EA 'Mass Effect Andromeda Advocate' Executive Patrick Söderlund has been promoted.

Thing is, he said it would need to take the series to a fresh, exciting place, but that could literally be the star cluster next door to Heleus.

When i say backwards i dont mean in terms of time i mean in terms of story/narrative, wee went forward in time to Andromeda but backwards to me1,2 an 3 in terms of storylines an diluted storylines at that, there was nothing new in much of any of it an for most part was mediocre at best, thats no to say "throw it all away" because as i said before its only one cluster an the tool is there to either go extreme an wipe things or at the minimum change to a way as sees fit for a future.

I dont believe in abandoning Andromeda but i dont believe any favours were done with the start to the adventure there and do believe nigh everything done was done wrong, from a story point, not gameplay, but i also never believed in leaving the Milkyway either as i still believe there many stories to be told there but i bought into the "new" journey etc etc which in all honesty turned out to be nothing but more of the same which wasn't as "bad" as made out just, as i said, not good, for me

I suppose i dont know what i specifically wanted from Andromeda outside more adventure in the ME universe but what i honestly didn't expect was just more of the same, some are happy with that an im happy for them an end of day i only have myself to blame for expecting something more and abit different, im guessing thats why Anthem has me more excited than any announcement about ME right now.

It could always be a MEA2 teaser but was misinterpreted as a DLC teaser.

They can probably associate them in some way for BioWare pretty much skipped over Reapers for the majority of Mass Effect 2 and 3.  So if they make the Quarian ark the focus of the next game and after that go back to the Kett storyline in game three if there is one it would work just as well if the figure Kett some way into the second game to give it lip service.

I don’t see why they can’t tease both. After all DAI teases both Solas and the Qun-Tevinter War. Plus Mac Walters said some things in MEA were never planned to be fully addressed in that game but instead be part of the megastory. As for the Arks being associated with the plot of MEA, that was only the first wave arks. Until the end, we didn’t even know if the Quarian Ark left the Milky Way. With all the new models it would take to the Quarian Ark, makes sense to have it be in the sequel than DLC. Hearing about it in MEA could have even just been a tease for the book since there are lines like “We’ll just have to trust their Pathfinder.”

I don't think it would have made sense to have the Quarian Ark in a second game, it's more meant for DLC.

Presumably, you'd want to start the second game with Andromeda being more settled, people finding normalcy, the vaults having taken some effect, and maybe people can walk around without suits for a limited time, or maybe they're working the earth. Then that sense of normalcy is shattered by either the Kett returning or some other danger.

Why would they want to start the game with oh, here comes the Quarian Ark, we have to go save them, which is what you spent the last game doing? It just wouldn't fit. It's makes far more sense to have them come in DLC, and then start the next game either in the near or distant future with everyone together, having formed some type of government or leadership. Some sort of network between the colonies.

OK, but the point still stands.

Except that's exactly what they did.  And any chance they had to recover from the poor launch was killed the moment they dropped support and announced no DLC.  Any public announcement to continue in Andromeda is going to be met with the same internet visceral response and barrage of meme's we saw early on for MEA.  No executive is going to sign off on investing years and tens of millions to create a sequel with that sort of outlook.

Dropping support and dropping DLC was, IMO, a mistake on there part.  I agree that it made matters worse.  I'm also seeing a number of "I and took a second look at ME:A and, I don't hate it." types of comments.  Some people are going to be pigheaded and hold a grudge.  Some people are still holding a grudge about ME3 and were still deriding it at the old BSN... so much so that they shut that site down... and yet they still attempted to make ME:A.  While I've been continually accused of being blind to the games flaws (despite acknowledging many of them right here), what I see are a bunch of people who didn't like the game continually denying that there are also a number of people who did like it, as well as a number of people who didn't like it to start with, but are now OK with it.  The people who still hate the game would apparently prefer that we didn't exist.  

The bottom line is that we don't know how EA execs will view the various ideas Bioware might pitch to them to continue the series in the context of whatever gaming trends exist at that time.  Certainly, nothing is going to happen for a year or more while Bioware concentrates on getting Anthem out the door and, then DA4. 

You can shoot down my idea all you like.  It's my idea, not Bioware's so it doesn't matter.  It's still my preference to write the series forward towards a new story that we don't know yet rather than stick Bioware with continually remaking/redoing/ and repairing ME3's endings.  I think it's possible to do that without abandoning those who actually found something to like in ME:A.  "Fan's" who are locked into the idea of a redo of ME3 have been singing their tune far too long.  They sunk ME:A to get their way by tearing it apart long before it release, and then meming it to death right after release.  I actually have no doubt they'll try to sink every other idea out there as well until they get their way or the franchise does die entirely.  I'd still prefer to move forward to a new story by writing through and beyond ME:A itself... connecting both previous storylines together.  I think that was Bioware's plan (since Mac did say we'd eventually get back to the Milky Way).

Thanks... I did edit it a bit to "soften" it, but my basic opinion is still the same.  I do think that even if they do a remake at this point, it will also just get pulled apart by those same fans because it won't be exactly as they want it to be.  I also think it won't arbitrarily be the overwhelming success they're envisioning.  It still would have to be good and it would lose some interest because it wouldn't be original.  For every remake made, there have been fans who stick with the original and prefer it to the remake.

Also, because it is sci-fi, the world and timeline are under a lot of pressure to advance anyways as IRL tech starts to catch up with it.  I'd rather come back to a Milky Way that's changed with an explanation (post-scourge and 600 to 1200 years after Shepard) than to see a remake that just magically changes all the tech or see another argument here about why we're still driving wheeled vehicles and still typing words into bulky terminals and datapads.

Yes, but I think if they intended to salvage the situation they would have stuck with it.  Don't get me wrong I'd be perfectly content for them to continue in Andromeda, but the pragmatist in me doesn't believe it is financially viable to do so.  We've see major titles take a beating due to a poor and problematic launch, but I've never seen a game abandoned so quickly and have the devs come back a year or two later to fix the inherent problems or continue the story forward.  If they do it, great...if they go back to the MW or reboot the OT I'm good with that too.  Unlike the claims of many around here who are going to "quit being fans" if they don't get what they want, I'm going to buy either way.  It's fine to hope...just don't expect it to happen.