Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

***************WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE THEM, CLOSE THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY****************

I wanted to give this topic it's own thread, because I feel it warrants discussion.

Many people have expressed dissatisfaction with the ending of Mass Effect 3, myself included. We claim that it doesn't fit with the theme, that the writers were lazy, and that there was no resolution for many of the major events, relationships, and romantic interests in the game. There was also no means of proving to the Reapers that organics and synthetics could in fact work together, as proven by the Geth-Quarian story line.

However, some recent study by a friend of mine brought my attention this post on the Bioware forums.

Reading over that post, I think some combination of theories 1 and B are the most likely.

Effectively, throughout the game the Reapers are attempting to Indoctrinate Shepard. This is supported by the existence of the child that everyone ignores, and that haunts Shepards dreams on the Normandy. If you pay attention, when the child boards the shuttle at the beginning of the game, nobody acknowledges him. Anderson never sees or hears him, and he makes no sound when disappearing at the start of the game. He actually appears right after Shepard is nearly hit by a beam from a Reaper Dreadnought, which is eerily similar to his appearance after Shepard is hit by the beam at the end. His one and only line is "You can't help me", which is basically the Reapers telling him it's hopeless and he should succumb to their Indoctrination. He represents everything Shepard cannot save.

After Shepard is hit by Harbingers beam attack at the end, I believe Harbinger tries to press his Indoctrination to the extreme, and this takes the form of the ending sequence we see, being played out in Shepards mind as he lies broken and unconscious on Earth. He dreams that he ascends to the Citadel and that he is presented with 3 choices from The Catalyst (again, the child appears) none of which are any good at all.

Looking at the facts of those choices individually:

-Paragon: You choose to control the Reapers. You are destroyed in the process, but the Galaxy is saved. Note that this is what The Illusive Man has been trying to do the entire time, and Shepard has been fighting tooth and nail against this. So why would it be the Paragon option for Shepard to try and control the Reapers where TIM failed? The answer is that he doesn't control them. They give him the illusion of control and he falls under Indoctrination.
-Neutral: You choose synthesis, which is a compromise. All organics and synthetics in the Galaxy are merged into cyborg-like beings preventing the annihilation of everyone. Shepard dies in the process. This choice seems odd for several reasons, but it's also another option that leads Shepard away from his convictions of destroying the Reapers to save the Galaxy. Choosing this option still leads to Indoctrination and ultimately the destruction of the Galaxy at the hands of the Reapers.
-Renegade: Destroy the Reapers. But there is a catch! It will destroy ALL synthetic life, including the Geth and EDI. EDI is a close personal friend of Shepards, and he worked very hard to bring the Geth back into the fold, reuniting them with the Quarians in what appears to be a peaceful society. So why would he choose this option at all? The answer is that the Reapers put a negative aspect on the choice that destroys them. Choosing this option actually represents Shepards ability to throw off Indoctrination entirely and get back into the fight.

The other thing to consider is that the "Renegade" option is the only one of the three that takes your Galactic Readiness rating into account for anything at all, and the ONLY thing it's used for is a tiny scene where Shepard wakes up amongst the rubble of Earth. This tells me that he was never on the Citadel in the first place. The readiness rating represents the military's ability to hold the Reapers off long enough for Shepard to throw off Indoctrination. If they aren't strong enough, it doesn't matter and everyone dies, but if they are, Shepard wakes up and gets back into the fight.

A few more points:

-The color of the energy wave at the end of each cut scene doesn't follow the choice Shepard makes. If he chooses the Paragon option, the wave is red. If he chooses Renegade, the wave is Blue.
-It's nearly impossible for Bioware to release DLC for this game if Shepard dies and the Galaxy ends. They clearly want to add DLC (they mention it when you finish the game), so this theory gives them the ability to release an actual ending in DLC form.
-If the endings we see are in fact true endings, they are horribly unsatisfying and I refuse to believe Bioware would do that to their beloved franchise. It's very out of character for them.

So, from what I've read and discussed with people so far, I think that the final scenes of the game are actually Shepard either succumbing to or throwing off Indoctrination via a hallucination at the hands of Harbinger, and the scene where the Normandy Crew crashes on a planet is simply part of that. A dream cooked up by Shepards bewildered brain as he fights against Harbingers control, just before he comes back to reality or dies. During the final after-credits scene with the Stargazer, he tells his son that he has "one more story about the Shepard", which leads me to believe a true ending to the series will be released as DLC within a few months, and people will suddenly realize how brilliant this ending actually was.

