I played through Singularity a few months back and the ending bothered me a little. Enough to where when I remembered it bothering me back then, I got onto Interlopers to post this.
What got me was the game's whole conflict is created when you go back in time and save a man from a burning building towards the beginning of the game. The man turns out to basically be a mad man that takes over the world, since he wasn't killed in the fire. At the end of the game, you go back to that moment in time where/when you saved him, and instead of just shooting the man so he indeed dies one way or another inside that burning building, you are told to kill yourself as your past self carries the man out of the building.
Of course somehow you get a good ending where (essentially) time is erased up to when your character incounters the island the game takes place on - along with a few changes made to the past. My question though is, logically, wouldn't the thing to do when going back in time, to stop a man from living that wasn't suppose to live, is to just kill that guy? Its kinda stupid, but I've always wondered what the devs were smoking when they wrote that ending.
The inspiration as to why I'm here: Adam Foster; Minerva. Great job man.