I actually agree. Giving the player no option then scolding them generally isn’t effective. Give them two horrible options? Sure. Make them make a choice. If they didn’t make a decision it generally doesn’t land.
any other propaganda military shooters doesn’t give you a choice neither. yeah i agree it’s bad as a morality to system to just say “well if you wanna be good just quit” but spec ops isn’t some rpg it has all the mechanics of its genre including the lack of choice but it’s opposing their dominant narrative. if you had the option not to murder the civilians i think the impact of the game would be lost.
And they’re not trying to make any statement or impact to undercut the dominant narrative. They don’t want players to question, they’re reinforcing what the player already believes.
The game doesn’t need to give you a way out. But for the moment to be impactful you do have to manipulate the player in to believing that they made a decision and are thus culpable for their actions. Players have to feel ownership of what they did to feel shame, remorse, and horror. If they had no choice except “press x to do warcrimes” or turning off the game they’ll press x and grumble about being railroaded by the story.
That’s not at all accurate, to the point that I’m struggling to even place what you’re referring to. I think it’s about how if you help guerilla insurgents in the first Witcher game smuggle weapons they later assassinate someone? That was a big “wait, you’re telling me the rebels fighting a war use violence to accomplish their goals and aren’t just heckin wholesome peaceful YA novel protagonists who win by being ontologically good and having plot armor like in every other game, movie, and book that gets mainstream attention in the US?” shock moment for western gamers whose consumption of hollywood treats left them without a framework for understanding that sometimes the materially and morally correct side in a conflict can still be doing brutal and underhanded things as a matter of material necessity.
I never got into the second game, but by the third one the overall moral tone is pretty clearly on the side of mercy and conservation, with sparing and helping magical creatures that are intelligent non-human persons that are just trying to survive being the clearly correct choice to the point that later on when you get put on trial by a werewolf for being a monster hunter a bunch of them show up as character witnesses to your defense. That’s also the game where the narrator all but says “the real monsters are cruel and intolerant men” over and over, every aristocrat you encounter is some flavor of monstrous or dangerously detached from reality, and most of the plot ultimately revolves around trying to stop an extradimensional settler colonialist invasion.
CDPR are still libs, but they overall have a much more materialist understanding of how things fit together instead of the sort of mishmash of hollywood tropes American lib writers throw together based on vibes.
I also think it’s worth mentioning that there are plenty of choices in Witcher 3 that have pretty obviously good and bad options. Anyone ratting out that godling to the property owner is doing so to be evil. Refusing money from poor folks is plain good and never comes back to bite you. Killing Whoreson Junior might as well have had [Everyone loved that.] pop up in the top left corner and even rewards you with a cute little easter egg later.
But all these examples don’t really get remembered because they’re less impactful than the choices that aren’t so obvious
with sparing and helping magical creatures that are intelligent non-human persons that are just trying to survive being the clearly correct choice
While this mostly holds true there is one quest I remember that annoyed the shit out of me
You had to investigate some haunted tower, and were presented with two options essentially: destroy the spirit outright or try to put it to rest gently by performing a ritual
The game was mostly chill about that style of peaceful ritual exorcism being the way to deal with spirits nonviolently, but if you do it the spirit reveals itself to be some evil spirit that murders her lover then flees, with the game implying she’ll just keep killing
Can’t remember it fully but that one quest did throw me
I think I got caught by that one in my first playthrough. I think it’s an interesting scenario because blind compassion isn’t really a feasible ethos with which to navigate life unless you like getting constantly taken advantage of. After all, we don’t drain our bank accounts helping Nigerian princes in a tight spot, do we? Gerry recognizing that her story doesn’t quite add up is an example of tempering compassion with scrutiny.
my initial impressions in both CDPR-made series were that straying too far from the sometimes-obvious narrative lead (if the game even allowed it; even less choices or even potential mission path availability in CP2077) were routinely punished early on.
I don’t really remember any decisions clearly being punished in general, although like you said there’s a lot fewer branching paths in Cyberpunk and that’s the game that’s freshest in my memory. What I remember of the Witcher 3 is that it pretty clearly favored helping people in general but that sometimes situations were murky and just an interpersonal dispute or everyone was awful or everyone had valid points and no matter what snap judgement you make it’s going to feel bad afterwards.
