User blog comment:Ygrain/The ending: there MUST be something more to it/@comment-2228120-20120619162952/@comment-2076032-20120623005239

But why offer destroy at all then try to talk you out of it? What you're saying would be like me offering you three prizes in a lotto: the first one is $5 million, but you shouldn't choose that because it would make you greedy and evil. The second one is a a steaming pile of dog turd, and the third one is the carcass of a deer that's been run over by a truck. Pretend you've been indoctrinated, and you're just as delighted with the other two choices as you are the first. However, that doesn't change the fact that they're obviously the wrong choices, and even someone who is indoctrinated would prefer the money - that is, if you understand full how indoctrination works according to explanations of it ranging from Rana Thanoptis original description in ME1 right through to log files found on Sanctuary and TIM's base in ME3.

The fact is, as unappealing as you think the Catalyst attempts to make the Destroy ending sound, the others are, from different perspectives, just as appealing, if not more so. The indoctrination theory would, therefore, require the player themselves to be indoctrinated beyond the confines of the gaming world. Shepard dies in the other two endings, regardless, and the cutscene still shows Reapers leaving. How would Shepard know this, and what would be the point of showing the Reapers leaving if it was simply some underhanded indoctrination trick on Shepard?