During my first play through of Save the Date, I expected to navigate between dialogue options to assist a potentially awkward, or clumsy, protagonist only to realize that I was instead burdened with preventing the untimely death of his date. With each iteration of the date the deaths become more outlandish despite the protagonist self awareness and memories leading up to her demise. As each date location, dialogue line, and food choice changes your knowledge of your date grows while she increasingly becomes more confused and uncomfortable as your interactions lengthen.
What was once a casual encounter, for both the player and protagonist, became an unexpected test of micromanagement. Save states become more concise, dialogue choices are divorced from the conversation only representing alternate routes. With each attempt being denied by sea monsters, a gas explosion, gun violence, or nuts you are convinced that the very universe wishes to separate you two, so you suggest not go on the date. After ending the date you discover that she lives a wonderful life and meets someone else, but this does not feel like the "true ending".
The title states that you must save the date, not save her. The game developer claims that not going on the date or even not playing the game would yield the best outcome for both players, but this goes against the title. You are meant to Save the Date. How much authority does a game have on the nature of the game itself? Knowledge that titles of games reveal their objectives or nature is an aspect of metagaming. Gamers know that titles reveal themes, objectives, and information about the game without having to be present in the game itself. Should games have titles that are reliable to their content?