526 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

StreetMagic wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

So the people who don't get the ending are complaining yet again....its the Sopranos over again.



Its all in the narrative....

Are you just jumping into the thread with the whole "they don't get it" thing? Because the OP, I think, is a new player (I think). While everyone else is talking about various things (you know how these 15-20 page threads go).

Its a response to the first post.

However, through these pages, a bunch of people still do not get the ending.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 05 février 2014 - 11:31 .

[SwobyJ]

txgoldrush wrote...

So the people who don't get the ending are complaining yet again....its the Sopranos over again.



Its all in the narrative....

What do you think is the ending? No holds barred. Go ahead.

[Steelcan]

txgoldrush wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

So the people who don't get the ending are complaining yet again....its the Sopranos over again.



Its all in the narrative....

Are you just jumping into the thread with the whole "they don't get it" thing? Because the OP, I think, is a new player (I think). While everyone else is talking about various things (you know how these 15-20 page threads go).

Its a response to the first post.

However, through these pages, a bunch of people still do not get the ending.

LOL

[txgoldrush]

SwobyJ wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

So the people who don't get the ending are complaining yet again....its the Sopranos over again.



Its all in the narrative....

What do you think is the ending? No holds barred. Go ahead.

Shepard has to make a difficult decision to break the impasse with the Catalyst and end the cycle.

Javik foreshadows this tough choice an hour before the end.

Javik: Do not waver, victory is never achieved without difficult choices.
Shepard: I have made a lot of tough choices (Paragon)
Javik: There may be more. But I know you will see this through for all of us...no matter the cost.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 06 février 2014 - 12:49 .

[SwobyJ]

Duh. That was the whole London FOB sequence. Fight or die. Die or fight. Keep fighting, or drop that gun?

EDIT: Thanks for answering though.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 06 février 2014 - 12:50 .

[txgoldrush]

SwobyJ wrote...

Duh. That was the whole London FOB sequence. Fight or die. Die or fight. Keep fighting, or drop that gun?

EDIT: Thanks for answering though.

No, its the fact that victory requires you to make difficult choices...hence the ending, none of the choices are without cost.

Its thematically foreshadowing the final choice.

Its ME3's version of the Sopranos "you probably don't hear it when it happens" moment.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 06 février 2014 - 01:07 .

[SwobyJ]

txgoldrush wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Duh. That was the whole London FOB sequence. Fight or die. Die or fight. Keep fighting, or drop that gun?

EDIT: Thanks for answering though.

No, its the fact that victory requires you to make difficult choices...hence the ending, none of the choices are without cost.

Its thematically foreshadowing the final choice.

Its ME3's version of the Sopranos "you probably don't hear it when it happens" moment.

That foreshadowing is throughout the game, but it includes Javik's scene, yes. It's just elsewhere in the FOB (optionally though, whereas Javik focuses on it).

[Mcfly616]

Victory, at a cost. It's foreshadowed throughout the entire game. Yes.


One thing I've become more observant of after the last few times playing through the trilogy, I've noticed the "Control" theme is present around Cerberus in all 3 games. Testing thorian creepers and husks and turning them into obedient servants. I don't necessarily think it was foreshadowing from the start, that "Control" of the Reapers was going to be their endgame. But, I do think it fits perfectly with their goals and isn't out of character for Cerberus at all. It was a logical progression.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 06 février 2014 - 02:10 .

[SwobyJ]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Victory, at a cost. It's foreshadowed throughout the entire game. Yes.


One thing I've become more observant of after the last few times playing through the trilogy, I've noticed the "Control" theme is present around Cerberus in all 3 games. Testing thorian creepers and husks and turning them into obedient servants. I don't necessarily think it was foreshadowing from the start, that "Control" of the Reapers was going to be their endgame. But, I do think it fits perfectly with their goals and isn't out of character for Cerberus at all. It was a logical progression.

It's not so much victory at a cost (all ways forward have cost, even Synthesis in the way it is sold), but that any victory against the Reapers that is done without destroying them, is one that may not be a real victory after all.

It may be easier to drift into the other path, and that's understandable. Because it would appear that with the Reapers' overwhelming power, to try to destroy them appears at best to be a gamble.

And yet with the 'Cerberus' way, 'winning' is possible with their route. And that 'winning' has the potential to be better than it would otherwise be.

I said this in another post, but look at the Citadel DLC, and the colors used.

