HAHA, a game that everyone was disappointed with the ending.
Are people still going over that? They've released a new ending, one that I found extremely well-written and beatiful, even though the original was very crappy.
J. R. R. Tolkien released a couple iterations of The Lord of the Rings in order to improve things, clarify and fix problems. He also went back and rewrote parts of The Hobbit years later in order to bring it in line with the rest of his writings. The version of The Hobbit we have now is not the version that was originally published, and it's better for it.
Eight years after killing off Sherlock Holmes, Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle went back and un-killed him based on overwhelming fan feedback. Then he wrote 'The Hounds of the Baskervilles'. His work, and he, benefited greatly.
For a modern example, CD Project Red, the developer behind the 'The Witcher' and 'The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings' have retroactively made major changes to both games; changed content, added content, changed and added dialog, changed and added cut-scenes - based on interaction with fans and their own artistic integrity and desire to make the best games possible.
What is the point of those examples? That these people have made excellent works and have garnered a great deal of love from the community for having such integrity and love for the fans.
Fans and critics alike have praised them for all of this. Yet over this issue with Bioware and Mass Effect 3 people do a 180 and claim that if even they fix most problems, they still should be judged over the original debacle.
At release Mass Effect was to be a masterpiece. Instead it was very good series with a terrible ending. The right thing to do, for the integrity and legacy of the series and for the fans, was to redo the ending of ME3 - which they did, and it worked. But people still talk of the game based ONLY on the old ending. I'm not having a go at you, or being hostile, but it's nonsense to make these comments about ME3's ending now.