Well? What do YOU think?

I actually like the ending just the way it is. The "it was all just a dream" just seems kinda silly to me, it could work here I guess but I just mean in general.

I wouldn't be surprised if they just left it, and the DLCs were leading in to some kinda prequel series that doesn't have anything to do with shepard at all.

You can't like the ending as it is.

I'm sorry, this isn't a matter of opinion anymore, you literally can't be satisfied by the glaring plotholes, the MacGuffin childreaperwtfgodthing, nonsensical attempts to explain things, the huge contradictions, and the lack of any explanation as to what happens after you screw every person of every species in the galaxy by destroying the Relays.

You know they go supernova when they explode? Every system which had a Mass Relay has been vaporized. Yeah that's right, you've just destroyed Earth, Palaven, Sur'Kesh, Thessia, Rannoch, Tuchanka, Omega, Eden Prime, Illium, every racial leader, the entire fleet you just gathered, your team and the Normandy, and of course, the Citadel.
Makes complete sense, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the topic at hand; yes, I'm completely behind this kind of explanation. The ending is just to horribly bad compared the build-up and in comparison to the other two, especially the first. Nothing is explained. Nothing makes sense. No questions we may have had going into the game have been answered, like, what ARE the Reapers? Where did they come from? Why are they actually doing this?
Given Bioware's track record, for example, the epilogues of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect, this can't be it.

However, whilst I'm in agreement with this theory, and have erased this travesty in favor of inventing my own ending, I have a feeling that Bioware know the ending was poor. It was rushed, they knew the plot holes and inconsistencies and are working on to rectify it with a much more satisfying conclusion. Paid DLC or free, I don't care. I want it to be as good as possible, a couple of more pounds for a company that would put that effort in is nothing to me.

All they need to do it revise the ending from the point where Shepard is hit by Harbinger's laser. I have my own ending, maybe I'll post it on the official forums sometimes, see what people think.

I think my biggest issue with the "it was only a dream" scenario isn't from a story perspective, but more like we shouldn't be forced to pay $10 for a DLC to get the "real" ending for a game that should have been finished properly. It's just greed at that point, EA knows everyone will download it, so it's easy money and they probably planned this a year ago.

So, I'm happy with the ending I got, even though I know I'm gonna have to pay to see what really happened...

I don't really see any of the 3 options as paragon or renegade. There's good and bad with all of em. I chose to destroy the reapers, even if it meant sacrificing EDI and Geth, which are machines and can be rebuilt some day, same with the Mass Relays. Destroying em seemed like paragon to me, since it ended the threat to the galaxy once and for all. If Shepard became a reaper, he'd be back in 5000 years to reap with the rest of em, so that certainly doesn't sound very paragonish to me.

Necros wrote:I think my biggest issue with the "it was only a dream" scenario isn't from a story perspective, but more like we shouldn't be forced to pay $10 for a DLC to get the "real" ending for a game that should have been finished properly. It's just greed at that point, EA knows everyone will download it, so it's easy money and they probably planned this a year ago.

Oh I entirely agree! But, since Bioware is the developer and they've put a tremendous amount effort into the past two games, the DLC, and 98% of the third one, I wouldn't mind paying just a little bit more to find out what really happens. After all, there are plenty of other very good games that could benefit from a payed DLC, the other two Mass Effect games for a start, and many others which are published by EA.

So, I'm happy with the ending I got, even though I know I'm gonna have to pay to see what really happened...

Like I said before, something's wrong if you're happy with the ending. If it made sense, if story-lines were wrapped up, if there weren't any massive plot holes or contradictions, I'd be content. This isn't anything like that.

I don't really see any of the 3 options as paragon or renegade. There's good and bad with all of em. I chose to destroy the reapers, even if it meant sacrificing EDI and Geth, which are machines and can be rebuilt some day, same with the Mass Relays. Destroying em seemed like paragon to me, since it ended the threat to the galaxy once and for all. If Shepard became a reaper, he'd be back in 5000 years to reap with the rest of em, so that certainly doesn't sound very paragonish to me.

