This comment is what happens when you criticize a work on the basis of a personal standard instead of understanding narrative objectives and functions of the different elements in the story. Turns out that the quantity of dialogue is variable, the number of choices has never needed to be extensive, and the "helplessness" of the character is in fact an important topic in the story, based on a context, of course.
Your tastes are not what makes a work "good".
Naturally, it's not perfect. Also, it can be boring for you, nothing bad with that, but it hardly defines anything. A different approach with pertinent observations could make a good review, but as it is, yours is rather useless.