"Some people may see not doing anything bad a good thing! Hence some people may not align with that game choice"
What do you mean by this? And what game choice are you referring to? Are you saying I'm one of those players, or are you presenting a counterpoint to something I said?
I was aware of the narrator. He immediately tells me to kill the dog, which I'm not willing to do, and then he never comes up again until the ending. I doubt most players would want to kill a dog, and the ones that do are probably just doing it to see more game content.
If you want to strengthen this aspect of the game, I would suggest establishing more of a motivation to reach Eden. Make surviving without it extremely difficult. Have the narrator start with more mundane instructions first, even some that are benevolent and produce great outcomes. Then let them start to get shadier, until finally you've reached a point where you're less likely to refuse, both because you've already come so far, and because your faith in the narrator has been sufficiently built up. As is, his outrageous instruction right out of the gate was too easy to disregard.
I had assumed the moral score of the ending was objective rather than based around following the narrator. Is this not the case? Is a morally good ending only achieved by doing everything the narrator says? But then I would expect ignoring the narrator to be designated as morally bad. Or is there no morally good ending at all?
Maybe the game just wasn't for me, but I can't figure out what the intention behind it is. If the way to "beat" the game is really to just do what I did and ignore the narrator, then the game amounts to a pretty easy decision in my opinion that results in a lackluster game experience and rather unsatisying conclusion. Shouldn't achieving the intended goal of the game be more encouraged and satisfying?