ME3 sequel

Why not just leave the synthetics dead? Even simpler.

Make destroy canon and have Shepard's story continue. Nuff said.

Because it's Shepard. How could I ever get tired of the best spectre in the entire galaxy?

I had enough after ME 2.

A lot have had enough of Ryder after one

After ME2 I really wanted more. The best cast of characters in the series I thought. I think I actually replayed ME2 about 70 times, definitely my favorite game in the series.

Then ME:A should be right up your street. They promised nothing after one game so headcanon away.

Really? Can't recall them saying anything about sequels, just other media such as books and comics.

Forget Andromeda 2, we all want a continuation in the Milky Way.

>How can it be done?

Follow the Volition model, by that I mean that you pick an ending for a previous game, declare it non-canon to not piss off all the fans, and build a new game on it. I.E look at agents of mayham, a game entirely based off one ending from Saints Row: Gat out of Hell

>Which endings do they pick then?

Control or Destroy. Pox on synthesis or refuse. But seriously it would be best if it was control since you can get to keep the relays, plus the geth if you hadn't genocide them. Although I'm personally a destroy person and prefer that.

>How long after ME3 ending?

100 years? Have some characters from the old trilogy make cameos, Shepard is immortalized if they pick control or destroy. If destroy is the non-canon pick, then there should be references to Shepard being alive and well via dialogue, ambient dialogue etc..

>what's the new threat

The Yagh. They're strong like Krogans, smart like Salarians, disciplined like Turians and adaptable like humans. They're a much more menacing threat than the Kett ever were.

>what else

We're back in the Milky Way with a plethora of new opportunities in new characters, environments and stories to be told

Because synthetics being killed by the Crucible is THE defining feature of the Destroy ending, and it also strongly implies the fate of the Reapers which goes against the entire point of making the ending ambiguous. Essentially it would just canonize Destroy.

Also, note how I said "the Crucible DEFEATED the Reapers"? It's a deliberate choice of word, because it can mean anything from straight up destroying them like in Destroy, to programming them to fly into the nearest sun, swiching a variable in their quest log so they think the cycle is closed forever so they fly back to dark space and basically shut down for all eternity, disabling their identify friend and foe system so they attack each other, disabling their shields and weapon systems, etc.

It doesn't really matter, though - they're defeated. The "how" is not important to the new game. And if dead Reapers are encountered during the game for whatever reason, they can be justified by explaining they were killed during the war before the Crucible was deployed.