[spoiler] um...Could we not just have come back for him?

[Drzappleswag]

Simon 3 doesn't have the capacity to rescue Simon 2. He's in a Pilot Seat at the bottom of the Abyss.

He can't backtrack because half way between Tau to Omicron has no lights.

Furthermore they certainly can't just climb up to the surface. They're robots. They can't swim. They are stuck at the bottom of the Sea.

I guess theoretically Simon 3 could risk his life and potentially rescue Simon 2 but that isn't a plot hole. You were given the choice to kill him. If you did that isn't the developers fault.

You made the rash decision based on false information to kill Simon 2. If you feel like you screwed up because you didn't know better at the time, it's no one's fault but your own.

chill the fuck out much?

you act as though I am blaming the developers, or that I mad about having killed Simon-2 just because I now think letting him live would have been better.

The thing with lights seem to be the best explanation so far, but considering what Simon has been through I honestly don't see why he would not risk it again, what's left for him at phi anyway? also he does not have to crawl, the climber is still working and all he needs to do is find an omnitool.

It's not as though it's a crime that the developers have a tiny plothole here an there, as long as it does not show in the first playthrough then it wont be in the way of the experience, and it certainly was not for me. Really even if the devs realized this option, I think it's okay to look the other way for the sake of telling their story. its fiction everything does not have to be logical.

But as one of the people who have already played the game, I think it's interesting to think about what would have been best to do from a more logical standpoint. And I think that had Catherine and Simon-3 actually thought things through, then it would have been best to come back for Simon-2. If he is going to die, it would be best if he could die together with them, and knowing the truth. Really even with the risk of failing, they could just set his battery to drain in case they don't come back in time.

My goal wasn't to come off condencending. I apologize if that's how it was perceived. I was merely stating how your point of view is completely solid (Besides just leaving the sea part). But your reasoning, doesn't result as a Plot Hole was my point.

As a player you were given the choice between killing him or not under the information you knew at the time.

If you left him alive, it only legitimizes the fact you made the right decision once you reach the end of the game. The developers "probably" intended this to be a theory a player can conclude after he beat the game and either feel remorse for killing him or feel joy if left him alive, that there's a possibility Simon 2 and 3 could beat the world together.

Personally, I believe canonically speaking, Simon wouldn't prefer it this way because from the beginning his character revoked the idea of reviving the dead. And he often implied or explicitly stated that having two of any one entity was inherently cruel and wrong. So although you were given the choice, I believe the ethical decision that Simon would have made at the time would be killing Simon 2, ultimately making void of this argument entirely.

I believe the majority of the Community would agree with this idea. It's just his character.
But choice itself was necessary despite their technically being only one right solution. Because the weight of hard choices wouldn't be so heavy if we the player didn't get the experience of actually deciding for ourself.

This was why this part of the game was impactful to me. Probably even more than the ending.