Mass Effect Remastered coming soon and new Mass Effect Game in the Works

[LibraryOgre]

So, thinking about the Destroy option...

Shepard destroys the Reapers, and with them, the relay network. So, what's left?

I would start at Earth. You have a huge number of people in orbit and on the planet... human, asari, salarian, turian, quarian, volus, batarians, krogan, vorcha, elcor, maybe even rachni, hanar, and drell. Regular mass effect engines still work, so you can reach nearby systems (they only show the Sol System in the Local Group in regular Mass Effect, but when you don't have Mass Relays, it becomes more important).

I would start it with basic needs and logistics... a lot of them can survive on Earth, but the turians and quarians are going to need someplace to set up dextro-amino farms (I suggest Mars; it has an infrastructure and no native life; the quarian liveships will help), and the volus will need a slightly more hospitable place to live, eventually (they might use some of the facilities on the moon to set up some habitats). I think some of this could take place in the background; your new character, who we'll call Hunter (both for the implication of being someone who is hunting things, and in honor of Admiral Rick Hunter; default names will be Rick and Lisa), starting with take a ship to nearby systems to scout for resources needed to build a new mass effect relay.

This would let you do the exploration thing, encountering mostly humans in close-in colonies, and having to deal with warlords, scared people, and pirates.

[Zevox]

It's hard for me to choose between 2 and 3, but on balance I come down on the side of 3. Yes, the ending had problems. This is offset by the entire rest of the game. The gameplay is the best in the series. The character stories and sidequests are some of the best storytelling the games have to offer. It has some of the best humor of the entire trilogy. And all of that is without taking Citadel into account.

I'm in the same boat, but tend to lean a bit towards 2 as the best. I agree that 3 has the best gameplay - it refined 2's, so that's fairly obvious - and it also has the highest highs of the series in the form of Tuchanka and Rannoch. Unfortunately, the ending is also the lowest low of the series, and there are other weak parts of it - the handling of Cerberus for instance, particularly Kai Leng, could certainly have been better (though I don't hate him as much as some people do). 2 meanwhile is more just consistently strong throughout its whole duration, IMO, and that counts for a fair bit. And while Tuchanka and Rannoch in 3 may be the series' highest highs, but Mordin, Jack, and Legion's stories in 2, plus the Suicide Mission, are definitely up there as well, in my mind.

Still, all in all it is a hard call in my mind, I feel there's definite arguments for both.

I feel like genocide is the only reasonable response considering the other two seem like such a trap. One has you do exactly what a clear puppet of the Reaper's wanted to do, and the other is a massive violation of all of your allies in order to spare a race that is actively trying to perform genocide to you and all of your friends and allies. Actively as in currently doing it as you make your decision. So I don't feel bad about getting them before they get us.

The Illusive Man's wanting to Control the Reapers is a non-issue - he's dead at that point, so the problem of him not being able to be trusted with such control is gone, and you now know that it is indeed possible to achieve that control, where you previously were arguing with him in part about whether it could even be done. And while it would be more desirable to destroy them if there were no other factor involved, the fact that destroying them also destroys the Geth, whom in many cases you probably just spent several games finding a way to make peace with and whose existence provides a clear refutation of the Catalyst's argument about organic and inorganic life being unable to coexist, moves that needle immensely, IMO. When an alternative that doesn't involve genocide of a massive number of your allies exists, whatever its risks, I see that as clearly preferable.

As far as Synthesis goes, I actually favor that because while yes, it's a bad thing that it's a change you're forcing on everyone without any time to obtain any sort of consent, it saves everyone without the risk involved in Control (the question of whether the Reapers might ever end up under the control of someone less trustworthy). Only because the Reapers' reason for doing what they're doing is stupid, but hey, exploiting such a loophole versus genocide or risking future problems, I'll take it.

I've come to realize that ME2 and ME3 are a series of strong character moments held together by an increasingly-flimsy main plot. ME3, in particular, pulls a lot of smoke and mirrors to prevent us from noticing how directionless it is. That means they're best if you can manage to focus on the small parts and not the big picture.