Blue/Castle Arcade = 'Gaming the system'? Reaching high scores? Getting a good payout if you're good enough?
Red/Silver Coast = 'Taking a gamble'? Putting it all on a low chance? Getting the best payout if you're the best?
Green/Tiberius Apartments = 'Enjoying the best of what you have'? Living it up regardless of anything else? Getting a good time no matter what you do?

What I'm saying is that at least in this specific game, Destroying the Reapers is the only way to get that 'really great result', and even by doing so, you're taking a giant gamble to see if it's even possible.

The other paths? Well I don't think Bioware's going to screw everyone who picks them over. Now, or in some hypothetical future. But they did NOT have 'True Victory' against the Reapers in the sense of it being a war, instead of a game, or an experiment.

~~~

Keep in mind that I actually think this'll be the last game that will be so heavily Destroy/Red/Pro-Organic focused in the main/default storyline thread (except maybe maybe a 'ME5', sorta), so if I'm right, no one should worry, imo. Paragons WILL have their day and I'm sure it'll come in fullll force, and 'Greenies' (a new strain! how novel!) may even have their focus even later than that.


Just for now, yeah, giant killer robots who killed trillions of physical organic sapients? .... Probablyyy better to kill them. But yes, you can opt for the advancements of Control, and the beauty (subjective, but I can see it) of Synthesis. These are options. They're just options that didn't really follow the seeming lessons of the most foreshadowing scenes of the game and perhaps trilogy. Control and Synth does have *some* backing though.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 06 février 2014 - 02:37 .

[SwobyJ]

An exception to my last post is in regards to EDI and the Geth. Even with EC High Destroy, their presence is (only) inferred to be gone.

So even the best Destroy result may come down to:

1)Do you even care about the trilogy's more primary lessons, or do you disagree and will take your chance to act on that?

2)Are you really that attached to Shepard possibly surviving (assume we don't know the exact EMS numbers), or are you more willing to take the tools or gifts of the - just up til now - enemy as preference instead, in order to maybe help many more people down the road?

3)Are EDI and the Geth surviving (despite EDI's optional scene of dedicating herself to the death of the Reapers, and the Geth leaving Reaper control to go fight them) more of a priority for you over killing the Reapers?

If you think Reaper tech can be used fine as long as we can mitigate the dangers, and that Shepard really should die at this point (at least narratively), go ahead.

But really, I'd take the Cerberus story as one of warning. Blue paths aren't necessarily bad at all, but they do mean a certain thing, and that's something that an indoctrinated TIM followed.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 06 février 2014 - 02:36 .

[Mcfly616]

Then it's subjective then. We stop the Reapers Cycles/Harvests in all 3 endings. That's a victory in my book. And I really don't find any specific choice better than the other two. I do however feel that Destroy is the biggest risk, Control is the surest thing, and Synthesis is the solution to the Organic/Synthetic conflict. Other than that, the best choice all comes down to ones own perspective and beliefs. That's one of the things I like about the ending.

[Mathias]

txgoldrush wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Duh. That was the whole London FOB sequence. Fight or die. Die or fight. Keep fighting, or drop that gun?

EDIT: Thanks for answering though.

No, its the fact that victory requires you to make difficult choices...hence the ending, none of the choices are without cost.

Its thematically foreshadowing the final choice.

Its ME3's version of the Sopranos "you probably don't hear it when it happens" moment.

99.999999999999999999% of the people who beat the game know Shepard had to make a difficult choice. It was obvious since Day 1 that the Player would have to make some kind've hard choice at the end of the trilogy. It's a recurring theme at the end of all the games. People understand the ending quite well, this is a common mistake Ending Defenders make, is that they think people who hate the ending "don't get it".

The problem was how it was executed. 

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 06 février 2014 - 03:20 .

[Mcfly616]

The problem for you is how it was executed.

Granted, there's plenty of Ending "haters" that completely understand the ending and it just wasn't their cup of tea. But, there's certainly a fair share of people out there where the ending was way over their head and they cry foul because they're don't comprehend it. You see ignorance pertaining to what transpired during the endings on sites all over the net. Hell, some of it comes from people that like the endings.


Bottom line: there's people on both sides that have no idea what it was about. For those that do understand it, we only have decide whether we like it or not. 

Modifié par Mcfly616, 06 février 2014 - 03:33 .

[Mathias]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Then it's subjective then. We stop the Reapers Cycles/Harvests in all 3 endings. That's a victory in my book. And I really don't find any specific choice better than the other two. I do however feel that Destroy is the biggest risk, Control is the surest thing, and Synthesis is the solution to the Organic/Synthetic conflict. Other than that, the best choice all comes down to ones own perspective and beliefs. That's one of the things I like about the ending.

The problem is that Mass Effect's success and popularity came down to the fact that it was a very personal and beloved journey to the player. People who played through the trilogy grew attached to "their" Shepard, the story/lore, and especially the characters. The many logical fallicies of the ending aside, the ending may have wrapped up the Reaper storyline, but it didn't give any personal satisfaction to the player. 

Let's not forget that many fans had 5 years to play these games before it all ended. We're talking about people who made multiple playthroughs, making different decisions, and completing 100% of each game so they can get that hard to reach "Grand Ending" to end this amazing trilogy. Unfortunately the ending pretty much cancels out all the work and love people put into those playthroughs. I can play through the game now doing whatever I want, and end up with pretty much the same dull ending as my previous playthroughs. 

Look the ending is bad. You like it, fine I don't care. Artistically speaking it's completely subjective to the viewer on whether or not it's good. Academically speaking though, the ending is poorly written, nonsensical, and makes many amatuer mistakes. But all that aside even if it was decently written, that big problem here is that THIS IS A VIDEO GAME. Not a tv series, a novel, or a movie. A video game. If you're going to have a trilogy that's gonna take your player on a very personal journey, you need to give them a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in the end. Even Bioware admitted to this half a year ago in an article when they admitted this mistake.