Doesn't matter if they "can be rebuilt". Everyone is dead, the galaxy is devoid of life when the Mass Relays were destroyed. Shepard ended up dooming everyone in the galaxy, plant, organic, synthetic, Turian, Krogan, all of them, everyone he loved and tried to save, to a fate that even the Reapers couldn't possibly accomplish.

I dunno, I guess it doesn't seem like everything's destroyed since I saw my friends crash land and get out of the normandy and look around. Maybe the hint book spoiled me too, since I followed what it said to the letter to make sure shepard survived. Just seemed like killing all the reapers was the best option. And then the stargazer at the end telling the story, life did go on. Didn't really pay attention to anything else, I just wanted the reapers dead and gone.

I wasn't a huge fan of the ending, i chose to destroy the reapers, btw the mass relays exploding doesn't kill everyone, that is just wrong OP. It may have been a little piece of fluff, but consider it retconned, or consider it a minor plot hole. Destroying the mass relays obviously has other implications but hey...

The thing that annoyed me was that like Deus Ex 3 there was only one truly 'Right' choice. The one i chose. The Reapers are meddling, they are choosing For people rather than letting them decide, even if it is the decision of synthetics to wipe out Organics, who cares? C'est La Vie...

The other annoyance is that the Reaper's Sole reason for existance is based on a pretty big assumption; that synthetics will inevitably 'go skynet' everytime. This is simply not true, a completely logical construct would not do this, one with a bias or flaw might but it is FAR from guaranteed that Synthetics will turn on their masters, or indeed that the masters would be Xenophobic A-holes á la the Quarians. The 'Tron' sub-quest showed how ridiculously idiotic the Quarinas were, part of the reason i gladly wiped them out

Perkustin wrote:I wasn't a huge fan of the ending, i chose to destroy the reapers, btw the mass relays exploding doesn't kill everyone, that is just wrong OP. It may have been a little piece of fluff, but consider it retconned, or consider it a minor plot hole. Destroying the mass relays obviously has other implications but hey...

Ever played the Arrival DLC? You crash an asteroid into a Mass Relay. It goes supernova, basically, and destroys the entire system and everyone in it.

Yeah, that's not a 'minor' plot hole.

Regardless, most people are going to starve, degenerate into savages, or destroy each other in cataclysmic wars. You've screwed the Galaxy whatever you do.

Everything else though, I agree with, particularly the Reaper's reasons for killing everyone. It makes zero sense, and is particular irritating considering you could have just spent several hours proving them wrong with the Geth and the Quarians. If there were some extra dialogue where the childreaperwtfgodthing explains that they've seen the situation before and it never lasts, then maybe it would have been OK.

Perhaps it's because I'm not a fan of the mass effect series but having no clearly defined "paragon and renegade" options sounds pretty good to me.

I'm still astonished over the amount of hate this thing has gotten. I may not have liked it, but I just decided to chalk it up as a gakky ending and move on with my life. Seriously, with all the things going on in the world, one game's bad ending is what makes people fly into a frothing rage. I mean, my entire response to the ending was this:

"Huh. Well that sucked. At least it's over and the game was good in general. Back to something else."

I mean...yeah, it's a gakky ending, but can't we just call it a gakky ending and move on?

Why can you keep playing the same character after the ending? Seems silly to me.

Is there actually a hidden ending that you unlock on the second playthrough?

I think there is something different, or maybe it's just easier and you don't need as many war assets or whatever.

I doubt I'll play again though for a while, after all the DLCs are done I'll start again with my 2nd ME2 shepard and see how it goes.

The multiplayer is pretty fun though so I expect to be playing that a bunch.

I keep seeing/hearing awesome things about ME3, but I haven't played the series at all...Since I play on PS3, I don't have access to the first ...would I miss any important plot points by just playing ME2 and ME3?

Yeah havent played that, Well its a major plothole then lol. I am pretty sure the lil'boy would have mentioned that blowing up the relays would kill all your chums and Earth.

Oh and in complete layman's terms the Mass relay exploding FMV resembles a conventional explosion, akin to say blowing up a nuclear bomb with some C4, i.e. it's gonna make a (dirty)boom but not a nuclear boom. Are you sure the meteor wasnt full of unstable materials/Encased in a mass effect field/used to make the relay misfire/Coated in Macguffin Diamonds?

