So "we moved on". Did it benefit the franchise afterall?

I want more Shepard. Or at least more Milky Way.

Meh, I think Shep had her time and her story. It was time to move on from her. The problem with the endings was it made another game setting in the Milky Way impossible. You know you really messed up when your only choice in a sequel is to move everyone 2 million light years away and forces a bunch of rather ridiculous McGuffins on you before you even start telling the story.

After seeing MEA sadly I think the best thing they could have done give how bad the ME3 endings were would have been to just close the book on ME all together. If they still want a sci-fi RPG series start a new IP like they are doing with Dylan or go back to KOTOR. I fear ME has been critically wounded by the Star Child.

I prefer the way they went in Andromeda.

My Renegade Shepard ascended to Digital Godhood. He is mighty and beyond understanding of the regular mortals and he now presides over their fate.

My Paragon ushered in the digital paradise in the name of the man she loved, and for everyone she loved and countless billions besides.

There is no story about Shepard that can top that. Shepard, the Messiah can no longer walk among the humans as s/he did any longer. Good stories end, and MET is a great story with a great end. Extending it would be completely artificial, and "epic" campaigns are always horrible.

Ryders, on the other hand (or their successors), are only starting to grow teeth, claws and face the big bad world. They have inherited the verse.

I think it's safe to say with the "Hiatus" that any new ME game will not involve the Ryder twins as main protagonists. I would much rather see ME4 in the Milky Way, and pretend ME:A was a fever dream. They just need to find a writer with an inspired story, and stop accepting fan fiction submissions.

I'm quite sure from a financial perspective EA will be pushing for a Shepard resurrection, but I'm not sure that's necessary.

We'll never know what might have been better . A new character is fine with me. 
The "idea" of Andromeda is ok, just as many other possibilities would have been alright too, like a prequel , or a post ME3 with wars between various factions due to limited resources, could have taken place on Earth or including other worlds etc.

But what we've got has potential if the approach changes.

The problem is with the writing .

I don't even see anything wrong with the nature of the protagonist : young, inexperienced, learning as he/she goes.
But it might have been better if as the game progresses we could "build" Ryder , aka Paragon/Renegade or some in between variations . So Ryder could become a ruthless, tough , stoic character as he/she goes through numerous ordeals, duties, tragedies, tough choices and so on. Or a more humane, wiser, forgiving maybe a bit fatalistic figure. Sheppard could be one or the other but he already "was" like that while we would have to gradually evolve Ryder .

Kett are ridiculous and we're stuck with the same ol' ascension through destruction.
They could at least have been vorcha comical " Kett don't liiike youuuuu !" .

/edited .

It would have been fun to do similar to ME2 opening, have ME4 take place where Shepard is lying on the ground right before ascending to the Citadel. Real tense fast paced start.

Finish dealing with Reapers, real boss fight, not f*ingMauarader Shields And no Space Kid.

Have awesome reunion with crew post battle, save Earth. Everything's great -

Then start next story a few years later w/ dark energy problem as outlined by Drew Karpyshyn who left. This was hinted at in Codex. Game proceeds from this initial threat with new story and enemies. Why not do this? It would side step the pile they've been in for 5 years, and with something like the Dragon Keep to make a save state in, all choices would matter. Who'da thunk?

Andromeda could have been a m a z i n g. I truly believed it until the last minute.


By playing it safe they made this new galaxy WAY TOO familiar from the planets to the aliens, they reused many ideas and they drew many character and story parallels. (We need 2 humans, 1 asari, 1 krogan etc. Etc.) and story parallels.
Andromeda is not bad,it is just not compelling enough ,at least for me.

At this point I'd accept anything else than the game we got. Hell, I'd accept some cheesy and contrived explanation that Shepard managed to get his/her conciousness in a synthetic body at this point. Not because I miss Shepard, but because I found MEA s story so underwhelming and "meh"

I don't necessarily miss specific elements of the trilogy like the location or the protagonist or the supporting characters. I miss the feelings the trilogy made me feel.I miss the excitement.Don't know how else to put it.

...and to reply to my own question.Did the moving on benefit the franchise?
Yes ,but the mediocre product nullified that beneficial effect.If that makes any sense.

That's some bitter denial here. Sure thing, it would score 95/100 if not for a bunch of Bioware haters.

That is what at heart I did not get from Andromeda, well said. 

Never say never, who knows mate.

That is not a fair comparison. People play Bethesda games for very different reasons. If ME:A had been released under the Bethesda logo, chances are people would have said it is a crappy open world game and Skyrim was much better, or some such thing.