Mass effect 2 was perhaps the best game in the series, but it was a very different game than mass effect 1. While the core mechanics were the same, it was extremely episodic and the plot was flimsy. I recall ME3 reeled it back a bit, doing away with some of the annoying exploration stuff, but suffered from third installment syndrome.

I'm sorry, but last I recall ME3 was a 20-30hour long game that is way more than just a 10-minute ending sequence. Maybe criticism of it should take that into consideration?

I don't expect to convince you otherwise (honestly, I don't expect that of anybody on the Internet, though I still try sometimes), but did you watch the linked video?

The critic (and a whole bunch of other people) did enjoy the game, and the series. Overall, I don't regret the time spent playing it. If people didn't enjoy the ME series, no one would have cared about the ending.

Can you expand on the idea of the third instalment syndrome?

The short of it is that while the second installment is always a challenge, being forced to face the reality of being a sequel instead of a stand-alone story, the successful sequel usually ends up passing the buck by focusing on buildup and universe expansion. Often the sequel jumps genres or settings. The third installment is then charged with culmination, building up tension even more before tying it all up in a satisfying manner, without the option of switching it up yet again. If it's in 3D, that means they couldn't figure it out and opted for a second sequel instead. The fourth installment is, of course, practically impossible, and tends to be a prequel or a spinoff.

I feel exactly like you, and I'm glad I'm not alone.

For some reason though we're the exception here. Most people seem to have enjoyed ME2 more than ME1 because nobody seems to care about having an actual coherent storyline as opposed to a bunch of one-off missions, fancy graphics and a character with a recognizable face from TV.

Personally speaking, I preferred ME2 greatly because it was a modern game in the good senses of the word: competent mechanics, enjoyable combat, and a good-enough story that was presented well enough as to be able to effectively stir emotional reactions that I appreciated. ME3 continued this trend--its general rep as "ME2 but more and better" is a compliment to ME2, which I feel like is a game that could have come out today and nobody would have felt it was out of place. In terms of mechanics and structure, it was ahead of its time, and it's still very fun for me to play today.

On the other hand, the original Mass Effect is unplayable to me; that the narrative is a little (not a lot, IMO, despite retroactive claims to the contrary) tighter gets lost when the game is too frustrating to play, with unsatisfying core gameplay when you get out of menu hell to even play it. I liked many of the ideas in it--the Mako was a great idea with a ton of potential--but execution, and arguably the technology stack they used, was severely lacking. As such, ME1 is a product of that weird transitional era in games where few people seemed to really have a handle on what they were doing--a game like the original Half-Life has aged better than the ME1, and it came out many years before.

Now, isn't it funny that that bears no resemblance to hurf blurf fancy graphics recognizable face hurf blurf? But that's a real nice cross you've nailed yourself to, don't let me stop you from indulging in your self-righteous enlightenment.