MASS EFFECT ISN'T DEAD [BioFan Video]

Assuming they do a Andromeda sequel o expect it to be followed up on there.

If its such a cop out, as you say, then Bioware should remove that line, if not the whole scene.  If Bioware wants to make a game after the events of ME3, that would be one way to explain having a sequel.

How many is "a massive segment" of fans?
Is that a problem?
What are those obvious reasons?
I wonder if that will be said if the next ME game won't be a sequel to MEA?

Seeing how divisive opinions are on this, I don't envy BW having to figure out how to best move forward from here.

Honestly, I haven't seen any scenario yet that has me genuinely excited. But out of the options I've seen... continuing in Andromeda, moving the timeline forward 100+ years, exploring new areas in the galaxy, introducing new aliens (downplaying the Angara/Kett) would be my choice.

i have specified what would make them mad. Some people liked the endings. Some people would view it as a cop out. And now since a lot of people really enjoyed Andromeda it would be ANOTHER cop out. Plus Bioware would be breaking two promises at the core of their company which Bioware said they are unwilling to break.

Besides i don't think most people realize that any sequel to ME 3 wouldn't be a sequel at all. It would be just as weak and pathetic as Andromeda was. New story. New protagonist. New characters. Likely a new tone.

Bah KOTOR 2 was a mess at launch and it had plenty of complaints. Mostly due to game breaking bugs and the fact it's unfinished. Also Bioware was not involved. Also the Human council decision is reversed in ME3 not 2. Also it has an effect on the council members so it isn't pointless.

Because they're working on other projects?

Pretty much. Edmonton is busy with Anthem and DA4. Austin is busy helping them with those plus SWTOR and possibly another game. And Montreal was becoming part of EA Motive(that was in play before MEA even came out). 

The quarian ark hint at the end felt like an obvious DLC hook. The Garsen murder and benefactor are big unresolved plot threads but they felt more like they were forgotten about rather than anything else. Ryder's mother felt to me like an upbeat note to end the game on for the Ryders, not something intended for DLC.

Do you think these people like them to the point they will throw a hissy fit if they're discarded in favor of the Milky Way setting continuing? Because having read a number of "I actually liked the endings of ME3" threads over the years, I haven't ever read one that gave me the impression they would get upset if the endings were retconned out of existence.


Leliana coming back to life in Inquisition if she was killed in Origins was a cop out, yet very few people gave a lasting shit about that. Tossing out the super disjointed endings wouldn't be even remotely as controversial as giving a previously killable character retroactive plot immortality.


Yes, they enjoyed it so much BioWare axed the DLC development (after actively teasing DLC in the game!), ended SP/MP support after barely half a year and broke apart their Montreal studio.

Even with all the ending hate for ME3 - and there was a lot - the game still got 3 DLC's and years of MP support. "A lot of people" in this context doesn't appear to be a statistically meaningful amount for BioWare's liking.


They said they would never make any player choice canon. Then they immortalized Leliana in DA:I. That train has sailed already.

This is even beside the point they don't need to make one of the choices canon. The most fair thing would be to be unfair to all the endings and write a new, canon one that doesn't fuck everything up.


It's a sequel in the sense it takes place in the same setting after a previous game set in that setting. Or are you making an argument DAII and DA:I weren't sequels to DA:O?


No, this isn't true. While they could certainly fuck up the story like they did ME:A, the setting is already tried and true.

Andromeda's problem is they took a shitty, lore-breaking premise in order to enable a completely new setting and then did fuck all with it. I was never going to like the game much because of the premise and setting, but they could've made it cool and interesting by, for example, making the Jaardan protheans who escaped the Milky Way 50,000 years ago, thereby justifying the ease with which the Milky Way species could begin to communicate with the Angara. It could also justify the existence of Mass Relays (the series most iconic object by far) in Andromeda, built by the Jaardan/Protheans to enable faster travel within their new Andromedan Empire. The game's plot would then revolve around finding out what happened to the Jaardan/Protheans while the B-story would revolve around establishing a foothold in the Heleus Cluster.

This could also justify the premise of the game better, as the Ark drives could be explained as reverse-engineered prothean intergalactic drives instead of human-developed miracle technology that the rest of the Milky Way somehow doesn't know about.


Those aren't the problems people had with Andromeda. Dragon Age also changed these things with each installment, but fans loved it because the setting - Thedas and its history/lore - tied them together in a meaningful way.

The problem with Andromeda is that they created a new story, new protagonist, new characters and a new tone which turned out to be vastly inferior to those of the original trilogy. They weren't just different, they were outright bad in comparison. And then they put all of them in a new setting that had almost none of the elements of the original.


They don't have to. They can just pretend like all four of them never existed and write a new one that doesn't wildly screw up the galaxy. It's not like a new Milky Way game would import ME3 save data anyway.