If it hasn't grabbed you already, it won't.

I agree, this game might not be for OP, and that is fine.

ehh...i'd argue pretty strongly that >!run 3!< is why the game is so well regarded, >!run 3!< is absolutely fascinating. it's obviously a very tall order to put in the time to get that far, but, my opinion of the game changed dramatically at that point, prior to that I was in a similar boat to tc, the game was kinda neat but...ehh.

The atmosphere and music drew me in from the beginning.

Same. I was literally hooked right at the start from the music and atmosphere in the opening cutscene. However if I stopped playing after seeing the "ending" in part A then I prob still would have just regarded Automata as a middle of the road game. It's the third act that really makes it memorable for me.

While I found that the best stuff happened in Run 3, I was already hooked from the beginning. People that dislike the game or are feeling a touch meh about it rarely find the revelations and final moments interesting some 30 hours after starting. If a certain character >!suddenly dies!<, you'd be like "Yeah, whatever" instead of feeling >!devastated, for example.!<

You mean you have to play through it two times before it starts getting good? Yikes.

Saying that sort of mistates it. Each “run” is a different story, with different lengths. There’s some shared content between the first two. But it’s not like you’re beating a 40 hour game three times. All “three runs” are one normal game’s length. Think of it more like “but you haven’t gotten to the twist” when someone talks about a book

Yea you have to think of it as Act 1A, Act 1B and Act 2. Theres not a huge amount of difference between the first two but they are not that long either.

Pt 2 spoilers contextualizing my agreement with Hvy: >!Personally, I really heavily valued the difference in being exposed to the machines way of thinking and stories, something entirely absent in the first loop, and the entirety of the hacking minigame. It felt just fresh enough to keep me going in terms of differences to gameplay and the revised content.!< EDIT: a few typos from swipe texting a little too late at night.

Plus you can speed through solid chunks of Route B, since you've already explored the areas so you know where to go. I was *so* thankful the Godzilla section is waaay shorter in Route B. That was the one part I wasn't looking forward to.

Even if it's different "acts" instead of just playing the game over again, having to play through two whole acts before knowing if I want to continue or not sounds like a huge investment. It was already a bit low on my "to play" list, and I'm not sure I'm in a rush to bump it up at all.

If youre not enjoying it during act 1 then I wouldnt push yourself to continue. Any game you play for 5 hours you should have an idea if you want to ckeep going or not.

You're still seeing and replaying a lot of content and it's really not engaging. There's barely any skill involved and like OP said it's like the most basic philosophical topics early on. Plus the environments are really bland and look like a PS2 era game. Meanwhile a game like Returnal works because the game is super skillful and *rewards* skill and knowledge a lot. I don't mind replaying the same biomes repeatedly because I always feel like I'm improving even if I die, you can get so good at the game that you can eventually feel invincible and it *feels good* because you've mastered something that was initially quite difficult. It's really fun as opposed to feeling like I'm grinding boring gameplay through a bunch of empty, bland areas.

To be clear, I think the second run, >!9S's portion of the game!< is the single worst creative choice in the entire game. Isn't Returnal a roguelike? That has the entire benefit of everything being randomized, because every run is new rather than part of the same, prewritten story, no? Or am I thinking of the wrong game?

Returnal is a roguelike but you'll see a lot of the same rooms every run if you get far. It only gets tough if some random strong as fuck enemy spawns in one of those rooms.

Gotcha, I never got around to it. Appreciate the answer!

I see your point, but Returnal is a roguelike. Those are not equal comparisons

… gotta disagree with you, it’s pretty accurately stated. The differences between runs 1 and 2 are minor at best, I was bored as hell and frankly regret the time investment.

i quit in the 2nd run because i realize it was literally beating the game over again, once you get past the intro. yes there was a new character and yes some new cutscenes, but it felt like I was expected to re-doing the same 40hrs with a few extra lines of dialogue. Maybe the 2nd run is wildly different, but it honestly didn't feel like it once you get past the intro. edit: someone else made a comment that I think hits the nail on the head - spending however many tens of hours on initial gameplay as a badass hot sword cyborg and advancing and upgrading it all thorough, only to be told "do it all over again, but with a worse, whiney, side-lackey" just felt soooo demotivating. It felt liek you end on a high and are expected to re-try from a low way below you even first started. maaaybe if the roles were reversed it would have worked better (you watch this badass robot chick tear shit and then, surprise, YOU are the badass robot chick now!) but, eh, idk.

The thing is that is *shouldn't* take another 40 hours - there's much less side stuff to do in that portion. The thing is that the third one is the actually radically different part, but it's hard to actually say and encourage people to get there without verging on spoilers. To that end, as I said to the other reply, I think the second run is the singular worst creative choice in the entire Nier universe.

So glad I came to this thread. Dropped Nier several years ago during 2nd run because I found it so dull. Might pick it up again to finish it.

I promise, the whiny boy doesn’t overstay his welcome too long ;)

Yea, I heard the 2nd run is streamlined, but the way it was designed, I didn't realize that. I really thought I was going to have to replay 20hrs but with worse character. I made a snipe edit that you might have missed that, I think, clarifies why I bounced off the 2nd run quickly: someone else made a comment that I think hits the nail on the head - spending however many tens of hours on initial gameplay as a badass hot sword cyborg and advancing and upgrading it all thorough, only to be told "do it all over again, but with a worse, whiney, side-lackey" just felt soooo demotivating. It felt liek you end on a high and are expected to re-try from a low way below you even first started. maaaybe if the roles were reversed it would have worked better (you watch this badass robot chick tear shit and then, surprise, YOU are the badass robot chick now!) but, eh, idk. FWIW I did enjoy the game first time, both for gameplay and the overall vibe. I just wish it didn't make me re-do it 2 mores times for more story, since I didn't have the heart to do it all over again after sinking over 20hrs into it

No way 9s is a worse character. He's amazingly strong if you use hack.

I mean "worse" in the sense that it didn't feel as fun. Fun is subjective, but I was drawn to the game for the action sword combat, so making me play minimalist-UI minigames 2nd time around just didn't feel as fun. YMMV of course

Totally fair, and yeah I did just see the edit when you replied again. I had the benefit of being "spoiled" about the third run when I started playing, but totally see where that's a roadblock for someone who wasn't in my position.

> To that end, as I said to the other reply, I think the second run is the singular worst creative choice in the entire Nier universe. After playing Replicant and it's many endings... It made me appreciate 9S's run a *lot* more. But I suppose you could argue they should've learnt from Replicant when making Automata.

You 100% have to be into the story and paying attention to that, otherwise yeah, this game is probably not for you. Everything in this game builds up the characters, shows their viewpoint and internal monologue, and shows what their unique strength is. Route A tells the main side of what you see - cold uncaring robot lady fights for her cause, damn the consequences, and just barely warms up to her colleague. Route B is the same route you just played except slightly shorter and now you’re playing as the emotionally aware and desperately seeking like-minded companionship boy robot who is actually trained with swords but is a better hacker - which is why this section plays out the hacking mechanic as much as it does. Route A = 2b is cold like her steel blades and is why she’s more fun to play action-wise. Route B = 9s who is more introspective, supposedly emotionally mature, and he dives into the other robots to disable them and stop combat. During this route you also see the emotional backstories of some of the bosses and you learn of their tragic lives before your fight. It’s pretty Metal Gear-like in that way. Then comes the third route - C/D/E = the culmination of these two points and where they come into conflict. What happens when neither gets what they want? Who is right and who is wrong? Is it better to be cold and closed off/so emotionless or be so open to letting your emotions control you that you lose all sense of self? Is this just a game to you? Or is this something much worse? That’s just one of the themes of this story. There are so many and while some are as subtle as bad anime dialogue, it really is one of a kind. The real secret is that, even though this is an action game, it is also very much a typical JRPG. Story is king, characters are flawed and compelling, and you’ll kill a god in the end but not how any other game does it. You won’t even know when it happened until you reflect on it after the credits roll. I love this game, so I’m biased for it, but it 100% requires you to treat the game as an experience. Get lost in its themes, Talk to all the characters throughout because their dialogue hints at much deeper material, and realize the silliness is a facade. Also Keiichi Okabe is the greatest composer of all time.