Those small parts have always been by far the better elements of Bioware's games, IMO, so yeah, fair enough. Their main plots feel like they're held back by the need to simultaneously present the players with choices to make, but also the need to have a problem that the protagonist will need to resolve regardless of whether they're a saint or a completely selfish a-hole. Hence why we get one-dimensional monsters like the Reapers or Darkspawn for enemies so often - they need a big enough threat driving things to accomplish the latter, and what's a bigger threat than an existential one?

[Morty]

Those small parts have always been by far the better elements of Bioware's games, IMO, so yeah, fair enough. Their main plots feel like they're held back by the need to simultaneously present the players with choices to make, but also the need to have a problem that the protagonist will need to resolve regardless of whether they're a saint or a completely selfish a-hole. Hence why we get one-dimensional monsters like the Reapers or Darkspawn for enemies so often - they need a big enough threat driving things to accomplish the latter, and what's a bigger threat than an existential one?

The writers' collective addiction to big, sweeping decisions that a) can't affect that much and b) tend to have a clear right and wrong side hasn't helped, that's for sure.

Come to think of it, one very good thing Andromeda did was pretend Paragon/Renegade never happened.

[Forum Explorer]

The Illusive Man's wanting to Control the Reapers is a non-issue - he's dead at that point, so the problem of him not being able to be trusted with such control is gone, and you now know that it is indeed possible to achieve that control, where you previously were arguing with him in part about whether it could even be done. And while it would be more desirable to destroy them if there were no other factor involved, the fact that destroying them also destroys the Geth, whom in many cases you probably just spent several games finding a way to make peace with and whose existence provides a clear refutation of the Catalyst's argument about organic and inorganic life being unable to coexist, moves that needle immensely, IMO. When an alternative that doesn't involve genocide of a massive number of your allies exists, whatever its risks, I see that as clearly preferable.

As far as Synthesis goes, I actually favor that because while yes, it's a bad thing that it's a change you're forcing on everyone without any time to obtain any sort of consent, it saves everyone without the risk involved in Control (the question of whether the Reapers might ever end up under the control of someone less trustworthy). Only because the Reapers' reason for doing what they're doing is stupid, but hey, exploiting such a loophole versus genocide or risking future problems, I'll take it.

It's more that TIM proves that the Reapers want you to attempt to take control. And the reason they gave on why Shepherd wouldn't be controlled instead felt really weak to me. The Geth being destroyed is certainly a big weight on the scales to not do it. But as far as I was concerned, it would still be worth it. The permanent end to the Reapers, who repeatedly committed Genocide on a galactic scale, is worth one last genocide.

Honestly, I didn't get Synthesis on my playthrough because it was impossible to do without perfect play unless you played multiplayer. But I still wouldn't like that option because the Reapers are still around. What's preventing them from deciding to commit genocide again? If not on you or your companion races, than on newly evolved species.

[Dienekes]

I've come to realize that ME2 and ME3 are a series of strong character moments held together by an increasingly-flimsy main plot. ME3, in particular, pulls a lot of smoke and mirrors to prevent us from noticing how directionless it is. That means they're best if you can manage to focus on the small parts and not the big picture.

I believe I referred to the main plots as “an excuse to get to the next set piece/ character mission” somewhere upthread.

Needless to say I agree.

Now all that said, a part of me wishes they could get a more interesting/complex main plot along with the great mini-plots. But not holding my breath.

[Anteros]

Zombies are generally completely braindead. The Reapers clearly are not. Who knows what long strange dreams they dream, floating in the dark?

It's a corpse animated with the single goal to eliminate life and has no free will by its own admission. Yeah, I don't feel guilty about putting them down no matter how you dress it up.

[Zevox]

Come to think of it, one very good thing Andromeda did was pretend Paragon/Renegade never happened.

Hm, I never played Andromeda, so I didn't know that. Good to hear. While having an alignment system made sense back in Knights of the Old Republic, because the Dark Side vs Jedi/Light Side dichotomy is a big thing in Star Wars, it's never quite worked as well for Bioware's other games, so ditching it's the right call, IMO.

It's more that TIM proves that the Reapers want you to attempt to take control.

No it doesn't. He just shows that the Reapers wanted to sow discord between you and your allies, and using his desire for power and control was an easy way to do that. Besides, the Catalyst outright admits that they never expected you to be able to do any such thing - that assembling and using the Crucible at all is beyond what they expected of you.

