Automata is a hard game to deal with because it's mostly recommended by people who sat through the entire thing and walked away with feelings of joy after the true ending, but forgot that the majority of their 50 hours of playtime consisted of backtracking, fetch questing, messing around, hacking away at bulletsponges, and so on. It's not a sunken cost fallacy or anything, but the real ending of the game is where all the questions get answered and so many things come together which have been set up and foreshadowed since the first arc, to the point where your view of the ending will shape your view of the entire game, and whether it was worth it or not. People like this game despite its constant floundering, the only thing what made the general reception to this game different is that people forgot in their hype when Platinum was announced at the helm was that Yoko Taro games are inherently divisive, resulting in even more ruined expectations than normal.
It's a game which barely even shows the strengths of its developer, as it is a hack 'n slash game stretched out to suit the pacing of a RPG, there is no performance grading to encourage you to get better, difficulty is a matter of self-restriction yet painfully obnoxious on higher difficulties because of the death penalties, the bullet hell segments are euroshmup-tier, the integration of bullet hell elements in hack 'n slash combat is, encounter design is garbage from both an RPG and hack 'n slash standpoint with underutilized enemy types, the boss fights are some of Platinum's weakest, unskippable meme cutscenes out of the ass during boss fights, and route B is pure padding with a gimped player character whose gimmick is a crappy minigame, yet doesn't do much to justify it's own separate existence in the game by having you replay route A with additional sidequests and cutscenes, or make it known why it couldn't have been fused together with route A through a character swapping mechanic of some sorts. Even the initial pacing of the game is the very definition of a slow burn compared to the first game with its plentiful banter while doing sidequests, whereas in Automata its incredibly minimal despite the huge amounts of sidequests, there's only build-up going on in the background.
If I were to look at this game from a design standpoint, I want to fucking vomit. It's borderline experimental in areas, which is the only possible explanation for why a veteran developer like Platinum would make such mistakes, either that or Yoko Taro truly was that drunk.
To put it simply, NieR: Automata is shit, but I like it.
That is how I've described all of Taro's previous games in the past, be it Drakengard 1, Nier, or Drakengard 3. The gameplay of those games ranged from why to serviceable, and in Automata's case it's generally good combat which is never utilized to its fullest extent. Platinum offered some more finesse and depth and plugged some of the holes left by previous B-tier mainstay developer Cavia, but Platinum was mostly experimenting with this game, as opposed to their other games which were incredibly tight. Graphically it's subpar in this day and age. The only things anyone can reach a positive consensus on is the character designs and music. So what the hell is there to this piece of shit which attracts people to it like flies?
Yoko Taro games are revered largely because they're unique compared to most games in general, mostly because of how the storytelling uses the interactive medium to its advantage and presents something that wouldn't work as well in any other medium, and the non-standard subjects of the stories themselves. The stories themselves aren't too unique or as deep like Planetscape Tournament for example, but pacing aside, they're overall executed very well and undeniably memorable. Whether that memorability stems from frustration with the game fucking with you or appreciation of some of more clever bits of the game tends to vary from time to time. The characters in these kind of games are misfits who for personal reasons end up either dooming or saving the world, but are human in their flaws, which is what makes them so interesting. The worlds in these games are decayed and far beyond gone, yet the remaining survivors are still trying to make sense of the world. Aspects of characters are shown which are rarely ever shown (tastefully) in other games. The games have a certain charm to them unlike most games, you can clearly tell a lot of soul was put in the game and that the developers had a fun time.
It's not the kind of game you should expect to be a masterpiece, when from the outset it's a game whose main intentions aren't to encourage you to git gud, to respect you, or to let you have fun. In this game you're merely a bystander who unknowingly signed up for watching the premiere of an experimental French New Wave film. People who rate this game tend to rate how they felt about it, rather than how the game would objectively hold up, which is where all the miscommunication sprouts from. And as you can tell, many people who have achieved the true ending walked away very satisfied, yet in hindsight this is the kind of game you learn to both criticize and appreciate even more with each repeat playthrough. I very much appreciate the existence of this game and would like to see more like it, and would definitely encourage others to stick to the end while playing it.