If you were to ask one question for Bioware to answer, about the trilogy, what question would you as

Kai Leng also appeared on some of the comic books. Strangely, Liara commented in ME3 that the illusive man must have tried recruiting kai leng because he missed shepard (therefore placing his recruitment after shepard closed all ties with cerberus). However, the comic books do portrait him as a cerberus agent by the time the geth attacked eden prime.

Another question I would ask Bioware:

Why did you guys gave up on allowing both Kaidan and Ashley to survive the mission on Virmire under the pretense that no one would want to pursuit a career in which one of them perished, but by the time of ME2 you made a so-called suicide mission in which 13 individuals including shepard and also the entire normandy crew aside from joker and the Edi AI could potentially die, you made it possible for everyone to survive?

I mean, having both Kaidan and Ash by ME3 could be really great. In the same way that playing ME3 can be great with characters from ME2 having perished.

Actually, if we could have both Kaidan and Ashley alive in ME3 this could solve one of its major flaws: The low number of squad-mates available when compared to ME2. This is even worse if the player had garrus and/or tali killed, or doesn't have javik.

The fault is actually with mass effect 2. They really jumped the shark with squad-mates by having 10 (11 if we consider Morinth as a distinct person), plus 2 more as optional DLC.

If they were not able to replicate this experience in ME3 or even to expand it, then it does look like to me like a shot in the foot.

I really think that the best should always be kept in storage for last. And while the squad-mates in me3 are much better involved and free on the normandy one cant help but notice that the game lacks in the quantity department.

The writers of me3 were in big trouble. I dont envy their job. I mean, they had to come up with meaningful parts for all of the me2 cast in 3 while yet taking into consideration that all of it is conditional and therefore can not be integral and necessary to the main plot since all of them could potentially be dead.

Oh but come on, clearly Casey/Drew wanted to make this a choice because it was to emphasize how big choices are in ME. It was their showcase touch choice. It was all over their marketing as well "You have to choose which one lives or dies and that will have consequences for the rest of the trilogy." (or something to that effect.)
And it worked. The Ash/Kaidan choice was widely regarded as one of the most unique - and most tense - moments in ME1, that really made it stand out.

Of course, they way they handled the aftermath in ME2 (and 3 to some extent) by making the characters almost the same was not great but just speaking from the ME1 perspective, it was a well implemented and well marketable moment. I don't ind they did it that way. I was actually more surprised they allowed us to get everyone out of the suicide mission in ME2. Given all the hype they made around it (even in universe), I was absolutely sure there'd be at least one mandatory loss in that one.

I don't think it was about getting a squad mate there, it was about the Normandy getting places.

But, technically I guess the situation doesn't make too much sense either way. Shep takes quite a bit of time to have the chat and the fight with Saren. It should have been more than enough time for the Normandy to pick up the Virmire victim and get back to Shep. But they can't/don't for whatever reason (maybe they had to evade Sovereign who seemed to be somewhere around, who knows).
The point is, I get why the devs chose to make this a big choice rather then an optional death.

I also thought it worked in a narrative way. When I first played it, I certainly didn't ask myself these questions. I just mourned Ash and was pissed at Sovi/Aren, so i guess that worked.

Also, it made for a good ME joke: "After Shepard was done on Virmire, there was nothing left but Ash."