I can’t tell if this is a cleverly disguised troll review or if you genuinely feel like the story here is soulless. YOU try writing a story this in-depth and make everything perfect, then come back.

Your critique feels disproportionately harsh for what the game is trying to do. From what I can tell, even a quick run through the story makes it clear the focus is on presenting the player with difficult choices and branching outcomes, something you yourself acknowledge. Given that structure, it also seems intentional that some characters come across as reserved or broadly defined, since that allows for player interpretation rather than forcing a rigid personality onto the experience.

It is also worth considering the scale of the project. The game contains a significant amount of content, and expecting every route, character, and interaction to be consistently refined to the highest possible standard is not especially realistic. There are going to be trade-offs in a project of that size, particularly for an indie title developed with limited resources.

The point about clichés also feels overstated. When a game attempts to combine multiple narrative threads, themes, and routes, some overlap with familiar ideas is almost inevitable. What matters more is how those elements are used, and dismissing them outright without engaging with their execution does not really add much to the discussion.

Some of your claims would also benefit from actual support. For example, stating that the backgrounds are taken from the public domain is a serious assertion, but you do not provide any evidence for it. Without that, it reads less like a critique and more like speculation.

More broadly, the tone of your comment makes it difficult to take seriously. Rather than building clear arguments, it often relies on exaggeration and dismissive phrasing, which gives the impression that the goal is to vent frustration rather than offer a thoughtful evaluation. Calling it one of the worst visual novels you have ever played, while also acknowledging several strengths, comes across as inconsistent and overly dramatic.

There are valid criticisms that could be made about the game, but they are buried under sweeping statements and a lack of nuance. A more balanced and precise approach would make your points far more convincing.

Here is what my friend has to say about your comment:

Reading your comment, it is clear you are trying to present a thorough and serious critique, but the delivery makes that intention difficult to take at face value. The structure suggests an attempt at balance, beginning with praise before moving into criticism, yet the tone quickly shifts into something far more exaggerated. Instead of developing arguments, the comment leans heavily on repetition and emphasis, which gives the impression of frustration being amplified rather than ideas being explored.

One of the more noticeable issues is the reliance on absolute statements. Nearly every aspect of the game is dismissed in total, characters are entirely lifeless, the story is entirely clichéd, the presentation entirely unimpressive. This kind of framing leaves no room for nuance, and as a result, it weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. Even more critical reviews tend to describe the game as uneven or inconsistent rather than outright devoid of merit, pointing to issues like pacing or writing quality while still acknowledging its ambitions or strengths. By contrast, your comment treats every flaw as terminal, which feels less like analysis and more like exaggeration.

The discussion of characters follows a similar pattern. Instead of examining how or why certain characters fail to resonate, they are reduced to short, sarcastic summaries that flatten any complexity they might have. This approach may be rhetorically satisfying, but it does not actually demonstrate that the characters lack depth, it simply asserts it. It reads less like an evaluation of writing and more like a refusal to engage with it beyond a surface level.

Your criticism of the story also suffers from a lack of specificity. Labeling something as clichéd is not inherently wrong, but without context it becomes an empty statement. Many visual novels rely on familiar structures and tropes, and the distinction between effective and ineffective use of those elements lies in execution. Some reviews have noted that the game attempts a more interwoven narrative with replay mechanics and branching paths, even if the results are inconsistent. Ignoring that entirely in favor of broad dismissal makes the critique feel incomplete.

There is also a degree of contradiction that goes unaddressed. You acknowledge elements like multiple routes, time mechanics, and interconnected storytelling, yet simultaneously describe the experience as entirely predictable and lacking engagement. Those points are not necessarily incompatible, but presenting them without explanation creates the impression that the argument has not been fully considered.

Finally, the overall tone undermines whatever valid criticism is present. The frequent use of exaggerated phrasing and dismissive humor gives the impression that the goal is not to analyze but to ridicule. That approach may make the comment more forceful, but it also makes it less persuasive. In the end, the issue is not that the critique is negative, but that it substitutes intensity for clarity, and in doing so, it obscures the very points it is trying to make.