Also......
Anyone know why joker/the normandy and presumably your team is in hyperspace at the end? Is that supposed to be Earth they have landed on?

Oh and anyone doing another playthrough, do not Play as Sentinel, i can attest that it was went from imo the best class (ME2) to the worst. not that it will matter for all but the final Battle, Which i actually found ULTRA hard, like 10 times harder than any other portion of the game.

Yeah that last battle was a pain.. mostly it was because of all the banshees toward the end. And, you couldn't really save too much which I didn't like.. it took me a couple hours to get through.. what if I couldn't play that long?

for the last few fights I got sick of dying (mostly because I kept getting stuck ducking behind things I didn't want to duck behind) I just gave up and set it to the easiest difficulty and even then it was still a challenge in some parts

Locclo wrote:I'm still astonished over the amount of hate this thing has gotten. I may not have liked it, but I just decided to chalk it up as a gakky ending and move on with my life. Seriously, with all the things going on in the world, one game's bad ending is what makes people fly into a frothing rage. I mean, my entire response to the ending was this:

"Huh. Well that sucked. At least it's over and the game was good in general. Back to something else."

I mean...yeah, it's a gakky ending, but can't we just call it a gakky ending and move on?

It's gotten so much hate because it is literally the single biggest western Sci-Fi RPG series to date. It's one of the most critically acclaimed video game franchises in history, and the endings of the first two games speak volumes as to Bioware's ability to wrap up plot and finish a game. If you look at every other game they have made, they have clearly defined endings with plot resolution and a satisfying conclusion of events.

I flat refuse to believe that Bioware would end the series like this. It's so completely out of character for them. Plus, there is so much evidence to support this theory that I have a hard time believing it's anything else at this point. Read the entire forum post I linked in my original post. I know it's long, but read it thoroughly, and then play the game again. Pay careful attention to what the crew says between missions. Read the journal entry on indoctrination, and look for those signs in the game. They are everywhere. James talking about a humming noise, Shepards dreams, the kid being a ghostly figure at the end. It all fits so perfectly.

If Bioware truly did intend to end the game this way, there are a VERY large number of accidents that make it look like they didn't. My money is on a DLC ending, probably involving a fight against Harbinger directly.

Even if the indoctrination theory is correct anything short of a free DLC with the true ending would be considered an insult to the fans and even then, the question remains, "Did Bioware intentionally plan the indoctrination ending or did they jump on it to save face?"

Either way, it's a PR disaster for them.

Amaya wrote:Even if the indoctrination theory is correct anything short of a free DLC with the true ending would be considered an insult to the fans and even then, the question remains, "Did Bioware intentionally plan the indoctrination ending or did they jump on it to save face?"

Either way, it's a PR disaster for them.

I don't think it is. They obviously planned DLC for this game. They did it for ME2, and it worked out very well. They have done it for other Franchises they own, and it's worked similarly well. DLC has become the new norm for video games and that's just the reality of the medium. So, if they had neatly wrapped a bow on the ending of ME3 on the disk, how do you think they would have implemented that DLC? What could it have been? Something completely unrelated to the story, or a side mission somewhere that has no effect on the outcome because we already knew what that outcome was? No. It HAD to be in the form of an ending, or missions after what we see in the store-bought disk. It was the ONLY way to ensure people would buy it, and the only way to keep their product relevant after people finished the game on the disk.

The harsh reality is that most publishers do NOT make their money back just selling copies of the game. Producing a game of this magnitude takes a budget close to what blockbuster movies use, and far more people go to the movies than buy video games. As such, the company MUST sell DLC to make a profit. If they don't, they either have to make the game lower budget to start with (IE, a worse game) or eat a loss and go out of business. Many people wait until they can buy a used copy of the game to play it, and none of the revenue from those second-hand sales goes to the original publisher or the developer, so they include things like the online-key, which is required to play multiplayer, and DLC packs. The former relies on the desire of a second-hand purchaser actually wanting to pay for the Multiplayer, and the latter requires the DLC to be relevant to the story and engaging enough for people to buy it. What better way to ensure it will be purchased than to release the conclusion of the game as DLC?