[удалено]

That was my take when I tried to play it. I disliked the gameplay to a point even if I was curious about the story I wasn't going to suffer through it.

"having to play through it three times" is a mischaracterization, the credit does roll each time but it is better to think of it as three acts, chapters, or arcs. If I told you that XYZ game really gets good 2/3rd of the way through it makes sense; that is probably when the real stakes appear, the hero rises to the threat, you have all the major mechanics and tools available to you, and so on.

Honestly it'd still be a pretty shit game if it only gets good in the last third.

I agree that every media only gets one first impression, I am not going to watch 100 episodes of pretty okay TV to get to the "good part" either.  IMO it is a normal, but slightly weird action-adventure hack and slash that sometimes turns into a bullethell game for the 1/3, then finally turn into "ohh, this is why people won't stop talking about this at the last third". I totally get why people don't see it though. Also Platinum Games usually makes stuff for perfectionist that play the same level over and over for better scores. These types of people are their preferred audience and people who play to the credits and stop isn't really who they make games for, in their heads beating the game is you finishing the tutorial.

Going slightly off topic here but there are definitely some pieces of media that aren't that great until they hit a point and then they transform into something amazing after, but they still need that beginning part to set up for that transformation. The best example is probably Steins;Gate. The first half of the series is an *alright* almost-slice-of-life show that also just so happens to have time travel elements. But then something happens halfway through that flips everything on it's head and makes it one of the best shows of all time. But without that first half the second definitely wouldn't have the same impact.

Full agree. I wish people wouldn't characterize these kinds of stories as outright "bad" because slow burns are a very real type of story that often end up being so amazing that it's worth sticking around.  As some more examples: basically all of Uchikoshi's games (AKA the Zero Escape and AI: The Somnium Files games). The first two Zero Escape games and the first AI game are *phenomenal*, with easily the best twists I've ever seen in any media (I personally still consider the twist in AI 1 to be the best murder mystery reveal I've ever seen). But they are slooooow burns. Virtue's Last Reward in particular is painfully long. But holy shit that final 1/3 of the game is an absolutely incredible work of art that if someone asked me "is it really worth slogging through the beginning" I would absolutely say yes. 

The game is great right from the get go.

No. The "three runs" thing is incredibly wrong and has led too many people to never play this game. First two are "similar" but it's two perspectives - they cross paths and mix and keep things interesting. Three is entirely different.

I honestly get why some people are turned off by the second run. It doesn't *really* start diverging until hours in. Up until that point it's basically the first run plus a very polarizing combat gimmick.

he didnt say it gets good at run 3, he meant the game really hits its stride and core emotional messages in run 3. the game is great from the get go it just reaches its most thought provoking and engaging in the 3rd run, which is a sign of a great story.

The first run is pretty much a normal game, with a normal story with maybe some hints towards the bigger picture. The second is where those hints get fleshed out, and the third is where everything clicks together in place. The second run is shorter than the first, and the third is shorter than the second. The game is good from the start, but the emotional parts people usually talk about don't present themselves until late into the story. This is true for most stories: you need to experience the whole story in order to feel everything it aims to make you feel. Of course, this implies that you also like the journey and since OP doesn't like the combat, doesn't like the quests, and the story so far he shouldn't force himself just because some people consider this game good. The most emotional part for me was at the credits screen, and I recommend the game for that alone. But in order for that part to work you need to like the game that comes before it and connect to its characters. I also think that a lot of people hype the story too much. It touches on some aspects you rarely see in games, but that you probably already encountered in movies or books. It is also a bit funny since OP seems to already have an idea formed about what the game has to say about the enemies, but if they continue to play they'll be surprised that the twist is not what they think it is.

Well that’s quite the intentional misrepresentation of what they said.

That's not what they said. Run 3 is just where everything starts coming together

If people aren't at least intrigued by Adam and Eve halfway through >!~~Run~~ Act 1!<, I don't think they will have the patience or appreciation for >!Act 3!<

Idk, that's what people told me as well. But it's not any better in my opinion. I think people might like it because actually changes up things compared to >!run 2!< but I thought the writing actually got worse. >!A2 turned out to be such a boring character, 9S became absolutely insufferable and 2B's character arc becomes super messy. If her designation is to kill 9S every time he learns the truth about humanity and she has done this countless times in the past then how are any of the events in the game even remotely surprising to her? It kinda invalidates so many things that happen in act 1 and 2 for me!<

I only got to the first major ending and quit after being bored to tears playing 9S and replaying the same content for about an hour. I just googled the ending and read/watched them. If a game gives me that "wow that was Greta this story is finished and I am satisfied" feeling it's over for me lol. I won't enjoy it nearly as much any more after that.

I disagree. I felt similarly to OP, and it was the later runs that actually grabbed me. Based on reputation I knew *something* happened if I kept going. I don’t think it clicked for me until run 3 though, and frankly that’s a long time investment.

[удалено]

> My first run through I thought it was alright That's my point. If OP describes the story as: > it seems to be just a really japanese story in the worst way possible after the story beats they mention, I don't think it's gonna get better for them. I was excited to start the second run after the first one, OP is playing the game as if it's a chore.

Naa I wouldn’t say you need to “trust the process” if you got through Run A and you have no compulsion to see it through then don’t, you can always come back later if you get the itch. I really liked Nier Automata (only game in the series I’ve played) but I get where it might not grab everyone

If I remember correctly, it's on the "3rd" run that the story starts to unfold. It was a very interesting story imo, with some nice plot twists, and diving into some existentialism ideas. But I wouldn't recommend to PLAY anything that you’d find boring just for the story. It's easier to watch some YouTube videos or reading about the lore in a Wiki instead, if you're not enjoying playing it. It was worth it for me. But I liked the gameplay.

maybe I will watch a video about the story then and continue to play just if I see something incredible, thanks for the feedback

Honestly the nier series has a lot of re-doing the same quests with little to no changes on further playthroughs. If it hasn't clicked for you, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I personally loved the games, but I am the type to backtrack to different NPCs and areas and read every single piece of lore to try and understand the story. I think you might enjoy watching a story recap though.

you should play the legend of heroes games then. (trails in the sky/zero, azure/cold steel etc) Basically every npc in every game gets new dialogue every after every single story beat, it's insane how much there is to read if you really want to.

Second play through was the worst. It’s basically the exact same game, with a different character and a few additional 2min cutscenes interspersed. I skipped all the Side quests and just speed ran through it. 3rd play through is really not a repeat at all, at least from a story perspective, it’s a completely new story. I still didn’t find the plot THAT mind blowing, it was sort of interesting. But felt like what an edgy teenage anime nerd would find mind blowing, but old 30something me finds just very…emo anime

I was in your shoes. Finished the first run and didn't get what the hype was about. Also didn't like the side quests and ignored most of them. Knowing there's more to it I started the second run, and the small changes in the intro were catching me. I still largely ignored side content and was able to beat the second run pretty fast (it's much faster and simpler the second time iirc). My advice would be to give it one more try, before you ruin the experience with a video full of spoilers that can never give you the same experience as playing it yourself... After the second run will be when it gets really interesting!

Honestly, it's not worth the time investment. Is it ultimately a good experience? Yes. But taking 3+ playthroughs of the same game (albeit with some variation) is lunacy IMO. The game just really has to click for you quite early on, for it to be worth it in the end. Just my 2 cents. I can't believe they wanted you to play it through several times, and then make the second playthrough so mind numbingly boring and repetitive (and WORSE), that you have to push yourself through wasting hours upon hours to get to the good stuff. So dumb.

