364 réponses à ce sujet

[SkinnyMcfatty]

kalle90 wrote...

Now that we hit it I can't also help but to wonder it. Assuming the Theory is right it's basically saying if you chose A or B it's game over but if you chose C you get to continue from the DLC...

Though Saren was able to walk around in real world even though he was synthetized. So maybe Shepard is able to "return" to earth anyway.
It would be interesting if these options meant you switched sides and Harbinger approached Shep "congratulating" him. Shep is now working for Reapers killing people until he meets his squad and then there's Sarenlike standoff which either ends in Shepard commiting suicide (and pixie dust killing Reapers) or Shepard killing his squad and allowing the cycle to go on. Of course it's all just a huge can of worms, most people would despise having to side with Reapers.

All I know is that doing a suicide because I'm indoctrinated and then having Garrus, Liara and the gang there saying farewells to Shep would be way more satisfying ending than what we got now.

  hey kalle, with no way of really knowing what will happen until it does  i for one would think Shepard in a Saren type role hunting down his squad would be an amazing story arc ending. If he even had it in him to kill his LI Harbinger would keep him around somehow until the next cycle.  Just a nice dark ending to show even heroes can fall. The suicide would have been a nice way to go. Either way i think i would get the closure i'm looking for.

  But i digress , i don't want to take the thread off topic .

[kalle90]

fwc577 wrote...

Also, another note about "Control"

In the AUTO Dialogue at the end with TIM.

When TIM talks about controlling the Reapers. Shepard rejects it saying "Because, we aren't ready"

So you're tellng me that 5 minutes later Shepard changes his tune and is willing to control the Reapers? Shepard has never seemed very indecisive through the 3 games.

That was before we found a magic lift and catalyst. But like you and the theory says catalyst is lying so it's moot argument.

The thing I wonder though is that do we have any control over ourselves from that point on. Saren and TIM were able to act themselves, as did Kenson. Really, the more I think about it the more I believe the actual ending will be DLC (it's not post-ending DLC if it's ending DLC so Bioware might be twisting words again).

Still, this is just continuation to the Collector Base or Geth Heretic Paragon/Renegade issue, though this is ten times bigger.

[Sherbet Lemon]

 The problem with the conversation between Reaper Damian and Shepard is that it essentially breaks the fourth wall and the  conversation no longter takes place within the space of the narrative.  The Star Child functions more as a voice for the developer and less a character just as Shepard isn't really Shepard during this moment.  Shepard is us.  The developer/game master lays out all of the cards on the table and essentially asks us to choose.  In turn, we are expected to consider the options and pick "wisely."  Narratively speaking, this is problematic because it causes confusion, gives off the illusion of "Shepard" still being in game himself/herself when they are not.   We have broken that wall and now are being expressly addressed.

This is why the decision to highline that conversation was a huge mistake (imo), because it asks too much of its audience.  It essentially takes the player from a visceral, emotional connection with their Shepard to a more intellectual, analytical head space.  This space is typically reserved for conversations with allies like Legion and EDI who we recognize as avatars for analytical, highly logical thinking.  Space Damian is an unknown quantity, but we are expected to trust it.  This is not inherently so and is therefore rejected.  Still, this does mean that the solutions presented are necessarily terrible, they just don't fit with the expectations that we had of the game until that moment.

Of course the gamer is the implied reader or "Shepard" but that sense of duality isn't so expressly addressed normally. 

So to answer the question: why would anyone trust Space Damian?  I would say, Space Damian wasn't established as a real character.  Space Damian is the collective voice of the developers.  

[ZackG312]

Raxxman wrote...

When did Shepards objective of 'Stopping the Reapers' change to 'Destroying the Reapers?'

All endings 'stop the Reapers' 'Stop the Reapers' is Shepards goal, That Shepard must destroy the Reapers is a supposition.

Really, can anyone find me a quote where Shepard says he's out to 'Destroy the Reapers?' I can find dozens which state his goal is to stop them.

All shown endings stop the Reapers. They may suck but IT is wrong stating that destruction is all Shepard wants throughout the series (It may be their Shepard wants to destroy, but their Shepard may want Kadiens hot hot buns, doesn't mean my Shepard does)

I remember in Mass Effect 1 he says "your a machine and machines can be broken." "I'm sending the Reapers back to hell." In Mass effect 3 he tells T.I.M " you are playing with things you dont understand, with power you shouldnt use."
So why sould Shepard decide to control the Reapers at the end.

