Now that Andromeda made the last trilogy irrelevant

That's just it "us or them"=/="us and them.  Shepard isn't just doing "some' collateral damage, but is wiping out all synthetic life everywhere in the galaxy, including allies!  

I'd take a faceless torso with the geth and EDI alive any time.  

A good RPG should not force a player into a position where they end up thinking that their character has performed an act so monstrous that they deserved to die. (if they want to play a character that way, that's another story) 

Vague, and yet:

EDI definitely dies in Destroy.  She does not leave the Normandy with Joker, nor does she appear at the memorial, and her name is on the wall.
The geth are not seen in any Red ending slides.  In fact, if the quarians were wiped out, Rannoch is shown completely abandoned.

People may headcanon that not all synthetics were killed, but that's neither the implication nor the intention.

That's just it, there are no details that suggest my interpretation is anything but the truth.  Where is the evidence that EDI or the geth survived?  Where is the evidence that shows the Red ending does anything besides what the Catalyst said it would do?

And Control and Synthesis endings show geth living on Rannoch, if they survived.

I don't WANT to hate anyone or anything.  But I also don't WANT my character to be forced to commit war crimes on a galactic scale because the writers think dark= "deep" So yeah, showing Shepard walking around living a life after doing RGB wouldn't do it for me.  WHich is why I said forcing Shepard to die is only the second-worst thing about the ending.

My Shepard never committed any genocide, war crimes or whatever you want to call it when choosing the red.

You can still "imagine" those things just as you can "imagine" them not happening.  That they aren't shown IS what enables the ending to be interpreted in either direction by individual players.  Bioware's "intent" was to leave the endings as vague as possible to enable bi-polar interpretations of them to exist.  In control, I can imagine some Shepards using that control to order the Reapers to indoctrinate everyone... BUT I can equally imagine Shepard using his control to just make the Reapers helpless and harmless or even cooperative to doing whatever the organics want them to do (like rebuild the Citadel).  I can interpret synthesis as being an awful thing or I can interpret it as being a beneficial change in the attitudes of long warring parties (undoing the DNA "memory experience" changes (per Javik) that was the source of persistent hatreds between organics and synthetics. IRL, to end a long-term war takes real deep changes in how the warring parties think about each other... or else the old hatreds just keep erupting new wars.

"Pop back to life" - where does it show them actually dropping dead?  Where in the EC is a single geth body shown?  It doesn't.  The only thing that implies that they could possibly die is what the Catalyst says about it.  The only way that people can think that the ALL synthetics die when destroy is chosen is to interpret what the Catalyst say as being definitive, but on close inspection, what the Catalyst says is anything but that definitive.

That EDI eventually "dies" is pretty certain given her name appears on the wall when they are adding Shepard's name to the wall.  Maybe she dies from the Crucible blast... who really knows maybe she dies when the Normandy crashes on that green planet? (The player can imagine a few different scenarios here.)

Whether or not Shepard "commits a genocidal" act has to address Shepard's intent.  In choosing destroy, does Shepard absolutely have to believe that he/she is intentionally destroying ALL geth and EDI and even ALL Reapers in the process?  I don't think so... because that's not what the catalyst actually says.  So, the player can "choose" whether or not they characterize their own Shepard as a genocidal person or not... Bioware is NOT forcing them to do so.

Showing EDI alive in the end would preclude (shut out) any players who what to characterize their Shepards as eliminating the entire threat from AIs from the universe... and some players may want to make that choice... and it is a line of thought that is, again, foreshadowed in the game (e.g. when Shepard first take's command of the SR-2, one line he/she can select is "All AI's are dangerous.").  You're saying your choices override their's.

With synthesis... in that it is such a heavily hated ending here on BSN sort of counters any idea that Bioware was at all successful in eliminating any thought of negative consequences of it with the EC.  The possible negative consequence of synthesis is shown by watching the DNA sequence itself change.  How clearly does Bioware have to shown that a consequence of their synthesis ending involves a "permanent" change to organic life?  If they wanted to make synthesis an ending without any negative consequences, there would have been no mention of changing the DNA... it would just imply that both sides just came to a better understanding of each other... so, I would argue that the issue with the synthesis ending is not that it doesn't show "salarians dying" and such... but that it shows too strong a negative consequence by changing DNA.  IRL, we hear all the time how people want "world peace" - but the reality is we're not ever going to get there unless some peoples really change how they think about each other.  The generational war hatred is almost inborn was brought up time and time again in the game regarding how the Turians and Krogan feel about each other (i.e. It's still a well foreshadowed idea in the game... no ambush there at the end either.)  Since what you're wanting is even stronger negative imagery than DNA changing, I suspect it's not that you don't see enough to imagine that synthesis isn't the perfect choice you accuse Bioware of intending it to be... You really want to make it so strongly negative that no one else could possibly see their way to selecting it.

Sure Shepard can think the Catalyst is lying.  But Shepard is wrong.  The Catalyst is an infodump from the writers telling us how it's going to be.  Show me any evidence that counteracts this.

