One thing that I want to add to this discussion. A lot of people talk about how ME2 was a "second start" for the franchise, and one evidence of that is how Bioware kept saying ME2 was a excellent point to begin to jump in. I don't agree with that argument, but it is true that Bioware developed ME2 in a way that people could just jump in. The thing is, that is true for ME3 as well. The sentence "ME3 is a perfect time to jump into the story" was said time and time again. When discussing the ME trilogy we need to remember they are, at the end of the day, products that need to be sold, and maximizing that potential is a concern Bioware needed to have.
In other words, ME2 could have been the middle chapter many people wished it was, and then ME3 could very well have dropped all of that to tell a completely different story with little connection to the things that were set up by that hypothetical ME2. Or maybe ME2 being less "standalone-ish" would make for a weaker game, that would have been less well received both commercially and critically, making EA completely change the strategy for ME3, resulting in a entire new different game, again.
I prefer to celebrate the Mass Effect trilogy that we've got. Even with its flaws.
Well, yes. Some people think you can really relativize what breaks mean, I think it means something that makes the title inherently wrong and a gross hyperbole. But the points that are actually made are valid points that I've been aware for a long time. I strongly disagree with them, and I think ME3's ending is a self-contained problem. The last lap being awful had little to nothing to do with the previous ones if you will.