oh man when you get to the ending yeah you are going to be 10000000000000 times more pissed off

As a long time Mass Effect fan, I liked the third game. While I wasn't particularly fond of the original ending, I also wasn't really bothered by it either. The multiplayer portion of the game really surprised me (as someone who really isn't into shooters all that much, I didn't think that I would like it) as I ended up enjoying that part of the game for several months.

Getting pissed off because of video games and their endings...hmm. May I suggest a visit to a psychiatrist?

Other games dont let you carry over anything at all.

Bioware is only at fault for having given you something instead of nothing. Difficult to please arent you?

Eh, I liked most of the game. My complaints about it remain that in the end, your choices wound up meaning very little after all.

For my, this video does a great job summing up where the game goes wrong

The potential for such a specacular game was there but it never came close to that expectation. A year after its release, I still find myself coming up with alternate ideas a how the game could have been improved, some of which are inspired by that video. I wasn't even too bothered about the DLC (I got From Ashes and Leviathan). Ignore the price/implmentation, the concept behind content in the DLC is really good (especially the identity theft arc in Citadel) but it doesn't tie into the main game enough for me. I would have gladily waited 2 or 3 years to have go the game that could have been delivered.

Here are two examples of how choices could have been implemnted more effectively

1) Ability to direct your War Assets throguh the campaign. This could have opened up more side-missions (not the scanning ones) and allowed a greater oppourtunity to see the fruits of your labour. The missions outcomes would depend on what War Assets youchoose to use in said missions ie Reapers forced to retreat or conquer the planet and destroy some of your Assets

2) More effective use of Cereberus characters, and their actions/fate influenced by your choices. There were only 2 key Cerberus characters: Illusive Man, Kai Leng. A third is introduced in the Citadel DLC, while 2 others potentially important only feature in a single mission. Prior to ME3, I'd thought Mirand's loyalty outcome in ME2 might have affected who she supported in the game. Would have liked to have seen that, plus the oppourtunity to have Kai Leng killed on the Citadel and then replaced another Cerberus commando who is less of a threat (thereby rewarding your choices in the series).

Unfortunately, I can only dream about concepts like this.

Trilogies rarely end well, and ME is no exception.

The second and especially third games' treatment of Cerberus always struck me as a mistake. They went from being a small, inconsequential xenophobic terrorist group to a major galactic player with a vast army and unlimited resources. The problem is that the transition never felt natural or real, even within the rules of the game's universe.

I can't disagree with most of what the OP said, except the part about cameos. ME3 has cameos out the Yin Yang, everywhere I turned I saw characters from the last two games coming back to complete their stories. I felt that's what ME3 was, a game about wrapping up the stories of all of the characters, including DLC characters from 2.

meh mass effect 3 was awesome(played on insanity on my first playthrough and never had to run away to heal.