267 réponses à ce sujet

[Hey]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Are we really out here arguing over the merits of how strangerb*tches chose to mod their game. Forreal?

lol... i retrospectively agree with said **** giving...

[Wolfva2]

MegaSovereign wrote...

In reality, not everything works out ideally. If I was living in the Mass Effect universe I'd be surprised that the Crucible worked at all. We meta-expected it to work because it's a game.

The way I see it, the ending would have been either exclusively dependent on your effort...or a Deus Ex style ending with different consequences and flavors of ethical ambiguity. Neither are objectively bad. I think Bioware was trying to combine the two concepts hence the EMS system. Bioware wanted an ending that features a big decision with different consequences, even if having high EMS softens this aspect.

I wish you guys would argue about something other than the tone of the ending, mainly because what you would have preferred is opinionated. There's no real room for debate on what would have been better and I can guarantee you that no one's mind is gonna change at the end of day.

He's got a good point.  Arguing over opinions is pretty stupid. 

As soon as I heard about the Crucible I groaned a little bit.  It was obviously going to be the Deus ex Machina...the God Machine, that saved the day.  In retrospect, though, how else could the series end except WITH a Deus ex Machina?  Conventional victory was impossible, there were no allies who could take on the Reapers 1v1.  No, it had to be something contrived.  I had figured the Crucible would shoot out a beam that traveled along the relays and destroyed the Reapers.  I wasn't expecting there to be a choice on whether that beam destroyed, controlled, or mutated everyone.

To argue that they could have done this or that is worthless.  Of course they could have.  They didn't.  The past is the past; it can't be changed.  If you didn't like it, learn your lesson and don't buy BW products.  If you did like it, then look forward to the next installment.

[AlanC9]

MegaSovereign wrote...
The way I see it, the ending would have been either exclusively dependent on your effort...or a Deus Ex style ending with different consequences and flavors of ethical ambiguity. Neither are objectively bad. I think Bioware was trying to combine the two concepts hence the EMS system. Bioware wanted an ending that features a big decision with different consequences, even if having high EMS softens this aspect. 

EMS in practice sems to be more about integrating sidequests and exploration  into the war effort -- the amount of EMS that's governed by decisions is fairly small compared to the mandatory and sidequest points. I'm not at all certain how they came up with the concept, or if rewarding completionism was the effect they wanted.

[TheProtheans]

iakus wrote...

 But the limits of modding prevent it. 

Which people seem to forget.
However they fully acknowledge the limitations of game development.

[Hey]

 in retrospect: cool nutz

[Iakus]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Heh.  I always like retorts that go, "I don't agree with you therefore you MUST be trolling!  Because *MY* opinion is so great that EVERYONE MUST like MY opinion and anyone who doesn't is a troll who shouldn't be listened to!"  Which, of course, is WHY people accuse others of trolling.  To belittle their opposing view, to convince others not to listen because, hey, he's just trolling and therefore isn't worthy of attention.  "Pay no attention to him!  Just listen to ME!  ME ME ME MEEEE!"  Such a narrow and closed minded approach to life.

I disagree with Megasovereign and AlanC9 a lot.  I don't think they're trolls.  You, on the other hand laced your comments with all the usual buzzwords people who belittle and shout down anyone who dares disagree with the endings uses. I even bolded them in my previous response:

Rainbows
Unicorns
Fairy tale ending
Defeats the Reapers with hugs

If you are not, in fact a troll, I recommend moderating your language.  You'll be taken more seriously

Options are a wonderful thing.  But this isn't just a game, it's a story.  BW decided on the direction they wanted to go with THEIR story.  You don't like it.  Oh well.  I don't like liverwurst.  So, I do what you do...I get something else.  The difference being, I don't call my tuna sandwich the MEHEM Liverwurst sandwich.  I call it a Tuna sandwich.  
<blink>  I had a point there, but I've lost it.....

If I don't like liverworst, I'm not going to just choke it down. This isn't a desert island with limited food.  I'm going to go and make a sandwitch I do like, if the supplies are available.  And hey look, with MEHEM there is!  Maybe Bioware won't make every single ending a different liverworst sandwitch next time.

Here is the bottom line.  THIS is the story that we got.  We're allowed to make some choices which reflect upon our Shepard's character.  People, for some reason, seem to think the ability to make decisions means they should make ALL the decisions; as if they were playing a God instead of a man.   Oh well, guess they got disapointed.  

