The change in perspective for major events in the game is critical to the overall game narrative, but I could see how someone who didn't enjoy the gameplay would be put off by it.
I think the problems is that with a lot of people for such a change in perspective to come off well in gameplay either the gameplay segments(not just the character gameplay) have to be significantly different all the way through for a full route experience, or the route should be heavily abridged to deliver the new story and context.
Personally for me it also doesn't help that most of the context regarding the enemies that you get in the second route feels like its too heavily implied and foreshadowed in the first route that it feels too obvious, so instead of a big shocker it just makes the first route feel less engaging for me cause Im just sitting thinking "Oh boy in route B I wonder how this boss will have a super sad backstory and make me feel guilty". Though that might work a lot better for other people, it could just be that I dont really mesh well with some of Yoko Taros storytelling choices. The one time I did really feel it worked well though was the wolves story in Nier Replicant, that added context did change how I looked at that part.
No you don't get it, deleting all your save files for the third game in a row in order to get the true ending will still be as fresh and not at all cliche.
Oh I forgot that was optional in Automata, either way it feels kinda gimmicky at this point, hope he doesn't try to pull it again for the next game he directs.
Its that particular story beat of "Will you delete all your progress to help someone else" that has become a specific Yoko Taro cliche because so far after that choice there isnt really any more game or anything to keep doing, so theres no real incentive to not choose it and you dont lose out on something because of it. It comes off as cheap gravitas rather than you personally sacrificing anything of the experience.
Hell in Replicant remaster you have to pick that option to see the full content and after the final final ending you get it all restored, it just doesnt have any weight to it, it would be more meaningful if you had to not choose to save others in order to see more of the game at the expense of that character being gone from your story, at that point the sacrifice might feel like it meant something.
It really isn't "the same game a second time" though, at least in Automata. It's just a slightly weird way of continuing the same story. It's like if a screen popped up that said "Continue to part 2 of the game?" and you click no and say "wow that game sucked why should I have to play part 2 in order to feel like I completed the game"
So to clarify, you wanted a high budget, $60 video game to last only 5-10 hours? And you were upset because that was not the case and that there was, in fact, significantly more to the game?
This just seems like a very dishonest complaint. If you didn't like the game that's fair enough, but saying you didn't like that the game didn't end so absurdly prematurely is just weird.
I'm just repeating what I understand your complaint to be. So you don't like that there exists anything past route A (which is 5-10 hours long) but at the same time you don't want the game to be 5-10 hours long. How does that work?
lmao thats literally not the complaint, the complaint is about what exists in route B, not that route B exists as a continuation of the story.
If someone says they didnt like an ending to a movie do you just yell at them "What, you dont want anything ever to have an ending? You want things to just stop abruptly"
But, like, it doesn't seem like you ever actually tried route B because you think that it's "the same game again" which it's obviously not. As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, it doesn't even open the same way. It seems unlikely to me that a person could actually play any part of route B and come to the conclusion that it's the same game again, considering that detail.
I already explained to you my thoughts on the idea of "reused content." It would need to be more specific to be a really valid complaint. You could consider all kinds of things reused content. Like I said before, seeing the same enemy multiple times in the game could be reused content. Hub area? That's reused content. And so on. It's not like Route A is free from "reusing" its own content. You spend plenty of time in the same areas, fighting the same enemies, within Route A. Why is it that this suddenly becomes an unacceptable game design sin the moment you move on to Route B?
I literally told you what the problem is, entire sequences are replayed with a new cutscene or two, its not that the UI is the same so game is bad for reusing content or something, you are made to do the exact same shit again that you have already done before but this time you get some context that the game was extremely blatantly keeping away from you the first go around.
I dont understand how this is such a hard fucking thing to understand why people get tired and mad at, its an extremely common complaint of both Nier titles but apparently to you its just baby whining cause hub areas are the same or some shit. Dont bother replying if you're just gonna say the same bullshit again, christ.
Most of route B in Automata and basically all of it in Replicant is just the same fundamental content over again with new context and cutscenes, it feels like filler a ton of the time.
Not to mention in Replicant C/D are literally identical to B except for a single new fight but you still have to slog through the whole thing, its awful dogshit design that they should have trimmed for the remaster. Its a really tired design choice to reuse content the player has already experienced to add new context to the story. Plus it isnt exactly mind blowing new context to add when at least in Replicant its just "wow the enemies also have feelings and you could obviously tell that from the old playthrough we just refused to tell you the actual story that time".
Depends what you mean by "reused content" I guess. You could make the argument that fighting the same type of enemy twice is "reused content" but that's obviously ridiculous.
deleted by creator
The change in perspective for major events in the game is critical to the overall game narrative, but I could see how someone who didn't enjoy the gameplay would be put off by it.
I think the problems is that with a lot of people for such a change in perspective to come off well in gameplay either the gameplay segments(not just the character gameplay) have to be significantly different all the way through for a full route experience, or the route should be heavily abridged to deliver the new story and context.