You might not like it. You might call it trickery, but if that's the case here, it will work spectacularly, and I have no problem at all giving Bioware more of my money for a quality product. Most of the DLC I have played so far has been well worth the cost, and if they actually do the series justice with an endgame DLC then I will consider it money well-spent. Plus, if you look at the on-disk ending as a hallucination, it's really quite brilliant on Bioware's part. The clues they left in the game all point to it, and the final choices at the end become MUCH more interesting when you realize what their true nature is.

But all of that aside, all we can do is wait and see. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. All I'm saying is, evidence points to something else going on here.

If it really is the case, and the real end is coming in a DLC, that's great and all, but it better be free. After the poopystorm this ending made, it's the least they can do. But in the end, it just smells like a dicky trick to make a fast buck. In the future I'll probably think twice about a Bioware game that's how it's gonna be. Games should be done when you buy them, DLCs should be extra goodies.

EA takes DLC to yet another new level where to complete a game you now have to pay $10

I'm gonna laugh my hat off if that actually happens.

Necros wrote:If it really is the case, and the real end is coming in a DLC, that's great and all, but it better be free. After the poopystorm this ending made, it's the least they can do. But in the end, it just smells like a dicky trick to make a fast buck. In the future I'll probably think twice about a Bioware game that's how it's gonna be. Games should be done when you buy them, DLCs should be extra goodies.

I think this might be a discussion worthy of its own thread, so I'm going to make one. I'll link it here shortly.

Aldarionn wrote:

Necros wrote:If it really is the case, and the real end is coming in a DLC, that's great and all, but it better be free. After the poopystorm this ending made, it's the least they can do. But in the end, it just smells like a dicky trick to make a fast buck. In the future I'll probably think twice about a Bioware game that's how it's gonna be. Games should be done when you buy them, DLCs should be extra goodies.

I think this might be a discussion worthy of its own thread, so I'm going to make one. I'll link it here shortly.

I actually made one awhile back if you want to add your thoughts: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/432265.page

This situation is actually eeriely similar to my fear as I pointed out at the end of my original post.

LordofHats wrote:EA takes DLC to yet another new level where to complete a game you now have to pay $10

I'm gonna laugh my hat off if that actually happens.

You can just see the EA CEO wiping away a tear after the person who suggested such a idea to him, muttering 'I'm so proud to be in charge of this company today'

Here is my new thread, regarding paid DLC. I'll check out that one you linked.

Watch Both of these videos. They bring up very interesting points. I more so agree with first one. Even if you look at the ending in a metaphysical sense like the second video it still sucks.







So yeah. Idk, the ending would be slightly better with the indocrination part, but the Ultimate ending was still bad. And it's kind of like what the first guy is saying, maybe we're just hoping that it was a dream, to save the story because it really actually sucked. Also, the end choices don't feel like they matter very much, every ending is pretty much the exact same thing, however you should notice that during both the control, and synthesis choices shepard, for a few frames, looks very reaper like, much like the Illusive man towards the end. I think that the colors don't matter so much. But I'm still not convinced it was a good ending.

My analysis:

Destroy the Reapers
- Shepard shoots an energy junction causing the Crucible to fire an unbalanced energy beam for the Citadel to transmit. The Reapers' organic consciousness shorts out and they die. The Citadel blows apart after sending the overload signal to Charon, which takes serious damage. It resonates, then re-transmits the signal, and collapses. Repeated on a galactic scale. However, all synthetic life, electronics, VIs, EDI, and the Geth die as well. As the Relays are destroyed, the Normandy crash lands. EDI is dead so we'll never see her (even if you had her and Joker romance each other as I did).
- don't like this since it basically sends galactic civilization back to the stone age and perpetuates the conflict; instead of organic and synthetic living together, they will continue to resent each other (the future synthetics, at any rate).

Synthesis
- Shepard sacrifices himself to give the Crucible a techno-organic energy signature. It's the same as the other endings, with the Citadel blowing apart and the Relays collapsing. The Reapers don't die - they leave to find a new purpose by exploring the universe, the Cycle o longer necessary. The synthesis signal transforms all organic life to have synthetic components, and all synthetic life to have organic components. Organic and synthetic life are now one, so the conflict between the two is ended. EDI and all synthetics are also transformed.
- don't like this since it makes everything perfect. I abhor perfection. No more creation and innovation. Evolution is frozen, and in the end the Reapers win, since their vision of the future becomes reality.

