Things that are annoying

So did I but I thought killing Shepard in the first place was a really bad idea.

IMO, boxofscreaming is right, the Collectors themselves never really were a real threat. The game implies that they would have needed to invade earth to get enough humans in order to finish that reaper they were building. Apparently, they only have one ship and it only takes one single frigate to take that ship out. Even if they had more ships (as some ME3 MP stuff, which I don't consider canon implies), I doubt they would have gotten very far.

And from a writers perspective, killing Shepard, that resurrecting him/her 5 minutes later, blowing up the Normandy, making Shep work with Cerberus, retconning the council into not believing Shepard, basically negating everything the ME1 so painstakingly built up for the plot, that was a really REALLY bad idea and the ramifications of it are seen in all the problems of ME3's plot.

Why not pick up where ME1 left us? Shepard is on a mission to find ways to defeat the reapers when they come eventually. Need a new ship for gameplay reasons? Have the Alliance/the Council give him an upgrade for this high priority task (would have been much more believable than Cerberus building a brand new high-tech ship from scratch in secret).
Want the collectors in there? Sure, let Shepard discover what's going on in the Terminus colonies. Want Cerberus and TIM in there? Yea, they can still be a part of this, it would have created some cool and believable tension if Shepard (the player) actually gets to CHOSSE to work with them for whatever reasons that game throws at us. Want the new team in there? Yes, you could have basically kept almost all of those recruitment/loyalty missions exactly the same.
In addition, you could have already found the crucible plans somewhere other than the freaking Mars archives, they could have been the final goal to find in ME2 for example. We could have found out much more about the reapers already, foreshadowed that there is something fishy going on with the Citadel, etc., etc.
That would all have freed up space in ME3, to flesh a few things out more in there and maybe introduce the final premise of the trilogy a bit earlier than in the last 10 minutes.

I really do not understand why the writers felt it was necessary to blow ME1 to bits in the first 5 minutes of ME2. That was uncalled for and it introduced a heck of a lot of problems down the road.


If that was the main reason, that would be really sad.

I agree about killing Shepard at the beginning of ME2 wasn't the best idea.

I would have had it where Shepard survives the explosion. For the next 2 years, he/she, along with others, use a shuttle to travel around trying to find a way to stop the reapers. One day on the Citadel, Shepard runs into Miranda. She mentions that she works for Cerberus. She also mentions about colonists being abducted with the Alliance turning a blind eye. Her company would like for Shepard to help them find out who is responsible and to stop them.

Shepard approaches Anderson who confirms there have been colonists being abducted. He also confirms what Miranda told Shepard. Shepard decides to flip the bird at Anderson and the Alliance to go work with Cerberus to stop the abductions.

The game plays out similar to what it is currently.

I like many of the ones listed here so far. But for me:

1. Number one will always be Liara and how hard she is pushed on the player even if you don't like her.

2. Garrus being pushed as best bro and having little to no choice with how his arc plays out through the series.

3. The complete lack of Kaidan/Ash in ME2 and them being gone for a good chunk of ME3. I'm a Kaidan/Ash fan and I don't like this one bit. I also don't like how weak Ash's arc in ME3 is.

4. Not being able to romance Kasumi at all within the trilogy. I don't care though because my head canon for my broshep romances her after ME3.

5. Miranda not looking attractive in ME games despite being the space hottie and her romance being really lazy in ME3. Also her arc with her sister is super lazy too.

6. The dick riding that some of the characters do towards Shepard. Most of this comes from Liara and Garrus though.

7. Complete removal of exploration elements in ME2 and ME3. The games are fun, but they should have expanded and improved on the exploration instead of removing it entirely. ME3 is basically a shooter.

These are the ones I can think of at the moment. I don't have huge issues with ME3 in general or how it ends. I am also ok with most of its characters as well, but not all.