Call it “wholesome peaceful YA novel protagonists who win by being ontologically good” if you want (which is bullshit, I’m more than fine with surprises if it doesn’t just feel like a punitive narrator), but don’t bother accusing me of a bad faith position if that’s what you’re leading with.
That was a comment on what I remembered from how people were talking about it when it came out, like it was this big shock because of how common liberal storytelling made rebels just sort of empty wholesome underdogs who never did anything wrong and then just won by being the good guys, and then with the Witcher you had a clear hollywood “morally correct” choice of helping the downtrodden underdogs only to be confronted with the revelation that they were in fact fighting a war and following their own agenda. And there was just so much vapid commentary on how cool and edgy it was that the “good” choice could have “bad” consequences, although admittedly that was coming from a valid place of disliking the Bioware style “moral choices” where someone is either being a saint or a cartoon villain and it’s all very silly because the sides are all just nice guy or mean guy vibes with no material underpinnings at all.
I just get the feeling you’ve mostly seen that sort of gamer discourse and are inferring the worst because of how insufferable they are and what they focus on.
In the “bringing about meaningful change is impossible and attempting to change things outside of immediate personal fuckbuddy and adopted family circumstances is naive at best and probably worse than the status quo” way, maybe.
Not really? In both the Witcher and Cyberpunk the player is someone on the margins, and while Geralt is involved in things that actually have big implications for the setting and do actually change things, V is a dumbass lumpen petty bourgeoisie killer for hire whose best move is just fucking off and not doing that anymore.
I won’t even go into what a dull slog the actual combat was,
Yeah it was very rough, especially early on. The Witcher 3 has one of the worst opening stretches of any game I’ve ever seen and I bounced off it hard the first time I tried it.
giving few options in many cases except “help the cops or leave”
I do not remember any scene like that. Cops are antagonists with very few exceptions and those few exceptions all either quickly become ex-cops or die.
“if you want to do this expansion you’re going to need to lick some fed boots.”
The opening to Phantom Liberty is pretty cringe, yeah, but it does take the mask off pretty quick and show them all to be vapid toadies and/or complete monsters before long. The best of the feds pretty much tells you outright “yeah I don’t care about any of this, I just want a cushy retirement that gets me out of here, btw we’ve got an office betting pool on how long it takes you to die so pls stay alive a long time so I win it lol.” The NUSA president literally sends in death squads to No Russian the Night City aerospace port in one ending and shows up in person to oversee the slaughter.
To some extent, I feel like it hasn’t actually stopped and it’s even somewhat here in this exchange right now, especially the prior assumption that I must be a baby brained delicate snowflake idealist that wants sunshine and rainbows because I can’t handle the cold hard and very mature truths waiting for me in the One True Leftist Materalist Valhalla known as Murderfuckland, or something.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I contextualized the history of discourse around the specific plot point you seemed to be referencing. Most of that focused on the Witcher’s moral choices as being dark and edgy and how cool it is that “good intentions have bad consequences” in a way that was pretty much just western gamers raised on hollywood slop drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from something that didn’t follow the sort of narrative tropes they expected.
There was an entire side mission series that was both helping the cops
There are only two questlines vaguely like that that I remember: the one with River who gets fired after the first one because of his investigation into the mayor’s assassination which the NCPD was involved in, and one from the DLC where a small group of crooked cops from one of the most desperately impoverished and contaminated with industrial pollution neighborhoods find their consciences and start stealing from corporations to help that community and ultimately die for their trouble. Like there’s a pretty clear “the system by its nature does not allow police to be good, and if a person with a conscience becomes a cop they either quit or get forced out” theme running through all of those quests.
featured the extraordinary line associated with it, said by the protagonist character, of “not all cops are bastards”
V is an absolute dumbass with no political education and an incredibly incoherent worldview who says cringe shit constantly. It’s kind of a big structural flaw in the narrative, that they’re at once trying to make a customizable RPG but also tell a tight narrative story with this one specific character who’s enough of a dipshit to stumble into and facilitate that story.
I’m sure it does, but it wallows in the “everyone’s an asshole” ambiguity there the way Bioshock Infinite did with the Vox versus Columbia’s old ruling class.
It really doesn’t. You choose between the FIA and Songbird and while I have no idea what the FIA route entails the Songbird route had none of the dumbass “fighting the system is as bad as the system, actually” shit that Bioshock did. Like it’s clear cut enough that even V manages to chew the feds out for being empty pieces of shit doing horrible things for bad and empty reasons.