If you can't even control the fate of the protagonist, what's the point in making choices in the first place?  I might as well be playing Assassin's Creed instead.

Something that you said I find ludicrous.  You say Shepard has something to live for.  What an inane, asinine comment!  Of COURSE he has something to live for!  ALL the characters in the game do.  Heck, the nameless Cerberus soldier you splatter without a second thought would have had something to live for.  That is kind of sorta the POINT.  Shep has so freaking MUCH to live for.  And yet...he dies.  Not because I wanted him to have a 'heroic death'.  But because people die.  That is what my Gandalf quote...you know, the 'trollllllll!!!' comment was supposed to impart.  Some who live should die; some who die should have lived.  Life and death is often outside of our control.  I have no doubt that Shepard would have wanted to live.  But that wasn't an option for him.  Really, what could he have done?  I've seen people say they wanted an option to run away with their LI and live out the rest of their days on some forgotten world.  Could they have put that option into the game?  Sure, they could have written and coded it.  BUT.  It would not have been SHEPARD.  HE was considered the best of humanity; his very character was one of self sacrifice.  There could have been an option where he and Jack become Pirates, letting the Galaxy burn while they pillaged the remains.  THAT wouldn't have been Shepard either.  There could have been an option where he roams the galaxy pretending to be something he wasn't, but that, to would not have been Shepard.  It would have been Conrad Verner.  The writers decided THIS was the direction Shepard would go in.  Just like Tolkein decided Frodo would carry the ring to Mt. Doom and get his finger bitten off by Gollum instead of just flying overhead on an Eagle and dropping it in.

The Gandlaf quote wasn't the "troll" comment.  It was other stuff you wrote.As to Shepard, living would totally be Shepard.  Shepard's career is pretty much definied by surviving impossible situations.   Heck Shep's done that at least once even before ME1 started!

If Shepard lives, it opens all sort of possibilities fro headcanon (or "speculations")  Shepard becomes an Alliance admiral.  SHepard resigns from the Alliance and stays a Spectre.  Shepard goes pirate.  Shepard goes into politics.  SHepard becomes an ambassador.  Shepard retires and buiilds a house on Rannoch.  Shepard slips on a bar of soap and breaks his neck a week later.  The possibilities are endless.

In death, Shepard is just dead.  there's no possibililties.  Dead is dead. 

Yes Tolkien wrote Frodoo the way he did, so Gollum would bite his finger off at the end (to which Gandalf's "Many who live derseve death" was referring too; Gollum still had a part to play).  But Tolkien did not write Frodo so he'd do a cannonball into Mount Doom either.  Frodo lived, and went into the West with the other Ring-bearers.  And what happened next is up to the reader to decide.  A true bittersweet ending.

It is the fact that Shepard has so much to live for, yet has to sacrifice himself to save the galaxy which makes his death heroic.  And, it's what makes this such a good story.  At least, in my opinion.  A lot of people don't like it; well, apparently BW wasn't writing the game for them, but instead for people like me.  So yeah, I'm ok with that.  I'll keep buying their games.  As opposed to....say...the Witcher.  Which I didn't like, and won't buy any more of.  The difference between you and I is I'm not going to demand the Witcher change to fit MY liking.  Instead, I just go buy games I think I'll enjoy.

If you think that, fine.  You have your ending In fact, you have three of them.  I think it's stupid and pointlessly tragic.  Not entertsining at all.  It's easy, I suppose it's easy to argue from the "I'm happy so STFU position"  But for me I can only hope Bioware realises this before they drive away too many customers.  For now, though, I have an alternative.

And FYI I didn't care for The Witcher either.  Nor did I buy the second one.  But then, I hadn't been a devoted customer for nearly fifteen years

[BSpud]

In answer to one of your few questions:

Silcron wrote...

is Mass Effect 3 ending as bad as we've made it look?

Yeesss. And the defense of the bad endings and the overreaction to its criticism from some BSNers and the gaming media was probably the biggest act of desperate butt-kissing in videogaming history. Butt was kissed so far out of proportion it hit the colonsphere.

Modifié par BeefheartSpud, 30 mai 2013 - 02:16 .

[Eryri]

BeefheartSpud wrote...

In answer to one of your few questions:

Silcron wrote...

is Mass Effect 3 ending as bad as we've made it look?

