A lot of people are still under the impression that this is that common super hero trope, of "the lives of many" vs "the life of the one I love the most".
As if there are two giant rocks falling, and you have to choose which group to save, and that poses a moral dilemma. It's more than that. Chloe is not just someone in danger, Chloe was already dead, you rewrote history by going back in time and changing the inevitable. Several times. The storm is a reaction to that, not in a conscious way, at least not in my opinion, I don't think there's a divine entity who needs Chloe dead, it's just about balance. Ultimately, what Max needs to do to change nature's course and keep the one who should be dead alive causes a storm that will wipe Arcadia Bay along with at least some people in it. Surely some people you also care about.
This is not just "two rocks are falling because reasons, which one should I save?", this is "to prevent the inevitable death of group B, I must drop the rock that will cause group A's death". I still think it's very much a valid choice, but it seems like many people are still just facing it as "which one should I save?", which is, in my opinion, a much easier choice to make in favor of Chloe.
It doesn't help that the ending itself has a much more happy tone than I feel like it would when I chose it. I was expecting much more tension between them, a damaged relationship, even if not completely ruined, overwhelming guilt and so on, not just a drive around town in a hopeful ending.
Think of it this way: Chloe is dead, to execute a ritual to bring her back, you need to destroy a town and kill all these people. You might still make the same decision, but surely it won't be as easy. I actually felt like that was very clever, because if it was just an inevitability and I was just choosing someone to save, it would be Chloe all day, without thinking twice, but the implications of the storm itself made the decision much harder.
