Okay.
I decided to post this wall of text (not that I think it'll matter much in the end of all the opinions that will no doubt be presented in this form), because frankly I actually did want to find out some kind of cohesive summation of what people find dissapointing about the endings, that I could actually consider moreso reasonable than the usual forum game of 'selective logic argument' vs. 'selective logic counter-argument' that of course always devolves into an incomprehensible mess. In that regard the podcasts actually did a fine job.
----------
First up this segment deals with the validity of the endings.
As a quick aside - no I don't believe the indoctrination theory at all, because I know that it's just another form of rationalizing and trying to avoid these endings as being valid. Another form of wish-fulfillment on the part of those espousing it that tries to avoid any kind of meaning in the endings as they are now. (it's funny how people don't get that this kind of rationalizing is, ironically, the psychological bread and butter of indoctrination itself! It's elaborated very well in Mass Effect: Retribution. It doesn't matter how convoluted one's logic gets, you will justify and explain anything to yourself so long as your ego gets validated - that's the basis of it apart from the scientific level with the ultrasound and everything.
And I think the bottom line, that I do find valid for why the endings might not measure up to the rest of the game, is this:
The core issue, of why the endings are disliked, is because the most typical goal within an RPG, meaning the sense of closure and consequences of your actions being spelled out to you, is in this one case not given to you on a silver platter.
That is it I think. Sure, there's the much more ego-boosting "I want Shepard to be a badass to the end." argument, but given that ME3 as a whole is about Shepard actually no longer being presented as this invunerable legendary person, but rather as a human being (i.e. him/her failing right in the intro by not managing to save the kid, something that haunts him/her in their dreams throughout the entire game and beautifully gets this point across, or failing on Thessia - good point there), that argument for me falls flat on its face. Instead it is that lack of sense of closure that I find to be the most valid argument for why the endings did not feel good for most people.
Notice I said 'most'. Believe it or not, some people actually *did* feel something great from that lack of closure (including myself) PRECISELY because what this allowed us to do is to use our imaginations to form our opinions on what took place afterwards as a result of our choices and decisions. Whereas most players (quite unsurprisingly) want things to conclude neat and tidy - they want to be 'told' what happens...rather than using their imaginations to think on what could happen after this.
Still, I will admit that the number that were dissapointed was probably bigger than I had initially imagined. This, I think, ties into the fact that players of western civilization are such a goal-oriented society. Personally, I am incredibly interested in what Japanese players might think of ME3's endings, because that audience is not nearly as goal-oriented and I wouldn't be surprised if they actually find the endings *better* than the typical 'Okay, here's the text crawl on the consequences' approach that is standard fare for most RPGs.
Tying into this is the whole "How did Joker get to the Mass Relay in time" thing. I am almost 100% that was moreso intended metaphorically rather than literally. Some might say this betrays the rule of hardcoar sci-fi or such but...I managed to forgive it, though yeah I do agree that it'd be pretty damn hard for that to happen literally. As far as the other 'logic holes' though - isn't it possible Anderson got into the beam while Shepard had blacked out and the radio-comm team didn't see him enter, because of...you know...Harbinger obliterating and throwing up all that dust in the air? Just because the comm team didn't see Anderson enter, and thus automatically assumed that he died, doesn't mean he never did for pete's sake! Not everything that is said in a word of fiction by its characters is somehow automatically canon.
And wouldn't it be possible for the Catalyst to take the form of that kid, that represents Shepard's failures, through a technology not yet revealed to us? I definitely think it would be, but indeed if such a tech did exist it was not elaborated upon and we're pretty much forced to accept Arthur C. Clarke's axiom that "Any sufficiently advanced technology will seem magical." This, by the way, also goes for the synthesis choice at the end. But yes - the player is asked to accept a few things on faith here rather than logical justification...a big problem for western audiences as the rest of my post will elaborate on.
------------
And second this segment details what I did get out of the endings and why I like them just the way they are.
I didn't get the 'best' one, the one including the synthesis. I instead got the second best one I think...the one where you just have the blue control or red destroy option. I am amazed that no one caught the little line about how the control option actually *was* a good one - the one where Shepard says chuckling a bit to himself: "Huh...so the Illusive man was right." and the Catalyst saying: "Yes...but he could never control us, because we already controlled him."
It's a shame so many people missed out on this line and never thought about it heavily...because for me that was the moment that I just had my little moment of awesome in the ending. The same point that a dearly beloved and departed sci-fi author made in one of his last interviews at the start of this clip...
The point being: No! It will work out for the long run if Shepard DOES control the Reapers. Because power always attracts the corruptable (like the Illusive Man) as opposed to just automatically always corrupting absolutely. It also puts the Paragon/Renegade thing into a whole different perspective for me too! The Illusive Man is someone, whose goal actually IS a lot more that of a Paragon in the end, but in order to get there the means he uses are totally Renegade. Anderson on the other hand is someone, whose goal IS a lot more Renegade in the end (disagree with the Illusive Man as much as you like, I found his point very much correct: "Will you really just listen to a man who can only see life down a barrel of a gun?" which is ultimately what it boils down for a soldier), but who doesn't compromise his integrity to get there - he's always about being a soldier but for its noblest reasons: To save others if he possibly can.
