I'm confused about why there's still so much hate towards the ending. It's not perfect, but it's not as abhorrent as some people are making it out to be.
-'The 'Refuse' end is stupid': The game was pretty clear that in a conventional war the Reapers win and kill everyone, hence the need for the Crucible. So if you decline to use it, guess what? The Reapers win. That's not Bioware being passive aggressive towards critics, that's the logical outcome if you choose that action.
-'The Starchild is stupid': Yeah, he kinda is a jerk. But the end clarifies that he's really just a glorified VI made by whoever also made the Reapers. It's possible that his statements are biased, misinformed, or outright lies. It also makes the overall plot make a strange sort of sense: Reapers were synthetics made to fulfill a purpose, and they got out of control and killed their creators. So they're basically the Geth on a galactic scale. They don't have to make sense to you - they just have to make sense to themselves, using their own perverse logic.
-'Plot holes/variety': Wait, first you complained about the awful plot holes and lack of variety in the original ending, then you complain because they fixed the plot holes and added some variety, but not in the way you wanted? What would have made you happy, short of your own personal programming team to write an ending just for you?
I could go on. Point being, I'm not saying it's a fantastic ending. But it's good - good enough that I don't think there would be so much mass outrage over them, if not for the fact that everyone's still angry over the original ending. You were angry over that, you complained, they listened and gave you something to make it better. YOU WON. Now shut up and be reasonably content. Otherwise we'll never get the same treatment from developers ever again, because they'll just assume we were never going to be happy anyway and they won't bother trying.