Is that your experience from all the other RPG's you've played with over 300 original CG's and days worth of gameplay?
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'.