the reapers beleive and I think that should be touched upon in the article.
The nonsensicality is a simple fact, and as such should be mentioned in the wiki. That is what a wiki is, isnt it? A repository of facts related to thier subjects? FeckThisShyt 23:03, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
Please see Commdor's comment above as this has gotten completely off track and this discussion should be moved to a forum or a blog post. Lancer1289 04:46, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
It has not gotten out of hand or off track at all however. The initial question was "Is it worth mentioning that the "purpose" stated by the crucible AI makes absolutely no sense? And actually acomplishes what it is supposedly trying to prevent?" Both of those statements have evidenciary and logical support, and hence are facts.
Indeed, the purpose section currently has "The continuity of life in the galaxy is assured through this cycle of extinction, as it ensures that organic life will never be fully exterminated before its time by synthetic life, as was demonstrated by the quarians and the geth." Which is bizzare, because 2 of the 3 outcomes actually result in the opposite.
So a statement of fact is not "fitting" whereas a random statement that is untrue most of the time (and I would imagine is not true in canon either, but until ME4 is released we wont know I suppose) is allowed? Bizzare. FeckThisShyt 05:11, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Feck, they do accomplish their purpose. They believe that by destroying Synthetics, they can save Organic life forever. They intend to destroy intelligent Organics before their Synthetics can destroy all life in the universe. According to the Reapers, Synthetics are fated to wipe out all Organic life, thus...ending Organic life. The Reapers (Who themselves are party Organic) cultivate some species so that life in the galaxy never ends. That is there stated purpose. It may be terrible writing, but it does make some sense. Saying that it's illogical in the article itself would come across as biased.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 05:20, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Good lord, why is this so difficult to understand?!
1)They are not organic. Here are the definitions of the word organic;
A) Of, relating to, or derived from living matter - organic soils
B) Of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin (of food or farming methods) Produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents
C) Of or relating to a bodily organ or organs
D) (of a disease) Affecting the structure of an organ
E) Denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole - the organic unity of the integral work of art
F) Characterized by continuous or natural development
Which of those do the reapers conform to? B is the only one, however ALL synthetics in the game also conform to B. A does not apply because the subjects are killed during the proccess.
The game itself seems to be using C when they make the differentiation between organic and synthetic, and obviously reapers do not conform to that.
2)No, they do not accomplish thier purpose. Thier purpose is to prevent synthetics killing everything, they achieve this by being synthetics and killing everything. I hope I dont have to explain how that =/= success.
Now if you argue that by killing all "complex life" (which they do in the long term due to resource depletion) they prevent synthetics from wiping out "simple life", but that is nonsense because the eventual formation of life is a chemical proccess that can and will always happen, and synthetics simply could not achieve that.
3)How is a statement of fact biased? Biased means "Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly: "the tests were biased against women"; "a biased view of the world"." A statement of fact is not bias. Saying "The plan is nonsensical" is fact, not mentioning it is pro-bioware bias, and mentioning it, but saying it detracts from the story is anti bioware bias.
Moreover, the article is already biased, stating possible events as fact means that the "story branch" that leads to those events is biased.
That is as simple as I can make it, hopefully you understand. FeckThisShyt 18:46, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

As do most of the other posters on here, I agree that including any information about the "nonsensical" aspects of Reaper motivations would not be acceptable. As for the above points:

1) No one (I think?) is under the impression that Reapers are organic; they're synthetics that are created from organic minds and bodies. That, however, makes them somewhat different from other synthetic life, which never were organic to begin with.

2) The Reapers do not kill "everything" - they only destroy organic civilizations capable of spaceflight. "Everything" would include every animal, plant, bacteria, etc. in the galaxy. As to whether synthetic life could wipe out all life in the galaxy, there's no reason why it couldn't be done - all they would need to do is locate every habitable planet and alter it to make it uninhabitable, preventing organic life from ever taking root. Given that synthetics live forever and would have a galaxy of resources to make use of, exterminating all organic life would be far from impossible. (don't forget: the Catalyst can transform all organic life in the galaxy, so who's to say synthetics couldn't build a device to kill all organic life in the galaxy?)