tl;dr 

Mass Effect is a Space Adventure Game, but Bioware in the end thought they were writing something on the level of 2001: A Space Odyssey. They forgot who their audience was and tried to write a deep and thought provoking ending, but ended up driving off the road they were on instead, crashing and burning on the way down.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 06 février 2014 - 03:38 .

[Mcfly616]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Then it's subjective then. We stop the Reapers Cycles/Harvests in all 3 endings. That's a victory in my book. And I really don't find any specific choice better than the other two. I do however feel that Destroy is the biggest risk, Control is the surest thing, and Synthesis is the solution to the Organic/Synthetic conflict. Other than that, the best choice all comes down to ones own perspective and beliefs. That's one of the things I like about the ending.

The problem is that Mass Effect's success and popularity came down to the fact that it was a very personal and beloved journey to the player. People who played through the trilogy grew attached to "their" Shepard, the story/lore, and especially the characters. The many logical fallicies of the ending aside, the ending may have wrapped up the Reaper storyline, but it didn't give any personal satisfaction to the player. 

Let's not forget that many fans had 5 years to play these games before it all ended. We're talking about people who made multiple playthroughs, making different decisions, and completing 100% of each game so they can get that hard to reach "Grand Ending" to end this amazing trilogy. Unfortunately the ending pretty much cancels out all the work and love people put into those playthroughs. I can play through the game now doing whatever I want, and end up with pretty much the same dull ending as my previous playthroughs. 

Look the ending is bad. You like it, fine I don't care. Artistically speaking it's completely subjective to the viewer on whether or not it's good. Academically speaking though, the ending is poorly written, nonsensical, and makes many amatuer mistakes. But all that aside even if it was decently written, that big problem here is that THIS IS A VIDEO GAME. Not a tv series, a novel, or a movie. A video game. If you're going to have a trilogy that's gonna take your player on a very personal journey, you need to give them a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in the end. Even Bioware admitted to this half a year ago in an article when they admitted this mistake.

haha this entire post is comical. FYI I've purchased every Bioware title on Day 1 since KoTOR in 2003.
Meaning I've played Mass Effect from the very beginning as well. I've had the 6 years to look forward to the end of the trilogy. I'm not sure where you get the idea that fans since the beginning aren't fans of the ending....Everything you just posted is completely subjective and nothing more than your very own opinion. I rather liked that last paragraph where you come off as some sort off 'end all-be all' expert judge on what is and what isn't "poorly written" and "nonsensical". That was quality stuff.

To you it was about your personal journey. To me it was about saving the galaxy. I was driven by my goal to stop the Reapers. I looked forward to uncovering the mysteries of the Reapers. Their motives and origins and how I was going to stop them. I always cared about saving the galaxy. I never was so selfish as to think the lives of my Shepard or his crew were more important than everything else. I like the EC. Hated the original endings. The EC didn't really add much "character-wise". No, what it did was show me the future my choices sculpted for the galaxy. And that's all I wanted. To see the big picture. My squad already let me know what they plan on doing after the war. No worries there.


Everybody likes and hates it for their own reasons. Get over it. You say it isn't done right. He says it isn't a "victory". Meh. Yet it's all subjective.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 06 février 2014 - 03:54 .

[SwobyJ]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Then it's subjective then. We stop the Reapers Cycles/Harvests in all 3 endings. That's a victory in my book. And I really don't find any specific choice better than the other two. I do however feel that Destroy is the biggest risk, Control is the surest thing, and Synthesis is the solution to the Organic/Synthetic conflict. Other than that, the best choice all comes down to ones own perspective and beliefs. That's one of the things I like about the ending.

Yes in the end most major choices in Bioware games are subjective.

For the journey in ME1-3, Destroy is more the winning choice.

But it is possible that by the end of the next game or two, we'd go back to ME3 and go "Hmm.. well ___ was right.. and ___ was possible, and ____ was really happening... so  maybe... ok! Yeah, I'll go Control. Sorry ol' Shep, but you gotta die in order for me to do ____"

It's imo a long view that Bioware *may* be taking, BSN armchair critics (OF ALL STRIPES, mind you) be damned.

I also assume a lot of things in my projections. Like 'sequel', and 'save import will so at least something', and 'Shepard as a concept isn't dropped, only the character is, and instead is replaced with the idea of 'N7''.

etc

lol

[Mcfly616]

I supposed it depends on ones definition of winning. I actually prefer Destroy. But I'll roleplay Shepard a certain way and choose the others from time to time. Actually just finished ME1 with my 'Control' Engineer FemShep. Looking forward to ME2 now! Should be a good night if I don't get too distracted by conversation here.

[SwobyJ]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I supposed it depends on ones definition of winning. I actually prefer Destroy. But I'll roleplay Shepard a certain way and choose the others from time to time. Actually just finished ME1 with my 'Control' Engineer FemShep. Looking forward to ME2 now! Should be a good night if I don't get too distracted by conversation here.

What I mean is that the narrative slants in one way, and provides more reasons for that thing instead of another thing, and more warnings against that other thing.

I know I've been overly predictive lately, but I think we're in for a game or multiple games that will turn Control into a more legit path for more players than currently (and more slowly, Synthesis), but that's not how ME1-ME3 themselves largely go.

They still made things ambiguous and broad sounding enough that the Crucible choice is as much of a 'moral' choice as they could make it. However, it would have been even moreso a moral choice if they had moved the Breath Scene to be patched in later, like I think I read somewhere.

In the end, I agree. It will come down to one's definition of winning. But for now, we have the more typical definition promoted - one of physical domination over the other.

