Do you prefer ANDROMEDA? or Milkyway?

It is a difficult balance that Bioware has certainly struggled with... how make the moral world-state changing and individual personality-changing decisions they want to portray be only relevant through a single game and still not affect the overall world state/setting and other elements that they want to carry forward.  Other games accomplish a lot of it by having the decisions be only about a single instance of life or death... and I personally find those games (e.g. TW3) far less interesting.  I like that Bioware's stories have attempted more than that, even if it has tended to fracture their fan base and made it harder and harder for them to write a next Mass Effect game that would please all their fans.

Nothing wrong with it... except it was tried with Andromeda and appears to have failed with more people than it succeeded.  Perosnally, I like Andromeda, so I must be mostly OK with it.  However, I do think the whole genophage question is a brilliant, thought-provoking moral dilemma that I thoroughly enjoyed playing through.  Ditto with the geth/quarian war... particularly when confronted with the decision on Rannoch and particularly when my Shepard did not have the ability to make a peace.  Deciding whether Geralt off's the few guys standing in front of him or let's them go in order to ally with X or Y just doesn't capture my interest to the same degree.

Yes, it makes it freeking hard - particularly since, if all the decisions were brought forward in a sequential timeline, the game would ultimately get unimaginably large with too many variables.  Bioware has to find a balance going forward.  They tried the "smaller story" route with Andromeda.  I'd be OK with they just continued with it; but a lot of their fans are asking (nay, demanding) more of the level of decision making that they were given in the OT.

... and perhaps what we're seeing is Bioware backing off entirely, giving up... and intending just to write MP games from now on.  They have been through hell in the last 10 years... I wouldn't blame them if they did just give up now.  I hope they don't because I want to see mroe from them.

I understand that satisfying everyone is basically impossible, but I am convinced that what I suggest would be the path of least resistance. I'm sure that Destroy with most if not everything beyond the reapers intact would win the popularity contest by a wide margin. The ones that were really hoping for the geth, quarians, krogan and/or rachni to be gone for good could just go cry about it, and even most of them would probably still pony up their rupees to play.

MEA's decision points did fall a bit flat for me, but I think that was more because of presentation and flat writing. Non-galaxy shattering decisions can be framed effectively. A lot of MEA feels like it was written and slapped together in a hurry. I think a sequel would've improved in nearly every way.

As to the canonizing of an ending likewise hardcoding lots of choices: Why is this bad? We've all enjoyed the games, but now it's time for next step, the sequels. A logical design choice would be to canonize outcomes that maximize previous work. Every major species survives. (I think even the Geth could be saved, but I'd understand if they couldn't. A nice homage to them might be the Council carefully and quietly reconsidering their nearly zero tolerance stance on AI. That would be a cool legacy, at least, for the AI who stood alongside organics.) You don't canonize the destruction of Krogan, Quarians or anything else that can be saved. Otherwise, you're cutting off your own nose. Those species are all elements with which fans have bonded.

Again, I like Andromeda. (I'm presently in my 13th or 14th PT.) Still, by ditching the MW, I feel like they cut off their own noses. Just like those assorted species, fans were attached to the places and collective culture. We don't have Council Space in MEA. We'll never visit the Citadel or major homeworlds again. We'll never visit Omega or elsewhere in the Terminus Systems. We'll never get to see the other cool places in the MW that we hadn't yet discovered. We can visit new, Andromeda proxies, but it's not the same. The MW was home and had that corresponding appeal. Andromeda was starting in neutral, and simply couldn't capture enough forward momentum.

While I do want to see the Ai's story wrapped up, I would be content with a single game that left them with a relatively safe, secure future. (Or even a big ass novel, to be honest.) Let them grow into something special in everyone's individual imaginations. The only way I see ME having a future as a SP RPG is if it returns to the MW and recaptures a lot of the lost fans. If you killed the Quarians, Krogan, or whomever yet here they are now in the new game? Have a chuckle that they escaped death and move forward in the game. I don't see a viable alternative.

I know many here disagree. That's just my view.

One of the funny things about this topic is that an awful lot of the people who think that canonizing something couldn't work don't seem to be personally opposed to it; the argument often turns on how badly other players would react to such a continuation. I wonder how many of those other players actually exist.

I agree regarding the choices. ME was so unique. Importing all of those variables across games was so engrossing and fun. I think it created a lot of production issues, though, so I'm okay with them scaling it back if they feel that they need to do so. I'm confident that they can do it better than they did in MEA.

Referencing the bolded part, I'm sorry you feel that way. I wasn't trying to browbeat you with any of my opinions. I actually repeatedly try to emphasize "this is just my take". I know you feel differently. That's not a problem for me. I'm not looking for an echo chamber; just other fans who enjoy talking Mass Effect. Sorry if I made it seem otherwise.

Specificaly regarding the 600 year jump idea, I'm pretty certain that my last comment on that idea was that you make some good points. When I say "I'd prefer", that's different from saying "It would be best if..." I tried to make it clear that my near-future hang-up was a highly personal, and likely not reasonable, preference. It's not some adamant stance I've assumed in regard to future games. I went along for Andromeda, and I thought all along that that trip was a terrible idea. I'm pretty flexible with the details.

No worries.  I borught it up only because it illustrates that nature of the deadlock between the "factions" of fans on this site.  This isn't ever going to be resolved unless all sides give a little ground.

"Ah yes, choices. We've dismissed that claim"

Is it certain choices that would bother people? Or is it any choice that the player can make no matter how insignificant it is?

It wouldn't bother me if Bioware decided the genophage is cured even though I don't cure it. All I would do is refer to what the guy said to the kid. The details have changed over time.

There is a canon Bhaalspawn.  That doesn't stop me from creating whatever Charname I damn well feel like playing in the Baldur's Gate games.

Edit:  For that matter, there's a canon Revan and Exile.

I think Synthesis is a cool "What if..." ending for the final game in the series. I think that was the intent of all three endings. I do wonder just how much it would change the setting, though, if adopted moving forward. What happens when the Reapers start sharing knowledge they'd always withheld; knowledge from countless alien cultures? The post-game implied phenomenal changes. I'd be curious to explore that setting, but I'd worry that it would be drastically different, even if it doesn't become the technological Utopia they EDI hoped. Conversely, if it were left too much unchanged, I'd be let down by that ending choice. I feel like Synthesis is the ultimate "lots of speculation" ending.

That's one of the main reasons I don't play SWTOR. If they did that in Mass Effect or Dragon Age sequels I'd refuse to play those games too.