3) Your interpretation of Reaper motivations as nonsensical is biased, because it is your personal opinion - if it were fact, then no one here would be debating it with you. A wiki article generally has to be neutral; it can include statements like "the Revenant machine gun fires at so-and-so rounds per second," which cannot really be debated, but it cannot include statements like "The Reaper's stated motivations do not make sense." That would imply that they make no sense to anyone, anywhere, both within the game's context and to the average reader - and that is simply not correct.

OperativeKlause 20:07, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

1) That doesnt make them any different though. They arent created from organic minds or bodies, some of the materials were extracted from organic beings. And the information on thier harddrives is extracted from organics, but those are not the same. The source of thier raw materials doesnt matter, they are synthetics by all definitions.
2) Read back, they will kill everything through resource depletion, each cycle needs a staggeringly large amount of resources, including those neccesary for complex multicellular life (copper and iron for instance). There is only a finite amount in the galaxy, and each cycle will drain more and more (as will the reapers themselves, though the amount they draw is a complete unknown). The galaxy does replenish elements through star fusion, but at nowhere near a rate neccesary to replenish what is taken.
Furthermore, "all they would need to do is locate every habitable planet and alter it to make it uninhabitable, preventing organic life from ever taking root". That cannot happen, look up abiogenesis (its fascinating). There are many known and observed ways that self-replicating structures can arise, and they in turn lead to life, they are a simple chemical process, and to prevent it the synthetics would need to cause the laws of physics to stop working, something which I assume you will admit is impossible, or improbable at least.
On a last point regarding 2, you bring up; " Given that synthetics live forever..." you bring another way in which the reapers intended purpose fails, which is as I mentioned before causing the "tech level" in this galaxy to stagnate. And as such any synthetics from neighbouring galaxies, if destroying all life was the goal, could come here and achieve thier mission without any problem. After all the distances between galaxies are massive, but with FTL and the extended "lifespans" of synthetics, far from impractical. (The nearest galaxy to us only being 25k ly away from us, which is 700 days worth of ftl travel at the speed reapers are said to be able to achieve, though grounding would be impossible. Using current day tech it would take 200, 000 years, which isnt impractical either for synthetics)
3)Again, it is not an opinion, look up what opinion means please. I despise people who dont understand the meaning of that word and throw it around as a "I dont want to counter your point!" play.
Now see, this is a statement backed by evidence and logic, and as such is fact. It is as much a fact as your revenant rate of fire example, though obviously not as self evident. And "That would imply that they make no sense to anyone, anywhere, both within the game's context and to the average reader - and that is simply not correct" is a false arguement. Photosynthesis makes no sense to the average reader, does that have any bearing on its actual mechanism? Of course not. And the reapers plan IS nonsensical to everyone who thinks about it. The only people who claim it is not are those who simply havent thought about it, or who have but are willing to disregards its logical flaws for whatever reason. FeckThisShyt 23:48, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Ok this is now completely 100% off topic. Please move this into a forum or a blog post as this discussion has lost all relevance to the article and has become a bickering match. That is not permitted on talk pages. If you do not, then further action might have to be taken. Lancer1289 00:04, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Off topic in what way? It is a discussion about whether or not to mention a fact regarding the reapers, I dont know how much more on topic you can be... FeckThisShyt 23:48, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Feck, I don't think you understand the difference between opinion and fact. I personally believe their reasoning is stupid, but that is the writer's fault, not the Reapers'. I'll break it down.