~~~

For the record, while I go with Destroy on my MainShep now and support it..
-I picked Synthesis my first time around with the original ending and have questions about it and the nature of it, and why Bioware did what they did with it
-I have some ... not exactly positive, but very curious and interested thoughts about Control. It would never be on my mainshep though

Modifié par SwobyJ, 06 février 2014 - 04:20 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I do however feel that Destroy is the biggest risk, Control is the surest thing, and Synthesis is the solution to the Organic/Synthetic conflict.

Funny, my opinion is exactly the opposite. Control is the greatest risk (if not an assured failure) because throughout the entire trilogy, every single attempt to control things has gone completely wrong or totally backfired. Not to mention that every single person or faction that thought they could / wanted to control the Reapers turned out to be indoctrinated or controlled by the Reapers themselves.

Moments before you meet the catalyst, Shepard tells TIM:   "Are you willing to bet humanity's existence on it?". But then because the Reaper Overlord says Shepard can, it's suddenly OK? Who's to say the Reapers won't simply rewrite the Shepard AI?

I laughed out loud when control was explained. I just couldn't believe that was a legit option, and I still don't.

I'm not even touching synthesis. Let's just say we've seen some glorious examples of synthesis throughout the games.

As for destroy, it's a no brainer IMO. Sure, you sacrifice the Geth, and that's terrible, but in doing so, you will rid the galaxy of the Reapers forever, possibly saving billions and billions in what would have been future cycles. It's worth that sacrifice. I don't see the risk at all, compared to the other two.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 février 2014 - 04:36 .

[SwobyJ]

Every CONCEPT of Control (not just talking Reapers here, so yes I believe your words are very important DD; also not just talking Paragon, but what seems to be the category of it of Control):

-solves the immediate situation, though in a more disturbing or concerning way
-protects others in the meantime
-can more stably achieve relative miracles compared to those who focus on destruction
-...but also blows up spectacularly in people's faces
-...and is much more morally utilitarian, to a possibly dangerous or morally/technically ignorant extent ("Save ALL of ____" "Help ALL of ___" "Keep ___ many alive (as the priority, instead of hurting others as the priority)")

It's that 'blows up spectacularly' part that sticks to me here.

