The way I see it, the problem with the ending is not how it ended, but the lack of information of what happend. In the final momment of the game, Shepard needs to make a choice of three options. While you might believe that it's just like a "A,B,C" ending, it's more to it when you think about it. I don't know all the outcomes, but I know this:
If you chose to destroy the Reapers, there are three outcomes depending on what you did.
1. If you have too little War assets, the Reapers are destroyed, but all organics face the same fate.
2. If you have enough, Sheperd dies, but saves the rest.
3. With the highest, Sheperd survives, as do the rest.
From what I can tell, War assets were dependent on what choices you made in the games. Not just in the main game, but also in the previous ones. It would take too long to explain certain exampes, but in short, it depends on who is alive and who is not. From that prespective, the promise for a number of different endings wasn't a lie.
However, because of fact that you never find out what your final choice meant, all endings look the same. If there was something that explained what happend to the characters and what happend to Sheperd (If he/she did not die), it could enough to give us a closure to the series. So what I'm saying is that I think they shouldn't change the ending itself, but an expansion that answer the question "What the hell just HAPPEND?!!!".
Although, if I got to be honest, I disliked the fact that the Normandy and it's crew crashed on some random never-before-seen planet in the end. Personally, I would wanted them to crash on the only place on earth that was not on fire.
Modifié par Izana, 05 avril 2012 - 08:15 .