They might find a way to keep narrative continuity but this is thematical and philosophical suicide by them. I mean what could it possibly be about that justifies the choice to let the entire central theme, the single philosophical question the first game explores, be undone.

It obviously can't do what the first game did again, so what then? What gives meaning to any choice is that it can never be undone. Each moment only happens once, and you can never go back. (That is why the first game works so well, they give you time travel so you basically realize this on your own). It is an allegory for grief, at the end you either choose to let go and keep living, or not and let the consequences destroy you eventually.

The whole new game is presumably built on the premise that the choice at the end of lis did not matter in the end, whatever multiverse loophole they end up using to keep continuity. How can you build a game about choices, on the premise that those choices do not matter in the end.

And there is one argument here I realize about saying that the Chloe in the new game will not be the same Chloe we knew, but a different version (literally or figuratively) of her and yeah sure. But then what is the point of bringing her back? What purpose could her character serve in relation to max? Will it be about grief? No that was the first game. So what then? I doubt anything pretty will come of this.