  • Organics will create Synthetics, which will rebel and destroy Organics.
  • If Synthetics wipe out all Organic life, then all Organic life would just be dead. Forever.
  • The Reapers wipe out intelligent Organic life so their Synthetics don't wipe out all life in the galaxy. The Reapers don't kill all life, they preserve it by killing most of them and preserving their essence.
  • The Reapers thus make the best of a bad situation; by killing most Organics every 50K years, they ensure that life perpetuates.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 00:23, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Read this, since you havent read anything else apparently.
Yes I do, it is fairly obvious you dont however. Yet you are willing to claim that I dont and still use it as an attempt at an "I win" button.
Here is the definition of opinion [1] "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but ''not substantiated by positive knowledge, proof or fact''".
Now, here are the peices of knowledge and information that make "The reaper plan is nonsensical" into a fact, which I have already stated, but you dont read posts apparently.
1) They are synthetics killing life in order to prevent synthetics killing life. Which is a contradiction. [2]
2) They kill all complex life in the long run by resource depletion, look it up if you dont beleive me, though it is obvious from a purely logical standpoint. Look up stellar formation, galaxy formation, and planetary formation for these.
3) Synthetics cannot kill all life, because it is a simple chemical proccess that can and will arise again and again, and synthetics cannot prevent it. Look up Abiogenesis, amongst other things.
4) Thier plan leaves this galaxy defenceless against synthetics from another galaxy. Simple logic, look up the distances between galaxies in the local cluster, and look up current spaceflight tech and also the tech in the games lore.
5) Thier plan is based on an assumption that is proven wrong 2/3s of playthroughs.
Now lets look up Fact [3] "A truth verifiable from evidence, experience or observation".
Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact now? Or are you going to carry on falsely throwing around the word opinion?
As I said before, "The reapers plan is nonsensical" is fact, "The story is crap" is opinion.
That is as clear as it is possible to make it, and I have repeated myself so many bloody times it would be fucking comic if it didnt represent wasted time. FeckThisShyt 17:43, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
1)xzibit meme notwithstanding, reapers PRESERVE life (in a way). not just wipe em out. 2) that's just one other reason for reaper existence. prevent old life from stalling the growth of new life through aggressive resource consumption. 3) grey goo scenario. nanomachines eat everything. 4) we don't care about other galaxies. probabilities alone of extragalactic intruders blundering in stack odds at astronomical proportions.
"reaper plan makes sense to me; doesn't mean i agree with it." that's opinion. conversely, "reaper plan is nonsensical" = also opinion. 5) all of us here, reapers included, are extrapolating conclusions based on facts available to each of us. even "facts" verified by empirical observation were bound to be disproved sooner or later - that's fact. in mass effect's case, ending dlc. and even then, wild mass guessing's bound to ensue. none of which can be taken unequivocally as "fact".
boo-effing-hoo, pov-pushing. take your whining elsewhere but here (this isn't even the right page for discussions like this). the time you wasted here could be better spent actually enjoying the series. or other parts of it. Temporaryeditor78 18:29, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Enough is enough. This section has completely lost all focus, and is no longer relevant to the point of a talk page. If it had a purpose at any point, then it has completely lost it. If this conversation does not cease, I will not hesitate to remove comments from this talk page and place them is a forum as that is now the proper place for this conversation. Lancer1289 23:55, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Reapers in the Prothean War Edit

In the ME3 DLC From the Ashes, during the flashbacks there are scenes of the Protheans fighting Sovereign-class Reapers. Those particular Reapers seem to be generating protective force fields; they are also using smaller scale weapons as compared to their normal beam cannon. Perhaps this would be worth noting under Trivia? Stormkeeper 17:00, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Considering we don't know context right now, not yet. Lancer1289 17:14, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
I just realised that the Reapers used the smaller beam cannons against the turians; it's visible during the cutscene where the turian fleet engages the Reapers. Stormkeeper

ME3 and Notable Reapers Edit

So, here's an issue I have. There are some fairly notable Reapers in ME3, ones that play fairly prominent roles in certain chapters of the story and that you face in combat: the Reaper on Tuchanka, the Reaper on Rannoch, maybe some of the Reapers on Earth. You even have a conversation with the one on Rannoch. I would think they would warrant mentioning as notable Reapers. The problem is what do we call them? Their names aren't given, and we also lack succinct nicknames for them such as Human-Reaper. Do we just say "Rannoch Reaper"? TheUnknown285 23:19, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I dont really know if it is worth mentioning any of the ones other than the one on Rannoch. They are all the same design of reaper, and the fights all go "Take cover and then beat them with magic!".
The Rannoch fight is the only notable one because that is just "Hold the left trigger and beat it by magic!" and that reaper talks. FeckThisShyt 23:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Reaper Origins Edit

