Originally Posted by stingerhs
you know, maybe its because i've always been more of a fan of shooters than RPG's, but i fail to see how an ending "destroys" a game. from where i stand, it really just makes everybody sound like a bunch of whining nerds that care too much about whether or not Han shot first. if you have a 5 course meal, and the first 4 courses are amazing, then how does a "mediocre and rushed" final course "destroy" the entire meal??
I wouldn't say it destroys a game, but it certainly harms it. Many people will recognize the Mass Effect trilogy had very powerful moments and at times really was amazing. But if you set up a story as a trilogy with a clear beginning, middle and ending, you can damn well make sure your ending is satisfying, at least make it consistent with what came before.
So yes, even with the endings we got, the great things from the trilogy still exist, but they are made rather inconsequential with those endings in hindsight. I know you can't please everyone and with expectations so high, there were bound to be people who wouldn't accept how the trilogy ended, but this wasn't about some artistic choice, it was promises made over several games (choice matters!) thrown out the window so they could make three simple endings, introducing a game-changing element in the universe in the last five minutes to make it possible, that made people so unaccepting of the endings.
Also, I don't feel like this is just bitching about the ending just because we didn't like it. I think it's worth discussing how the ending influences your experience of the rest of the game, how you perceive everything in hindsight and if it made people not care about replaying, and so on.