So... uhh what do the choices entail?

[Mastersarge]

The thing is the decisions does not affect gameplay at all. That was wrongest decision in terms of gameplay. I was actually looking forward to replay the game with different decisions to see how the story would go.

It was made like that to avoid choosing "A" over "B" just to get different ending or different way to finish the game and it's good that it was made that way. I remember in Metro games how it was ruining experience, people were trying to be "good" not because they wanted to, but because it was necessary to get more challenging good ending.

Also, most choices in Soma are made in a way that often there's really no good choices. You need to spend some time for reflection and choose what is the lesser evil in your eyes. Not because of different ending. Soma isn't just about gameplay, but about experience.

@secret1962
Yeah, I'm also angry at bad opinions and reviews, but you know, Soma is not a game for everyone unfortunately. Some people are saying that having no guns is bad because they want to just kill everything around. How tasteless. Some people are saying that having no jumpscares is bad. Some people are saying that Soma is bad because only gameplay is important and plot is just addition in their eyes.
Soma isn't just a game. FG focused more about creating interactive story and you have to put yourself in Simon's place to fully understand this game. Some people don't understand this and say that Soma is crappy "walking simulator". Tense moments and difficult moral choices. It's not the usual game. Not everyone will like this and FG is probably aware of this.
Most first person or third person games focus their gameplay on fighting. Personally I'm being fed up of this and in my eyes it's amazing how FG is able to show people that it's not necessary element. It's not easy to make a game like that(and probably easiest way to achieve it is to scary the player as much as possible). However Soma showed us that games like that can achieve something even bigger, superb and touching story.


Holy cow, what a wall of text.

Honestly, that line of thinking is as flawed as the people who made the future Silent Hill and Resident Evil games. No one ever said it was a necessary element. At all. Nor can it be as scary to the player without the right tone. Outlast, despite its flaws, constitutes a horror game in some way. But just because you took away their ability to fight back doesn't mean it was going to be that much of an in depth horror game. Walking Simulators do nothing absolutely nothing to make a game as enticing as the producers make it out to be.

Look at Silent Hill 1. It had the best story telling in a horror game that overshadowed the Resident Evil game back then. Best acting, best atmosphere, and you get a weapon throughout the game. But did the weapon really matter? No. Because of how alien the monsters are, as well as how alien the environment is, topped with this oppressive atmosphere that the game was able to create. Real tasteless people claim Dear Esther or A Machine For Pigs to be the highlight of gaming when really they did nothing but make you move at a tedious snail pace while trying to be as poetic and cryptic as possible as a means to shovel horseshit they want us to believe down our throats. Gameplay matters just as much as the story does and the gameplay only matters if it fits the tune of the story it is telling (or a lack therof) that it is able to put off.

Saying that people 'don't understand' isn't going to do much. You aren't really explaining the reasons why nor are you actually letting them state their own arguments as to why they think like this.