Personally for me it also doesn't help that most of the context regarding the enemies that you get in the second route feels like its too heavily implied and foreshadowed in the first route that it feels too obvious, so instead of a big shocker it just makes the first route feel less engaging for me cause Im just sitting thinking "Oh boy in route B I wonder how this boss will have a super sad backstory and make me feel guilty". Though that might work a lot better for other people, it could just be that I dont really mesh well with some of Yoko Taros storytelling choices. The one time I did really feel it worked well though was the wolves story in Nier Replicant, that added context did change how I looked at that part.
deleted by creator
They could have just cut that perspective into the original game. Didn't have to make you play a full 60 hours twice.
If I want endless grind with different perspective, I'll go waste 100 hours on Disgaea.
No you don't get it, deleting all your save files for the third game in a row in order to get the true ending will still be as fresh and not at all cliche.
deleted by creator
Oh I forgot that was optional in Automata, either way it feels kinda gimmicky at this point, hope he doesn't try to pull it again for the next game he directs.
Heroic sacrifices? Laaaaame
Its that particular story beat of "Will you delete all your progress to help someone else" that has become a specific Yoko Taro cliche because so far after that choice there isnt really any more game or anything to keep doing, so theres no real incentive to not choose it and you dont lose out on something because of it. It comes off as cheap gravitas rather than you personally sacrificing anything of the experience.
Hell in Replicant remaster you have to pick that option to see the full content and after the final final ending you get it all restored, it just doesnt have any weight to it, it would be more meaningful if you had to not choose to save others in order to see more of the game at the expense of that character being gone from your story, at that point the sacrifice might feel like it meant something.
It really isn't "the same game a second time" though, at least in Automata. It's just a slightly weird way of continuing the same story. It's like if a screen popped up that said "Continue to part 2 of the game?" and you click no and say "wow that game sucked why should I have to play part 2 in order to feel like I completed the game"
deleted by creator
So to clarify, you wanted a high budget, $60 video game to last only 5-10 hours? And you were upset because that was not the case and that there was, in fact, significantly more to the game?
This just seems like a very dishonest complaint. If you didn't like the game that's fair enough, but saying you didn't like that the game didn't end so absurdly prematurely is just weird.
deleted by creator
I'm just repeating what I understand your complaint to be. So you don't like that there exists anything past route A (which is 5-10 hours long) but at the same time you don't want the game to be 5-10 hours long. How does that work?
lmao thats literally not the complaint, the complaint is about what exists in route B, not that route B exists as a continuation of the story.
If someone says they didnt like an ending to a movie do you just yell at them "What, you dont want anything ever to have an ending? You want things to just stop abruptly"
But, like, it doesn't seem like you ever actually tried route B because you think that it's "the same game again" which it's obviously not. As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, it doesn't even open the same way. It seems unlikely to me that a person could actually play any part of route B and come to the conclusion that it's the same game again, considering that detail.
Okay? The opening is different so that means reused levels and bosses are not objectively reused content?
Fucking whatever, keep being an obtuse asshole about it for all I care.
I already explained to you my thoughts on the idea of "reused content." It would need to be more specific to be a really valid complaint. You could consider all kinds of things reused content. Like I said before, seeing the same enemy multiple times in the game could be reused content. Hub area? That's reused content. And so on. It's not like Route A is free from "reusing" its own content. You spend plenty of time in the same areas, fighting the same enemies, within Route A. Why is it that this suddenly becomes an unacceptable game design sin the moment you move on to Route B?
I literally told you what the problem is, entire sequences are replayed with a new cutscene or two, its not that the UI is the same so game is bad for reusing content or something, you are made to do the exact same shit again that you have already done before but this time you get some context that the game was extremely blatantly keeping away from you the first go around.
I dont understand how this is such a hard fucking thing to understand why people get tired and mad at, its an extremely common complaint of both Nier titles but apparently to you its just baby whining cause hub areas are the same or some shit. Dont bother replying if you're just gonna say the same bullshit again, christ.
deleted by creator
I mean I laid out my exact line of reasoning to you. What part of it is wrong?
deleted by creator
Bitch, it took me five hours to get through the damned circus.
Most of route B in Automata and basically all of it in Replicant is just the same fundamental content over again with new context and cutscenes, it feels like filler a ton of the time.
Not to mention in Replicant C/D are literally identical to B except for a single new fight but you still have to slog through the whole thing, its awful dogshit design that they should have trimmed for the remaster. Its a really tired design choice to reuse content the player has already experienced to add new context to the story. Plus it isnt exactly mind blowing new context to add when at least in Replicant its just "wow the enemies also have feelings and you could obviously tell that from the old playthrough we just refused to tell you the actual story that time".
I don't know anything about replicant, but you're just completely wrong as far as Automata. It doesn't even start the same way as route A.
Theres a huge amount of reused content with some new cutscenes or voices, even if some segments are entirely different, this is just fact.
Depends what you mean by "reused content" I guess. You could make the argument that fighting the same type of enemy twice is "reused content" but that's obviously ridiculous.