[Ieldra]

fwc577 wrote...
Please quote the dialogue from TIM if you want to argue "symantics" of "defeat" and "destroy" as TIM specifically says the word DESTROY when discussing Shepards approach to the situation.

Yeah. TIM assumes that's what Shepard wants. And at this point in time, controlling the Reapers sounds like an insane proposition and remains so until Sanctuary. Up to this point, destroying the Reapers completely appears as the only option since you don't know they're controlled by the Catalyst yet. Also, you're a soldier talking about the enemy. Of course you talk in agressive terms. Throughout human history soldiers have talked that way. Nonetheless, few wars have resulted in the total destruction of the losing side. Occupation or compromise were much more common results. And before you tell me the Reapers aren't normal enemies: why not? They're super-powerful, but in the end they're just enemies.   

Also, Saren and TIM are the metaphorical embodiements of Synthesis and Control.  When taking full Paragon/Renegade options, Shepard convinces them it is wrong and then they kill themselves.  If you convince TIM/Saren their wrong and they should kill themselves, and he has been hell bent on "defeating" the reapers, then why would he NOT choose to destroy them in the end?

You're making the same mistake again - mixing up ideas and those who support them. No, Shepard does not convince them their ideas are wrong. Shepard convinces them they're slaves of the Reapers. That's why they kill themselves. And I can choose other options because I can change my opinion as soon as those other options become viable. Early in the game, Control doesn't appear viable and something as far-fetched as Synthesis wouldn't have crossed my mind as a solution. But I have always sympathized with Saren's idea about the melding of man and machine and TIM's idea's about advancement while abhorring their methods, and played that way throughout two games and most of the third. I convinced Saren to kill himself because he had became a slave of the Reapers. Under other circumstances, it would have been interesting to debate the merits of his ideas. I killed TIM because he had become a slave of the Reapers and because he had "sacrificed too much" (Renegade Shepard). But I always agreed with him that the Reapers should be studied and their technology adapted for our own use rather than destroyed - *if possible*. As did, in fact, happen with EDI, with the Thanix cannon, perhaps even with Shepard himself. That Control might be viable is foreshadowed when Hackett says TIM might be on to something after Sanctuary.

In the end, it comes down to the question if you can trust the Catalyst. As someone else said, the Catalyst is more like the voice of the developers here, and I think we're definitely supposed to take it at face value. But even if you can't - and I agree that the option should be available - that would make all options equally suspect.

the fact remains their is still plenty of unavoidable dialogue in the game such as the ones I posted from the TIM/Shepard meeting in the Prothean Archives to show that effectively, Shepard is Destroy, TIM is Control, and Saren would be Synthesis (according to ME1).

Not so. Effectively, Shepard is what you built him into through threee games. One ambiguous dialogue doesn't invalidate that. Or rather, it shouldn't invalidate that. If they did that, that would pretty much destroy roleplaying. Also as I explained above, those lines can be interpreted differently, and which motivations underly the actions and utterances of my Shepard is not for you to say, and really, neither is it for the developers to say. Not after almost three full games where I could pretty much choose my motivations and underlying value system. That's the essence of roleplaying with the constraints of a story told by a game. 

As for your statement about semantics: Claiming it's "mere semantics" is the refuge of people who don't want to admit there is a meaningful difference between two concepts.

@Zack:
That dialogue in ME3 is avoidable. I didn't get it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 04:55 .

[Ieldra]

kalle90 wrote...
Still, this is just continuation to the Collector Base or Geth Heretic Paragon/Renegade issue, though this is ten times bigger.

Only that my side doesn't claim the other's preferred choice should be invalidated as an option to win. I am really surprised that so many people here show such sudden intolerance. And they're not even ashamed of it. It is incomprehensible, really.

[MDT1]

@ OP:
The basic problem with the indoc theory is that Bioware actually never intended it and fans had to get it somewhat fitting. An destroy is the only option to possibly wake up, well you get what I mean. You can see this clearly with the collecetor base issue.

