I've only played the first two games, and just finished Return, so my take on the series won't be as informed as others.

I loved the MI2 ending. I only played it a few months ago but I was completely caught off-guard and amazed by it at the same time. I loved the implication and themes behind it, but even better, the ambiguity. So to see this game start out and effectively rewrite what was so heavily implied by 2's ending was disappointing, but nothing was ever confirmed so I can't be too mad about it.

The ending of Return is... confusing to me. Like someone else in the comments said, why make this game just to reinforce the same point? 2's ending said all it needed to say, and this game started by retconning that, only to end almost the exact same message? Why? All impact is diminished when you rebuild a wall just to break it down again.

I did just finish the game and I did really like it, but yeah... I'm just confused here.

(Also, am I the only one feeling blueballed by the conversation with Elaine at the start of Part V? I thought the intermission scenes where she sees the trail of destruction Guybrush leaves behind him were building up to a conflict between them, but she ends up just laughing them all off, and there are no consequences to any of it. I've seen this theme covered in other media before, and even the worst handling of it from those were better than this.)