orangeapples said:
When I played through the Mass Effect games (well, 2 and 3 because PS3), the issues of Destroy/Control/Synthesis comes up a lot.
No, the latter two really didn't. The main objective of the series is to stop (destroy) the Reapers. The end of the first game indicates that humanity will help the galaxy stop them and drive them back into "dark space".
Well, not so much "Synthesis" but "coexistence".
The "Synthesis" option is essentially what Saren wanted to do in the first game, writ large. The Catalyst's logic in deducing this 'solution' (synthetics kill organics...so we'll kill organics) is nonsensical and circular. It seems to think everyone will live in blissful harmony, and will never create synthetics ever again (even though it has been demonstrated as a certainty in most or all cycles), and it's claims that synthetics will always rebel was proven false by the Geth themselves.
All of the decisions you made over the course of the games is what should have led you to your final decision so they do in fact matter. Somehow people were expecting 50 different endings of something. That is asking the impossible.
People expected anything else besides what we got. They could have literally copied the mechanics of ME2's Suicide Mission over to the third game (instead of picking single specialists, you pick whole fleets to defend Earth), and it still would have come off way better than what we got. We know there were plans (via the leaked script and voice files on-disc) to show your War Asset squadmates fighting through London, and that your EMS would determine how well your team does during the Conduit run.
Lots of games have bad endings, that's just how it goes.
True, but when you ask a fanbase to invest five years, three games and 100+ hours of time into a series, then act disingenuous and give marketing spin that's proven to be completely false, and you put out a product that almost fails on many levels, you shouldn't be surprised if they riot en masse.