Do you prefer ANDROMEDA? or Milkyway?

I've done them all and chosen them in accordance with the personality of Shepard I was trying to create.  I'd hate to invalidate most of my playthroughs based on Bioware suddenly locking into singular choices (that are not even really limited to the endings only, but occur throughout the games).  I got into these games because Bioware told me I could make these sorts of changes... and I think my reason is as good as "wanting to explore the rest of the Milky Way"... particularly when exploring the rest of the Milky Way can still be done without locking in those decisions and returning to the Milky Way, an edgier PC, a darker story, etc. can also be done without trying to "erase" ME:A from existence.

As far as whether or not I'd buy and play the next game depends SOLELY on whether or not that next game is a good, single player RPG with a new story.  I can't play it if it's multiplayer only and I'm just not interested in buying a remake of the old Trilogy as long as I can play the old Trilogy on the equipment I have.

I don't think they need to fast forward so much.

Just do a regular ME ass-pull of the opening text explaining (and surprising many of us with) that the Heleus Cluster found out a way to bridge to Milky Way. Part of the story will be in explaining this bridge and hopefully involving its matter more than a throwaway codex line. So in just years, there's a way back.

We can then have a story that involves the Milky Way but in a limited fashion (insert mystery about what's up with it), keeps us somewhat in the Cluster and getting to see changes to particular places, especially Eos of course (less empty vehicle roaming though), and getting ways to explore outward, perhaps even use our newer tech to institute a sort of new relay(ish) system.

Depending on what Bioware wants, we could either play as Ryder, or twin choice (some alternate lines/takes on things), or have Ryder as companion, or Ryder as secondary character, or no Ryder, whatever. I'm not ambivalent about Ryder, I just think they have options - the minimum I need is to know that Ryder is up to more things and can be followed up on if it makes sense to; and of course we get advancement and/or conclusion to Ryder mysteries.

I still go with:
-enough time having passed
-potential fan rage over things subsiding (it'll be a decade or almost..)
-enough new lore being added with bits of MEA and some of a next game
-desire to see MW stuff overriding other concerns

that Bioware could effectively find a mostly merged galactic state. One I come up with includes:
-Reaper-derived tech, something to put on somewhat similar level to whatever Heleus reaches (that whole gameplay synchronicity the series always has)
-But no Reapers, or at least story-confined and/or transformed in a unified enough way
-Whatever of Shepard passes long enough to become that Legend, though Bioware can then decide whether to do the whole resurrection of a Legend or not (regardless of what you or I say or want, its true that there are people that never want to see them again and people that won't buy the game unless they perk up at hearing Shepard is back)
-Destroyland hesitantly gets some particular tech that requires mental connections, Controlland steadily and suspiciously integrates into tech with mental connections, Synthesis reaches heights of it (like much tech) but crashes so it still reaches a familiar level with the other two; Andromeda increases mental connections through SAM-tech and so whatever becomes of Milky Way won't be too alien
-Earth is rebuilt no matter what
-Refuse is as canon as ME2 Shepard Dies (as in, it really isn't except to the game-world it takes place in), or else there's a particularly crafty way in which to make it still count (there's hundreds of years to adjust things)
-Destroyland is seen as problematic repeat of past mistakes, but this time it again happens better. Control is seen as perpetuating general bad patterns in the name of progress, but at least the horrific system of the Reapers is replaced by a benevolent dictatorship for a time. Synthesis is the grand mistake that brings a new nightmare, to assuage most players who didn't like Synthesis, but it carries some novel hopes and includes some interesting revelations we can only hear of if we took this path.
-Shepard is made out, in the end and with whatever outcomes, to be considered not as monsturous as he might actually behave, nor end up as exactly highly heroic as you might try to make him be. In life/post-life and death/reputation. Thus just 'Legend'. He's known and generally respected by all; a bigger case than how he was shortly post-ME1.
-In terms of Indoctrination, the matter is addressed, and made less vague, but it is never (at least in next game) explicitly explained that Shepard was or wasn't Indoctrinated and did/didn't lead the galaxy into danger/near-extermination. What will be maintained is that he tried to save humanity and the galaxy, and he defeated the Reapers regardless of anything. Room is given to give the first direct bits that suggest how this was done so, both obvious (a Crucible fired) and secret (whatever Bioware likes). At least this is my preference.
-Since we don't/rarely directly see and experience the soon-post-ME3 world, things are explained in ways that we can still fill in blanks with our own perspectives. Maybe it was like the EC slides, or maybe it was all a disaster and only in recent years/decades/centuries is the Milky Way back to civilized state and with false memories/histories (see: ANGARA, in a way). Cue mysteries etc etc; just stuff that may never get resolved, but just get layers.

