Quote Originally Posted by Raine Lockehart View Post
This game quickly became an emotional roller-coaster after the first playthrough.

There were plenty of moments that left an impression whether positive or negative, but I found the underlying philosophical and psychological foundation the most appealing and intriguing. It might have been because I previously studied psychology as a major that I immediately gravitated towards Nier: Automata, but it definitely did not disappoint in those aspects.

...

Though it might be my selfish desire to discuss these philosophy and psychology with another gamer (ー_ーゞ
That's a big problem of Nier 2 though. The game wakes up questions for people that are not really psychological and philosophical for the very reason that existentially there are already self-explanatory answers. Yes, when it comes to in-universe they can re-define whatever they want. For true things it would not work though. There is no necessity of questioning consciousness and existence. We are the consciousness. It is our instance to perceive reality. It is us. The rest, the shell, the personality, everything, is just something that "gives us shape". That is why a clone will never be us. He has his own instance to perceive reality and only a cloned body with ME projected into it, so my consciousness could be me. No second person, just a new shell. Only this way or a copy.

Do not get me wrong. I love Drakengard. Nier 1 is my number 2 favourite of all time. But there are discussions that just are not necessary because the answer flat lies there. And the moment it is spoken out these things quickly become pseudo-philosophical then. Nier 1 never took that approach of existence but the obvious stuff about existence did still help a lot to answer a few other things people talked about in Nier 1.