Control
- Shepard sacrifices his physical form so his consciousness replaces Catalyst as the Reaper architect and overseer. The retreat signal is sent out; only this time the Citadel doesn't blow apart, and while the Relays are damaged, their only disabled, they can be repaired. The Normandy crashes not because the Relays are gone, rather inoperational. EDI and Joker can still have their happy ending.
- my chosen ending. Civilization can rebuild, and evolution can continue down different paths instead of the perfect one decided by the Reapers. Shepard will decide whether or not to continue the Cycle, and when.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no, I don't think that if a Relay collapses they go supernova. Why? Because i. The Destroy/ Synthesis ending they expend themselves re-sending the signal, while in Arrival, the Project Base simply destabilized the Alpha Relay. Proof? The Citadel is the largest of the Mass Relays; it didn't go spernova, it simply blew apart.

Control, though, the Relays survive, damaged but repairable, while the Citadel simply closes up.

Bojo wrote:Watch Both of these videos. They bring up very interesting points. I more so agree with first one. Even if you look at the ending in a metaphysical sense like the second video it still sucks.







So yeah. Idk, the ending would be slightly better with the indocrination part, but the Ultimate ending was still bad. And it's kind of like what the first guy is saying, maybe we're just hoping that it was a dream, to save the story because it really actually sucked. Also, the end choices don't feel like they matter very much, every ending is pretty much the exact same thing, however you should notice that during both the control, and synthesis choices shepard, for a few frames, looks very reaper like, much like the Illusive man towards the end. I think that the colors don't matter so much. But I'm still not convinced it was a good ending.

I can totally understand WHY people are upset with the ending. Even assuming the indoctrination theory is correct (which I firmly believe, and I believe it was by design) it basically means they shipped an incomplete game, and anyone that wants to play the end of the game has to buy an endgame DLC pack to do so unless its free DLC. Then again, it could very well be free DLC. That' and if the theory is correct, it would appear that it's gone way over most people's heads. It's a pretty bold move by BioWare to be honest, and it takes the idea of indoctrination to a player level, not just an in-game level.

I'm not saying the outrage is unfounded, even if the indoctrination theory is correct there will be people upset at the fact that they released the game with no "ending" on the disk, but I think there is an opportunity here for BioWare to make something incredible out of this situation, and as I said I believe they planned this from the beginning. The clues are everywhere, and some of them are not so subtle, including the fact that something as ridiculous as actually ending the game like this is WAY outside the box for BioWare. Their games ALWAYS have excellent story and well defined endings. The might have taken the risk of outraging their fans to release an amazing ending as free DLC several weeks later as a publicity stunt. Think about it. How many people are talking about this game these days? BioWare is getting a massive amount of publicity from this.

I'll wait and see what happens, but I'll be surprised if it's not something along the lines of the Indoctrination theory. Either the developers are sitting back chucking right now as they put the finishing touches on that DLC, or they realize they screwed the pooch big time and are working to correct it. Anything else means a massively tarnished reputation, and a massive loss of faith from their fan base. I mean....if the ending WASN'T going to be released as DLC (or corrected as DLC) I would never buy another one of their games at release.

Bojo wrote:

This

P.S. I support the Garrus and Shepard beach ending. Lets make that happen. And have a mud wrestling match between Miranda and Liara while were at it

Of all the outrage regarding the ending of ME3, I think the "no choice" one annoys me the most.

All the ME endings were 95% the same ending, with minor variations. If anything major happened to deviate the story line (say, like letting the Council die) things happen off-screen that effectively make the choice irrelevant.

Hell, as far as I know, if Shepard dies in ME2, ME3 still effectively assumes its broadly the same character, you simply can't import your old one; ie. its still Shepard, just not your Shepard.

Really, though, I think the heart of the issue is that people are upset that you can't "win" in the bog-standard video game sense where everyone lives happily ever after and the galaxy goes back to how it was before. Kind of a weird objection in a game about a war in which trillions of people die, the galactic economy is obliterated, and the former center of galactic power is irrevocably moved to the home planet of one the races in charge of it.

In the Control ending though the Mass Relays are only damaged, not destroyed, and the Citadel only closed up, it didn't collapse.