Jonah Falcon has sounded off on how bad the Mass Effect 3 ending really was, but not in the way fans think, and how it could be fixed - and who might be to blame for it.
Excerpt: "When it comes to game endings, when I hear that the community is upset about a game’s ending, I almost always take that as a good sign that the ending is daring and provocative. For example, there was an outcry over the abruptness of the ending of Halo 2, which had the nerve to conclude with a cliffhanger. The 2009 Prince of Persia reboot ended with the player undoing all of the work to free an ancient evil god they’d just imprisoned.
So when I heard that there was a growing outcry about the endings of Mass Effect 3, my interest peaked, because invariably, that meant the story was provocative and daring, instead of predictable and boring."
90°
80°
30°
20°
Ad 
40°
20°
10°
10°
10°
10°
If the game doesn't delivery on the structural promises outlined by the developer (including 5 years of invested lore and universal rules within the game),
The purchasing consumer can and should voice there displeasure.
Forgive any typos as I sent this from my phone.
(For one, I said there's nothing really wrong with the endings unto themselves.)
As we learned from the Arrival DLC; a single mass relay explosion will create enough force to wipe out an entire system. Its the only reason the commander is stuck on earth at the beginning of ME3. His actions in the Arrival DLC (destroying the mass relay to slow down the reapers) resulted in the death of hundreds of millions of Betarinins (forgive the spelling...I sent this from my phone)
Whither the relay impact is associated with (uncontrolled) destruction or purposeful destruction, the relays were in fact (immediately) destroyed and the immediate release of that much mass effect would cause devastation across the system.