Other than that it isn't strictly about control/synthesis beeing morally bad or something, it's that in the case of a mind game this two option would represent the two ways of giving in to reaper logic, aka getting indoctrinated, we had seen on main villains in ME.
Control represents to give in to indoctrination the same way TIM did.
Synthesis represents the way Saren did it.

Modifié par MDT1, 22 mars 2012 - 05:09 .

[thehomeworld]

I agree with OP it depends on your view I mean look at life there are people out there that think Cerberus, Hitler, and Mao were great people despite the fact they kill tons of innocent people those people are either overlooked or reduced to collateral damage to achieve the cause so it doesn't make sense that people suddenly can't do an evil thing and say we'll thats all wrong! I wanted to be the racist, galactic jerk, who likes Cerberus who suddenly doesn't want to cause all instinction of galactic life? You could control the reapers and make them eat the aliens your shep isn't happy about. In the other direction a para shep who wants to save as many people as possible can control the reapers to make them go away but guard the galaxy against future attempts from outside forces to obliterate it, that doesn't mean they agree with TIMs methods their doing it because it could be useful in protecting the galaxy against reaper like forces.

[thehomeworld]

And to just repost why I don't like indoctrination theory is:

I really don't like the implications of the indoctrination theory for several reasons. If I just excluded the fact the no one can release themselves from indoctrination for a moment its bad in the sense that shep is still in the ruble and dying! That means it was a dream before he wakes up in said situation he is either

(A) Now too hurt to continue to stop the reapers or

( has to drag his ass to the beam again to do exactly the same thing he did before with minus the whole shooting Anderson and starchild events.

Both mean shep has lost valuable time his fleets both on ground and in space are getting more and more thinned out while he's laying there which means by the time we get to whatever it is that truly controlled the crucible in the first place we would've lost 50 - 80% of our troops so while we're there racking our brains to figure out how to turn on the crucible (considering it will turn on in reality now) by the time we get around to destroying, loving, cooperating with the reapers our troops aren’t' going to fair well and sheps probably still going to bleed to death before he can either (A) have a doctor get up through the beam to get him or ( drag his ass back to the exit point and that's being generous thinking the beam works both ways and infact won't be shut down as a result of shep's choice to love, destroy, or cooperate with the reapers.


Now back to the indoctrination breaking free problem; YOU CAN'T DO IT! Benezia, TIM, Saren, Feros girl, and other couldn't do it.

But wait TIM only got hit by a beacon and lived! But he also plugged into his brain the whatever he used on sanctuary to turn people into husks he is now a more advanced husk but still indoctrinated.

But shep hasn't been exposed to enough reaper tech! Yes he has:

1. the beacons based off of reaper tech

2. Rho for 2 days sedated within the base within range of the reaper waves how do I know this? The staff in that area complain about it! Also a sleeping at rest mind will accept lies, propaganda, and other brainwashing techniques easily and without question so shep could've gotten up to a weeks worth of waves and influence done in just 2 day

3 EDI has reaper tech in her Shep may also have reaper tech in him this could be benign it could also indoctrinate until the LP files are known this is a wild card

4. The geth world he was plugged into the same system as reaper code was this could also imprint itself onto him

5. Out cold next to Harbi we know reapers admit waves sense ME he could've always broadcasted that while shep laid there his mind yet again accepting anything Harbi told him as truth.

We first meet Benezia who states that no matter how strong the mind or the will given long enough exposure to a reaper's influence you too will become a thrawl like her. She broke out of its hold for 3 minuets before she was overcome.

6. Shaila (the consort) walk around there listen to the people, her people! They feel called to come back to work for her, every member there is in a spell over her, they can't put their finger on why she's everything to everyone they just don't know it yet. To me this girl screams reaper thrawl and a willing one at that if you melded with this girl you've got two thrawl melds and potential reaper corruption!

Saren: Questioned his programming but in the end was retrofitted like shep and even though a part of him knew what was happening more of him wanted to just keep doing what the reapers said and in the end if you make him kill himself they just take over his tech anyway.

Feros girl: Became a thrawl along side Benezia then was given to the plant she now claims still to feel the plants influence over her connecting her to her gang of colonist but also to hear the reapers signals and feel them calling her. She says the only way she's fighting them off is to live beside her colonist and they must stay as a hive minds otherwise they will answer the reapers calls.

