What I find fascinating and extremely telling about your response to my post is that I made a post to highlight a game which deserves more attention than it got, a game which had the unfortunate luck of being released in the only year in which we could legitimately describe ourselves as being inundated with new decent RPGs, the only year that happened in that decade. I chose to highlight a game that is undeservedly genuinely overlooked as a classic of the era.
And what do you take from my post? You want to rush to the defence of a game I mentioned briefly in passing as being 'infamous' "rather than must play classic". A game and series that requires no additional support to highlight it's cRPG historical significance and a game which you yourself admit is only borderline RPG genre anyway, or at least hybrid with an FPS.
Further more, you then decide that the use of the word 'infamous' is in someway a description of the quality of the game and make an inference that the word infamous is therefore incorrect, when infamous is exactly the word to describe ME3, regardless of any discussion of its quality.
By doing so you are implying ME3 is a must-play classic, as that's the only other thing I said about it, to which, no, it's the third part in a series and it's the least popular of the series, regardless of why. If you're going to mark ME3 down as a must-play classic then you might as well call every game ever a must play classic, you're getting to that level of blind fanboyism.
And just to add insult to injury, in a request for a citation for your use of the word 'most' you provide a link which quite clearly shows 'most' people giving the game negative reviews FOR WHATEVER REASON. And so you are now redefining the word 'most' to mean something that is not 'most'.
Do I need to 'in a nutshell' the entire essence of the 'problem' of the nature of these discussions any more than what this brief exchange provides?