User blog comment:The Milkman/The Writing of the Ending/@comment-30764484-20120605044952/@comment-4237253-20120608063731

My evidence can't really be used for anything else other that that for which it is used. An answer that can mean anything and everything means nothing.

And again, you missed my point entirely. I am not arguing that it isn't true, despite it's holes and flaws. Even if both endings have plot holes, assuming everything didn't happen is too big of a leap. But that's not even what I'm talking about.

The IT is nothing but speculation and subjective comparisons. I'm not going to argue for or against that. What is unequivocal however, is that the IT is bad storytelling, true or not. We as a player have neither experienced indoctrination nor fully understood its inner workings. We only know the effects. Forcing us into a situation that makes no sense, without explaining anything destroys our sense of immersion and enjoyment in a story. Confusing the player is a bad idea. So is lying to the player. Worse even, when you don't even take the time to explain it. The plot is supposed to resolved in itself, not through a sequel or DLC. Sure Mass Effect 2 left the overarching conflict unresolved, but the point of Mass Effect 2 is to bring down the Collectors, not the Reapers. That's what allows it to stand alone as a story.

The Collector story arc was introduced and finished in one game. You pay 60+ dollars for it, and you get a complete story. It leaves you with the fact that the Reapers are coming, but you don't need to play Mass Effect 3 to fully enjoy the plot of Mass Effect 2. By the end of Mass Effect 2, I was satisfied by the way the conflict was resolved. The indoctrination theory doesn't even resolve the plot. That alone makes me unsure if it's simply a bad ending, or if I should even consider that an ending in the first place.