We have many other examples during ME of indoctrination some knew it was happening but once that epiphany struck they still couldn't do much to stop them from turning.

The end result was known via vigil once the reapers leave a system the thrawls can no longer function they become mindless and no longer have a self preservation instinct.

So this suggest only a few loop holes for an indoctrinated shep who is only semi broken the hold of Harbi he'll become a mindless thrawl once he chooses to destroy the reapers, or if you can keep a constant power source running on a reaper artifact he can live within the area it is housed and no one else can because they would be indoctrinated he must stay near the item to literally keep functioning.

So the indoctrination theory ends way worse then any confusing ending of the Normandy crashing ever could you will not get a happy ending out of this other then shep's alive unless BW wishes to override and retconn how they've established for 3 games how indoctrination actually works all because its shep and when shep is involved all lore, law, and physics can go out the window.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if it's a dream shep is having after he got cooked by Harbi's laser then:

(A) Now too hurt to continue to stop the reapers or

has to drag his ass to the beam again to do exactly the same thing he did before with minus the whole shooting Anderson and starchild events.

Both mean shep has lost valuable time his fleets both on ground and in space are getting more and more thinned out while he's laying there which means by the time we get to whatever it is that truly controlled the crucible in the first place we would've lost 50 - 80% of our troops so while we're there racking our brains to figure out how to turn on the crucible (considering it will turn on in reality now) by the time we get around to destroying, loving, cooperating with the reapers our troops aren’t' going to fair well and sheps probably still going to bleed to death before he can either

(A) have a doctor get up through the beam to get him or

( drag his ass back to the exit point and that's being generous thinking the beam works both ways and infact won't be shut down as a result of shep's choice to love, destroy, or cooperate with the reapers.

[Punk4Real]

In the end, shepard's breathing back on earth. How do you explain that? Because he never even went up to the citadel.

[MDT1]

Punk4Real wrote...

In the end, shepard's breathing back on earth. How do you explain that? Because he never even went up to the citadel.

This is no joke, I heard the intended explanation would translate to something like:
With enough ems you accumulate so much good karma in the victory fleet, that the space magic explosion becomes a LUCKY space magic explosion and hurls Shepard through floors and closed doors back into the beam to London.


Edit: The part about karma was invented by myself to fill the gap and explain how ems should have any effect on where the exposions hurls you to.

Modifié par MDT1, 22 mars 2012 - 05:46 .

[kalle90]

Punk4Real wrote...

In the end, shepard's breathing back on earth. How do you explain that? Because he never even went up to the citadel.

I also think that's a little like Legendary difficulty endings in Halo. Huge hint that something else is coming. Hard to believe it's just easter egg or something pointless extra / exclusive alternative ending.

Besides Shep waking up doesn't mean everything will play out the same in when going to beam. Big part of the theory is that Shep's imagination is building the area and it's not real. The second run could play out completely differently, moreover it's still possible TIM and Anderson amongst other people are there on the 2nd time too. Besides the laser doesn't really hit Shepard so he might not be in need of immediate help.

Modifié par kalle90, 22 mars 2012 - 05:52 .

[colers]

Oh, and why, if the indoctrination theory is an insult to any rational person, please explain how the F it is possible to wake up after destruction end inside of the ruins of londen, as that would include surviving the Citadel getting blown up into a billion bizilion pieces, not getting burned by the atmosphere, and then surviving the fall that is hundreds of kilometres straight down. now tell me , is surviving all that stuff more rational than the indoctrination theory supported by shepards contact with reaper tech, entering the derelict reaper, the dreams of the kid, the totaly lack of logic in the choices, and the fact that shep actually was able to walk after being hit by a fcking gaint laser.

[MDT1]

I was serious, Shepard got blasted back into the beam to London.

[OdanUrr]

MDT1 wrote...

I was serious, Shepard got blasted back into the beam to London.

That's certainly convenient.

[bo_7md]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

1- Wrong... to proove the indoc theory you only need to make it more obvious during the whole last scene... also it wouldn;t need to add gameplay AFTER the current endings... it can be in between.. like a scene  before Jeffs runs away, where he goes back on earth and search for Shepard.

