I have a bad habit of not completing games if I don't do it pretty quickly after I start playing them - this was already starting to slip to my ever growing backlog, so I decided to get to it. Just saw ending E and... with how it has been hyped, it was kind of a letdown. It wasn't a bad ending, I just would have expected "more ending". Still, as this is the OT and is the norm, I'm going to ramble incoherently about the game for a while. Just to be clear and so that I don't have to keep repeating it, everything below is IMHO, YMMV, etc.
First a disclaimer, I never played the original, so no nostalgia or bad memories. I did play Automata though and absolutely loved it, it's one of my GOATs, so that definitely does set some expectations (that it would be good, not that it would be similar). But I'm aware that despite the facelift and improvements, this is still fundamentally an old-ish game from two console generations back with a (even) smaller budget. And despite both having "Nier" in the title and set in the same universe, they are quite different games so comparing the two may not be fair and/or reasonable. And yet at the same time they are oh-so-similar in many ways, so it's hard to resist the urge to make some comparisons.
...which is exactly what I'm going to do, couldn't resist. But first something out of the way that doesn't really matter that much, graphics. Sure, there are some iffy textures especially up close and the world isn't the most complex one out there, neither in geometry or detail. But this game is a good example of how good art direction is much more important than gazillion pixels and polygons, it can look absolutely beautiful at times (and admittedly, quite bland at others). More importantly the game has been a solid performer, there may have been some drops from 60fps (my eyes are not DF-certified), but not so much that it would have been distracting. If there's ever a PS5 patch (or knowing Square Enix, paid update more likely) I'd be completely satisfied with higher quality textures or improved AF, some form of AA that would get rid of the shimmering and improved loading times (and for the love of $DEITY, embed the library into the village map so there's no loading screen). But as said, the graphics are what you'd expect from this kind of polishing of a game from a decade ago, and a non-issue.
On to the story - not going to attempt any kind of pseudointellectual literal analysis here, I'll leave it to Youtubers. I prefer the story of Automata, but this has a great story as well with some very memorable characters. My only larger complaint about the story is that while Automata does offer more depth to people familiar with the "franchise" and lore, it can also be played just as an individual game without any prior knowledge; instead here, some things remain very vague/unexplained unless you're up to speed with some of the Drakengard lore. I'm not saying that a game needs to spell everything out to newcomers or players in general, some questions can naturally remain unanswered, but especially as this is not a sequel at least in the traditional sense, I think it's fair to assume the game offers you enough information to understand what's happening without having to google it.
More interesting and less subjective than the story is the narrative structure (which in turn very much affects gameplay). Both games start out in a similar fashion, at least on a general level: there is gameplay for 10+ (depending on how much you want to do of the side content) hours, leading up to ending A. Then you can start a new game and go through some of the events with added context to reach ending B. There are some differences of course, with this game you replay only the second part of the game, while in Automata it's mostly all that's happened so far, but with some different events and an entirely different POV. Still by and large both follow the same blueprints. It's after ending B that they go their separate ways: Automata takes a completely new direction (and how - by the time the new opening credits came up my jaw was firmly glued to the floor) and this... lets you play the same thing you just did to reach ending B with a few tiny changes, but now with a mandatory collectathon if you want to get to ending C!
There are many aspects in the game where I thought to myself "this is how it is probably due to the budget (or lack thereof)", but getting to ending C is the first time I thought "this must be because they ran out of money", because I can't see how the developers and Taro could have been satisfied with how it turned out. In general, I'd advice against playing to different endings back-to-back - I played to B right after getting to A, and while the added context and background information is essential and very much welcome, I still was a bit burned out by having to do again what I just completed, even if it doesn't take that long to play. Took a week off between getting ending B and starting my way to ending C, still redoing everything felt like a chore and money or no money, the collectathon is on the developers, they could have come up with something - hell, anything - better.
It's not like you have to start from scratch, at this point you probably have many of the needed things already. It's that the game in no way tells you what you should do to reach that target, only "you're not done yet!". That's very poor game design. If I couldn't have looked up online where to go and what to do, I probably would have given up, as it involves doing specific side quests and also side quests in general to earn money. Pretty much all of them are either a) kill baddies, b) travel between locations to chat with people, or c) gather materials. Or if it's a very epic and long side quest, it may be some combination of the three! Sure, some minimal motivation is given for each busywork, but a few lines of dialogue doesn't make me care about an NPC. You want me to do your shopping for you? Go get your own groceries you codependent twat. Automata isn't the gold standard for side quests either, plenty of busywork there as well, but a) some of them can be quite funny, and b) they're side quests as they were meant to be, i.e. optional.