The EC offers us a few revelations on the origins of the Reapers, I thought I'd start a topic for discussion on what elements of those origins should be included in the article. I noticed a recent contributor edited in a paragraph in relation to this, but it was removed for speculation, and rightfully so considering the contributor noted Reaper origin at being only 'thousands' of years ago, when we all know they've been around a lot longer than just thousands of years. I won't put any spoilers here, but having seen the EC myself, I think we can use it to justify a short informative paragraph or two on this topic. Martolives 01:53, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

The info from the Catalyst that's under the Purpose section should be revised according to the EC, since that already effectively delves into the Reapers' origins. I'll see what I can do. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:56, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Harvest Synthetics? Edit

An unregistered contributor recently added to this article and the Catalyst article that the Reapers harvest organic and synthetic life. I honestly can't recall this from the ME3 Extended Cut and I don't have the chance to go over it again at the moment, so I'd appreciate it if someone else can verify it. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:44, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

I do actually recall the Catalyst mentioning something like this in conversation, quite clearly, but the exact words elude me for the moment. I have only played the EC once so far, and intend to have a more thorough look eventually, but I certainly do remember a mention of this. Martolives 03:46, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
I played the EC yesterday and the Catalyst indeed said that the Reapers harvest both organic and synthetic life. But it is strange since in ME 1 Sovereign said that he has no interest in Geth, and they are just tools.--ScorpiO 07:34, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Why just the Milky Way Galaxy??? Edit

I was wondering why the reapers only seem to target the milky way galaxy as surely it wouldn't be beyond the technological capabilities for the reapers to target any other local galaxies such as: andromeda and triangulum? as surely during their hibernation they wouldn't spend the entire 50,000 years asleep, they could be jumping to other galaxies in the local vicinity. --Templars1191 (talk) 22:58, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Things like this belong in the forums or a blog post as this isn't even close to what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:00, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) It's mentioned by Sovereign in ME that the Reapers do, in fact, spend the 50,000 years between purges in hibernation to conserve energy. There is currently no evidence that the Reapers have a presence in any galaxy other than the Milky Way.
If you wish to continue this discussion, I recommend taking to the forums since article talk pages are reserved for discussing topics related to the maintenance of articles only. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:04, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Leviathans Created SyntheticsEdit

Where does it say the Leviathans made synthetics in their image and gave them to the Catalyst. If I'm not mistaken it was the Catalyst who commissioned the creation of pawns.--AdmiralPedro1stFleet (talk) 23:03, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Legion trivia. Edit

This piece of trivia:"According to Legion in Mass Effect 2, a Reaper consists of "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies."" Is pretty unneeded in the trivia section, especially considering the piece of trivia bellow it is basically about the same thing.

I believe it should either be absorbed into the article itself (it is an important part of Reaper biology after all) or into the piece of trivia below it.--Legionwrex (talk) 20:14, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please comment, I don't want to be pushy but it appears that this was lost in the sea that is the RC.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:47, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
I always thought it was a metaphor. I'm for removing it from the trvia section, but I don't really think it needs to be put into the main area. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 22:52, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't be removed all together, it would be absorbed into the section below it.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:15, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:17, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
We still need to wait for an admins approval before anything can really be done.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:30, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

I moved it up into the Design section. It would only need to have been merged into the last trivia item if it was cut content too. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:18, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Another victory for me!--Legionwrex (talk) 02:19, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Reaper Gunships? Edit

The codex entry for Earth states that Reaper gunships are capable of megaton level firepower. This would make them more powerful, weaponry wise, than the Reaper capital ships themselves. Do we ever get more information on these unknown craft? If we don't, isn't it worth a mention on this page?-- 09:32, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Is it meaningful in a way that might impact how a player would view the Reapers, or is it otherwise interesting? I say that it's neither. Lksdjf (talk) 17:12, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
It references a type of craft that you do not hear about anywhere else, and said craft has firepower that dwarfs even Reaper capital ships. It's interesting to note, as these craft are not mentioned anywhere outside of that one codex entry. As for how it makes the player view them? Obviously it makes the Reapers seem much more powerful.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 19:11, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
interesting codex/lore error if anything. i'm ambivalent to its page's inclusion however. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 03:20, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Either it's a minor continuity error or a fairly important, if underdeveloped, piece of information that doesn't have a place on the rest of the page. Both are routinely put in trivia. Any objections?--RandomGuy96 (talk) 21:26, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
"Trivia is classified as information players may not have been aware of and is impactful or interesting. Ideally trivia sections should be no more than half a dozen snippets of information, not more than a line or so long."