And the reason they gave on why Shepherd wouldn't be controlled instead felt really weak to me.

Sure, but that's the weakness of the ending's writing in general. In order to make a decision at all we have to take at face value that the options we're given are, in fact, the options that we have. If the Catalyst is lying to us about one, there's no reason it's not lying to us about all of them, at which point we have no way to ever make a decision at all.

[Anteros]

Sure, but that's the weakness of the ending's writing in general. In order to make a decision at all we have to take at face value that the options we're given are, in fact, the options that we have. If the Catalyst is lying to us about one, there's no reason it's not lying to us about all of them, at which point we have no way to ever make a decision at all.

Yes, most of us agree that the ending is fundamentally poorly written and so broken that it doesn't even make sense.

[Forum Explorer]

No it doesn't. He just shows that the Reapers wanted to sow discord between you and your allies, and using his desire for power and control was an easy way to do that. Besides, the Catalyst outright admits that they never expected you to be able to do any such thing - that assembling and using the Crucible at all is beyond what they expected of you.


Sure, but that's the weakness of the ending's writing in general. In order to make a decision at all we have to take at face value that the options we're given are, in fact, the options that we have. If the Catalyst is lying to us about one, there's no reason it's not lying to us about all of them, at which point we have no way to ever make a decision at all.

Only if you feel you can believe the Star Child.

Yup, that was basically my problem with the ending. I've got no problem with using a super weapon to wipe out the Reapers, and I don't mind that there wasn't really a choice even though they promised otherwise. But the whole Star Child scene was just really weak. I mean, just from a meta perspective, they told us all game that trying to control the Reapers would lead to them controlling you. Reversing that at the last moment is nonsensical. I mean pretty much everything about the Star Child scene was just bad.

Just unlike others, that ending didn't really effect my feelings about the rest of the game. It was a bad ending, but not nearly as bad as the ending of the Golden Compass series.

[Rodin]

I believe I referred to the main plots as “an excuse to get to the next set piece/ character mission” somewhere upthread.

Needless to say I agree.

Now all that said, a part of me wishes they could get a more interesting/complex main plot along with the great mini-plots. But not holding my breath.

They just need to stop giving us world/galaxy ending threats. Would Dragon Age: Origins have been a worse game if Loghain had beaten back the blight and become the primary antagonist? Did Dragon Age 2 suffer for only focusing on the events in Kirkwall? Did anyone really care about Corypheus or whatever his name was in Inquisition?

Heck, even the Collectors would work. Take away the baby Reaper nonsense and you have an alien species harvesting human colonies for nefarious reasons. They aren't a big enough threat to go after Earth, but they threaten the colonies. The player goes in and kicks butt as the guardian of the frontier.

There's so many plotlines you can go in depth on. There's no need for an invincible army of killer zombies threatening all life.

[Zevox]

Only if you feel you can believe the Star Child.

Yup, that was basically my problem with the ending. I've got no problem with using a super weapon to wipe out the Reapers, and I don't mind that there wasn't really a choice even though they promised otherwise. But the whole Star Child scene was just really weak. I mean, just from a meta perspective, they told us all game that trying to control the Reapers would lead to them controlling you. Reversing that at the last moment is nonsensical. I mean pretty much everything about the Star Child scene was just bad.

Just unlike others, that ending didn't really effect my feelings about the rest of the game. It was a bad ending, but not nearly as bad as the ending of the Golden Compass series.

Oh, we agree about all of that. Absolutely, the ending is bad; absolutely, there's no reason you should be able to believe the Catalyst; and personally, I too feel that ME3 is a great game despite the massively flawed final 10 minutes.

But since we're discussing the ending options and which one is more desirable (particularly in the context of a prospective sequel, but even absent that), we do have to run with the assumption that what the Catalyst tells us about our options is true. Else there's no way to make a choice at all. If it's lying to us about Control leading to us controlling the Reapers rather than vice-versa, it's equally possible for it to be lying about Destroy destroying the Reapers rather than us. Since the Catalyst is our only source of information about our options at the end there, we either accept what it tells us, or we're in a no-win scenario where every option is just as likely be us screwing ourselves, and we may as well roll dice to decide for all that it matters.

