Would MEA exist if the ME3 Endings weren't such a mess?

I liked it that you could chose the ending that you liked for each protagonist in ME3. It really helped to create a different protagonist each time.

It would have stayed in the mwg most likely...then the question becomes would that be best for the series?

I think if there had been good ending options, and one had been overwhelmingly popular, then BW would have gone with that as the canon ending. Since the endings were mostly disliked, then they really had to find an alternate for 'em.

Not to mention the whole post-credits scene with the guy and the kid...........

I really don't know, for even with the endings making a continuation in the Milky Way next to impossible while not making a choice canon, I am not sure if they would want to remain there since I think a new game would feel even more like a rehash of the first three games.

Because we had a dozen different outcomes in each game that carried over, when the story is over, it does not have to have a final decision. Most people would be fine when reapers were just defeated and they got some closure as to their decisions they made (like what happened to krogan after genophage cured/not cured, or how did it work out with get/quarian).

The problem(s) with ME3 ending begin with expectations. Folowing the events of ME and ME2, most (if not all) players expected to defeat the reapers at high cost. In the end we got 3 options, and we can argue about this for hundreds of years, and none actualy delivered what was expected. Some like the "twist" in this and like the ME3 ending and some do not and hate it.

And no, BW can not return to the Milky Way, the three ending prevent it, it is quite impossible to account for all three different endings and make different story around them, so they would have to define a canon ending and that is like spitting everyone in the face (maybe in like 50 years when the people who played ME-ME3 are gone)... there is a difference between making Udina a council member canon and forcing "synthesis" if cou decided defeat.

Also going to the past or a differen story in the trilogy timeline, not realy going to work. It is hard to sell a "hero" story when you actualy know the history, it would break immersion for a lot of people. And then, with the reapers gone, what is there to be done? There is nothing that can be as huge as the reapers. While MEA... we got the Jardaan, the people who attacked them, the kett, and while not reapers, their are huge enough, and the AI too small.

So to answer the topic question: Nope, without ME3 endings, there would be no Andromeda.


Sure why not? The galaxy is nowhere close to the techlevel of the Protheans. Right now, I do not see why MEA would be any better.

True, but have you read the concept for the Lord of the Rings sequel? Seemed kind of dull. How do you top Sauron? You can't and the same goes for the Reapers.

...It doesn't have to "top" the Reapers to be a threat that needs to be dealt with. Like I said, could be a Reaper Shepard gone mad. Could be Cerberus. Could be krogan fanatics revived the rachni and teamed up with them. Whether it's as fulfilling as the OT was would depend on the writing as much as the threat.

I chose no

I like the ending, the destroy ending that is. The green and blue.......whatever.

After the coup, the player learns the crucible has enough energy to destroy the reapers, just didn't know how that energy would be dispersed. There's your ending right there.

Once the arms to the Citadel are fully opened, the crucible fires its bag of goodies all over the galaxy destroying the reapers. What that does is it gets rid of the magic carpet up to la-la land. It gets rid of the thing taking the form of a human child. It gets rid of the comments, "you do not know them, and there's not enough time to explain" and "synthesis is the final evolution of all life". It gets rid of the pull this, shoot that and jump in here endings.

A sequel can be about investigating why they did what they did or have it similar to what MEA is except in the Milky Way. A sequel also be about how the galaxy rebuilds and what obstacles it faces while rebuilding

Technically, isn't this canonized MEHEM rather than canonized Destroy?

As for the poll, I voted yes, because continuing the choices was unworkable even before we got to the ending. You'd need to rewrite the Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs to keep going.

Yes, I think so. Details might have differed, but just having the wildly different story arcs necessitated moving out of the galaxy, assuming BioWare would be steadfast in not making any major retcons to the final outcome(s) of the game.

I don't really think that was the sole reason that Andromeda was made. I think it had more to do with EA asking Bioware at the time " What do you currently have in production that  that is not SWTOR, Dragon Age and Mass effect"? And the answer at that time was  nothing more than those 3 titles. And  at the time of ME 3 release SWTOR was a failing title. I suspect that EA saw how popular the series is and that it should continue to be produced and that it would be a money maker for the brand.

Well that's sort of the point. If their ending had been better written, maybe the galaxy wouldn't be irreversibly different in such colorful ways, and a sequel could still have taken place there.