It's my experience in playing many games for many, many years. Be it AAA or indy.
I generally play 1 game once and try to 'completionist' it as well as possible. After I finish a game, I tend to quickly lose interest in a game.
Routes go entirely against that ya know.
So no matter the content, I'll always prefer a game to be designed as I mentioned, not requiring multiple full playthroughs.
The example I gave of OneOne1 is a perfect example. Ideology in Friction had fairly substantial content compared to the norm, but I never finished that game 3 times to get all route content. Just couldn't get myself to do it, always thinking like 'I'll get to it later', which never happened. I still feel like I should get to it sometime, but ... who knows if it'll ever happen.
-> Though the whole 'forceably play poorly and lose to get into route X' does throw me for a loop too in route games. Kind of makes me not even wanna do it (and yes, I know this ain't a battle-type RPG, speaking of the example here eh ... from what I can tell from following the progress of this game's development, this looks more like a VN in RPGM engine).
Anyway ... I never said the route concept makes this a bad game. The route concept just inherently comes with it's own set of issues.
As such, I've played route games before and I've generally ended up completing just 1 route. The larger the game, the more repetition in a NewGame+, the more likely I'll never re-run the RPG.
I could name more examples of course ... take Fallout 4 for example ... it forces you to choose a side at some point. Well, that's the story I'll get, but nope ... I never saw the 'other side'.