That's not the case here, so I was among other things forced to return to The Barren Temple. I thought it was very annoying at best and was glad it was done with, for good, but nope. Revisits didn't change my opinion, it's still pants. I get Yoko Taro wants to shake up the gameplay every now and then, but to me that is definitely the greatest miss when it comes to locations. But there's a more general problem with the locations and this very much affects the main game as well - they're almost completely static and while the first visit may be enjoyable, having to retrace the same steps every time gets old really quick. The Lost Shrine is the worst offender to me - great at first, but when you have to take the same path umpteenth time to reach the same destination it's not fun at all anymore. Sure, the enemies change depending on where you are in the main story. Sometimes you get to push some boxes, whoppee. But you get the same exact encounters with identical spawns every time. I know making more complex maps with lots of potential variation was probably not within the budget. But how about just randomizing it a bit? Like, define "enemy mob 1" that is supposed to be offer X amount of challenge, then create multiple variations of it with different enemies and when required pick one at random and spawn that, instead of the same predefined set every time. Yes, I realize Automata does the "identical spawns at the same location"-thing too, but a) it sucks balls there as well, b) locations can change quite drastically over the course of the game, some have multiple entry points/paths within the location which are available only at a certain time, and c) very often you do not need to return to a location at least multiple times within the same playthrough unless you want to/are grinding side quests.
...if it didn't come across yet, the grindiness of this game grinds my gears just a tiny bit. Moving on. Regarding the "VN" sections - first of all, there are practically no visuals, it's just text - shouldn't it be just "N"? Actually I wouldn't mind them being a bit more "V" as well, just a few still images here and there could make some of those sections more palatable. But even without any visuals, I don't mind the concept and it's pretty neat on some occasions. I do think some of them are too long given the context in the game where they appear, which harms pacing - either some editing or splitting into multiple parts could work better. For example, from the start of the second playthrough a lot of backstory for a character becomes available. As a huge data dump that you should definitely read and understand, but it's quite a lot to digest in one go. How about just showing pieces of it along with major story quests? I don't think there's a need to know all of what happened at once. So what about Tyrann - no one says the parts have to appear in chronological order, you can have the end be the first part while keeping the rest still a mystery. But whether they always completely work, at least those sections can be extremely interesting (for the first time).
Then combat. I think it's fine and does what is needed, and from what I've gathered is a marked improvement over the original, but to me Automata is superior and there's no contest really. It's not one glaring flaw, but a combination of many smaller things. The controls don't feel just quite as tight here. Some of the shades don't telegraph their moves that well (partially due to the character design, especially in numbers they can melt into a dark foggy mass instead of individual enemies). Spells and other particle effects can be flashy, but also obscure much your view (and often there's nothing you can do about it - your companions will make sure there's bling everywhere anyway). You have to enter a menu to use consumables. And while I have nothing against pink balls (blue balls OTOH... but I digress), some of the bullet hell sections can be absolutely ridiculous and not in a positive way. Things like these add up to combat that can be hectic and look impressive (or messy if it's only balls you see), but also feel somewhat chaotic and random. Whereas in Automata I always feel like in control, even if I'm totally getting my ass handed to me at the same time.
This is getting waaay too long so I'll wrap it up, but before that credit where credit is due - there's one thing where Replicant is undeniably better: Boar >>> messing around with animal baits. Having Hog Express ready to go wherever you are is just awesome. Oh, and soundtracks are a tie - both have their own strengths and are god-tier, let's leave it at that.
If I were to give a score on a scale from 1 to 10 (not an average of different elements, it can be more than the sum of its parts) to both games, Automata would be 10 and this would be 7 and a half. Before you bring out the pitchforks, this is not like a game review score but actually using the full scale, so well above average but with many issues that took away from my enjoyment. Would I feel different had I played the original a decade ago? Very likely. But I didn't, I bought it this year and it's hard not to judge a product within current time frame without any nostalgia factor (and don't get me wrong, nostalgia can be great). I may be a bit more generous with the score than what I'd give completely neutrally, but there's a lot of weird in Replicant and the world needs more weird. However, I'm glad I finally got to try this myself so I've been able to form my own opinion about it, and if me buying this game helps Yoko Taro get his next game greenlit by even a minuscule amount, it was completely worth it.