You also set up a straw effigy of YA protagonists defeating everything with love and friendship as the conjured up (only?) alternative
Reread the initial point I made: I drew that up as being the sort of cliched standard storytelling that contemporary commentary was judging the first Witcher game against and why they found it shocking and celebrated it. It had nothing to do with you at all and I’m sorry for not being clear enough with how I phrased and laid things out.
You actually do have an option IIRC, it just never tells you. It’s supposed to highlight why the military is systemically bad and appears to remove all choice, even if individual soldiers could disobey orders.
While the white phosphorus part doesn’t give you a choice, isn’t it basically that they used it only intending to hit military targets, then it turns out it hit civilians too?
I think it’s not a choice precisely because it’s the worst or most blatant war crime in the game IIRC and most people would decide against it even for “only military targets” and that would stop them from getting the point across.
It’s been a long time since I’ve played it so I might not be remembering entirely right. I might play it again now.
Yeah, the white phosphorous scene doesn’t really work unless you’re coming into it with a mindset of “whoa badass, this is gonna be just like those AC-130 missions in Call of Duty”
Apparently the devs wanted to include a branching story path where the player doesn’t use the WP, but they didn’t have the budget.
No one forced you to pick up a copy of Bland Early 2010s Modern Military Shooter: Pentagon Propaganda Boogaloo . You picked it up (ostensibly) knowing what it is and what it was going to include
Why use that image of edgeworth to make your point? That’s edgeworth standing on the right side of the courtroom, where he’s always wrong.
The whole point of the ace attorney games is if you are on the left, you are good and correct. If you are on the right, you are evil and wrong. And if you are in the center, you are either a hopelessly confused idiot, or evil.
The VOLCEL POLICE are on the scene! PLEASE KEEP YOUR VITAL ESSENCES TO YOURSELVES AT ALL TIMES.
نحن شرطة VolCel.بناءا على تعليمات الهيئة لترويج لألعاب الفيديو و النهي عن الجنس نرجوا الإبتعاد عن أي أفكار جنسية و الحفاظ على حيواناتكم المنويَّة حتى يوم الحساب. اتقوا الله، إنك لا تراه لكنه يراك.
I think the sidebar in the emoji comm is helpful to remember. It says “emojis are what they convey”, so expecting everyone to know the direct reference to the video game (and by extension all other 2400 emojis) is a little much. You can use it that way or as a lil guy shrugging.
No one forced them to tell their story in a way that robbed the moment of it’s impact and made the player feel annoyed and hoodwinked instead of horrified.
The player could always make the choice to stop playing and turn the game off, and it even says as much during one of the loading screens so it’s 100% intentional. Often times the correct choice is one that is outside the narrow range of choices that are given, and I believe that was the point the developer was trying to make.
EDIT: It’s worth checking out the loading screen messages in the game, since these often give away what the devs intended, sometimes in an ironic way. Some examples:
To kill for yourself is murder. To kill for your government is heroic. To kill for entertainment is harmless.
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two conflicting ideas simultaneously.
You are still a good person.
The US military does not condone the killing of unarmed combatants. But this isn’t real, so why should you care?
Do you feel like a hero yet?
If you were a better person, you wouldn’t be here.
Kill a man, and you are a murderer. Kill everyone, and you are a god.
If I remember correctly, that part happens relatively late in the game, so you play a decent amount before that.
They aren’t preventing you from playing the game or anything, as the choice is ultimately up to you. You just don’t get to be a hero if you choose to keep playing.
Sure, right, it’s their game, they can do whatever they want, and what they wanted to do was tell a story badly.
People talk about The Line to this day, but they only argue about whether that scene was a legitimate story telling beat or a gotcha. No one actually talks about the story, whether the story was moving or effecting, whether it changed anyone’s minds. They just argue over the wp scene. People remember that there was a forced non-choice that folks didn’t like and that’s all they really recall about the game. I’d argue that’s good evidence the game failed in its messaging.
No one actually talks about the story, whether the story was moving or effecting, whether it changed anyone’s minds.