Yeesss. And the defense of the bad endings and the overreaction to its criticism from some BSNers and the gaming media was probably the biggest act of desperate butt-kissing in videogaming history. Butt was kissed so far out of proportion it hit the colonsphere.

I believe your post is correct.

And, if I may say so, beautifully expressed. 

[CronoDragoon]

chemiclord wrote...
(With that said, I don't particularly have a problem with that.  Just own it, folks.  You wanted a happy ending, and didn't get it.)

Alternatively, you have sacrifice and prices paid, but you take the ME1 route where sacrifices are made and losses incurred without making the player feel morally repulsive (not that everyone thinks the endings do this, but many who did not like the endings do feel this way).

In certain cases, making the ending more logical and making it.... not necessarily "happier" but less morally questionable go hand in hand. A prime example would be for the Crucible to wipe out only the Reapers in Destroy (which makes more sense than it being able to target a nebulous "synthetic" designation) and have Shepard die from the huge fiery blast that explodes in his face.

Like you later said, people are simply more accepting of narrative flaws if the flaws work out in favor of the player/viewer/reader's preferences. I acknowledge that and know that it factors into my opinion. But while there is that contingent that wants Destroy to Destroy only the Reapers and Shepard to survive and a Reunion scene, there's also people like me that would be fine with an ending where Shepard dies but not synthetics. That tells me there's something else going on at the heart of this, which I have tried to identify above.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 30 mai 2013 - 03:00 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Like you later said, people are simply more accepting of narrative flaws if the flaws work out in favor of the player/viewer/reader's preferences. I acknowledge that and know that it factors into my opinion. But while there is that contingent that wants Destroy to Destroy only the Reapers and Shepard to survive and a Reunion scene, there's also people like me that would be fine with an ending where Shepard dies but not synthetics. That tells me there's something else going on at the heart of this, which I have tried to identify above.

You've already got that ending. It's called Control.

What you don't got is an ending without, as you say, morally questionable choices.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

You've already got that ending. It's called Control.

What you don't got is an ending without, as you say, morally questionable choices.

I was speaking specifically about Destroy concerning synthetics since that is the main moral dilemma within that ending. It was a way to identify whether  the existence of sacrifice or the nature of the sacrifice is the issue I have.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 30 mai 2013 - 05:59 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You've already got that ending. It's called Control.

What you don't got is an ending without, as you say, morally questionable choices.

I was speaking specifically about Destroy concerning synthetics since that is the main moral dilemma within that ending. It was a way to identify whether  the existence of sacrifice or the nature of the sacrifice is the issue I have.

It's the nature.  No doubt about it.

If it meant sparing the geth and EDI, I'd have gladly sacrificed the entire relay network, even with the implications that holds (provided the relays don't nova like in Arrival)

Heck I could have even tolerated that stupid breath scene.

[chemiclord]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Like you later said, people are simply more accepting of narrative flaws if the flaws work out in favor of the player/viewer/reader's preferences. I acknowledge that and know that it factors into my opinion. But while there is that contingent that wants Destroy to Destroy only the Reapers and Shepard to survive and a Reunion scene, there's also people like me that would be fine with an ending where Shepard dies but not synthetics. That tells me there's something else going on at the heart of this, which I have tried to identify above.

The problem with these sort of discussions is that there are SO MANY things wrong with that disaster of an ending that there's no one solution that would appease everyone, or even a large majority of the critics.

But I do stand by my statement that the largest choir of rage would have been silenced in nigh its entirety if there had been a "golden" ending added with the Extended Cut or as it's own DLC (hell, Bioware could have probably charged money for it with little grumbling), and nothing else.

Hell, I firmly believe that they could have left the endings as they were, without ANY alterations, and simply tack on a reunion scene with whatever LI and show that Edi and the Geth survived after all... that would have silenced roughly half of the complaints.

That's not a judgment; I don't deliver it mockingly or derisively.  That's just how audiences are.  If it makes them feel good and happy and triumphant... they as a rule do not question or complain.  That's human nature, and that's okay, really.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You've already got that ending. It's called Control.

What you don't got is an ending without, as you say, morally questionable choices.

I was speaking specifically about Destroy concerning synthetics since that is the main moral dilemma within that ending. It was a way to identify whether  the existence of sacrifice or the nature of the sacrifice is the issue I have.

Gotcha. When you said "an ending" I read that literally, not in context.

[Brain7]

Hey guys, first time posting here.

I was introduced to this amazing franchise at the beginning of this year, and therefore, when I completed ME3, I already had the EC.