And that's why that ending was so awesome for me, because your imagination can take you to two different outcomes if you pick that blue 'control' option. If you played your Shepard as mostly Renegade...then yeah, chances are that absolute power will indeed corrupt you. But if you played him/her as Paragon...then in my mind the Reapers (and all synthetics) leave organics alone and depart...possibly to another galaxy...possibly back to dark space...either way they try to find a way to coexist with organics, but seperate of them so that neither side endangers each other.
But an even moreso powerful reason for why the ending hit home for me. All those emotional moments the podcast listed (and many many more, I might add) make you incredibly attached to all life everyhwere. And throughout the game you see the Reapers inflict such devastation and horror on them. And now, here at the very end, I was being asked if I am truly willing to have my vengeance for all the lives lost, but potentially doom the galaxy for the cycle to repeat itself again...or am I willing to forgive the worst atrocities I've ever seen, because it might be the only way for both organics and synthetics to remain unique in their own ways...but to finally seperate them and stop the madness of the cycle?
It was a great question between vengeance and empathy for me. Would I be willing to kill every synthetic (even the Geth whom I adore to no end) if it meant that I would avenge all the loss of life in the galaxy and thus 'do them justice'...or would I be willing to empathize with both sides, forgive even these utterly horrid things if it meant that both organics and synthetics could continue to exist in their wonderful unique forms in seperate parts of the universe?
If you've payed attention enough to what I've written thus far...I guess you can guess which of the two options I chose in the end. And it taught me something very valuable too about what I believed in at my core - that quote attributed to Ghandi: "An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind." And even when dealing with galactic extinction...I still believed that. And all I had to do to get so much out of the endings was actually not rely on the developer to give me a 'pat on the back' or a sense of closure and use my own imagination to derive my own ending. And it was great.
I know this is not the way a vast majority of gamers percieve this game (or indeed most games), but for me at least - this open-ended ending was utter and complete proof that Mass Effect 3 was a work of art unlike any movie ever. It confronted me with what sort of person I was for making those choices, not because of the *results* of those choices...but because of the *context* within which I made those choices. Someone not choosing to control the Reapers does not matter as much necessarily, because it leads to some kind of 'best ending'. But it DOES matter, because they believe the adage that "Absolute power would corrupt absolutely." Just as me choosing it matters, because I believe that "Absolute power only attracts the corruptable." and that "An eye for an eye will only leave the galaxy blind to the cycle, which will inevitably repeat itself with future civilizations of this galaxy." and that I believed my Shepard (paragon) had proven himself to be incorruptible enough up to bear that burden till that point.
Bottom line? The endings are great because they shift the focus away from the goal and towards the journey. Because, for me at least, they shifted the question from "Which ending is the best." to "Why did you choose this?" It enriched my life moreso than any text-crawl or conclusion ever could, because my own imagination was given permission to explore these conclusions for myself based on what I believed in.
-----
And I guess that's about it. Don't bother to try and 'destroy' my arguments or such please...I doubt I'll respond in this thread again. So if you are trying to 'destroy my logic' or other such thing, know you're doing it primarily to validate your own egoes. It won't change the fact that I loved my Mass Effect 3 ending to the death. Even though I certainly see how people might want a DLC for 'amended endings' that give more closure and that's fine if people would like that.
But at this point I would say - if such a DLC does come out, let it *add* to the already existing endings, but please do not retcon anything. It is fine the way it is. Just add those closure endings if you must, or explain that final scene a bit better...but don't retcon it. Bioware did something here, for better or for worse, and what would be great is that they do stick to their guns about it. Having said that, I see no problem with them adding something more to make the ending moreso 'complete' for those who desire such endings.
I, for one, don't desire it. I won't say the ending was perfect (as I said, Joker escaping ala metaphor was really pushing it), but I will say - it was the most satisfying RPG ending I've ever had, precisely because it didn't end with the standard text crawl or voice over. And if you think that means I'm 'drinking the kool-aid', as is so popular with every single moronic counter-argument made on the internet these days about Bioware fans, then I'm fine with you thinking that. Because it shows to me that you don't have the imagination needed to insert your own ending based on the choices you made, rather than rely on some authority figure to spell it out to you.
Otherwise...please resume everything, especially the rage. Financially I suppose this incomplete ending thing is probably one of the best things they could've done, because I can only imagine how many people will fork over the cash for the DLC that 'completes' their ending. But I won't be one of them. Because I love the ending I got just fine.
But by all means, if Bioware make a DLC that 'completes' the ending and doesn't retcon anything that's already in ME3 right now...I am totally okay with that. But it won't be my ME3 - in my ME3 I don't need that DLC and I don't need Bioware giving me my closure. My own imagination can come up with that just fine on its own.