Again, my preference. If Bioware wants to treat the MET/ME3-ending like their Bible - something with a supposedly clear narrative but ends up being argued about forever and keeps getting different believed perspectives.. honestly? personally? They can be my guest. Spices the setting up. But going back to my point - they could absolutely have a unified galactic state that could keep most players happy enough. Then it can have bits of difference as determined by Mass Effect Archives. The concern was more about the shortly post-ME3 setting, not one centuries in the future.

The challenge for MEA was in 1)Making a game as a new studio 2)Making a 'fresh start' setting. Had their hands full. So mostly didn't even bother with direct tie-ins or getting into the mud/knots of solving the Milky Way. Its not that it can't be done, IMO, its that it may have seemed a nightmare to deal with.



*I say 'he' for Shepard because I've almost always played male.

I'd go so far as to say the details can be *everything*. A whole other game, theoretically (though probably won't), could happen around and about those 'details'. I doubt Bioware would have the desire nor encouragement to do this though.

But sure I could get psyched up about a game with a protagonist that starts around ME2-ME3 time, progresses through post-ME3 with their own take on things, and somehow even catches up with Andromeda (oh don't give me that look - scifi be scifi). A separate and parallel perception could be fascinating, and at best, provide a fresh boost to the Andromeda setting that it needed with its first game.

Its big problem would be in not seeming too much like a non-canon character that just coincidentally is close enough to events that they're sometimes right there, but never close enough that the previous protagonist(s) and other characters don't meet them and they don't come up in conversation in past media. This was already bad enough in MEA with everything Ryder. So it'd have to be a VERY fresh take on things, and an easy approach would be for us to play a sort of 'spy' instead of 'special ops' (Shepard) or 'explorer' (Ryder). The spycraft and stealth mechacnics can take a new priority, but events (like Reaper War, like post-war, like start of Andromeda conflicts) can pull our character into something more directly combative.

Is this because you want Andromeda to get proper development, or because you actually like the Andromeda setting better? I prefer the MW as a setting, but I’d want the Andromeda story properly developed and concluded before recentering on the MW.

A little of both. I mean granted it is close but I do think with the proper time they can turn Andromeda into something truly special.

Andromeda, we can get back to MW later on, maybe after 2 games in Andromeda? I like both but its Andromeda now that tickles me brain!
I want to see more than heleus cluster, Andromeda is so full of stars (teehee).

I’ve always enjoyed PnP game design. I think the Cypher System could handle Mass Effect pretty well in most ways. I’ve not yet had the gumption to try my had at developing individual Biotic Powers, the somewhat unique feature of ME, for Cypher. Cypher System would do well specifically with representing the ME we find in the lore. Crazy ass Super Soldiers like Shepard and Ryder fit better in SP VGs than in TTRPGs.

I know, I wast just being dramatic.

After ME3 I was ready for both canon ending and Andromeda, they chose Andromeda. So going to MW now would look like a regress to me. Despite some questionable plot-marks in MEA, Andromeda mostly remains a clean state. If new writers can't work with that, how can I trust them with MW?

100,000,000+ stars is a hell of a lot of fruit loops to get tired of.