First of all, I'd like to say that this series is without a shadow of a doubt one of the greatest I've ever played, if not the very best. It had absolutely everything a gamer could expect from a video game. Incredible story, memorable characters, actual character development, the liberty to create our own Shepard, fantastic gameplay, amazing visuals... It is a masterpiece.

Now, regarding the ending of ME3, like I previously stated, when I completed it, I already had the EC, so the "negative" impact of the endings were not really that strong on me, like it was for the people who experienced the original endings and I completely understand and respect most of the complaints. I would share all that outrage and disappointment if not more too if the only endings I had available were Control, Synthesis and walking away. Thankfully I had Destroy, which basically saved the ending for me.

Now, the thing that really bothers me about most of the complainers is that most of them (most, not all) say they dislike the ending because it was poorly written, it was all the same, unoriginal and all of that but in the end, when they actually start explaining why they dislike them, I realize they truly hate them because they are not perfect happy endings. People expected to have at least one ending where everything ended in a perfect way. The MEHEM is the absolute proof of that. MEHEM is basically Destroy but without the negative repercussions (Destruction of the geth and EDI). Why did people expect the ending to be 100% happy? Did anyone really believed we would get through the Reapers without sacrifices? I would have saved the geth and EDI in a heartbeat if I could, but guess what, I couldn't. I had to sacrifice them in order to save a whole galaxy.

People like to deny this is not the main reason for them disliking the ending, but in most cases it really is.

Note that I'm not discussing the presentation of the endings, the closure, potential plotholes or even the Starchild's presence, I'm just mentioning and discussing the actual choices for the endings.

It's just my point of view, though.

Modifié par Brain7, 30 mai 2013 - 10:11 .

[Dubozz]

Didn't you play Deus Ex (old one) or StarCon recently? Good post btw, cheers.

Modifié par Dubozz, 30 mai 2013 - 10:23 .

[mcsupersport]

Brain7 wrote...

Hey guys, first time posting here.

I was introduced to this amazing franchise at the beginning of this year, and therefore, when I completed ME3, I already had the EC.

First of all, I'd like to say that this series is without a shadow of a doubt one of the greatest I've ever played, if not the very best. It had absolutely everything a gamer could expect from a video game. Incredible story, memorable characters, actual character development, the liberty to create our own Shepard, fantastic gameplay, amazing visuals... It is a masterpiece.

Now, regarding the ending of ME3, like I previously stated, when I completed it, I already had the EC, so the "negative" impact of the endings were not really that strong on me, like it was for the people who experienced the original endings and I completely understand and respect most of the complaints. I would share all that outrage and disappointment if not more too if the only endings I had available were Control, Synthesis and walking away. Thankfully I had Destroy, which basically saved the ending for me.

Now, the thing that really bothers me about most of the complainers is that most of them (most, not all) say they dislike the ending because it was poorly written, it was all the same, unoriginal and all of that but in the end, when they actually start explaining why they dislike them, I realize they truly hate them because they are not perfect happy endings. People expected to have at least one ending where everything ended in a perfect way. The MEHEM is the absolute proof of that. MEHEM is basically Destroy but without the negative repercussions (Destruction of the geth and EDI). Why did people expect the ending to be 100% happy? Did anyone really believed we would get through the Reapers without sacrifices? I would have saved the geth and EDI in a heartbeat if I could, but guess what, I couldn't. I had to sacrifice them in order to save a whole galaxy.

People like to deny this is not the main reason for them disliking the ending, but in most cases it really is.

Note that I'm not discussing the presentation of the endings, the closure, potential plotholes or even the Starchild's presence, I'm just mentioning and discussing the actual choices for the endings.

It's just my point of view, though.

The issue I personally have with the idea that Geth die in Destroy is how does an energy pulse destroy a program on a high tech piece of hardware without destroying the hardware and how does that energy pulse differentiate between human written code and reaper written code?

Basically Geth are just high tech Windows 8 systems running around...so somehow an energy pulse is supposed to be able to wipe out all the Windows 8 software in the world but leaves EVERYTHING else alone??   Now you say well it kills all the hardware with Geth on it...wellll, how does it know that, or does it just kill all hardware advanced enough to have them, in which case everything above a Quarian Enviro-Suit is destroyed.   The only reason they say the Geth die is to make Destroy have a downside, and by doing so they break their own lore and inworld logic.  I can fully understand EDI being destroyed since she has significant Reaper HARDWARE that would likely be destroyed but not Geth. 

