I’m inclined to agree with @Eric_knight here. I’d actually prefer stories that have such an expensive lore to be linear then branched, as it’s a lot of work just to create different scenarios, especially if you start doing this at the beginning of the series. To look at Game of Thrones as an example, the whole reason the series became as it is was a result of deaths of certain characters. If let’s say Martin kept Ned Stark alive, that dramatically changes the story (the North wouldn’t have gone to war with the Lannister’s, as an example).
Another example is a HG; The Infinity series by @Cataphrak. His is more story than game, but the lore is just on par, if not, similar to Game of Thrones (I.e set MC, set outcomes, etc…). In his first game, there is a battle in which the MC’s side loses badly and suffer the losses of supporting characters. Whilst the gamer in me would wish they survive, that would detract from the author’s theme, which revolves around war. Where this event not to happen, his next game would not have the same emotional impact for both the MC and the reader.
I love having options in stories, but so long that they are restrict to standalone and not in series (if they are, don’t do it as such it dramatically changes the course of the story until you near the end). BioWare does the decent job of referencing major decisions, sometimes including characters whose fate can be determined from previous games, but they serve as supporting characters as oppose to them being central so as not to detract from the latest game plot line. The game series Deus Ex, on the other hand, because of their branch endings, attempted to make all of them canon for the next game…which, for me as a gamer, would make me go “WTF !?! Did my actions in the previous game have no impact at all !?!”