User blog comment:Legionwrex/Why Destroy is the worst ending (besides refusal)./@comment-4953843-20120706083247

were EDI and the geth's destruction in destroy given more screentime, e.g. a couple of heartwrenching moments portraying their destruction in the EC, instead of next to nothing but EDI's face, i'd have let this issue rest.

the geth's complete reversal of attitude (if they really went "CONSENSUS: WE ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE FOR THE GREATER GOOD") is totally unacceptable when we had three games exploring their backstory. while they have no way of knowing what shepard would've decided for them good writing practice dictates that seemingly OOC moments must be followed up by justifications or the story ends up with a hole.

alternately, a look on a prime's face approximating what organics would associate with shock, betrayal and/or resigned acceptance would've been enough. any indication that the geth are NOT happy with their fate - a logical assumption we could make given their focus on survival.

my main gripe is that of forcing the geth-quarian peace then invalidating that position with tissue-thin justification. i couldn't care less for the future ramifications of destroy for the purposes of this argument (something most of its advocates present as their case) since i can vouch for the three other endings as equally as each other. were destroy given proper treatment, make that four.

if you never forced a compromise with the geth and quarians then none of this applies to you: side with the quarians and you're a talimancer, side with the geth then you're a pragmatist (you get rid of two bothersome species + you hate tali anyway).

tl;dr the only shep that chooses destroy given the pittance of detail presented in it is one or a combination of these:

a) jack*ss in-character (whatever-it-takes-no-matter-the-cost dude)

b) a sucker for self-centered endings (shep survives, happily ever after with LI and pals)
 * talimancer

c) can't argue opposing sides with equal force and conviction (a mentat thing for those who'll get the reference)

d) indoctrinat ion ed theorist