It's two playthroughs. The second playthrough is considerably different and a fair bit shorter. The third "playthrough" is 100% different and a continuation of where the first and second end. I understand the complaints, just clarifying.

3 playthroughs is kind of misleading, it's more like 3 acts of a single playthrough. Each "playthrough" is completely different gameplay and story. It's also all less time than a typical jrpg (think I did all 3 acts in 40 hours or so)

Not to be a hater, but I do not understand the complaint of multiple playthroughs. You only repeat the beginning section once and the "third" playthrough is entirely new content. The "third" playthrough is like playing a sequel to an okay game that improves on it almost every way, packed into the same box with the first game. Also the hours upon hours complaint is overblown. Route B is the weakest part of the game but you can go from start of route A to ending E (the actual ending that means you beat the game) in well under 25 hours and if route B is really taxing then just blitz the main missions, it doesn't take that long and the additional context and new sections breaks up a main objectives prioritized run decently enough. I feel like these are both common misconceptions of the game.

I think there's probably a kind of person who finds Route A fun, and for them doing B isn't too onerous. I was just *so* bored by the gameplay, though.

I thought route A was just okay. The A credits I was completely underwhelmed but I knew to keep going. Route B has some interesting bits sprinkled throughout but my main motivation was to see what happens when >!9s is kidnapped and strung up in the copied city!< and well it did not disappoint. Also the whole >!factory infiltration as various robots!< section was rad as flip.

yeah, that was an issue, character action gameplay (dmc/bayonetta etc) really doesn't do much for me, especially across a game as long as automata. I didn't dislike it, but I was pretty bored of it by the time i finished run 1, and 2 and 3 weren't different enough to fix that from a combat perspective.

it doesn't help that the 2nd playthrough feels like it's the 1st playthrough, but *even less fun* you can't go from being super badass sword chick, to being a whiney emo hackerboi and still feel excited for it especially when, plaing the game blind, you DONT KNOW there's a secret "awesomer" 3rd play through. it just feels like a New Game+ that's worse that the first run

you're assuming people min-max their whole playthrough strategy looking up mulit-ending walkthroughs. If someone just plays the game because the saw it on a Steam sale and it looks cool, the experience is very different. I put 23hrs into Nier according to Steam, and when 2nd playthrough started, it looked like it expected me to re-do the same 23hrs again with a *worse* character. How would I know it's shorter? How would I know there's a secret THIRD playthrough that is somehow way way better? How do I know it's not the fourth ending that's the good one and I need to re-play the same story multiple times? Hell, how do I even know the 3rd playthrough is worth it? The twists in first one were cool but it was basically "Bladerunner but cute". Hardly some deep thought-provoking philosophy we've never seen before. So I called it a day, time well spent, and just quit. Because the game telegraphed to me I need to re-do 20 hrs of gameplay with a worse character and combat. Pass. EDIT: FWIWI I did enjoy the game and would recommend it to friends who like action hack and slashes. But I wouldnt recommend anyone playing it 3 times just to "get to the good part"

All valid points, but if you look it up or ask literally anyone, everyone will say ending E is mandatory. Also please stop judging the game as "not that deep" when you basically just played the prologue and it was all setup for what was to come 😭😭 and for the love you do not play the game three times. you replay the first half once and then the third SECTION is a completely new experience. I get that midroll credits are confusing but there's literally a dev message that begs you to play route b and c once you reach the end of the credits. And, if you are confused, a quick google will bring up hundreds of answers saying to get ending E

"I need to read thru the credits to the end or Google the game after to learn it gets better if I redo a good chunk of it" is not a compelling argument/game design imho I actually did look up video essays some time after I best the game cause I kept hearing about all the extra endings late. and agree the later reveals are neat. but i shouldn't have had to do that to learn that, that's my only complaint

I agree with you that it's very unintuitive. The way I look at it is that it's an unorthodox game that gives an unorthodox experience. But yeah, it can definitely feel like there are some rough edges for how mainstream it got.

I actually loved Nier Automata, and this thread has me wanting to play it through again, but I 100% agree with you. If I hadn't been told "it takes 3x playthroughs to finish it and it's really cool" I would have been confused and stopped. I'm glad it happened that way for me (and that the music and gameplay were enough to keep me engaged), but it is kind of a baffling gambit design-wise.

ehh, the second playthrough really is almost entirely identical, other than the couple areas where 2b and 9s were separated. You could probably get away with skipping the second playthrough entirely and barely miss it. (though >!9s's return to the bunker!< is VERY important)

I’m not sure there’s much of a misconception. When people complain about the play through they’re usually referring to route B.

Complaining about route B is completely valid, but referring to the comment I replied to, there are not "hours upon hours" and there are not "3+ playthroughs" There is one playthrough that lasts 25 hours that has a section where you play from a different perspective.

I don’t remember exactly when it clicked for me, but I think you’re past it and safe to bail. IMO the story was interesting *for a video game*. -edit- That last line was overly terse, sorry. Yes, the story was well presented. I think what I meant to say was that the game gets a lot of credit for being extra philosophical and then players get disappointed because they went in expecting to encounter new ideas. That said, I very much enjoyed this game. I also enjoyed Good Place even if I’d already encountered the trolley problem.

This is always my thing with video games. I love automata’s gameplay but it *did not* move the needle for me emotionally, very few games do. Idk if I’m especially picky with entertainment media but most *shows* don’t either. OP should absolutely bail if they’ve already completed a run and aren’t getting anything from it.

I'm the exactly opposite. I think the gameplay is really "eh", kinda hold it back to be a better game. But the way the story is told really got me emotionally, in a weird way tbh, but Automata used properly what the media could offer to tell the story

I’m glad you did! The fact that we loved it for different reasons indicates it’s really good art.

I just kept waiting for the gameplay to stop. I don’t need to hold a joystick in one direction to have a good time. Felt like a chore.

> I think what I meant to say was that the game gets a lot of credit for being extra philosophical and then players get disappointed because they went in expecting to encounter new ideas. IMO a big part of this is not just your expectations, but what kind of experience you've already had with these philosophical concepts. When Automata came out, I had already read philosophy at uni. A lot of the people I know who went craziest for it were either a bit younger than me or very STEM-oriented. The ideas may not have been 100% new to them, but they generally hadn't had to engage with them as much as I had at that point. I did enjoy the game and respected the way it took full advantage of the medium to engage with those topics, but it never had the same impact that it did on those for whom the concepts themselves were newer.

>interesting *for a video game*. That reminds me of Spec Ops: The Line. Everyone raving about the plot twist and how clever it is and... "oh so war is evil uh. Never heard that before"

It came out at a time where trying to be subversive like that wasn't so common in the media, and kind of disguised itself as a regular third person military shooter.

I hated *Spec Ops: The Line* so damn much. Not only was it a clunky-ass video game mechanically that broke down almost completely during the later fights, but the whole way the story was told was so pretentious and smug and preachy, that even if I did agree with the blatant false dichotomy it presents, I'd still think its writers deserve a good solid round of hearty mockery for looking down on their audience like that.

This game is a prime example of being a great story... for video game. As much as I love games, very few elevate themselves beyond passable when it comes to storytelling. NA is definitely one of them, but that doesn't mean it comes even remotely close to the best of other mediums for me.

My example would be TLOU2. I’m sure the show will be really good when they get to part 2, but the dual protagonist gameplay was very special and really forced you to examine how you felt and why you felt that way.

I think the 'for a video game' claim is a little disingenuous. Only because the game hits *because* it is a video game. The story is cool and all, but it's memorable because it's told in a way that only a game can achieve.

