Funny how Fallout 4 holds the hype when it's in a completely different place,
with no or few returning cast,
and a new protagonist.
Oh, just like Mass Effect 
So pretty much like ME:A then.
New protagonist - check.
New Location - Check
Same Universe - Check.
The difference is that every Fallout game has been like that where Mass Effect 3 has been a 3 game series with the same protagonist and recurring characters.
More to the point there's no way to fix the nonsense they wrote.
This. Very much this.
A different galaxy is functionally the same as Nevada versus DC versus Boston, given the context. I truly don't see the difference.
It's going to be a Mass Effect game, either way.
No, it's not at all the same. While all three are far enough removed to not be effected by events in the other games, all the settings are affected by the same disaster in the past. While they may make the Reaper conflict the reason the species move to Andromeda, the setting is otherwise totally removed from events in the Milky Way.
Will it still be a Mass Effect game? It will obviously share the title, but what's in a name? Will there be Mass Relays? How many of the races we know will be there? Mass Effect depended so much on its setting, lore, and characters that it's not really Mass Effect without them. If they are all there, then you're right that the physical location won't be important. Fallout has recurring things like Supermutants and the Brotherhood of Steel, but they are totally different from one area to the next. And in a setting based on massive amounts of radiation and mutation, it's not surprising to see something totally different from one game to the next.
That first line has a lot of truth, on the Bethesda forums, the new game is almost hated by many people on there. The voiced protagonist, set background (with spouse and child), the (at least predicted) plotline (not to mention the plot and writing of previous games), unkillable dog etc, and the constant cries of "they won't let me role play the way I want", this forum is quite positive in comparison. This is the same with every forum I have been a part of, whether it's Tomb Raider and the Microsoft XBox exclusivity deal, or how the Sims 4 should be more like the Sims 3 (even if for most of its run, The Sims 3 was criticised for not being enough like The Sims 2). I'm convinced every forum is like that, especially for the more popular games.
They complain because those things are very different from the previous games, much like Mass Effect won't be the same without Mass Effect technology, Mass Relays, and, most importantly, the races we've come to enjoy.
Wait, wife and child... we aren't playing as James, are we?
This looks to be a reboot without technicallly being a reboot. I still want to see the milky way rebuilding post destroy. That was the most popular option and it wouldn't be a problem to make it cannon. I can hear it now--what about things like the genophage? Well, we're getting krogan in the new game and they'll do one of three things with them: keep the genophage, magically cure them or pretend it never happened (that last option depends on how far they want to retcon). Any way, people will be pissed because their choice won't matter, so if these things are going to be cannon anyway, why not keep it in the milky way. I will be happy if there are places like the citadel and illium to explore in-depth. If it's going to be a barren wasteland with a few buildings for settlemens everywhere, then I won't be interested. I'll wait and see for more information.
You just made me think of something; our choices across the series barely mattered in ME3 and choices in ME3 didn't matter at all, so why should people care if their choice at the end of ME3 doesn't matter going forward?