Sadly, MEHEM isn't the best ending ever written, it is all rainbows and unicorns...BUT to me it is better than the hot dog poo that Bioware shoveled out.  Honestly, Shepard was dead on the floor...Catalyst looks down and goes oh well....he was sooooo close...Reapers keep Reaping....they had won.  

And for you to play with the EC....hmmm, go watch the vids of Pre-EC and understand that was how the game was shipped, the EC makes it better, but really only really gets decent when you add the Leviathian and Citadel DLC to the mjix.

[Iakus]

Brain7 wrote...

Hey guys, first time posting here.

I was introduced to this amazing franchise at the beginning of this year, and therefore, when I completed ME3, I already had the EC.

First of all, I'd like to say that this series is without a shadow of a doubt one of the greatest I've ever played, if not the very best. It had absolutely everything a gamer could expect from a video game. Incredible story, memorable characters, actual character development, the liberty to create our own Shepard, fantastic gameplay, amazing visuals... It is a masterpiece.

Now, regarding the ending of ME3, like I previously stated, when I completed it, I already had the EC, so the "negative" impact of the endings were not really that strong on me, like it was for the people who experienced the original endings and I completely understand and respect most of the complaints. I would share all that outrage and disappointment if not more too if the only endings I had available were Control, Synthesis and walking away. Thankfully I had Destroy, which basically saved the ending for me.

Now, the thing that really bothers me about most of the complainers is that most of them (most, not all) say they dislike the ending because it was poorly written, it was all the same, unoriginal and all of that but in the end, when they actually start explaining why they dislike them, I realize they truly hate them because they are not perfect happy endings. People expected to have at least one ending where everything ended in a perfect way. The MEHEM is the absolute proof of that. MEHEM is basically Destroy but without the negative repercussions (Destruction of the geth and EDI). Why did people expect the ending to be 100% happy? Did anyone really believed we would get through the Reapers without sacrifices? I would have saved the geth and EDI in a heartbeat if I could, but guess what, I couldn't. I had to sacrifice them in order to save a whole galaxy.

People like to deny this is not the main reason for them disliking the ending, but in most cases it really is.

Note that I'm not discussing the presentation of the endings, the closure, potential plotholes or even the Starchild's presence, I'm just mentioning and discussing the actual choices for the endings.

It's just my point of view, though.

You do realize that even in MEHEM, Earth is still trashed, Thessia is still trashed, Palaven is still wrecked.  Billions of people throughout the galaxy are still dead.  Thane, Legion, Anderson, Mordin, et al are still dead.  Emily Wong, Hillary Moreau, Rila, Tarquin Victus, Charr,  all are still dead.  Several colonies have been wiped out to the last man, woman and child.  Everyone who went to Sanctuary for aid is still dead or indoctrinated.  

The relays are still damaged, and there are no Reapers around to get them going again.   It will be years at least before even a rudimentary network is back up.  Decades, if not centuries before it's back to "normal".  Many more will likely still die in the meantime due to lack of resources they normally import:  food, medical supplies, basic equipment.  Until the relays are truly back up and running or FTL drives are significantly improved, this is the "100% happy ending" of MEHEM.  THis is the rainbows and butterflies that people scoff at.

 MEHEM is still not a "happy" ending.  There is no 100% happy ending. There's not one smiling face to be seen at the end of MEHEM, and for good reason.  But it is a "happier" ending. You see "negative repercussions"  I see "arbitrary, tacked-on tragedy" that serves no purpose but to make such an ending look less desirable.  

Don't let the name fool you, it's still a bittersweet ending.  Only the balance between bitter and sweet is more even.

[Brain7]

@Dubozz

Since I'm new here, I'm not entirely sure if you were talking to me. If you were, no, I didn't play those games. Thanks for the compliment, though.

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

Hell, I firmly believe that they could have left the endings as they were, without ANY alterations, and simply tack on a reunion scene with whatever LI and show that Edi and the Geth survived after all... that would have silenced roughly half of the complaints.

I had a thought experiment along those lines. Let's say we have two Destroy options available. One is your alternative Destroy. The other is using the Crucible to detonate the Citadel relay, thus wiping out the bulk of the Reapers, 90% or so of the human race, all the ME2 squadmates and, of course, Shepard. (Contrive enough Reapers being in-system to make the ensuing conventional war winnable, with additional massive casualties but no outright genocides)

How would they rank?