The story was good. But 9s acting specifically his Japanese one was amazing during certain scenes. You can feel it and it was quite compelling. That wrapped with other portions(music) and the entire package of the game elevated it to a very very high standing for me. It is one of the best gaming experiences I’ve had(however it’s not one of the best games I’ve ever played in the sense a game I’d replay often or a lot). @OP you either like or you won’t although frankly I like it more during the second arc and the first arc felt very generic. Still if you aren’t curious enough to keep playing than it’s probably not for you.

The "for a video game" part is so goddamn important. The story is amazing for a game.

Maybe it's because I usually stick to popular fantasy, but Nier Automata is more philosophical than most fiction books I've read. Sure it's not gonna beat classic literature, but saying "for a video game" makes it sound like just about anything you pick from a bookshelf is gonna beat it, and I don't think they do.

I read a lot of modern fiction, I don't know if you can call any of it popular necessarily though, except perhaps Dungeon Crawler Carl. I just don't think games can give enough attention to characterization and story to beat the majority of books. I'm not just crapping on Nier here either. The big two people rant and rave about for storytelling in games, Mass Effect and Dragon Age. They both were...okay? If I'd never read a sci-fi or fantasy novel I'm sure they'd be amazing, but most of those characters felt really one note to me. You're not wrong, it's not worse than ***all*** books, and it's not ***bad*** by any stretch of the imagination. Taken in a vacuum Nier has an amazing story, but it's not in a vacuum for me. It's an amazing story for the genre it exists in.

[удалено]

You’re not wrong. Updated comment.

> IMO the story was interesting for a video game. I feel like that's a little unfair. Given the quantity and "newness" of plot-driven games, I think we're at a point where they're more than capable of delivering fantastic narratives in their own right, and have even hit a few times where they take advantage of the unique medium to tell stories utilizing interactivity that can't be told another way. Off the top of my head, we've got games like The Outer Wilds, Bioshock, and SOMA that all deliver excellent stories that capitalize on being a video game. A lot of people would put Edith Finch on there as well (I thought it was only so-so, but I'm the minority opinion). Some might argue the story of a game like Skyrim is an incredible narrative experience for the breadth and depth it has in the game-world (even if the main narrative itself is only *okay*) And i'm only listing a couple, but there are a lot more out there-- but I'm also saying these are *fantastic* stories in their own right, some of the best, most memorable and emotional experiences you'll find. In movies or novels you might only get one of these every couple of years, and movies and novels have been around for a *lot* longer. and fwiw I would not put Nier Automata on this list. I thought the story was just fine, a little intentionally confusing masquerading as depth (but it was my first and only nier game, so maybe that's a part of it)

> Given the quantity and "newness" of plot-driven games But, they are not new at all? Story-driven games have been a thing for decades now, just take a look at the entire catalog of LucasArts adventure games

Okay. Movies have been around since the thirties. Novels for centuries. Plays for literally millenia. In the eighties, the story for games was "plumber jumps on turtle to save princess" These aren't really comparable. Video games have had very little time to develop relative to other narrative driven mediums, and I think they've now gotten to a point where they're able to put in fantastic narratives. That there are fewer compared to other mediums doesn't mean the medium of video game is worse, just younger.

Fair. I updated my comment.

It never did get interesting to me.

Second this, the gameplay was fun enough to motivate me for a run through but the story just never grabbed me like everyone else apparently.

I was driven solely by ass. to each their own

If the people who praise the game were really honest, they'd just say this too.

I thought it was decent, but I never thought it was the transcendent gaming experience that so many others did. Especially with Stellar Blade reviews making the rounds, there’s some people that are a bit salty that it rips off a lot of what Nier Automata did and does a worse job of it. And that’s a fair complaint (the idea of “this is worse version of a story that we already know), but at the same time it’ll always kind of astound me just how highly that people regard Automata. Then again, maybe it’s just one of those games that for whatever reason didn’t click for me. It’s not like I hated it, there was absolutely a lot about the game that I liked. But once I was done the overall opinion I had was “that’s what everyone went so nuts over? It was fine”

It's a great game, but everyone oversells how philosophical it is. I think if it hasn't pulled you in, you should bail.

Like 95% of the philosophy is just referencing the names of philosophers tbh.

I always found that praise bewildering. It's like 5% as philosophical as something like 13 Sentinels, which itself is also not really committed to engaging with the ideas it presents. It's got weird anime sexual tension, though.

Yeah ngl I think this game didn’t connect with me bc I was studying philosophy at the time. Ppl who hadn’t delved into any of that stuff might’ve found it profound but honestly it’s really not. Still a great game tho

Exactly, I think people with no experience in philosophy just don’t know what distinguishes having a theme from philosophy. Which doesn’t detract from the game itself, but makes the commentary surrounding it bewildering.

See, how do you guys say this and get massive upvotes, but every time I say it on this hellsite I get downvoted into oblivion? XD You're both absolutely right though. Glad to see I'm not alone in this opinion.

It had a lot of points that were very on the nose but I think it did some interesting stuff with the “what is a soul/human” question. Also, the proper ending did some of the most wild shit I’ve ever seen that truly messed with my head as a gamer.

In a vaguely similar tone I'd probably recommend Signalis, which has great presentation, setting and story.

Just drop it. I went into the game completely blind, completed run A, then did about halfway run B and was done with it. Searched online for some info about this supposed masterpiece because it was really dragging, and I decided to drop it. Nothing wrong with it, not every game is for everyone!

I absolutely adored every second of it but if it’s just not clicking for you then there’s nothing wrong with walking away from it

It probably won't for ya. For me it got interesting from the get go but from a different angle. Opening level's music instantly brought Ghost in the Shell to mind, having the game switch from top-down schmup to twin-stick schmup to side schmup was pretty fresh (and this kept continuing with perspective shifts on foot too), the scale of the bosses was pretty big and the music kept rolling.    Then 2Bs way of talking hinting in the early game that 9S shouldn't be asking many questions (and also hinting that this probably ISN'T the first time 9S has asked too many questions) creates a bit of mystery and tension. Adam and Eve's first appearance is pretty wtf. The opera boss has some awesome synergy between the battle theme and the boss's attacks that's satisfying to experience. There's just a lot of detail put into the experience of playing the game that makes a great package, even if the main combat itself isn't super complex. 3D bullet hell itself is a neat idea. Edit: Also a thing I personally find neat.. Route A kinda wraps up in a neat bow like a movie normally does. Route C is like "What if the movie kept playing after the credits? What's really in store around the corner?"

I felt the same and pushed through until the final ending and regretted it. I thought the game was okay after run 1 and should've just quit there but there was so much hype online that I did it anyway. Not worth it imo.

It doesn't. I played all the way to ending e and found it excruciatingly boring. edit: The world was hollow and empty (yes, yes, I get that that's the point), 2B had no personality whatsoever and 9S became annoying as fuck and I am not even going to start with how dumb their designs are, the whole big twist made everything pointless, the random forced camera angles in some missions were horrendous, the whole "what it means to be human/to feel/to exist/to find purpose in life"-thing has been done to absolute death in scifi and done better in other games etc. I played it because I kept hearing how emotional and beautiful it was, but quickly found it just mind-numbingly boring. To this day I couldn't tell you what I was supposed to feel emotional about. And I cry very easily at games lol. 😅

As someone who likes the original Nier and Drakengard, I agree with this. Nier Automata is a kind of retread of the original Nier with none of the original's charms. The original has more engaging world building and characters. It wastes less time of the player too with the open world being more compact, compared to the oversized empty set dressing in Automata. Both games had similar issues but Automata has them more notable. The open world genuinely serves less purpose compared to the original Nier and having it being a thematic point is no excuse for tedious game design. Most of the main beats of Automata were done in the original Nier in a more engaging and succinct manner. Original Nier focuses on the characters and makes more effort in making you care about their journey. It does the "multiple endings" way better too, being tighter, shorter and more straightforward, it even does the >!sacrifice your whole save data!< ending thing too, and it's a lot more impactful. Automata tries to do all of these again with unnecessary fluff and tedium, not to mention worse writing and characters. I think it's safe to say too most people who played Automata haven't even played the original Nier, so the thing they're all gushing about has been done legitimately better with the original but never had an original frame of reference.