You might be right, though I don’t think that’s necessarily because the story is bad. Overall, I thought the story was pretty decent (even if a little derivative), though I also think it was much more relevant when the “War on Terror” was fresh in people’s minds. That particular scene is discussed more because of how shocking it is and due to it being a major turning point in the story, but there is a lot more to talk about imo, including the loading screen messages.
People continue to defend their design choice even though “uh aktually you could prevent bad thing from happening by not continuing” has never worked for other media. Imagine people saying this shit for a novel. If it’s not a real choice, then whatever you do to continue the game is functionally the same as turning the pages of a novel. It’s whatever set of mechanical motion that is needed to advance progress in consuming the media.
I actually agree. Giving the player no option then scolding them generally isn’t effective. Give them two horrible options? Sure. Make them make a choice. If they didn’t make a decision it generally doesn’t land.
any other propaganda military shooters doesn’t give you a choice neither. yeah i agree it’s bad as a morality to system to just say “well if you wanna be good just quit” but spec ops isn’t some rpg it has all the mechanics of its genre including the lack of choice but it’s opposing their dominant narrative. if you had the option not to murder the civilians i think the impact of the game would be lost.
deleted by creator
it’s called ‘The Line’ because you have to cross it
deleted by creator
And they’re not trying to make any statement or impact to undercut the dominant narrative. They don’t want players to question, they’re reinforcing what the player already believes.
The game doesn’t need to give you a way out. But for the moment to be impactful you do have to manipulate the player in to believing that they made a decision and are thus culpable for their actions. Players have to feel ownership of what they did to feel shame, remorse, and horror. If they had no choice except “press x to do warcrimes” or turning off the game they’ll press x and grumble about being railroaded by the story.
deleted by creator
That’s not at all accurate, to the point that I’m struggling to even place what you’re referring to. I think it’s about how if you help guerilla insurgents in the first Witcher game smuggle weapons they later assassinate someone? That was a big “wait, you’re telling me the rebels fighting a war use violence to accomplish their goals and aren’t just heckin wholesome peaceful YA novel protagonists who win by being ontologically good and having plot armor like in every other game, movie, and book that gets mainstream attention in the US?” shock moment for western gamers whose consumption of hollywood treats left them without a framework for understanding that sometimes the materially and morally correct side in a conflict can still be doing brutal and underhanded things as a matter of material necessity.
I never got into the second game, but by the third one the overall moral tone is pretty clearly on the side of mercy and conservation, with sparing and helping magical creatures that are intelligent non-human persons that are just trying to survive being the clearly correct choice to the point that later on when you get put on trial by a werewolf for being a monster hunter a bunch of them show up as character witnesses to your defense. That’s also the game where the narrator all but says “the real monsters are cruel and intolerant men” over and over, every aristocrat you encounter is some flavor of monstrous or dangerously detached from reality, and most of the plot ultimately revolves around trying to stop an extradimensional settler colonialist invasion.
CDPR are still libs, but they overall have a much more materialist understanding of how things fit together instead of the sort of mishmash of hollywood tropes American lib writers throw together based on vibes.
I also think it’s worth mentioning that there are plenty of choices in Witcher 3 that have pretty obviously good and bad options. Anyone ratting out that godling to the property owner is doing so to be evil. Refusing money from poor folks is plain good and never comes back to bite you. Killing Whoreson Junior might as well have had [Everyone loved that.] pop up in the top left corner and even rewards you with a cute little easter egg later.
But all these examples don’t really get remembered because they’re less impactful than the choices that aren’t so obvious
While this mostly holds true there is one quest I remember that annoyed the shit out of me
You had to investigate some haunted tower, and were presented with two options essentially: destroy the spirit outright or try to put it to rest gently by performing a ritual
The game was mostly chill about that style of peaceful ritual exorcism being the way to deal with spirits nonviolently, but if you do it the spirit reveals itself to be some evil spirit that murders her lover then flees, with the game implying she’ll just keep killing
Can’t remember it fully but that one quest did throw me
I think I got caught by that one in my first playthrough. I think it’s an interesting scenario because blind compassion isn’t really a feasible ethos with which to navigate life unless you like getting constantly taken advantage of. After all, we don’t drain our bank accounts helping Nigerian princes in a tight spot, do we? Gerry recognizing that her story doesn’t quite add up is an example of tempering compassion with scrutiny.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t really remember any decisions clearly being punished in general, although like you said there’s a lot fewer branching paths in Cyberpunk and that’s the game that’s freshest in my memory. What I remember of the Witcher 3 is that it pretty clearly favored helping people in general but that sometimes situations were murky and just an interpersonal dispute or everyone was awful or everyone had valid points and no matter what snap judgement you make it’s going to feel bad afterwards.