2 - BW has stated many things that did not happen in the final game like the non-ABC type of ending... you cannot possibly beleive all they tell you, that sounds like indoctrination to me

Ok.. that is far fetched.. but a team of 200+(?) people palying and testing this game.. did not for once mentioned.. "WTF is with these endings?" no.... people who's life carrear is making stories and have done so successfully years before.. suddenly forgot how to write stories... what did they get a stroke?

That to me seems even more far fetched...

1- No, see this is where you are missing the point. In the IT you need gameplay after because it is a dream the reapers are still out there they need to be killed.

2-Bioware has stated many FUTURE things that changed yes it is true. This open letter is disussing something they did in the past and some reasons behind it, and what are they doing to fix it.

No, it is not. see now lets line what we both are saying to make sure it is all correct: (lets assume a team of 200 Random)

1- (YOU) Every person has to agree to keep quite about this MAJOR/HUGE/HISTORICAL even.
2- (ME) They knew abou the current ending and couldn't change it.

Now, having said that you need to understand that game testers give gameplay feedback they wouldn't go "WTF is wrong with this story dude change it!" it is their job they can raise concerns (Maybe) but at the end they get the same answer everyone got, Artistic integrity. They made a story, you just didn't like it that is it plain and simple.

[Ieldra]

colers wrote...
Oh, and why, if the indoctrination theory is an insult to any rational person, please explain how the F it is possible to wake up after destruction end inside of the ruins of londen, as that would include surviving the Citadel getting blown up into a billion bizilion pieces, not getting burned by the atmosphere, and then surviving the fall that is hundreds of kilometres straight down. now tell me , is surviving all that stuff more rational than the indoctrination theory supported by shepards contact with reaper tech, entering the derelict reaper, the dreams of the kid, the totaly lack of logic in the choices, and the fact that shep actually was able to walk after being hit by a fcking gaint laser.

(1) Who says Shepard doesn't wake up on a broken-off Citadel ward still orbiting Earth?
(2) You're *way* overthinking this. This is just a scene to indicate Shepard is alive. They didn't think about it any more than that, you needn't either.

Also, I didn't say the whole idea that the ending sequence isn't real is insulting. I would be OK with it if it didn't single out one option as "correct". To quote myself:

I think it is an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them. Anyone who contests this is not thinking rationally and prone to the (very common) delusion that evil is somehow contagious.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 06:26 .

[bo_7md]

OdanUrr wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

I was serious, Shepard got blasted back into the beam to London.

That's certainly convenient.

It is logical, the place where he got fried on by the reaper was on solid ground, the video he is with in the struture. The citadel is right above the beam in london so it dropped people are just assuming this is concrete but no proof it might be other material.

[MDT1]

bo_7md wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

I was serious, Shepard got blasted back into the beam to London.

That's certainly convenient.

It is logical, the place where he got fried on by the reaper was on solid ground, the video he is with in the struture. The citadel is right above the beam in london so it dropped people are just assuming this is concrete but no proof it might be other material.

No its not logical, how should ems and/or the fact when anderson dies have an effect on this?

[bo_7md]

steej wrote...

steej wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

steej wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

People, there are inconsistencies everywhere. Someone start by explaining to me why the Reapers don't shut down the relay network.

They need it to travel around the systems.
What else you got matey?

Seriously? Setting aside for a moment the fact that this has been their MO for millions of years (shut down the network and pick them off one at a time) and they sure could take their time and use whatever standard drive they have (isn't this how they get to the Milky Way in ME3? no relays involved?), you're honestly telling me that the Reapers, creators of the mass relays, wouldn't be able to shut the network and activate one relay at a time to cull one system at a time?

Hmm, tough one, give me a momont..
(..we are building a consensus..)

Ok, here goes;
According to the MassEffect wiki;
http://masseffect.wi...#Specifications
The relays can be activated and deactivated at will, even by organics.

Also the Citadel is "the control center for all the relays, enabling the Reapers to sever travel between clusters. Its reactivation is, fittingly, more complex than that of an ordinary mass relay, requiring either a coordinated effort by the keepers or manual intervention by a Reaper."

Judging by the fact they did not attack the citadel in ME3, nor did they post a guard on it but only moved it closer to their main forces would imply that they need the relays open and functional at all time (for some reason).

Hows that?

