Why are there no Reapers in Andromeda?

I haven't followed the entirety of your discussion, but something strikes me here: Isn't "closed-system AI" some kind of oxymoron? I mean, Artificial Intelligence that is worth its salt should be able to learn, reason, set goals, etc. -- while non-intelligent automata work within 'closed systems'. In a 'closed system', you can simply deduce the output from the input, and the state of the 'machine'; but we don't call that 'intelligence'. And clearly the Reapers (and the Geth) are not 'automata' in this sense. They learn, possibly improve their own programming, etc.

So it makes sense to say, e.g., that because they're non-organics, after all, the Reapers would be bound to certain bizarre notions of what life consists in, what it means to preserve life, etc. -- but that's very different from saying that they'd be 'bound to' a given kind of output, when presented with a certain kind of input.

So is your point, that Reapers are glorified automata after all? Or are they really intelligent, hence self-criticizing, goal-setting, etc.?

Yeah, that makes sense. My recollection of the 'ending' must be fading (fortunately) faster than I thought; because I wasn't able to remember that Casper the Friendly Catalyst does seem to reduce Reapers to the status of automata after all.

Wow ... you couldn't write a worse ending if you put special effort into it. And for such a beloved series with such a well-realized universe. That's an achievement in itself.

So the original trilogy is inconsistent in itself, (clash between Sovereign's intro, and Casper's 'reasoning'), and what we've currently been told about the Andromeda Initiative (that intergalactic travel is a feasible thing after all; that one galaxy's affairs can spill over to the other) is in potential conflict with the original trilogy; because

If there are Reapers in Andromeda, the whole pretense to a clean new phase will go out of the window. But if there are no Reapers in Andromeda, it's still reasonable to ask why not, even if Reapers are stupid automata, and not genuinely 'intelligent' -- because the conflict as presented by Casper isn't limited to the organics vs. synthetics of a particular galaxy; and if that's never addressed, it's a serious weakness in MEA's plot. When you bring intergalactic travel within the capabilities of humans, you bring it within the capabilities of the Reapers; you can't just ignore the implications of this afterwards.

It actually wouldn't amaze me at all if we eventually ran into a Reaper "watcher", like Sovereign was. One who figured out that something went wrong with the main fleet (instant communications through black matter space magic blabla), and decides to uplift the existing Andromedan species to speed up their maturing into harvesting quality (and quantity) because the last harvesting was just a few thousand years ago. It simply makes sense.

That's why I dislike in most stories of inexplicable enemies, their explanation.

The Reapers were supposed to be these awesome, all powerful, unknowable beings. Sovereign speech just gives you chills all over your body. You didn't know where those things came from, what the hell did they want, you didn't even know how many of them were out there. The Dark Energy plot that was supposed to be their reason for everything got cut and we got this organics vs synthetics plot. So much cheaper, in my opinion.

Even in the ME2 ending, when you could see that every reaper was different from each other, it just made them all the more awesome. And then, things got rushed, they all got Sovereignized and, even though all of them showed up here in the galaxy, we only got one conversation with a destroyer little reaper. Hell, Harbinger, that ended up being the most powerful of them all didn't get a single line in the game, even though Keith Szarabajka (his voice actor from ME2) was in the game! (You can hear him as one of the soldiers in Priority:Earth).

And I believe to this day that explaining the origin of the reapers, although gave us closure, and that was good to an extent, just turned them all much cheaper from their original plot.

Every time a writer present us with powerful beings from unknown origins, especially when they are the main antagonists, he or she decides to explain them (their motives and where they come from), they put more ordinary beings behind them. And that, to me, just makes everything worse and not as terrifying as what you previously expected.

Now, for those of you who read Shingeki no Kyojin, I will relate to its story (spoilers follow):




I believe the dark energy plot that was scrapped in the trilogy and alluded a few times in ME2 (because it seems that the writers still hadn't decided what to move forward at the time) was the best thing that would explain the Reapers, because even in real life, today, we know so little of it. They would seem so much more menacing and powerful.


But Shepard destroying their every plan in the first two games just put them in a position, to me, to be a lot more incompetent than you'd expect from what was supposed to be the ultimate enemy (when you consider the Collectors's destruction and Arrival). It turned them into that cliche enemy (like the Illusive Man in the third game) where you are just owning them every step of the way, but they're still taunting you.

It just gets to a point of stupidity, if you can't even recognize the havoc your enemy is causing you. As Javik says, overconfidence is always a weakness.

Technically, they could have been there for all intents and purposes.

But ME:A seems to effectively be a soft reboot, and the opportunity to not need to touch that can of worms to make games is likely why there are no reapers (at least what we know off, game not out yet).

Id say it's just Bioware trying to put some distance between ME3 and where the story goes next. Once ME:A is out there'll be all new lore to spin from for sequels that doesn't need to involve the Milky Way or the original 3 games.

You've moved away from the argument. Fair enough, just a heads up about that though.

To your new point- well actually, it's not a new point. Again the starting assumption is a closed system. Therefore anything coming or leaving would be "changing the variables". We know that can happen, the holokid's surprised we finished the Crucible- it thought that was dealt with already. And even so, there's no indication it even knew what it'd do before it did it. Actually if it had known one might argue that it'd allow it since the current solution isn't "perfect".

"Variables changed" was the first time anything from their side acted differently even if it was only to pause and spout some bullshit at Shepard.

Well, that it's an imperfect (read: pisspoor) solution is obvious. What's not at all obvious is where this supposed search for answer happens each cycle. Because the Reapers do the same damn thing every time. They've got it down pat. If it wasn't for the Protheans and Shepard they would've burst out the Citadel for our cycle too and it'd be immediate surprise buttsecks! with zero time or way for anyone to "search for an answer".

I agree with most of this, but I don't necessarily agree the unknowable enemy must always be explained. In fact I'd have preferred if they remained unknowable or if some hints were given but not ultimately solidified. Let the Reapers' purpose be the thing that gives "lots of speculation for everyone". I think Dark Energy would've been more promising but even if they had completed it, it very possibly could've been disappointing as well. The Reapers as antagonists were never particularly interesting. But as a cosmic force in effect, if not in actuality, that's where their mystique lay.

Even so, they've shown zero inclination to act on potential circumstances. Quite the opposite, they've only changed when actual circumstances changed.

Yes, I mean the writers most of the time try to explain it, and that is not mandatory to me neither.
The Reapers would've been better left unexplained. Instead we've got this WTF in the end.

"Well, synthetics always try to destroy their creators, but I'm different because I didn't rebelled, I'm still following the orders of my creators, which I killed."

Sorry if I said it wrong, my english is not good at all. 

They guide the races of the Milky Way along the technological routes they wish. They don't leave it to chance. The relays and the Citadel are part of that steering mechanism.

As such, they would not appreciate interference from outsiders.

Sorry to be a bit blunt; but I really don't think this debate has a point.
If the original material were consistent with itself, we could have debated whether this or that extension of it were more likely than the other.
But the original material itself is full of inconsistencies; so, unfortunately, anything can come next, and the rationale for it wouldn't be anything beyond 'cause the writers thought it was cool, and tailored to the sensibilities of our target demographic(s).

As long as I can get some semblance of the thrill of exploring alien landscapes, etc., I'm fine with inconsistent products of pop culture. It's really pointless to ask them for anything more.