They just need to stop giving us world/galaxy ending threats. Would Dragon Age: Origins have been a worse game if Loghain had beaten back the blight and become the primary antagonist? Did Dragon Age 2 suffer for only focusing on the events in Kirkwall? Did anyone really care about Corypheus or whatever his name was in Inquisition?

Heck, even the Collectors would work. Take away the baby Reaper nonsense and you have an alien species harvesting human colonies for nefarious reasons. They aren't a big enough threat to go after Earth, but they threaten the colonies. The player goes in and kicks butt as the guardian of the frontier.

There's so many plotlines you can go in depth on. There's no need for an invincible army of killer zombies threatening all life.

Agreed!

[Dienekes]

They just need to stop giving us world/galaxy ending threats. Would Dragon Age: Origins have been a worse game if Loghain had beaten back the blight and become the primary antagonist? Did Dragon Age 2 suffer for only focusing on the events in Kirkwall? Did anyone really care about Corypheus or whatever his name was in Inquisition?

Heck, even the Collectors would work. Take away the baby Reaper nonsense and you have an alien species harvesting human colonies for nefarious reasons. They aren't a big enough threat to go after Earth, but they threaten the colonies. The player goes in and kicks butt as the guardian of the frontier.

There's so many plotlines you can go in depth on. There's no need for an invincible army of killer zombies threatening all life.

I'd be more inclined to agree if it wasn't for the game that actually did that (DA2) being the worst Bioware game I actually finished. Admittedly, I don't blame the lack of great threat for that being bad. But I don't think a world ending threat is -necessarily- the problem here. There have been great stories about defeating world-ending or at least setting ending threats.

I think the issue has more to do with the way the games are designed. Essentially a string of big missions that are relatively self contained that bring up a moral of philosophical question that the main character answers through a choice that will in turn effect the rest of the game state. It's a great method for making those awesome moments like determining what to do with the Geth, or the Genophage, or how to handle the Qunari, the problem with werewolves, figuring out why all mages are pants on head stupid, you get it.

But because they are self-contained stories it is very hard to tie them adequately to the world-ending threat other than the most vague of terms. Making them all tie more directly to that threat is a lot of work that is likely to effect how much wiggle room they have to get to those great character decision moments. Which is how we get the situation where the main plot is just an excuse.

Removing the big world ending threat, you are left without much in the way of forward momentum to keep the character moving from one situation to another. Which can (but won't necessarily) results in the open world listlessness that I despise. Now DA:O I think could have potentially had the easiest time removing the world ending threat, because Loghain himself worked very well as a reason for forward progress. But some of the other games, I'm not certain if they'd be improved without that excuse plot.

[Forum Explorer]

Oh, we agree about all of that. Absolutely, the ending is bad; absolutely, there's no reason you should be able to believe the Catalyst; and personally, I too feel that ME3 is a great game despite the massively flawed final 10 minutes.

But since we're discussing the ending options and which one is more desirable (particularly in the context of a prospective sequel, but even absent that), we do have to run with the assumption that what the Catalyst tells us about our options is true. Else there's no way to make a choice at all. If it's lying to us about Control leading to us controlling the Reapers rather than vice-versa, it's equally possible for it to be lying about Destroy destroying the Reapers rather than us. Since the Catalyst is our only source of information about our options at the end there, we either accept what it tells us, or we're in a no-win scenario where every option is just as likely be us screwing ourselves, and we may as well roll dice to decide for all that it matters.

In the context of the game, I'd still go with Destroy, at least with the Shepherd I was playing. Because for me, Shepherd absolutely hated the Reapers. He may have wanted peace for the galaxy and was more than a little bit of a xenophile, but he was prone to hating his opponents, and he certainly had a lot of hate for both Cerberus and the Reapers. And he wouldn't have any mercy for either. Particularly for the Reapers, who were apparently bound to their cycle and thus couldn't willingly change their course. He might regret the deaths of the Gith and EDI, but he'd regret letting the Reapers live a lot more.

EDIT: If he did take Control, he'd have all the Reapers destroy each other.

[Zevox]

EDIT: If he did take Control, he'd have all the Reapers destroy each other.

Cool, sounds like the best ending possible to me. Wish I'd thought of that before, actually.

