Unpopular opinions

I'm on board with a majority of your opinions here, and indifferent where not in complete agreement.  You're not alone!

I more of the mind that Galactic Readiness should have increased as you played a higher percentage of the missions possible in the game and had nothing to do with multiplayer.  Players should have had the option to trigger the final assault at any point after stopping the Cerberus coup... but with the applicable "hit" to their Galactic Readiness rating in addition to missing the various war assets involved.  Of course, this would have involved some additional possibilities to the ending itself... e.g. Shepard never even addressing the Quarian/Geth war... so the war raging on past the ending.

Naw, not 0% - Most of the species did have their own fleet or military and some experience fighting wars among themselves... plus, by the time you get to look at the War Table, you've already completed Mars and acquired Liara and the plans for the Crucible.  Not sure what % of the total possible game one has completed at the end of Mars, but that is the % I would display when you first look at the War Table (if you look at it as soon as you can, of course).  If the player doesn't look at it until later, then the % displayed should have already changed to reflect the percentage of the total game they've completed to that point.  The only time it should show 100% would be AFTER Priority Earth is completed and only IF you've completed every possible task within the game, including all DLC released to that date (i.e. when it simply doesn't matter and it only would a confirmation to completionists that they did everything possible to do in the game).  No civilization would ever be fully "ready" for a war of that magnitude and no individual would ever be so influential that they could utilize whatever resources they have available to them at 100% efficiency.

Quote of Wiki justifying the existence of the GR:



  That some players could drive their EMS up to 100% by playing multiplayer while doing everything in SP left the player stuck at 50% is just a ridiculous premise from a roleplay perspective.  Like ending a 3-century-old war (no matter how it was ended) would do nothing to increase Shepards influence in the galaxy?

Also, if the GR were scaled to percentage of game completed and the player could choose to not do some of the main missions like Rannoch, they could have foregone the nonsense of juggling war assets between the two sides but their adding up to the roughly the same thing.  If you made peace, you get both geth and quarian assets; if you sided with one or the other, you only get the assets for the one side (not more quarian or more geth than before), and if you didn't do the mission, you would simpy get neither and your GR scale would also not rise as far because you'd be forfeiting being able to complete 100% of the game.

If always at 100%, it should at least not be named "galactic readiness" - probably shouldn't be called that anyways.  The Galaxy is obviously not 100% ready at any point in the game.  Even if it named something like "Shepard's Influence Scale" - His efficiency in using the resources he's compiled would just never be at 100%... even if Jack gives 110% percent effort.  I agree - it just doesn't make any sense.

ETA:  Keeping it set at 100% regardless of anything?  Well, then I think they should just eliminate it, since it would then have absolutely no in-game effect or purpose.

Those are great ideas, but almost so detailed as to be unrealistic. At least with the time given. :\

Just like some others in the Priority Earth thread I've browsed through.

If you "concentrate on Sovereign" the council dies and you get 8 paragon points (plus 9 renegade points).

Instead of the holokid at the end, the controller should've been... Jenkins. Would explain a great deal, the lack of strategy, the beeline straight for Earth...

I think the paragon/renegade system should chill the fuck out in general.

Moral choice false dichotomy systems being bullshit aside, people place far too much emphasis on whether a choice, a character or a playthrough fits under one or the other. Just make the choice you want to make and get on with it. Alternately, the game should never force/railroad you into one side or the other (looking at you ME2).

Ashley/Kaidan should've been required for the From Ashes dlc

It should never of been possible

The same could be said for having Liara on Thessia, Garrus on Menae and Tali on Rannoch.

I prefer there wasn't an option to kill Ashley/Kaidan. Its something that should never be an option.

Why didn't Shepard make any attempt to get a hold of them with her/his comms?

When Udina says Shepards' with Cerberus, why didn't Shepard or even the squadmates speak up and say no we're not? If that were the case, why are the squadmates helping Shepard? Ashley/Kaidan should realize that. When all have their weapons pointed at each other, Ashley/Kaidan should realize they don't have a chance. Sure they might be able to kill Shepard or a squadmate, but they would be gunned down immediately. Had Leng and his phantoms showed up instead of Shepard, they would kill Ashley?Kaidan without any hesitation.

Why couldn't the squadmates speak up? On Horizon, in ME2, Garrus will say something. Even call them by name. What changed? I know. Ask me. Ok why? Because ME3 is the third game in a trilogy and is the best place to start playing.

With the squadmates not speaking  up, it tells me they don't care. They don't have Shepard's back. Heck. The turian and the asari could be a LI. I know one thing. I would end the relationship with that character and have them removed from my ship since obviously they don't care. They sure are quick to shoot Ashley/Kaidan though, if Shepard hesitates.

My guess as to why the option is there, is because of what happened on Horizon in ME2. The same with shooting Udina for locking the SR1

personally I'd have been happy enough if virmire survivor died on mars.
I certainly wouldn't want them to be a forced option on from ashes.