I understand that Bayonetta 1 & 2 were fun games (I wouldn't know I play on PC), but I wouldn't want those that developed a game
with the logic standard of "It's Nano machines Son" as the added insult to the injury of the RBG space magic.
There's no saving this franchise. What, you think if they make a strictly science fiction with 0 fantasy and tight enough lore to pass as a thesis paper, that somehow that's gonna fix what happened? You think them taking this crap seriously in keeping with science and grounding everything in "realism" in a story where an entire colony of people an somehow make it to the Andromeda galaxy without being 100th generation arc dwellers by the time they get there is going to fix mass effect?
Mass Effect as a serious story with serious science and grounded portrayls of things is kinda gone, and has been since we psychicly beat up sovereign to open him up for the fleets to kill.
Going into the realm of ridiculous and fun science fantasy, while making the characters be more fleshed out and believable, is what's going to save this series. Narrative and Characters don't have anything to do with how grounded and down to earth a story is. Just look at star wars, a big civil war spanning a whole galaxy with super powered laser telepath samurai running around, has no grounding in realism. But the characters act like people, and have depth to them, and the events that unfold in the story make sense within its own universe, so it works.
Now mass effects problem isn't that it became over-the-top with its portrayl of biotics or the rule of cool moments. What made it bad was how characters had the dimension of a chalk drawing and made choices that made no sense even within the universe. "Shepard, you have no experience in space combat, and you've never directed more then a small group of people numbering no more then 10. You're obviously the guy we need to call all the shots of this final offensive".
Having Kalrous show up to go toe to toe with a reaper, or having a laser battle against a reaper baby, is not the low points of this series. Lawson's make no sense plan of turning people into husks to fight reapers is a low point. I don't think people hate mass effect 3's ending because of the big dumb over the top battle of london, nearly as much as they hate mass effect 3's ending because of the sudden jerk into not rule-of-cool, but rule-of-high-science where we go so far into trying to make this sci fi and a rip off of 2001 space oddesy that we completely **** everything up.
Like, the big dumb fight all the way to the citadel and then dying on the crucible fire panel with anderson? That would have been a rule of cool ending. And it would have fit thematically with the story, and made a nice conclusion to the plot. Instead, the game tried to throw away the rule of cool, shame the rule of cool for existing, and bring in some sort of deep crap that doesn't fit anything. It basically, tried to be more then a dumb action romp.
I want you to seriously consider for a moment, what was the bigger insult here? and what was actually the biggest injury? Assuming that a games story couldn't end on an action packed high note and be considered good? Or assuming that the only way for the ending to have been good was for it to go the antithetical direction of a cool action ending into hard science fiction?