[Serenity]

Correct me if I'm missing something, but if the Reapers are some sort of weird ensemble built out of a harvested species, then isn't Destroy in essence a mega-genocide? Like basically as bad as setting up the Reapers in the first place?

Mordin's rant about why the Collectors cannot be considered Protheans anymore seems instructive in response.

If the Reapers were in any meaningful way representative of the species they were made from, they would be committing suicide in existential despair and horror, or each new batch would turn on the old in a rage at what had just been done to them.

[Mechalich]

Mordin's rant about why the Collectors cannot be considered Protheans anymore seems instructive in response.

I seem to recall that Javik - the actual Prothean character who joins your party in ME3 if you got the DLC - agreed with this sentiment, considered his people well and duly extinct, and said something about committing ritual suicide once the Reapers were defeated in one of his conversations.

In any case the Reapers 'die' in the Control ending too, as they cease to function as independent minds and are reduced to puppets. Possibly they still function in Synthesis, but any ending that's just a knock-off version of the ending of Beast Machines does not deserve respect.

[Anteros]

I seem to recall that Javik - the actual Prothean character who joins your party in ME3 if you got the DLC - agreed with this sentiment, considered his people well and duly extinct, and said something about committing ritual suicide once the Reapers were defeated in one of his conversations.

In any case the Reapers 'die' in the Control ending too, as they cease to function as independent minds and are reduced to puppets. Possibly they still function in Synthesis, but any ending that's just a knock-off version of the ending of Beast Machines does not deserve respect.

You only get that line if you pick the paragon option for Javik to relive his memories. Otherwise he lives after the end of the series and goes on to write a series of books about his culture. One of the very few times where being renegade leads to a better outcome in a Bioware game.

All of the endings have fundamental problems even if you headcanon that severe head trauma and blood loss makes Shepherd trust the starkid. Control contradicts one of the major themes of the series that anyone who interacts with the Reapers or tries to control them ends up their puppet. Destroy genocides the Geth. Synthesis is presented as the "happy" ending but it involves re-writing the genetic code of every living thing without their will or consent. There's a pretty clear rape analogy to be made there.

Honestly, I have no idea what Bioware was thinking. Any highschooler with an English class could have whipped up something better than the endings we got.

[Corvus]

Honestly, I have no idea what Bioware was thinking. Any highschooler with an English class could have whipped up something better than the endings we got.

It wasn't Bioware. From memory it was just Casey Hudson and one other who decided to do the whole ending by themselves with no input from anyone else, and that they wanted to do something highbrow. They ignored any input/criticism from any of the others and pushed through their vision.

[KillianHawkeye]

A boring reset of the galaxy is by far the best option for making future games.

The boring reset of the galaxy is obviously the easiest option for making future games. However, I do not agree that it is necessarily the best option to make for an interesting story for future games to explore, because it does not add anything to the underlining reality of the galaxy.

Both Control and Synthesis endings result in big changes. Control changes the Reapers and their role in the galaxy from cosmic destroyers to galactic protectors. Synthesis changes EVERYONE, and there are a ton of ways that it could affect the known races of the galaxy (particularly the Geth). Many interesting tales could be told in the reborn universe.

Destroy, by contrast, changes nothing except causes everyone to become isolated without the benefits of the mass effect relays. It most maintains the status quo. The only story benefit is that you're forced to find a new way of FTL travel and thus opening the possibility of discovering new things that the relay network wasn't already helping us find. Which would certainly work, but it's a real "out with the old, in with the new" approach. Again, easier to make, particularly if new people are involved in the series now compared to when the original trilogy was made. But I still view it as a missed opportunity.

[Mechalich]

The boring reset of the galaxy is obviously the easiest option for making future games. However, I do not agree that it is necessarily the best option to make for an interesting story for future games to explore, because it does not add anything to the underlining reality of the galaxy.

Except an interesting story, at the galactic scale, isn't actually important. Mass Effect has never had a particularly interesting overarching story - it's just a reskinned and modernized version of Star Wars anyway (it's not for nothing that it was created by the guy who wrote KOTOR). It's strength has always been the setting elements: the species, the set pieces, and the characters. Mass Effect 2, the consensus best game, is a bunch of short character featurettes wrapped around an extremely simple overarching plot with a dumb ending (the human reaper was dumb, everyone called it dumb at the time, nobody cared because the game really wasn't about that). The fans don't want anything added to the underlying reality of the galaxy, they want more of the same stuff, which is why everyone was annoyed when Quarians didn't make it into MEA.