1-I'm sorry I read through this can you tell me where it says it can be shutdown/deactivated (Really asking not joking)
2- If above true then doesn't that answer the question ? They didn't deactivated it because anyone can re activate it again. LoL

[bo_7md]

MDT1 wrote...

bo_7md wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

I was serious, Shepard got blasted back into the beam to London.

That's certainly convenient.

It is logical, the place where he got fried on by the reaper was on solid ground, the video he is with in the struture. The citadel is right above the beam in london so it dropped people are just assuming this is concrete but no proof it might be other material.

No its not logical, how should ems and/or the fact when anderson dies have an effect on this?

I'm saying shep falling to London is logical, I'm not with the Theory i'm against it.

[AlanC9]

Village Idiot wrote...

 The problem with the conversation between Reaper Damian and Shepard is that it essentially breaks the fourth wall and the  conversation no longter takes place within the space of the narrative.  The Star Child functions more as a voice for the developer and less a character just as Shepard isn't really Shepard during this moment.  Shepard is us.  The developer/game master lays out all of the cards on the table and essentially asks us to choose.  In turn, we are expected to consider the options and pick "wisely."  Narratively speaking, this is problematic because it causes confusion, gives off the illusion of "Shepard" still being in game himself/herself when they are not.   We have broken that wall and now are being expressly addressed.

I'm having a little trouble following this. What's the distinction between Shepard and the player at this point? Shepard's decision-making is in the player's hands, and Shepard doesn't have any information that the player does not have.

As for the question of trusting Space Damian -- I kinda prefer Starchild myself --  if you can't trust him then the choice is meaningless anyway. Which is kind of the point of the indoctrination hypothesis, right?

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
(1) Who says Shepard doesn't wake up on a broken-off Citadel ward still orbiting Earth?

That rubble didn't look like Citadel construction to me. Looked more like stone, which means London.This works if Shepard never goes to the Citadel at all, and everything after Harbinger fires is hallucinated.

I think it is an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them. Anyone who contests this is not thinking rationally and prone to the (very common) delusion that evil is somehow contagious. 

I agree with this, but isn't it the premise of I-theory that the ideas presented in the endgame are irrelevant? Are lies?

[MrAtomica]

Anyone arguing against any alternate theories (Indoctrination, Dream sequence, etc.) needs to read this document. It attempts to explain, in logical fashion, WHY many of us hate the current endings. You need not agree with this, but it would serve to foster debate, rather than pointless statements of "Here is why you're most certainly wrong."

https://docs.google....?pli=1&sle=true

This article, obviously, contains spoilers. I will not discuss it in depth here, but it should be available to people on these boards, since the spoiler boards are only open to certain people.

[cyborg2501]

Ieldra2 wrote...

colers wrote...
Oh, and why, if the indoctrination theory is an insult to any rational person, please explain how the F it is possible to wake up after destruction end inside of the ruins of londen, as that would include surviving the Citadel getting blown up into a billion bizilion pieces, not getting burned by the atmosphere, and then surviving the fall that is hundreds of kilometres straight down. now tell me , is surviving all that stuff more rational than the indoctrination theory supported by shepards contact with reaper tech, entering the derelict reaper, the dreams of the kid, the totaly lack of logic in the choices, and the fact that shep actually was able to walk after being hit by a fcking gaint laser.

(1) Who says Shepard doesn't wake up on a broken-off Citadel ward still orbiting Earth?
(2) You're *way* overthinking this. This is just a scene to indicate Shepard is alive. They didn't think about it any more than that, you needn't either.

Also, I didn't say the whole idea that the ending sequence isn't real is insulting. I would be OK with it if it didn't single out one option as "correct". To quote myself:

I think it is an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them. Anyone who contests this is not thinking rationally and prone to the (very common) delusion that evil is somehow contagious.

Hypothetically, all 3 of the choices have merit when looked at rationally. However, for a story that's so built around evoking emotional reactions, I'm not surprised they didn't build the end around a rational decision. In fact, I think it might feel a bit out of character for the game itself.  Shepard from the beginning has always been about destroying the Reapers. The control and synthesis options will still have a major story effect if you choose them, but there still has to be a roughly defined path for how to conclude the story. And I think at this point, people would accept the illusion of true choice in exchange for a well-conceived ending.