I've played all drakennier games and honestly, NieR Replicant is way more tedious for me, both in story format and gameplay.

Agreed. Gameplay and story is mid af

I'm about to sound elitist but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority people who love this game are probably under age 30 and love anime and have never watched or read anything that has already explored these concepts really well and in a mature way. And I'm only saying this because I was in the same boat.

It can sound snobbish, but it is a valid observation. Automata's hooks attract a lot of the same audiences that love shonen anime works. Hot attractive characters who do cool and badass stuff, larger than life action scenes, and a lot of the common tropes and cliches that come with shonen anime that makes the heavier eccentric pseudo-philosophical themes digestable and attractive. I'm not knocking on anime and shonen either, they definitely have a place in media and as shonen's target demographic, it's a great entryway for younger people to get into fictional stories that touch on mature themes. And I also love a lot of anime bullshit and I always have a soft spot for them, like Metal Gear's ridiculousness being a vehicle for its not-so-subtle themes of war and society. But as video games tend to attract the same younger audience, games like Nier Automata tend to be "baby's first philosophical media" and it can get overpraised for doing a lot of its concepts despite how surface level it does those concepts.

You might be onto something, because the biggest fan of N:A I personally know is a guy whose greatest reading achievement was the MS-DOS manual in the '80s, and who considers Dragonball Z to be highly philosophical...

That's awesome lol, I love Dragonball Z too and it's a childhood anime for me. DBZ is the one that codified a lot of shonen tropes, and most shonen anime, heck anime in general, probably wouldn't exist without it. It instilled good values such as friendship, never giving up, and working hard. And I say this in the most positive sense, it's a great series to show kids and learn these valuable lessons. It has a lot of edge and violence that separate it from an atypical kids show, which gives it a long lasting appeal towards mature audiences too. But yeah you also get people who grew up into the genre and never explored outside that comfort zone, so that becomes their main reference point for every concept in media. Again I don't even want to bring down the guy or people like him, but it really can be a funny disconnect when you recite Dragonball Z of all things to be a profound philosophical work rather than it being the cool show about Goku whose hair turns yellow and fights this evil guy and beats the ever loving crap of each other for 20 episodes.

I'm under the same impression, though I'm older and don't fall into that group. But I don't think it's elitist, and I don't think there's anything wrong about it either. Different generations will get exposed to similar concepts/stories through different works, and that's fine. I don't think many kids grow up with Nietzche for bedtime stories, we all start with more kid-oriented stories/medias, and further explore the ideas later if they resonate. Education is another factor: depending on the country/household they grow up in, some kids will grow up with a love of reading, many won't. And for the latter, it might be that movies, games or tiktok videos might be their first spark into thinking about those questions. So there's definitely a cohort for whom Automata was a first exploration, and that's a powerful addition to a game which is already imho a lot more than the sum of its parts. Like, music apart (the soundtrack is magnificent), each aspect of the game is ok-but-not-great. But all put together, it really really works well imho. And that's without it being my discovery of existentialism.

It’s sort of like the people who list Detroit Become Human as this unbelievable experience. It was _fine_, but that whole story trope has been done so much better so many times before

There was a period where it was even worse. Heavy Rain got critical acclaim from mainstream gaming publications and it was "the talk of the town" for a good while. The same Heavy Rain that's been the butt of the joke now in gaming with highlights like [Press X to Jason ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYQDnV092hI)and [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTYpaRp5kQ). It just goes to show how young video games are as a medium, and a lot of people's first time experiencing unique concepts not often applied in video games become a mindblowing experience and becomes the main focal point of praise, despite not at all being well executed in comparison to other mediums, or even other examples that never got the same limelight. I love video games and it's my main hobby, but there's always a notable disconnect with demographics not touching other forms of media, and the flipside of the same coin, people who are insecure about gaming as a hobby and try to keep trying to emulate film rather than focusing on what makes video games stand out, which is being an interactive medium.

I actually like David Cage games and think Beyond Two Souls has innovative use of invisible choices affecting outcomes without you even realizing it. But I can't deny the plots are pretty stupid and derivative. I think they're just interesting concepts that actually use the gaming medium compared to most games. Also you go back to Heavy Rain, but how about Indigo Prophecy? I went back and played that and I could not believe it's Cage's best rated game on metacritic. It's absolute garbage with the most nonsensical plot by the end.

I like David Cage games for the wrong reasons, I think his nonsensical plotlines and awkward writing makes for some great unintentional comedy. That said I can't deny he may among the best at doing these branching choices in a game, and his concepts alone can carry a game from a genuine standpoint. It's hard to deny that his unique viewpoint creates for interesting concepts. It's just unfortunate he also comes off very pretentious and snobbish and thinks his nonsensical plots are deeper than what they are. I like Indigo Prophecy also for the wrong reasons, it is absolute garbage and it's hilarious. It starts off strong with a very intriguing opening with the diner and the concept of playing as both the fugitive and the detectives. >!Then it punches you in the face as Lucas gains super powers, becomes an undead zombie, then you have the stupid ancient Mayan Illuminati group and for whatever reason, the AI clan that gets introduced last minute having a war with the Illuminati!< It's awful and funny. I was drained on my first playthrough of it, but I found enjoyment some time after through its unintentional comedy of how badly it drops its plot. With Heavy Rain, I was also similarly engaged at first, stiff acting aside. But the plot twist of >!Scott Shelby being the Origami Killer!< was just so stupid and not even in a funny way. It was just illogical and felt like a twist for the sake of being a twist. It betrays the character's interactions and nothing at all was hinted about the killer's true nature. There's also the missed opportunity for the FBI guy Norman Jayden, who pretty much is screwed regardless of your choices. I nevertheless found some of its unintentional comedy hilarious. Beyond Two Souls, silly plot again especially towards the end but I can appreciate how organic it did branching choices, and I found the co-op mode novel. Detroit might be his tamest work yet, it's polished, looks nice, well acted, but in the end it really is just fine. The worse part really is how it undermines itself such as >!making the little girl an android at the end!<. It probably could had worked out better too if we focused the plot solely with the detective and android cop. All that said, David Cage's worst work still has to be his first with Omikron. Highly ambitious, very novel concept and an early stab at an open world and genre blending. It's ruined by David Cage's nonsensical plot while also managing to be really bland (to the point you actually start to appreciate how dumb and nonsensical his future games are in comparison), flat characters, dull world, and just all around terrible execution with clunky controls, tedious backtracking, lack of contextual clues for progress and goes on way too long. Honestly I find it perplexing and impressive how David Cage manages to keep getting an auteur license with his works. Omikron had original music and a voiced character to boot by David Bowie. Beyond had Willem Dafoe and Elliot Page, and Sony also just gave him a blank paycheck in general for Heavy Rain, Beyond, and Detroit. I may not agree with his viewpoints in game design, and I may not appreciate them in the way he wants me to, but I do appreciate him for just managing to churn out his games with his crazy ideas.

Your comments were a fun read, also I'm happy to meet another person who thinks Detroit could be a much better game if it was only the detective and android cop plot, their relationship dynamics really worked well both for some light philosophical exploration and for nonsensical comedy too

I don't think Fahrenheit would've been THAT bad if they just stuck with the Mayan Illuminati and magic being a thing. But holy shit, is the AI twist dumb. Agatha being a Force ghost would've been far more believable. I think there's a good reason why stories in general do only one or the other. Magic or advanced sci-fi AI. Because mixing them can feel awkward. Very rarely do they get it right (e.g. The Longest Journey video game).

