Anon01/26/26, 23:12No.3916012
People have a really weird understanding of how a narrative works, the narrative is a straight line, everything leads into the next thing, everything that happened in that timeline was important, and it further more contributes to reaching the point where they can go back in time to save veronica and like half of the world populationbut people act like instead of getting to see a different alternative that that in absolutely NO way takes away or devalues their experience of act 2, the existence of the third act literally sent them back in time and took away their experience of Act 2 as the player
it's like getting mad at the ending of steins gate or ocarina of time, or really like 90% of time travel media, really makes no sense
i can only imagine these same people reaching the end of ocarina of time and screaming while bashing their tv about how terrible an ending it is becauseonly valid complaint about act 3 is the inconsistencies like Michelle, i heard it was because you were supposed to go back to when the village was seemingly burned down but that was way too far back and they didn't have enough time, not to excuse it
But giving us abridged versions of the act 2 character development that the player has already seen and has the same result anyway, in exchange for an alternative route and a finished plot is not one of those valid complaints.