Funny thing about ME1, both Ash and Kaidan are well aware of the situation and urging Shepard to save the other.  Where is EDI at the end of ME3?  Where are the geth?  Where is anyone's voice in this matter aside from the Catalyst?

You know what my Shepard says about Virmire?  "I made the call.  Kaidan's death is on me"

And when Garrus starts talking about the cold calculus of war "We start killing our friends, and war turns into murder"

Barla Von was also talking about the information brokering 'game"  Not Mass Effect.  You know what the best thing to do with a game that's impossible to "win"?  Don't play.  Heck even Barla Von knew that.

Writers of horror stories (or any novelist) don't generally solicit input from the reader as the story is unfolding.   Reading is a passive activity where you take the story into yourself.  A narrative RPG is more collaborative.  The game pauses and asks you how the character would respond to a given situation.  What they say, or do.  This is not (or is not supposed to be) a Gears of War game where our sole responsibility is to point the gun at the bad guy and push the Awesome Button. 

It's a bizarre optimism to ignore the words of the brat(as much as i hate that poorly conceived DEM) that all synthetics will be targeted and then ignore the evidence of the epilogue. The absence of Geth from only one ending and that is the Destroy ending.

Popularity or unpopularity of the concept of synthesis is neither here nor there. It is presented as the superior ending, the problematic issue of changing DNA isn't even touched upon in the epilogue, which if they had any desire to present the ending with a more mixed tone could have easily be done.

No its not that i want one ending so strongly negative, i want all endings with negatives and positives, regardless of the split of people who may prefer one concept.
As things ended up if you want the reapers dead you must take extreme relay damage, longer rebuilding, death of a companion, possible genocide of ally synthetics, dubious fate of protagonist(claim and counter claim from authors that is his/her last breath or not). It was a cheap easter egg they couldn't get rid of but wouldn't expand on despite it being one thing that might balance the sense of one ending seeming to have been lumbered with negative consequences without equal bonuses whilst....for those that want to control the reapers or for those that want to transcend as a species and learning from the reapers, you sacrifice Shep and get a positive rendition of your ending without further sacrifice.

Its a sequel. Why don't you go watch the trailer to find out more. And watching the end of God of War 3, he does shove the sword through himself, but is not seen in that spot after the credits suggesting he never died. Which is true. Since he's in a new God of War game.

Patrick Weekes can bring the Inquisitor back if he wants. It wouldn't be hard. He/she was never killed. Just has their left arm removed. That can be fixed easily.

Kratos in the god of war 3 killed himself,i finished that game,i don't know who took his body but he was dead for sure,of course if they want they can use some underworld rules to bring him back from the deads like they did in the first game if they need to make more money by using him,that's just their way to make a new chapter with the same protagonist...

I'm not ignoring anything because I'm not advocating for a particular interpretation of the ending.  What I'm saying it that Bioware intentionally did not lock people into a single interpretation... they did not make it "impossible" for people to headcannon alternative interpretations.  Yes, they imply, but the implications are ALWAYS vague enough that there is room to interpret something else IF the player doesn't want to go with Bioware's own interpretation of their own endings.  As such - you do not actually see dead geth.... yes, they imply that they die... they outright say through the catalyst that they could die... but they don't force the issue in such a way that it becomes impossible for some people to headcannon that some geth survive.  IF geth are shown alive... then people who want to could not headcannon that they died.

Same with synthesis... IF Bioware had of intended to only make synthesis only this obviously idealistic "peace for all time" ending, they would not have opened the can of worms about changing organic DNA.  Conversely, if the had shown dying Salarians from the process, they would have made it virtually impossible for anyone to headcannon that it could be a representation of a peaceful ending to the conflict.  You say you want all endings to be both negative and positive... yet, the ending that most people seem to already have the most negative reaction to - synthesis... because it involves altering DNA without everyone's consent... is the one you want to be made more negative by showing dying Salarians on top of the very graphic image of DNA being altered and the visual expression of everyone being changed into "something" with green glowing eyes?  How do you think adding dying Salarians would make synthesis "more acceptable" to people who want to pick a "lasting peace" over a "temporary" one?

He could've died or his body could've simply disappeared. Olympian bodies (at least in the third one) do disappear (rather violently). It could've gone either way. Of course the sequel does confirm which way it went.

But at the time it was an easter egg, just like the breath scene.

No, like I said they left ambiguous as to whether he truly died. And yeah, death doesn't mean much to Kratos given he "dies" in every game and that's a minor annoyance at best. Of course in this case, since his vengeance was complete we were led to believe that he would let himself stay dead this time. The new one has money grab written all over it of course. But hopefully they'll at least illustrate why he's still alive.


Otherwise, UpUpAway makes an interesting case. But I think people are talking past each other. Yes we have more room to wiggle within the "art" than we might think. But that doesn't make the "art" any less insulting. Bioware dun goofed and their intent in the endings is atrocious. That can't be denied or excused by how we can twist it to suit our needs. But given that at this point, it is what it is, it's not very useful to keep going on about it. Maybe we should just twist it into something that's borderline acceptable to each of us and move on (if you haven't already).