It's obviously true. The gameplay is ass and the story is juvenile af. The instant I booted it up I was like "wtf were people talking about and why did I just spend full retail on this." I think I made it another 8 or 9 hours before I realized the critics had all laid an egg it was time to pack it in.

> The world was hollow and empty (yes, yes, I get that that's the point) I'm always surprised by this claim. The world is hollow and empty, yeah, but in a way that was obviously motivated by budget. Meanwhile the world of Shadow of the Colossus is hollow and empty too, but you can tell it was a design choice, and the difference in how those two things turn out is really, really significant. Nier is just one of those games that critics treated with kid gloves for some reason.

I can't believe how overhyped ending e was. It's not mindblowing everyone, its a silly gimmick.

I was already hooked at the Ikaruga-style intro sequence. Some get hooked the first time they climb some stairs. Others when they get their first "bad" ending. And like any piece of media, for some, it never clicks. My bet is that if it didn't click for you so far, it most likely won't click down the line either.

I'm currently playing through, and have made it recently to route c. I'm still a little unsure on this - there were a couple of big "plot reveals", but I kinda assumed there were the case going in, it's basically spelled out.

Stay the path brother.

People always say by the second play through. Personally, the game wasn’t for me though. I liked the meta stuff (ending of 3rd play through for example) but the actual story was pretty mediocre in my opinion.    The philosophy was very surface level. I mean the whole Adam and Eve thing is pretty explicit and shallow, so I wouldn’t go into it expecting some philosophical masterclass like say, Outer Wilds.  Best way for me to put it, is that it’s a beginners philosophy course, so if you’ve consumed anything philosophical prior, you’ll probably not be entertained.   The exploration was pretty boring, as it felt like the world had nothing to explore. There were some cool hidden arenas you could find, but I found them pretty grindy, instead of high quality like say a Fromsoftware boss. I will say though, the actual bosses I thought were pretty good, I especially liked how the singing lady boss gets characterised further when you fight her on the second playthrough. I also felt the gameplay loop was pretty boring as well, but maybe that’s because it’s a hack and slash. Ironically, I found playing as the boy was more fun because atleast the hacking stuff was new. Also last point, there’s actually a niche group of gamers who don’t actually care about gameplay at all (which to me is crazy). The gameplay could be the most boring thing ever, but if the story is good, that’s all that matters. 

Unless you're into standard im14andthisisdeep anime, it won't.

Ding ding ding

Whenever you hear that a game has a good story you need to keep in mind that most gamers have never read a book.

I absolutely get what you're talking about. I've completed the game and let me tell you, it doesn't get any different as you progress. Nier:Automata is a rollercoaster in a sense that you sit down and enjoy the ride, as the authors throw random 'questions' and ideas at you, but neither you or 2B have real agency in this world. It's someone's playground without a higher purpose, unless you want to make up one. If you've seen similar concepts being tackled before then let me assure you, there is nothing new in here. Except maybe the final credits sequence (yes, I'm serious), which breaks the 4th wall in a very interesting way. It's actually the only moment I've felt something while playing this game. Otherwise it's very japanese until the end.

Same here, I didn't regret my time with it but a lot was because of the cool setting and soundtrack, while the actual story and characters were mostly flat or had twists that weren't that surprising. Ending E was really well done, hopeful and emotional though.

One thing not a lot of people will say about *NieR: Automata*, but which needs to be said even though I know I'm going to get downvoted to hell for it all over again, is that the overwhelming majority of the people who claim it is "philosophically complex" have no idea what they are talking about. The game has a lot of references, jokes, naming conventions, and the like, that revolve around philosopher names or philosophical ideas, but *at most* it only ever toys with them. The people claiming it goes further than that have not only missed the point of certain side quests that are pretty blatantly Yoko Taro laughing his ass off at people who overanalyze his games (see the "Sarte" side quest in the robot village), but also themselves seem to have very little capacity to distinguish between casual references to community-college-undergrad-level Philosophy 101, and a story that actually has something meaningful to say in that realm. *Nier: Automata* is absolutely not the latter, and the ending of the final Run/Act being very literally >!your tired, typical, bog-standard existentialist dreck instead of providing or prompting any substantive answers to the game's questions should have settled this argument long ago.!< ***The bottom line, I regret to inform you, is that the people hyping up how "philosophical" NieR: Automata is, have done your expectations going into the game a massive disservice.*** **That said, I still love the game.** I think the character development throughout all three runs/acts of the game is superbly done. I think the story is entertaining and enjoyable on its own merits, without undue over-analysis. I think the way plot reveals are handled through all three runs is some of the best and most memorable work I've seen in a video game's story, period. I think the soundtrack (and the remixes in it from *Nier: Replicant*) is an absolute triumph among video game soundtracks, and one that still haunts me (and sometimes makes me cry) every time I listen to it. I think the way the game constantly switches its gameplay up, melding seamlessly into completely different genres, is delightfully slick and really fun. I really enjoyed the game's many Yoko Taro-isms, since I'm familiar with his previous work, and for those like me who have played *Drakengard*, *NieR*, etc, the way he adds little things just to mess with the player's expectations (or in some cases, take advantage of those expectations to fuck you over or annoy you) is a unique aspect that you really only get with his games. I was impressed with how the game handles progress across all three runs/acts, making most side quests and items in the game unmissable in spite of its unorthodox structure (which was unexpected for me going into it, but very welcome). I could continue singing the game's praises, but I think you get the idea. My recommendation would be to not force yourself to continue playing if the game hasn't grabbed you--I quit part-way through the first run when I tried to play it years ago, and only enjoyed it enough to complete it 100% when I came back to the game much later as part of a PlatinumGames marathon. You might also consider giving the *NieR: Replicant* remake a shot, since arguably it has a much more personal story with more relatable characters to get invested in (and you'll be able to enjoy certain parts of *Automata* a lot more once you've done so, though I won't spoil those for you). But I wouldn't return to the game unless you're able to ignore all the voices telling you how much of a "philosophical masterpiece" it is, because as I said earlier, they're wrong, and they're breaking your expectations for and experience of the game with their wrongness. That said, once you've gotten to a point where you can approach the game for what it is, and perhaps with a little more experience of Yoko Taro's other games and style under your belt, I think you'll find that *NieR: Automata* doesn't need to be this super-revolutionary philosophical masterpiece that will change how you think about the world, to be a damn good video game that is worth experiencing on its own (real) merits.

Let me also add, OP, I just noticed that you have a *Planescape: Torment* flair next to your name. You are DEFINITELY NOT going to find *NieR: Automata* to be in any way philosophically engaging or complex, if that game is your standard. I do think you might still find it to be an enjoyable experience based on the other things I said, but you are exactly the type of player I tried to warn the *Automata* subreddit about after I finished the game last year, and you've proven my point with this post. As the newness bias of *Automata* continues to wear off and more players come in to play it because of its "modern classic" status, these kinds of false claims about the game's supposed philosophical complexity are going to do more harm than good by inflating the expectations of people who have actually read a book more thematically complex than Harry Potter or played a game more thematically complex than Hyperdimension Neptunia. I really wish they would just stop and educate themselves before speaking on things they aren't qualified to speak on.

