ME3's ending wasn't half bad. People claim that all your decisions must affect the final 5 minutes of the game, but I don't see how that would be possible. Instead, I am in agreement that the entire game from start to finish represented your previous choices. After all, that is kind of what we were sold.

Mass Effect has never been about getting a different end result, it's about making decisions and seeing those decisions carry over into the next or final game. The genophage started in ME1, but was concluded in ME3. The Geth/Quarian conflict started in ME1 and concluded in ME3. The main Reaper story started in ME1 and concluded in ME3.

That's essentially what the ending was about, concluding the Reaper story. The previous 30 hours or so of ME3 was concluding everything you did before that, because those were sub-plots. Same with romance, character and side stories--sub-plots. The main conflict of this trilogy is to deal with the Reapers, but some don't play the game for that. They play it for the characters and banging aliens and hot humans.

When the ending showed none of that, they were pissed because there was no closure. However, it was hinted at multiple times throughout the game that this was the end of civilization, and there would be a slim chance that people would be alive at the end. So you got your closure before the ending, not after.

I also played Andromeda, and my biggest issue with the game was from a technical standpoint. Bugs, and the developers lack of a plan with them making most of the content over the course of 18 months when the game itself had been in development for 5 years total.

@rekonym: They didn't torch the main arc. Don't you see? The original Mass Effect trilogy was only planned as a trilogy. So for all those who wanted ME4 and more, they weren't going to make those games.

I don't understand the galaxy getting torched argument. Did you pick synthesis or something which rewrites everyone's DNA? It can continue after that, but just not in the way people were expecting, where the Reapers get destroyed and everything goes back to the way it was before the war. No, there was going to be fundamental changes to the galaxy after ME3. There was going to be a galactic reset without the mass relays (initially, before the EC), but looking at some concept art, it wasn't all bad. The galaxy wasn't completely roasted. People could still get to places, it would just take longer without mass relays. Imagine Earth without space travel. Or life without cars. You can still travel around, it would take longer though.

Some people like their doom and gloom posts regarding ME3's aftermath though. It's the end of the world as we know it, kind of attitude.

@JEF8484:

Certain people tend to react based on emotion, rather than logic.

@nibbin1191

Maybe that's part of the problem. The trilogy set a certain bar to meet and if the next game doesn't meet or exceed what the bar set, then they'll be upset.

Problem with feeling like a hero, was that in this game, you don't start off as one. You become one over time. Devs mentioned this before launch.

Shepard, on the other hand, started as a hero who later became a legend.

@n00bsla3r66:

People are looking for ammunition to fuel their hate.

@Vengentz:

Wasn't rushed if they got a deadline extension. Same goes for ME1, 2 and 3. Not rushed, because all of them were delayed.

@mdinger: Good endings are subjective.

I'd like to hear what Andrew Wilson has to say about this.