User blog comment:Markurion/How many of you put a bullet in Godchild in EC?/@comment-24174486-20120717195221/@comment-24174486-20120719015320

"every Shepard I played was a guy who stood behind an idea where everyone CAN live without integrating themselves into a single DNA."

Then don't choose Synthesis for that reason. Simple as that. There are other reasons to consider each choice other than what the Catalyst believes. Or must every choice adhere to your standards?

"And sure, stopping the menace is a main goal, but the options on HOW to do that, are less than logical."

The idea of destroying the Reapers is very logical and very straightforward. The only complication is that it comes at a price: the destruction of synthetic life as well.

Honestly, I think there'd be a lot less people whining and complaining if Destroy was simply "Reapers die, no downsides, everyone lives happily ever after". The fact that Destroy has its costs—that every choice has its costs—is the cause for a great deal of the whining about the ending, because they expected a sunshine-and-flowers "golden" option from a series that has always included major and difficult decisions. The idea of victory through sacrifice—one of the major themes of the game, mind you—is absolutely abhorrent to them.

"It's like 1 guy wrote whole game, and than another one barged in, took over and wrote the ending."

I'm convinced the whole "oh, it was only Mac Walters and Casey Hudson that wrote the ending, therefore Walters and Hudson ruined Mass Effect" argument sounds as stupid to the ending bashers who first started it as it does to everyone else. I doubt it was started for any reason other than knowing that it would be extremely hypocritical to bash all of the writers for the specific part that they didn't like while expecting the writers to change that part to exactly what they wanted.