The simple reality is that higher-level innovation, especially with regard to broad themes, isn't something that generally works for game franchises. People mostly want more of the same, only they want it to look prettier, have more refined gameplay, and have cool characters. Even issues of 'story' are mostly character dependent. Borderlands 3, for example, got a lot of flak about 'story' compared to Borderlands 2, but most of the complaints actually boiled down to 'the villains aren't as good as Handsome Jack and the new sidekick is annoying and pointless.' The actual plotline, which was the same 'race to the place to get the thing so you can stop the bad thing' as before was largely meaningless.

If you were writing Mass Effect novels, then there would be a good argument for exploring the Control or Synthesis options, but for the purpose of making a new game and preserving as much as possible of what people liked from the old games, Destroy is the best path.

[Kish]

Honestly, I didn't get Synthesis on my playthrough because it was impossible to do without perfect play unless you played multiplayer. But I still wouldn't like that option because the Reapers are still around. What's preventing them from deciding to commit genocide again? If not on you or your companion races, than on newly evolved species.

There is a fundamental logical problem with, "I didn't want any option that didn't involve genocide, because the species I would have been not-genociding might have again decided to commit genocide." Which I realize you sort of acknowledged, but...either they think they have sound moral reasons for genocide too, or (what I'm inclined to take from it) they don't truly have a choice, being bound to follow their original programming rather than being true AI like the Geth and EDI, and thus what they've done so far is no predictor of what they're likely to do if they ever actually have a choice.

[Forum Explorer]

There is a fundamental logical problem with, "I didn't want any option that didn't involve genocide, because the species I would have been not-genociding might have again decided to commit genocide." Which I realize you sort of acknowledged, but...either they think they have sound moral reasons for genocide too, or (what I'm inclined to take from it) they don't truly have a choice, being bound to follow their original programming rather than being true AI like the Geth and EDI, and thus what they've done so far is no predictor of what they're likely to do if they ever actually have a choice.

If they don't truly have a choice, than I'd say it isn't genocide to wipe out the Reaper's with Destroy. But I do reject that answer. I much prefer the idea that the Reapers think what they are doing is a good thing. My preferred canon is that they view it as a form of ascension rather than murder, and a way to allow new life to evolve.

[Zevox]

If they don't truly have a choice, than I'd say it isn't genocide to wipe out the Reaper's with Destroy.

To be clear, when I refer to the problem with Destroy being that you commit genocide, I'm not referring to the Reapers, I'm referring to the Geth. The Reapers are all an immediate threat to all life in the galaxy - killing them is entirely justifiable as a defense of everyone they're trying to kill. The Geth, however, are innocents in that (since the Heretics were either destroyed in ME2 or re-integrated into the Geth in between 2 and 3), and deserve to be protected every bit as much as every other species in the galaxy. It's the willingness to kill them just to kill the Reapers when alternatives that don't involve that are available that I find awful.

[LibraryOgre]

Destroy, by contrast, changes nothing except causes everyone to become isolated without the benefits of the mass effect relays. It most maintains the status quo. The only story benefit is that you're forced to find a new way of FTL travel and thus opening the possibility of discovering new things that the relay network wasn't already helping us find. Which would certainly work, but it's a real "out with the old, in with the new" approach. Again, easier to make, particularly if new people are involved in the series now compared to when the original trilogy was made. But I still view it as a missed opportunity.

They don't even have to find a new method of FTL... just long-range FTL. Close-in FTL... say, Earth to Proxima Centauri... is still very possible. Set it in a more densely settled part of the galaxy, you might have the option of several settled systems, with the husks of Reapers. With Destroy, you might even have Shepard wake up in the Crucible, and have to start to make their way out of its husk, contact the Normandy, and start to take charge.

[Inarius]

They don't even have to find a new method of FTL... just long-range FTL. Close-in FTL... say, Earth to Proxima Centauri... is still very possible. Set it in a more densely settled part of the galaxy, you might have the option of several settled systems, with the husks of Reapers. With Destroy, you might even have Shepard wake up in the Crucible, and have to start to make their way out of its husk, contact the Normandy, and start to take charge.