Control may actually be possible DD. Like, outright.

But in taking in all info, possible hints and foreshadowing in the game and even trilogy..

A good bit of it is probably a lie, even if it is a subjective one. As long as the Reapers are the authority, the better-minded paths are going to be dark tinged and deceptive. That's why they need to be *defeated* no matter what.

I think my contention is that I don't think that Control just means Shepard dies in rubble like in IT. There's other interesting story paths that could be taken, even if they aren't as *essentially* ideal as our hero of 3 games rising up and kicking ass as himself.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 06 février 2014 - 04:45 .

[KevShep]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I do however feel that Destroy is the biggest risk, Control is the surest thing, and Synthesis is the solution to the Organic/Synthetic conflict.

Funny, my opinion is exactly the opposite. Control is the greatest risk (if not an assured failure) because throughout the entire trilogy, every single attempt to control things has gone completely wrong or totally backfired. Not to mention that every single person or faction that thought they could / wanted to control the Reapers turned out to be indoctrinated or controlled by the Reapers themselves.

Moments before you meet the catalyst, Shepard tells TIM:   "Are you willing to bet humanity's existence on it?". But then because the Reaper Overlord says Shepard can, it's suddenly OK? Who's to say the Reapers won't simply rewrite the Shepard AI?

I laughed out loud when control was explained. I just couldn't believe that was a legit option, and I still don't.

I'm not even touching synthesis. Let's just say we've seen some glorious examples of synthesis throughout the games.

As for destroy, it's a no brainer IMO. Sure, you sacrifice the Geth, and that's terrible, but in doing so, you will rid the galaxy of the Reapers forever, possibly saving billions and billions in what would have been future cycles. It's worth that sacrifice. I don't see the risk at all, compared to the other two.

Destroy is the ONLY option that gives us the least risk. It restores the status que to what we understand and can control and we know that there was nothing wrong with the status que anyway. The reapers were wrong as per the synthetics getting along with organics(geth and quarian peace and understanding was possible after all).

Control is a VERY risky because you dont know if the star kid is lying. If he is lying or not the reapers are STILL LEFT ALIVE! It leaves too much danger on the table and too much risk as long as the reapers are left alive even after the ending cut scenes because we dont know that happends in the future. The reapers could still be in control... shepard may not ACTUALLY be in control of the reapers after all.

Synthesis is the most risky and the one to avoid at ALL COST! One...you dont know if he is lying, Two...if he is not then he says that synthesis cant be forced but by using synthesis you are doing just that....forcing it on the galaxy! Three...with the galaxy on synthesis it can bring up a trillion unknowns and is therefor the greatest risk as well as the reapers still being alive which is the fourth thing wrong with synthesis.

The best option is destory!

Edit...Destory is the ONLY option that lets you be able to rebuild and reuse the crucible just in case.

Modifié par KevShep, 06 février 2014 - 05:03 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

The beauty about destroy is, even if the "catalyst" is lying, it doesn't matter. Even if the Reapers aren't destroyed, at least Shepard survives; will to destroy the Reapers: intact.

And in the case of IT, you can't become indoctrinated by picking destroy, because all you do is decide that you still want to destroy the Reapers.

And that's a thing a lot of people don't get about IT. They say: "Oh but if the catalyst is untrustworthy, and control and synthesis are a trap, then surely destroy must be a trap too! Especially because it's exactly what Shepard wanted!" But then they don't understand IT. Because in IT, Shepard decides in his mind if (s)he wants to destroy the Reapers or not. That's all it is. Crucible does nada. It's all in Shepard's head. All the choice does, is check whether Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers. You can't be indoctrinated and still wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's literally impossible.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 février 2014 - 05:03 .

[SwobyJ]

Yes. It's this basic idea that makes Destroy the slanted choice promoted by the narrative.

There's 4 outcomes for it, 2 for Control (unless you divide Para and Rene EC outcomes), and 1 for Synthesis.

I mean really.

Even put Synth and Control together and you have it just matching Destroy.

I don't think the devs mind at all that so many answer Destroy in polls. I think that's by design.

However, I do think they designed things enough so that a large enough chunk of players will chose other than Destroy. Or even if they did, it wouldn't be High or Breath EMS Destroy. And that MIGHT come into play.