I still don't see how this bit of information falls into either category. Lksdjf (talk) 21:56, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

One: since this is buried in the codex, I doubt most players are aware of it. Two, it is impactful and/or interesting because it shows that the Sovereign-class Reapers don't have the most powerful firepower in the fleet and references a type of craft that was used extensively on the fight on Earth. Again, we don't know what kind of craft that it is referring to, or even whether or not it was a different one, but it is interesting to note that these Reaper gunships that aren't referenced anywhere else have more firepower than a Sovereign-class capital ship.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 22:00, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
If it is in the Codex, there is no need to mention it here. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:04, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
While it is in the codex, it's in a place most people wouldn't think to look for Reaper information (the Earth entry). It's not like this page is above copy-pasting codex entries onto it. But the difference here is that there's one bit of important information in an entry that otherwise has little to do with the Reapers in general. That's why I think it would be best put in trivia; either it's a continuity error or there's a very powerful type of Reaper craft that it is not mentioned anywhere else. Either way it's fairly interesting/impactful relating to the Reapers in general.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 22:09, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
See my previous comment as it hasn't changed. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:20, January 2, 2013 (UTC)
If it's in the codex it can't also be listed here? Most of the information on this page comes from the codex.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 22:29, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while. If no one has any objections I'll re-add it in 24 hours. I feel like it's relevant information, since either its a lore error or an unusually important piece of information buried in a codex entry that doesn't really relate to the Reapers- both of which are worthy trivia material.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 01:54, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Weren't there two objections? Plus, none of the trivia is in the codex because it is something that a player would not know about through normal gameplay. Lksdjf (talk) 07:47, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but there hadn't been any responses in a while so I assumed they'd dropped it. Since when does being in the codex automatically keep it from going in trivia? By that logic the majority of this wiki shouldn't even exist, since almost all of it comes from the codex and/or cutscenes, which you can "know through normal gameplay". The requirements for trivia are that it is "information players may not have been aware of and is impactful or interesting". The average player is not going to be aware of that particular line in the codex because it is buried in a secondary entry that isn't even about the Reapers, and it is interesting because it is one of three things: one, proof that the Reapers are a lot more powerful than another codex entry says. Two, proof of the existence of an otherwise unmentioned Reaper craft. Or three, a spelling/lore error (which are also trivia worthy material). All of these are interesting and something that most players are not aware of.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 05:54, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Should capital ships get their own page? Edit

I noticed that we have pages for things like Collector Cruisers, but not the capital Sovereign-class Reapers. Why? Not only do we know more about their capabilities, but they're more important to the plot, appear in more games, and are encountered more often by the player. I could understand not having a page for them before, because as far as we knew there were no "capital Reapers", just "Reapers", but now that Mass Effect 3 is out and we know that there are several different subtypes, shouldn't capital Reapers get their own page, like Destroyers?--RandomGuy96 (talk) 06:35, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

What would be on it? Lksdjf (talk) 07:55, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

Same stuff that's on the page for the Collector Cruiser and geth dropship pages. Capabilities, role in the story, list of appearances. Also a list of notable capital ship Reapers. Just seems weird, since the capital ships Reapers are obviously much more important to the story, detailed, and ubiquitous than geth dropships or Collector Cruisers, yet we have pages on those craft. We even have a page on Reaper Destroyers (though that appears to be mostly for gameplay).--RandomGuy96 (talk) 05:46, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
go make a sandbox article for the reaper cap ships. seeing is believing. if it has enough information that can stand on its own (e.g. not regurgitated from codex, harby, sovereign and the main reaper article) then -maybe- it can move from sandbox to mainspace. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 11:01, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
I'm going out here and saying that there really isn't enough here to put into a separate article. What it woudl contain is nothing more or less than information regurgitated from the articles already mentioned. Lancer1289 (talk) 15:17, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Isn't convenience the whole reason pages like that exist, though? Not because they contain any information other pages don't, but because they make all the information easier to find? Strictly speaking, the majority of the information on the Collector Cruiser page can be said to have been "regurgitated" from the Storyline article and the articles for the missions in which it appears. Same thing for the geth dropship.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 03:07, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
Again what would those articles contain though? Nothing more or less than what is already listed. There is no reason to create a separate page and that is that. Lancer1289 (talk) 08:03, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
What's on the Collector Cruiser page and similar pages?