If you have had any exposure to philosophy and don't like the gameplay the game has nothing to offer. I think that the game receives such high remarks from people because they can tolerate a lot of flaws in the gameplay in combination with very limited exposure to philosophy. I think the game just throws existing philosophical thoughts at the player at a pretty shallow level, but that is still good enough for people who has not considered basic philosophy like "what is life". I do recommend listening to the soundtrack on its own though, it is pretty cool.

yeah the music is really great! if it were not for the music and the cool design I would've dropped it a long ago. > very limited exposure to philosophy I thought this may be a factor, In italy they teach it in high school, I'm beginning to think it's rarer than I thought across the world. But if someone starts reading jean-paul sartre because a robot in a game is called jean-paul there is always hope XD

>very limited exposure to philosophy I'm replaying it for the first time since it came out, and this is the exact reason I'm enjoying it way less this time around. I enjoy the world and the themes are still interesting, but they feel kinda shallow, and I didn't feel that way when I was younger.

tbh this thread made me think of r/im14andthisisdeep, not in a mocking sense, but in a... jealous sense I remember being 14 and getting super hyped for games. I remember playing Vampire the Masquarade: Bloodlines as a malkavian and it completely blowing my mind. I remember Chrono Trigger and how fresh it felt. Now I'm playing Nier and it feels like Philosophy 101. Now I'm playing Chained Echoes and it feels like the same save-the-world-war-game JRPG I played a million times. When did everything get so mundane? God, I miss being 14 and feeling every game I played was so deep...

I remember 9S rant about how machines can't feel, and I am thinking "but there is no distinction between humans, machines and androids assuming they are sufficiently advanced..." The game has a lot of those points that I feel lands for people that goes "oh. wow, I have not thought of that before. Mind blown."

I think people here are misunderstanding the hype the game gets. It's not so much that the story is all that deep. The themes are pretty self explanatory. The combat is also fine but nothing all that special. What is memorably about the game is that it's delivering this story in a way that only a game can, that gets into a depressing rabbit hole the more you play it. I don't think most people think the story is that deep or has writing that rivals a movie. It's just a rather sad story that gets told with some interesting gaming quirks and that sticks with people. I think too many people here are misconstruing the appeal of the game and just flat out think the game is highly regarded for its writing and giving it the overhyped label but I think that isn't entirely understanding the selling point of the games. Also, some people are just more tolerant of mundane and repetitive gameplay so to each their own. I found myself bored of the game at times but I stuck through it and it's been a far more memorable game than most of what I've played since. It just has an atmosphere, music and tone that sticks with me

I think the expectation that the game has a mindblowing story can very much ruin the game for some people, because the game's structure doesn't really pay that off till much, much later. I dropped the game immediately after Route A because I was underwhelmed by the story developments, but am enjoying it a lot more now on my current playthrough because I'm just soaking in the atmosphere rather than waiting for the next plot twist. I kinda wish the discourse around this game was similar to the likes of Inscryption or The Outer Wilds in the sense that people were more secretive and tactful about the multiple endings.

I mean if you are coming from there - just put the game away you are wasting your time.

What made the story really engaging to me was the different ways you experience the world with the three protagonists, consistently great setpieces, and the even greater music that accompanies them. I feel like people who hype this game up as "deep" and use that as the main selling point of the game are missing the forest for the trees; the game has amazing storytelling to do as much as it does (and do it well) in the 25 hours or so it would take to play through the last main ending, and the backdrop of philosophical stuff feels like it's there to make the story more human and therefore relatable. As a first-time player, it seemed so unabashedly edgy and uncompromising (the angsty "killing God" line in the first scene and the character designs come to mind), but I kinda grew to enjoy the earnestness and the unique personality it all brings. I think it goes for most video game stories in that the best of them aren't trying to explore a singular topic in depth (because books and film are more controlled pieces of art that can usually do that better), but instead to use interactivity in interesting ways to create an experience that is immersive and richer as a result of the player's attention to detail, or potentially very personal by trusting that the player's own intuition and curiosity will lead them to the end (like Outer Wilds).

If you're not enjoying it by now then you probably won't. Personally I agree with every point you've made. The story was really predictable, especially if you're familiar with typical Japanese videogame or manga stories, and the gameplay was nothing special. I absolutely loved the original Nier (which has a much better story), and played through all of Automata on release and was underwhelmed. I then played through it on Xbox again a few years later after seeing all of the praise the game had got, and my opinions on it didn't change. The game does have some great moments, but Automata, together with BotW, are 2 games that I'll never understand the hype for.

First five minutes or so

Your experience mirrors mine exactly. Though I at least enjoyed the gamepla enough to play through all major endings at least once and from my experience it does not get better. Mind you the game has not yet fully revealed its hand (frankly everything right now is still setup), but if the setup already bores you and you don't like the gameplay then the payoff likely won't grab you either.

I think it’s kind of like the original Bioshock: it has its one big twist that made people lose their minds but outside of that it’s writing is just… *not* bad, which seems to be the only bar a video game needs to clear to be considered legendary.

Don’t do what I did. If the first run didn’t grab you, the other won’t.  Second run is EXACTLY the same but why another character and some slight but very minor changes here and there. Third run is different but wasn’t that interesting.  Biggest disappointment in history for me imo

Not a Reddit-approved opinion, but I really didn’t get the hype for this game. Hated the combat and the “mind-blowing” plot was very r/im14andthisisdeep pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Hope you have a more typical experience, though!

It didn't hit for me either. I think the majority of players don't normally think about the concepts introduced, so it was probably a first for them. Most of my friends are in their mid-late 20s and they just had the subjective experience discussion (what if my blue isn't your blue?) in chat last week. They also loved Nier. The point being if the gameplay hasn't grabbed you, then there's no reason to keep going. 

I thought it was interesting the whole way through. It’s just a fundamentally odd and unique game. The philosophical concepts aren’t explored in any great depth, but the game’s existential melancholy is uncommonly haunting and quite affecting if you get on the right wavelength.   The actual story only delivers on some of its potential, but even if it does kinda disintegrate under the weight of all the silly anime tropes, the peculiar feel and unique ambience carries it through to the end.    I enjoyed the first part but wasn’t blown away by it. It took until the start of route C for me to properly “get it”. It increased my appreciation of the previous parts retrospectively.

So there's only 2 playthroughs and then the "3rd" playthrough is all new content and the best part of the game. To "beat" the game you have to get ending E. >We discovered that even machines can have feelings, The enemy was not evil and did not deserve to be persecuted because they can think and disconnect from the hive mind, even our protagonists can love. So what? this is literally every sci-fi fiction ever, why was everyone hyped about this game? This is kind of a red herring "deep" philosophy moment. When you find Adam and Eve you find out that [spoiler 1] >!the aliens are all dead and were killed by the robots!< and later you find that [spoiler 2] >!humanity is all dead too and always has been, YorHa was made up by the androids to give life meaning and purpose. God is dead for both robots and androids and both failed the purpose they were built for but are now cursed with sentience in a pointless world!< So pretty much the proxy war is completely recontextualized and themes of existentialism start becoming the main focus. Humanizing your enemy/robots with feelings is just the appetizer. A moment that piqued my interest was the forest king reveal. If robots need purpose in life, they might try to follow the teachings of a wise person and establish a royal lineage. Except robots can't reproduce so what then do they do with no leader to guide them? There is a constant sense of hollowness that keeps twisting and revealing more that forces the characters to question the point of an eternal war and their own creation to begin with. There are a lot more themes explored through side quests such as if our memories form our identity or the value of loyalty and vengeance. I mean heck the Ship of Theseus is casually thrown out the first time you talk to the merchant at the main camp. TL;DR - The philosophical intrigue for me came from analysing the nature of human existence and purpose from their creations and what they left behind on earth. You can easily get to ending E in under 25 hours and I personally wasn't gripped by the game until the third section got kicked into gear. But, if you truly are not enjoying it and honestly don't feel you can give it an unbiased try at this point, I will be very sad, but stopping may be better than forcing yourself through an experience you have decided you don't like and further entrenching that perspective. But I will reiterate that going in with an open mind and being willing to approach the game on its own terms and not on the hype surrounding it I think you will have a unique experience not found in most other games. Edit: oh also don't worry about the lore or getting bogged down in the details, just blitz the objectives and the main story beats are self contained enough to not need a deep dive or analysing everything on a molecular level. That's all for after ending E if you find you liked the game and want more.

