Glad we agree on this. Any reference to the OT should be vague enough that it could apply to any of Shephard's choices. Besides, plenty of new choices to be made! I seriously hope in this matter they work on the impact and effect of choices you make.
Well, by "not accommodate player choices" I mean be as vague as possible where they can, but not be afraid to just pick an outcome and run with it. Going to be hard to get around synthesis without outright confirming one way or the other. Same goes for many societies: either the Krogan are flourishing, or they're borderline extinct. The Quarians exist, or are wiped out. Same for the Geth. I don't feel any of these should be the focus but rather than spend too much time keeping it vague at the cost of narrative they should, in some cases, pick a direction and go with it even if it clashes with some Shepard story arcs.
I feel trying to avoid commitment to any choice what-so-ever ultimately restricts a sequel as it's something they have to keep in the back of their head no matter what they write, and is very easy to slip up on. Too much emphasis on the trilogy, ironically, by not trying to emphasise the trilogy at all.
EDIT: Basically if it's a sequel I feel they have three options.
1) Try and accommodate player choices via an import save. This will be disastrous as the workload for creating satisfying outcomes for all the potential universe states wrapped in an interesting narrative is just too high. Each player's Shepard trilogy universe simply cannot reasonably continue how they sculpted it. Players were unhappy with the simplest things, like their favourite ME2 squadmate not returning in a significant capacity in the ME3. This would be that situation multiplied in importance by a thousand.
2) Avoid commitment to lore/choices in an effort to keep it vague. I feel this too is difficult due to the significance of the trilogy choices. It works to some extent but by the end of the trilogy the scope of choices and outcomes is so vast that you basically won't be able to enter any known Citadel space without running risk of conflicting with the vague canon. Committing to some outcomes, like synthesis, are arguably unavoidable.
3) Commit to a trilogy outcome, or construct a new trilogy outcome (eg: bits and pieces of each), that acts as a template for a new story while also allowing direct reference to trilogy events. Catch is this may not be yours/mine/whoever trilogy events, and thus no longer takes place in "your universe".
I feel strongly that option 3) is the best direction for Montreal if they want to have as few restrictions and as much freedom in constructing their own narrative in a sequel, while also being able to draw upon established lore/locations/events. It removes the ceiling of narrative potential and ideas (freedom a prequel would struggle to have), and helps them move out of living in the trilogy's shadow, with the exception of specifics about Shepard him/herself that could be kept vague.