That was a comment on what I remembered from how people were talking about it when it came out, like it was this big shock because of how common liberal storytelling made rebels just sort of empty wholesome underdogs who never did anything wrong and then just won by being the good guys, and then with the Witcher you had a clear hollywood “morally correct” choice of helping the downtrodden underdogs only to be confronted with the revelation that they were in fact fighting a war and following their own agenda. And there was just so much vapid commentary on how cool and edgy it was that the “good” choice could have “bad” consequences, although admittedly that was coming from a valid place of disliking the Bioware style “moral choices” where someone is either being a saint or a cartoon villain and it’s all very silly because the sides are all just nice guy or mean guy vibes with no material underpinnings at all.
I just get the feeling you’ve mostly seen that sort of gamer discourse and are inferring the worst because of how insufferable they are and what they focus on.
Not really? In both the Witcher and Cyberpunk the player is someone on the margins, and while Geralt is involved in things that actually have big implications for the setting and do actually change things, V is a dumbass lumpen petty bourgeoisie killer for hire whose best move is just fucking off and not doing that anymore.
deleted by creator
Yeah it was very rough, especially early on. The Witcher 3 has one of the worst opening stretches of any game I’ve ever seen and I bounced off it hard the first time I tried it.
I do not remember any scene like that. Cops are antagonists with very few exceptions and those few exceptions all either quickly become ex-cops or die.
The opening to Phantom Liberty is pretty cringe, yeah, but it does take the mask off pretty quick and show them all to be vapid toadies and/or complete monsters before long. The best of the feds pretty much tells you outright “yeah I don’t care about any of this, I just want a cushy retirement that gets me out of here, btw we’ve got an office betting pool on how long it takes you to die so pls stay alive a long time so I win it lol.” The NUSA president literally sends in death squads to No Russian the Night City aerospace port in one ending and shows up in person to oversee the slaughter.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I contextualized the history of discourse around the specific plot point you seemed to be referencing. Most of that focused on the Witcher’s moral choices as being dark and edgy and how cool it is that “good intentions have bad consequences” in a way that was pretty much just western gamers raised on hollywood slop drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from something that didn’t follow the sort of narrative tropes they expected.
deleted by creator
There are only two questlines vaguely like that that I remember: the one with River who gets fired after the first one because of his investigation into the mayor’s assassination which the NCPD was involved in, and one from the DLC where a small group of crooked cops from one of the most desperately impoverished and contaminated with industrial pollution neighborhoods find their consciences and start stealing from corporations to help that community and ultimately die for their trouble. Like there’s a pretty clear “the system by its nature does not allow police to be good, and if a person with a conscience becomes a cop they either quit or get forced out” theme running through all of those quests.
V is an absolute dumbass with no political education and an incredibly incoherent worldview who says cringe shit constantly. It’s kind of a big structural flaw in the narrative, that they’re at once trying to make a customizable RPG but also tell a tight narrative story with this one specific character who’s enough of a dipshit to stumble into and facilitate that story.
It really doesn’t. You choose between the FIA and Songbird and while I have no idea what the FIA route entails the Songbird route had none of the dumbass “fighting the system is as bad as the system, actually” shit that Bioshock did. Like it’s clear cut enough that even V manages to chew the feds out for being empty pieces of shit doing horrible things for bad and empty reasons.
Reread the initial point I made: I drew that up as being the sort of cliched standard storytelling that contemporary commentary was judging the first Witcher game against and why they found it shocking and celebrated it. It had nothing to do with you at all and I’m sorry for not being clear enough with how I phrased and laid things out.
You actually do have an option IIRC, it just never tells you. It’s supposed to highlight why the military is systemically bad and appears to remove all choice, even if individual soldiers could disobey orders.
Yeah, the only big unavoidable choice is the white phosphorus
pretty sure in most others you can either stand for a second and it proceeds or you shoot into the air instead of at someone and it proceeds
While the white phosphorus part doesn’t give you a choice, isn’t it basically that they used it only intending to hit military targets, then it turns out it hit civilians too?