Shiala was ALWAYS the better choice in ME1.  It would have been great if she had joined instead had you not killed her on Noveria.  Tbh, besides being a better fighter than Liara, she would also be a better resource in dealing with Benezia, the entire reason for recruiting Liara in the first place.

I would have sent her to Hackett right after Mars. She knows about the protheans with the amount of time she has studied them. She can help decipher the plans. What's funny is the player has the option to send A/K to Hackett, after the coup, to Hackett. What can they do to help with the crucible that Liara couldn't help with?

Here's what I would have happen. After talking with the council, Udina mentions they lost contact with Feros and that there were reports of geth in the area. He suggests Shepard head there to see what's going on and hopefully bring back any information that can incriminate Saren. After stopping the Thorian, there is no option to shoot Shiala. She is brought back to tell the council what she told Shepard. They suggest having her as a squadmate since she may be useful in providing additional information in chasing Saren.

Nope, you're right.  It's Feros.

I'm going to go ahead a blame a recent head injury.  lol

I always wondered how they went from this face in the cinematic trailers:



to this face in the game:


Ok, this may be one of the more drastic examples and lighting conditions can make or break faces in ME2 (especially Miranda's) but while faces were generally a strong point of the ME trilogy, IMO they really failed with Miranda. IMO she looks ... weird in most of scenes.

Thessia is so bad because the game also tries to make you feel sorry for the Asari on top of everything. Why would I? They didn't want to join the war effort in the first place. I respect the soldiers that tried to help Shepard, but I largely am unsympathetic to the Asari. They are pretty annoying as a race in general. Also, I've said this a hundred times but I hate Liara for saying "next time we go to war, maybe the Alliance can spring for air support." Then you have this moron defending her people like a crazed fanboy. And then as you pointed out, Javik is only stating the truth and Liara is acting like a bratty child. I recently discovered that if you don't stop Liara, Javik does not get along with her and doesn't write his book with her. Which I am glad is a possibility. 

I personally would prefer an option to kill her off from the series. Either on Virmire. I'd rather have Ash/Kaidan anyway or let her die on Thessia. Something. I really hate how she is the only one impervious to death in the series until the very end. And that will net you a bad ending.

The issues started from ME1.  The 30 year timeline bringing humanity from First Contact War to Council race never made a lot of sense.  You could see why the volus, who had been around for nearly 2400 years and developed the economy for the Council races, was rather annoyed with remaining a client race.  Meanwhile, humans whined about not being handed full power when they'd done nothing to earn it.  I maintain that it would have worked much better had humanity struggled for at least a few centuries and worked their way up.  Then, their defeat of Sovereign would have served to give them a Council seat (just as other races made significant contributions to do so).  Ash's family struggles would have made more sense if, say, humans resented her ancestor for the perception of enslaving them to the turians.  Also, a military might built up over centuries makes a lot more sense than one created in decades.

All that said, I'd never go for a reboot.  I'm a firm believer that they'd just continue to dumb things down rather than "fix" all the things that we all randomly have problems with - which are without a doubt not the same things.  I mean, I want a Kaidan romance in ME1, A/K as squadmates in ME2 (even if just for a DLC, like Liara), and not having Garrus and Liara my forced best friends in the entire trilogy.  Plenty of you would be more than happy to see Kaidan dead and love it that Garrus and/or Liara are prominent.  I'd also scrap the Catalyst entirely and made Destroy the only option (with Shepard's survival, and the state of the galaxy post-war, dependent on our choices).  ME2 would be a better fit into the overall trilogy.  Regardless of your feelings about ME2, it obviously doesn't fit with the overall theme of the trilogy - unless Arrival becomes a main part of the game instead of DLC and the Collectors are tied more closely to the Reapers (maybe an explanation about them being used due to the unexpected defeat of Sovereign). 

I could go on.  Any of you could also probably go on.  Whose ideas "win" for the reboot?

to a potential reboot, do we want shepard back? or a new guy with a mild re telling of The Mass Effect trilogy.