but you're making that argument in a game where there was no logic, there was no sense, and as you pointed out, it's clear that the writers didn't know what they were talking about half the time.

Honestly the only reason this point even exists is because the second game tried to piss on our face and say it was raining. None of these questions or logic mattered that much until then, because it was left ambiguous to a point where you could simply pick your preferred explanation and it was open enough to be possible.

I think that's passable writing. It may come about from lack of ability or skill, but it at least functions at what it needs to.

The second game attempting to hard confirm certain facts means those facts need to check out with what is already established, and when it contradicts that, and basic sense, it unravels quickly. Its just another way to say "lol Part 2 bad" but without needing to get into the Woke elements, because sometimes that'll get you tuned out.

You don't ask because the writer didn't know either.

Most media runs on the suspension of disbelief to some amount. Without it you would have to bog down your story with a lot of time spent talking about worldbuilding that isn't usually very interesting and often isn't necessary. Its why hard sci-fi is a niche genre, because it does spend that time.

Its not an inherently bad thing, because its an agreement between audience and creator to allow the story to function.

But that contract needs to be respected from both ends. When the writer or whoever starts making hard claims about things, then they need to be able to fit in established framework and hold up to at least a base level scrutiny.