I think it’s not a choice precisely because it’s the worst or most blatant war crime in the game IIRC and most people would decide against it even for “only military targets” and that would stop them from getting the point across.
It’s been a long time since I’ve played it so I might not be remembering entirely right. I might play it again now.
Yeah the white phosphorus scene was really dumb but the rest felt justified.
Yeah, the white phosphorous scene doesn’t really work unless you’re coming into it with a mindset of “whoa badass, this is gonna be just like those AC-130 missions in Call of Duty”
Apparently the devs wanted to include a branching story path where the player doesn’t use the WP, but they didn’t have the budget.
Yeah I was just following orders
🤔
No one forced you to pick up a copy of Bland Early 2010s Modern Military Shooter: Pentagon Propaganda Boogaloo
. You picked it up (ostensibly) knowing what it is and what it was going to include
deleted by creator
Why use that image of edgeworth to make your point? That’s edgeworth standing on the right side of the courtroom, where he’s always wrong.
The whole point of the ace attorney games is if you are on the left, you are good and correct. If you are on the right, you are evil and wrong. And if you are in the center, you are either a hopelessly confused idiot, or evil.
That’s… a bit of a stretch to consider that using a shrugging emoji of an antagonist in a video game means my argument is inherently wrong?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
نحن شرطة VolCel.بناءا على تعليمات الهيئة لترويج لألعاب الفيديو و النهي عن الجنس نرجوا الإبتعاد عن أي أفكار جنسية و الحفاظ على حيواناتكم المنويَّة حتى يوم الحساب. اتقوا الله، إنك لا تراه لكنه يراك.
deleted by creator
Every emoji a confession
deleted by creator
I think the sidebar in the emoji comm is helpful to remember. It says “emojis are what they convey”, so expecting everyone to know the direct reference to the video game (and by extension all other 2400 emojis) is a little much. You can use it that way or as a lil guy shrugging.
deleted by creator
This is dialectics
No one forced them to tell their story in a way that robbed the moment of it’s impact and made the player feel annoyed and hoodwinked instead of horrified.
The player could always make the choice to stop playing and turn the game off, and it even says as much during one of the loading screens so it’s 100% intentional. Often times the correct choice is one that is outside the narrow range of choices that are given, and I believe that was the point the developer was trying to make.
EDIT: It’s worth checking out the loading screen messages in the game, since these often give away what the devs intended, sometimes in an ironic way. Some examples:
To kill for yourself is murder. To kill for your government is heroic. To kill for entertainment is harmless.
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two conflicting ideas simultaneously.
You are still a good person.
The US military does not condone the killing of unarmed combatants. But this isn’t real, so why should you care?
Do you feel like a hero yet?
If you were a better person, you wouldn’t be here.
Kill a man, and you are a murderer. Kill everyone, and you are a god.
There’s a whole list here: https://pastebin.com/w7x0LJ5w
They’d best be prepared to offer you a full refund if they intend you not to actually use the product.
It’s poor storytelling.
If I remember correctly, that part happens relatively late in the game, so you play a decent amount before that.
They aren’t preventing you from playing the game or anything, as the choice is ultimately up to you. You just don’t get to be a hero if you choose to keep playing.
Sure, right, it’s their game, they can do whatever they want, and what they wanted to do was tell a story badly.
People talk about The Line to this day, but they only argue about whether that scene was a legitimate story telling beat or a gotcha. No one actually talks about the story, whether the story was moving or effecting, whether it changed anyone’s minds. They just argue over the wp scene. People remember that there was a forced non-choice that folks didn’t like and that’s all they really recall about the game. I’d argue that’s good evidence the game failed in its messaging.
You might be right, though I don’t think that’s necessarily because the story is bad. Overall, I thought the story was pretty decent (even if a little derivative), though I also think it was much more relevant when the “War on Terror” was fresh in people’s minds. That particular scene is discussed more because of how shocking it is and due to it being a major turning point in the story, but there is a lot more to talk about imo, including the loading screen messages.
Have you played it yourself, just curious?
People continue to defend their design choice even though “uh aktually you could prevent bad thing from happening by not continuing” has never worked for other media. Imagine people saying this shit for a novel. If it’s not a real choice, then whatever you do to continue the game is functionally the same as turning the pages of a novel. It’s whatever set of mechanical motion that is needed to advance progress in consuming the media.