User blog comment:The Milkman/Citadel Review: Entertaining and Inconsequential/@comment-4721065-20130307094007

Sorry Milkman, but the last part of the blog essentially suggests that Bioware disregards everyone who hasn't chosen Destroy and only makes the DLC for one ending. Not only would this have caused a massive outcry, but it would have given a fresh round of ammunition to IT theorists, who would then be able to claim that Destroy ending was a right choice all along and that therefore other two/three endings are indoctrinated. Worse, they would actually be quite justified in this, because making a DLC for one ending only and completely disregarding the others shows blatant favouritism and is not something that has ever been done in a Bioware story before.

The idea that DLC doesn't match the rest of the game in its tone is somewhat justified from the pure psychological perspective. When you're faced with so much death and destruction for so long, you would eventually stop caring for a while (or even forever for some) and simply try to get as much joy out of one's remaining life as possible. This is especially true if one believes that the struggle is impossible and they are going to die soon no matter what. As such, DLC makes sense from this perspective, or at least, more sense than your idea.

Finally, the mention of "shallow gameplay terms" is really low, IMHO. If one truly holds the storyline to be far more important than the gameplay, then the books, comics and upcoming film would logically hold greater importance to you than DLCs, since they're nothing but storyline freed from the shallow trappings of gameplay. Since a quick look at your blogs and comments reveals that this isn't so, I suggest you stop this as an argumentative technique.