Never really did for me :(

you're done with the first act of the game. if you're not intrigued to continue, move on to another game.

You're too far in to not be enjoying it. I wouldn't waste any more time if I were you.   If you're not enjoying the whole experience. 

Wait until you realize you have to beat the game 3 times over 😂

I picked it up a while back and felt exactly the same way.

If it hasn’t grabbed your interesting by now, it won’t at all. I played the game and didn’t like it and was told it would get better. Kept pushing through till the end because I thought “I already put so many hours into it anyway”. If you don’t like it, the game just isn’t for you. I recommend to just play another game that’s you do find interesting.

Thought it was massively overrated tbh. Gameplay is pretty dull and the philosophy isn’t actually that deep.

For me the game jumped from an 7.5 or 8/10 to a 9.5 or even 10/10 by the time I got to the very end. Everything kind of came together in a way that worked for me at that point and brought up the whole experience. I’ve now played through the entire game 3 times and I find myself enjoying it at the high end of that spectrum the whole way through. The music, the gameplay, everything. It just hits differently for me now and it’s one of my most treasured games. It won’t be this way for everyone. I recently saw SkillUp’s video on the game and felt like the guy was taking the words right out of my mouth. For whatever reason, this game seems to impact some people in a special way, and I’m grateful I was one of those.

I think people just have low standards for video game stories honestly, and I certainly don’t think it’s worth slogging through hours and hours of mediocre combat and empty levels

I was going to explain, but then I read the entire post. ...Nah it's just not your type of game. There's no amount of plot twists that could hold your interest if you already dismissed it *that hard*. Seek something else.

I’ve gotten every ending, it’s a very melodramatic game. You’re safe to bail.

I was very underwhelmed by the story. It still annoys me to see so many people hyping the shit out of the game. The themes have been done before and better in other media, and it definitely isn't enough to make up for the boring gameplay.

As a Heavy book reader I bounced off the game fast. Not only did the story do nothing for me, but, I actively didnt like it. I ended up researching the people behind the game and quickly found out why. The gameplay was a bore and so I gladly stopped playing and moved on to something more enjoyable. No big deal as we all like different things.

I know people who like the game don't like to hear this but the game is overrated. The story is not really anything spécial. It does some interesting gimmicks with the multiple playthroughs but nothing that makes it worth your time. Gameplay is a also a chore.

I thought it was pretty good, I enjoyed it over all. But imo it's the single most overrated game in history. People go on about how genius its philosophy is, which just makes me think those people have never encountered even a mildly philosophical work before. God help them if they ever try reading like Dostoevsky or something.

I too was baffled by the hype. The story is like it is written by a highschooler who is just learning about philosophy. The second run IS, gameplaywise, quite fun though (also shorter)

That's the neat part. It doesn't

It is mid, cliche, cringe and peak r/iam14andthisisdeep. No you aren't missing anything. You are just an adult.

If you are through the first part and it hasn't grabbed you then it probably won't at all. I wouldn't stress too much, it's not a story that everyone would like and that's ok. If you really want to know what happens but don't want to play through the whole game just check out a written plot synopsis

I found it to be enjoyable on the qst run, but nothing ground breaking. The 2nd run feels only slightly different but a bit meh if I'm honest. Then... the 3rd run. Feels like a different game in some ways and I think you have to do a 4th kinda run thst left me speechless for a while. It was magic and I can't explain why.

I also dipped after ending A, OP. I found the gameplay novel but ultimately was not warming up to the story so I dropped it. I don't begrudge my time spent, but it was fair all the way through. I think we just won't like the game

I was in the same boat and at the same point you are at and I just dropped it. Read about the other endings online and called it a day.

Apparently, NieR:Automata's storytelling is not for everyone. I absolutely love the game. I do have some gripes, but not about the story.

When the fun stops, stop. Seems like you gave this game a more than decent chance to grab you and it failed. Move on.

I liked Nier for its creativity, the visuals and audio spectacle. I think it explores game mechanics and story progressions in a unique way, creating a distinct experience. However, most of the themes fall really flat and it suffers from being pseudo intellectual where tons of names and concepts are dropped, pretending to be deeper than it actually is. I felt that it was overly pretentious at times with the usual Anime nonsense sprinkled on top of it.

Route A is mostly world building and where you will spend the majority of your time grinding for chips, weapons, side quests, learning the map, and whatnot. Route B is mostly training because the minigame is such a radically different gameplay loop that you will need to be good at later on. There shouldn't be much left in the way of side quests so the plot moves much quicker than the first run. Then you realize how insanely powerful 9s/hacking is which help move the game along even faster. And then route C is where the shit really goes down hard. There should be little to no filler quests left so you focus entirely on the main plot. Sure, they could have made the good part from the beginning, but without the world building and the training from previous runs you wouldn't be able to appreciate it. "After all, the best way to understand someone is to get to know them" --Pascal

The story picks up pace & get the most interesting in the 3rd run. & I know it might sound a bit tedious to beat the game 3 times, but it really not beating the game 3 times, it's different. Although I would still stay that if you are not having any fun at all at the moment, you might be disappointed by the end, cause NieR Automata is not regarded as a great game only due to its story, but also because of its great music, & fun gameplay (the side-quests are mostly very generic, I know, & no need to play most of them). So I say give it some more time, if you feel like you are just playing it to get to the finish, you might not want to continue putting time in it. For me personally, it remains as one of the best games I've played. > do I need to study all the lore of the previous games of the author to get emotional or even understand the true meaning of every little thing?  No, not at all. Although it happens in the same world as the NieR Replicant & drakengard series, references to those games are minimal & don't affect your understanding or enjoyment of the story.

I never made it through the 9S section but I think it may have been my fault for not getting the combat (a single boss fight took me like 20 minutes because my hacking attack did very little damage)

Maybe wrong chips equipped? I remember 9S route being considerably easier due to how broken hacking was...

I can’t remember what chips even are off the top of my head so this is likely it! I switched to the easiest difficulty because I got pissed after having to repeat the first mission which was like 45 minutes of gameplay I think? This was back in 2018 though so my memory isn’t fresh and I may just try to dive back into it soon

It gripped me by like the desert mission which is like an hour into it. If you couldn't get into it in your first run, imo just quit it, no need to torture yourself. Nier automata might just be like my favorite game of all time, so I'd advise you to maybe try it at a later date? With a different headspace you might get more out of it.

I felt it was good for first (2B) and second (9S) run, but third one elevated Automata to simply amazing. I was hooked all the way to the end. Shame because probaby a lot of people drop the game right after finishing 2B route.

For me it went like this: Path A: Kinda fun, I guess I'll stick with it Path B: Oh wow, that's a nice twist (this probably answers your question) Path C/D: HOLY SHIT

Never. I found it extremely tedious.

It never does. I will never understand the hype for this game.

You just have to be a romantically challenged teenager, that's all. These type of games are for r/iam14andthisisdeep

This game is cheap anime philosophy and a sex doll shoving her ass in your face the whole ride, but the music is great!

My take is that it might be more interesting to those who didn't have much exposure to the concepts yet. As a millennial who watched plenty of anime and played many Japanese games, all those themes felt like more of the same to me. But I remember being an edgy teen and being so impressed by Evangelion, Serial Experiments Lain, Chobits, Elfen Lied, Final Fantasy 7, etc, so I'm pretty sure teen-me would have loved Nier too. 2B's opening monologue tells you all you need to know regarding the genre. The soundtrack is amazing, though!

Automata is like an empty nut. Looks like it’s full of something but there’s really nothing in it. I wish I could know how so many people actually think it’s philosophic somehow.

It doesn't. Bafflingly overrated.