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Hell, I firmly believe that they could have left the endings as they were, without ANY alterations, and simply tack on a reunion scene with whatever LI and show that Edi and the Geth survived after all... that would have silenced roughly half of the complaints.

I had a thought experiment along those lines. Let's say we have two Destroy options available. One is your alternative Destroy. The other is using the Crucible to detonate the Citadel relay, thus wiping out the bulk of the Reapers, 90% or so of the human race, all the ME2 squadmates and, of course, Shepard. (Contrive enough Reapers being in-system to make the ensuing conventional war winnable, with additional massive casualties but no outright genocides)

How would they rank?

You realize that there are some people who hate Destroy because it's genocide, right?  How does swapping out the geth for humanity make it better?  Sounds like your idea has all the worst elements of Destroy, plus tosses in some new ones.

[AlanC9]

The human race would still exist. There are millions of humans outside the Sol system.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 mai 2013 - 11:06 .

[Brain7]

@iakus

I don't know where you got the idea where I said that Destroy and MEHEM are incredibly different. My point was exactly the opposite, that's why I don't get why most people accept MEHEM but not Destroy, when they are very similar. I even said they are basically the same thing, with the main difference being that in MEHEM the geth and EDI do not die.

People trash Destroy in favor of MEHEM because MEHEM manages to achieve a more positive ending and outcome than Destroy.

I'm not criticizing anybody who thinks this way, but yeah, it irritates me when people say they despise Destroy and love MEHEM when they are basically the same thing with just a little difference. And yes, I realize that little difference means a lot to a lot of people, but in the end, their deaths were a sacrifice necessary to save trillions of lives.  A necessary evil. Like I previously said, I would have saved them if I could, but I couldn't. This actually makes the game more real because even though we achieved victory, we had to sacrifice something along the way. It makes it more powerful.

In the end, most of the people just wanted the most positive ending they could get. That's their main motivation for disliking the endings, at least from the majority of people I've seen discussing their motives for hating them.

Modifié par Brain7, 30 mai 2013 - 11:09 .

[David7204]

The primary motivation behind the dislike of the endings, whether players articulate it or not, is that heroism was not meaningful. The ending failed to uphold the theme of meaningful heroism portrayed throughout the series.

A direct consequence of that is the frustration at the lack of a 'happy ending' for Shepard and frustration over the other unavoidable consequences.

Modifié par David7204, 30 mai 2013 - 11:13 .

[Iakus]

Brain7 wrote...

@iakus

I don't know where you got the idea where I said that Destroy and MEHEM are incredibly different. My point was exactly the opposite, that's why I don't get why most people accept MEHEM but not Destroy, when they are very similar. I even said they are basically the same thing, with the main difference being that in MEHEM the geth and EDI do not die.

People trash Destroy in favor of MEHEM because MEHEM manages to achieve a more positive ending and outcome than Destroy.

I'm not criticizing anybody who thinks this way, but yeah, it irritates me when people say they despise Destroy and love MEHEM when they are basically the same thing with just a little difference. And yes, I realize that little difference means a lot to a lot of people, but in the end, their deaths were a sacrifice necessary to save trillions of lives.  A necessary evil. Like I previously said, I would have saved them if I could, but I couldn't. This actually makes the game more real because even though we achieved victory, we had to sacrifice something along the way. It makes it more powerful.

In the end, most of the people just wanted the most positive ending they could get. That's their main motivation for disliking the endings, at least from the majority of people I've seen discussing their motives for hating them.

Then I misinterpreted your words.  Or we misinterpreted each other.  I thought you were saying MEHEM was a 100% happy ending.

Destroy is (rightfully, imo) despised because the "sacrifice" of the synthetics was completely aribtrary.  It served no purpose.  WHile other characters get heroic sendoffs (Mordin)  or a touching goodbye scene (Anderson) Edi and the geth were simply hostages to make the player consider the other choices.

What I choose to sacrifice is the power and knowledge the Reapers offered in Control and Synthesis.  I think the galaxy is ready to take the training wheels off, and live without Reaper influence.  That pretty much guarantees Mac Walters' "galactic wasteland" is a certainty, at least for the near future.  But that's a future everyone should face together.  The decades of misery and death to follow is payment enough for the galaxy's freedom, imo.

That's where Destroy and MEHEM differ, the arbitrary, tacked-on second tragedy.