@justin258: I did not! Was that the Metroidvania that looked like a borderline litigious rip-off of Symphony of the Night (I'm joking). It looked neat in the Quick Look, but like a lot of games last year (including Guacamelee 2 and Dead Cells, along with the games I mentioned in the post), I never got around to it. Your recommendation is noted, though, thank you!
@cjduke: The only thing I'll say about Iconoclasts and Hollow Knight is that Iconoclasts took me ten hours to finish, and Hollow Knight was over 40.
And yeah, this generation especially, I can really only think of one Xbox One exclusive that I wanted to play at the time, and that was Sunset Overdrive. Which, you may recall, got ported to PC last year. And even that was like, a mild want, as opposed to say, Bloodborne, or God of War. I mean, look at this year alone! Sony had God of War (amazing), Detroit (bad but at least entertainingly bad based on Drew Scanlon's playthrough that he streamed), Shadow of the Colossus remastered (all time fave!), and Spider-Man (literal dream game). And Xbox? I guess Forza sounded cool, and Sea of Thieves was a game some people enjoyed.
So, yeah, even if the PS5 is a horrible, consumer unfriendly mess, I'm sure that between that and an Xbox Two (because PCs are still too expensive, never mind that they aren't as dirt simple to use as consoles (not that I couldn't figure it out, but you know what I mean)), I'll get the PS5.
And thank you for saying it was great! The Moosies, I mean.
@ajayraz: Iconoclasts (on PS+ right now if you've got that (I can never remember if you do or not, maybe not?)) is really worth playing. It's not super long either, about ten-ish hours? And yeah, if you can look past the combat, Vampyr is worth playing (give the Quick Look a look if you want to take a gander at it, but even that, I feel like sells the game short a little).
Thank you for reading! Or at least skimming, I don't blame you if you skimmed a little.
@militantfreudian: Thank you for the compliment! And yeah, I do agree that they certainly could've gone farther with the effects of the illness in the game itself. If Far Cry 2 let you pass out from malaria mid gunfight a decade ago, this could've gone farther too. Though, I've never actually played Far Cry 2, so I'm just going based on what I've heard.
@tunaburn: It's definitely worth playing the epilogue, and I hope I didn't spoil what happens too much for you! There's still some really good character moments in there, for as much as I griped about it.
@y2ken: I think the thinking behind Arthur not shooting in the camp is maybe a bit of a disconnect between the game play (where Arthur can shoot his way through dozens of enemies in story missions), and the story trying to adhere to some level of realism (ie, in a camp with a bunch of other people around (Micah's two goons, Dutch, Bill, Javier all being there as back up (I think, forgive me if I forget who exactly was there in the moment)), that would be a gunfight, realistically, he'd lose on his own).
Plus I think that, even though we who've already played the previous game know that there's no Redemption for Dutch, Arthur still wants to hope there can be some changing his mind, so he tries to do that instead of just killing Micah.
Something I didn't write about, but have wondered about, is how different the end hours of the game feel if you're not doing the optional missions, and have a fully negative Honor meter instead of fully honorable like me. Like, I assume when the game gives you an option, you could pick no, and then not do it. The same with the choice you have to either save John or go back for the money. Or, for that matter, if you don't see Arthur stop to mourn his horse if you haven't bonded.
It wouldn't surprise me if none of that stuff matters or changes anything, or if the game has a very different feel through there. Either way, I still think the path I got (and I reckon probably most people who stuck with the game) is the better and more intended way.
@humanity: OH, you mentioning story DLC made me remember how I'd come to think of the Epilogues if I was going to describe them to someone: They almost feel like a story expansion. Like, the main story ended with Arthur, and this was the "John's story Expansion" or something, but they just included it with the game.
@humanity: So, you can actually keep shoveling manure on John's ranch after all that stuff is set up. You can clean the barn, milk the cows, carry hay around, feed the chickens, refill water in the troughs, collect eggs, load the eggs and milk into a wagon, and bring them into town to sell (that last step is the only part that's automated). I did this once.
The game gave me $8.
They set it up like taking care of and running the ranch is something you might want to do after finishing the game, but why on Earth would I do so much tedious work for eight measly dollars when I got twenty grand from the final mission? I'd rather go riding in the desert doing nothing than that. Speaking of, you have any idea why they included all of New Austin from RDR I in here, but use basically none of it in the story? A friend of mine thinks that's where the online mode will be set, but it still seems like such a weird, and probably time intensive thing to include.
But also, just the fact that the game has a literal two part epilogue is strange on its own.
And I agree with you. Were it not for the first game, this epilogue switching to John over Sadie really wouldn't make any sense at all. I'd like to see the reaction from someone who played this game to completion without knowing anything about the previous game. I'm sure that person exists somewhere.
@humanity: Yeah, and honestly, of all the surviving characters after the end of Chapter 6, I would have rathered the game switch to Sadie or Charles than John.
Yeah, it is weird that the Epilogue is what it is, and in a lot of ways feels like an origin story for John's house. And while in the moment I found myself laughing at the fact that there's an entire mission that's just a montage of a house being built, the more I think about it (even after having written this blog), I really think there just shouldn't have been an Epilogue. (Again with the addendum that Arthur got that final blow on Micah). Or if they really felt the need to explain how you can keep playing after Arthur died, have it be Sadie and give her a couple (stress on a couple) missions about her getting into bounty hunting.
But don't worry, I'm sure Red Dead Redemption III won't be another prequel where you play as someone never mentioned before who dies and then you finish the game as a (slightly) younger Arthur. (If they do this a third time I will be livid.)