@Sepewrath: I think most of the complaints were about how there wasn't any meaningful difference between the 3 endings. There was an entire ending DLC released because of how severe the backlash was. Aside from that, the explanation of the Reapers made sense, but it was kind of a letdown after all the buildup. And that's always a risk you run when you establish the villain as some kind of cosmic threat that is "beyond your comprehension". If you ever DO end up having to explain the threat, it's either going to be a stupid and nonsensical explanation or it's going to be something that is actually easy to comprehend, but you remove the mystique and make the cosmic threat seem mundane. The latter choice is what we got.
All this is to say that, while I think the extended ending we ultimately ended up with was about as good as we could have got, I'm not sure there WOULD have been a truly satisfying way to conclude the series after all that buildup. And you're absolutely right, there was nowhere to go but down after Mass Effect 2's amazing endgame.
@mrbojangles25: It certainly does make you wonder at the game we could have had if they had stuck with the original plan of making Legion the main character.
Mass Effect 2 is probably my favorite game in the series. 1 felt more like an RPG, and 3 had more refined combat, but the ways 2 told a story while building on established lore, introducing great characters, and fleshing out the characters from 1 made it a great sequel. I will agree with the sentiment that Zaeed and Kasumi weren't fleshed out enough, especially considering how important the other DLC was to the story, but that was always a problem with the series before the Legendary Edition was released. If you didn't play from the start and buy ALL the DLC, you were made to suffer for it, and the game wanted you to KNOW it.
@mogan: Ubisoft's stock has been hovering just above worthless for months, and they're not going to fix that by drawing out the release of major titles.
BLKCrystilMage's comments