Honestly I thought the full destruction of the Relay network was rolled back for higher war scores in the extended cut, but even if they're all destroyed it doesn't necessarily mean they cant be rebuilt. Its implied the tech level is there or close enough so reverse engineering them should be possible. The biggest reason they didn't bother attempting to make new relays is there was already an existing network in place going to most of the good planets in the galaxy anyway so why bother building more.

[factotum]

They don't even have to find a new method of FTL... just long-range FTL.

Andromeda showed that it was possible to get from the Milky Way to the Andromeda galaxy in about 600 years using regular FTL (no mass relays there), which is a speed of about 3,500 times lightspeed--plenty fast enough for interstellar travel, you could get to Proxima in about 10 hours. Obviously you wouldn't be able to cross the galaxy at that speed in-game because it would take 30 years!

[Mechalich]

They don't even have to find a new method of FTL... just long-range FTL. Close-in FTL... say, Earth to Proxima Centauri... is still very possible. Set it in a more densely settled part of the galaxy, you might have the option of several settled systems, with the husks of Reapers. With Destroy, you might even have Shepard wake up in the Crucible, and have to start to make their way out of its husk, contact the Normandy, and start to take charge.

You really don't even need to change galactic density. Mass Effect 1 was written as we were just beginning to get a grasp on exoplanets as a functional thing and they didn't seem to be especially common based on the very early data. So interesting systems in the Mass Effect universe were presented as widely scattered. Turns out, those numbers were off, planets, and probably multi-planet systems, are the rule rather than the exception and are abundant around even red dwarfs (the most common stellar type) and can even be found orbiting not-actual-star brown dwarfs or just freely roaming the interstellar medium.

There are estimated to be almost 15,000 stars within 100 light years of Earth - surely enough for close range FTL to handle though you'd maybe need to refuel along the way (but there already were fuel depots everywhere and those didn't get destroyed) - which is plenty to supply a few dozen systems for even the most sprawling Mass Effect game setup.

[Rynjin]

I wonder if any weird implications of both Destroy and Synthesis could be avoided by the biggest cop-out of all: choose Control, and then have your first order be for the Reapers to destroy themselves.

This leaves the Geth alive and the relays intact, with the Reapers gone. Greatest status quo preserved.

I'd be more inclined to agree if it wasn't for the game that actually did that (DA2) being the worst Bioware game I actually finished. Admittedly, I don't blame the lack of great threat for that being bad. But I don't think a world ending threat is -necessarily- the problem here. There have been great stories about defeating world-ending or at least setting ending threats.

YMMV. While DA2's ending is extremely bad (one of the worst in all of gaming, and I'd say many lightyears beyond all the griping about ME3's ending), the rest of the game is pretty solid.

It's certainly better than the hot trash that is Inquisition, which on launch was buggy as hell, and when fixed just revealed that it's an overly large, boring, half-finished mess of a game with an insipid plot and a cast comprised of thoroughly unlikeable characters (plus Cassandra).

[Morty]

I do wonder if Mass Effect could have been what it was without the Reapers. Hindsight is 20/20, but while meeting Sovereign certainly left an impression, I can see the argument that the Reapers really weren't that important and any other plot would've done - because we got invested in the setting, characters and all the interactions between them.

Dragon Age's Darkspawn aren't an inspired antagonist or anything, but at least they didn't cast such a shadow on the rest of the series. They could be beaten, because they had been beaten before, and they weren't a threat to all sapient life everywhere - if the player character were to fail, Ferelden would be decimated, but other nations and Wardens might be able to stop the Blight. Sadly, Dragon Age's setting was aggressively generic in Origins and only started becoming somewhat interesting in late DA2 and Inquisition. Mass Effect's galaxy was a lot better, but overshadowed by the Reapers. So it goes.

[Clertar]

A boring reset of the galaxy, going with the Destroy option as canonical, would indeed by definition be boring.

But that is just taking the metaphor too literally. It wouldn't be really a reset, and one would hope that the developers would set out to not make it boring. Star Trek Discovery did something similar in season 3, and so far people seem to like it quite a bit.