Why should we, for example, be all annoyed if we chose to take the Collector Base and then Cerberus backstabs us? Is that some sort of problem? Take that basic logic and place it to the ME3 ending. So the Reapers, the big enemies, manipulated us in some way? Are we supposed to be surprised?

It doesn't mean the story will suck.

On the contrary. I know it's a small example of results, but:
Reaper brain - 110 points
Reaper heart - 100

I'm sure Controllers and Synthesizers will have at least something to get them to feel superior to Destroyers in at least SOME way. Just maybe not with the ME3 Shepard around, haha.

[KevShep]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

The beauty about destroy is, even if the "catalyst" is lying, it doesn't matter. Even if the Reapers aren't destroyed, at least Shepard survives; will to destroy the Reapers: intact.

And in the case of IT, you can't become indoctrinated by picking destroy, because all you do is decide that you still want to destroy the Reapers.

And that's a thing a lot of people don't get about IT. They say: "Oh but if the catalyst is untrustworthy, and control and synthesis are a trap, then surely destroy must be a trap too! Especially because it's exactly what Shepard wanted!" But then they don't understand IT. Because in IT, Shepard decides in his mind if (s)he wants to destroy the Reapers or not. That's all it is. Crucible does nada. It's all in Shepard's head. All the choice does, is check whether Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers. You can't be indoctrinated and still wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's literally impossible.

I think what you said is what a lot of people dont understand about indoctrination. Indoctrination is not the same thing as direct control. indoctrination is about "choice" as per the codex the reapers MUST get you to "GIVE INTO" their "SUGGESTIONS" without the subject knowing that their idea is not their idea at all...it was the reapers idea. They have to break down the mental barriers of the organic mind and the slower they break them down the longer the subject lasts.

I love the I.T. and my head cannon(to make it work) has shepard in a dream state during the last 10 minutes but he is also awake so he is seeing things that are not really there and he is at the part of the three choices but the kid is not really there, however he is actually making a real choice. He destroys the reapers and avoids indoctrination.

Modifié par KevShep, 06 février 2014 - 05:14 .

[MrFob]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

The beauty about destroy is, even if the "catalyst" is lying, it doesn't matter. Even if the Reapers aren't destroyed, at least Shepard survives; will to destroy the Reapers: intact.

And in the case of IT, you can't become indoctrinated by picking destroy, because all you do is decide that you still want to destroy the Reapers.

And that's a thing a lot of people don't get about IT. They say: "Oh but if the catalyst is untrustworthy, and control and synthesis are a trap, then surely destroy must be a trap too! Especially because it's exactly what Shepard wanted!" But then they don't understand IT. Because in IT, Shepard decides in his mind if (s)he wants to destroy the Reapers or not. That's all it is. Crucible does nada. It's all in Shepard's head. All the choice does, is check whether Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers. You can't be indoctrinated and still wanting to destroy the Reapers. It's literally impossible.

Ok, I told myself a long time ago that I was done discussing the ending but now I kinda got scooped up here and I want to answer this post.
Because if it were just the case that I could find one ending better than the rest, I'd actually be fine with them. But that's not the case.
Control and Synthesis are out immediately because I'd never trust the catalyst (and even if I would, I find the consequences as described in the EC non-sensical and rather revoting but that's just me). That leaves destroy as you say. Now if the only issue of destroy were killing all Synthetics, I could probably even live with that. Granted it's a sad thing but I never expected this to end clean and pretty, so be it.
No, the real problem I have with destroy is that it doesn't make sense. Why in the world would the catalyst offer me that option? It goes against everything that motivates him so why does he even let me choose it? Because the crucible "changed the variables"? A few sentences earlier he says it's basically just a big battery, developed by organic who never got beyond reaper level of tech, so it can't really be new to him (besides, he already knew about it before). So that doesn't make sense.
Maybe he can't control the crucible and has no choice but to offer all three options. But wait: Refuse proves that he can just shut it down if he wants and that his reapers can destroy it instantly so that's out.
What does that leave? As you said, it leave the Indoctrination Theory. The problem with that is, all you get from the IT at this point is NO ending instead of a bad ending. That's not really an improvement in my book.

That plus all the little annoying logical fallacies, the abrupt change in tone and in Shep's character as well as the narrative fallacy of providing a giant info dump in the last 5 minutes, those are the reasons why I never could make my piece with the endings. But as I said, that's just me.