-Information given by the game, either in dialogue in the codex.

-Information given in cutscenes.


While some of the things on the page would obviously have to be taken from the codex, as it contains good information on the Reaper capital ships, there are things that are not in the codex that we could add. Capabilities they show in cutscenes. Appearances. Trivia for the inspiration of their design. And other such things. That's the things on the Collector page, right?

1. Construction and Armament: Stuff from both the codex (exact measurements on the power of their gun) and cutscenes (those cruiser-killing tendril guns the codex doesn't mention). Also information on, well, their construction; how they are made from the organic matter of numerous sentient life forms, and how those fill the "core" of the Reaper.

2. Appearances: The Collector Cruiser just has Mass Effect 2. We could list the appearances of the Reaper capital ships in Mass Effect 1 (in the form of Sovereign) and Mass Effect 3 (where they show up at numerous planets).

3. Trivia: Their design inspiration, the Reaper Cuttlefish. --RandomGuy96 (talk) 21:13, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

when people think "Collector Ship", the thing that comes to mind is that termite mound with engines. instant separate entity.

when people think "Reaper Destroyer", the things that come to mind are the monstrosities we face on tuchanka, rannoch and earth. another instant separate entity.

when people think "Reaper Capital Ships", the first thing that comes to mind is "giant mechanical cuttlefish". problem? yep.

let's go at it backwards. thing is, when people think "Reapers" they automatically think "giant mechanical cuttlefish". not "giant capital ship of whatever", not "quadruped aphidlike behemoths", not "immortal race of sentient starships allegedly waiting in dark space (We have dismissed that claim)".well this last one actually counts

giant. mechanical. cuttlefish.

any meaningful distinction?

reaper "footsoldiers" come in at a distant second, by the way (since they're distinct enough to have names and pages of their own). sovereign and harby obviously don't count either. their plot contributions automatically grant them their own separate pages.

if you insist, sandbox article. nao. seeing is still believing if you can pass the criteria stipulated previously.

that said, all of your suggested additions can be safely added to the main reaper article already. except that if you actually read the article most were already incorporated in.

T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 06:28, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

The Human Reaper replacing Sovereign Edit

This could either be speculation or a revelation, but I have been going over the Human Reaper again and again in my mind, trying to think of why the Reapers, specifically Harbinger, would want them to make the Human Reaper and besides the really vague answer they give in Mass Effect 2, I only got one:

What if the Human Reaper was supposed to do Sovereign's job after Sovereign died?

If you think about it, it actually makes a lot of sense. Sovereign, their Reaper who was meant to bring them back via the relay, got destroyed so their genocidal cycle was delayed. It stands to reason that Harbinger would then make the Collectors create the Proto-Reaper to then finish Sovereign's work and open the Citadel relay.

This is given extra evidence by the fact Harbinger says just before the Collector base is destroyed/purged and I am quoting: "You have failed. We will find another way." In other words, the Collectors failed in their task and as a result, the Reapers have to stop being lazy and head to the galaxy on their own, which as we know takes about a year whereas with Sovereign or the Human Reaper, it would have taken maybe a month?

I'm genuinely curious about the possibility that the Human Reaper was a scheme to be a "second Sovereign" in it's task and be used to open the Citadel relay?

Thoughts? TheRello99 (talk) 13:03, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

This theory has been around forever. Lksdjf (talk) 13:24, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
This belongs on a blog or forum, not this article's talk page. Trandra (talk) 19:50, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
I put it on this talk page because I think it would be useful to add into the article. And I know people have thrown the theory around but there is strong evidence suggesting that it's true. TheRello99 (talk) 20:28, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
There is no definitive evidence to support this, therefore it shouldn't be put on a article. --MasterDassJennir (talk) 21:18, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.