Are the two DLCs not included and integrated into Mankind Divided?

First one is: after spending a few months as a pre-order exclusive it was added in a free update.

Human Revolution’s DLC was also my favorite part of the game, although I felt that it hurt the pacing of the original game’s story. That said, it did set up plot points for Mankind Divided (and its missing second half / last third). Still hurting over the incomplete story…

Bioshock: Agreed. I think you’ll like it, then

Yakuza: I heard the same about Kiwami 1 and 2 having some extra content… although I really don’t remember what it is so that probably says how tiny/unimportant that extra content is lol.

As for the frankly mediocre Yakuza 3 and ok 4-5:

While Yakuza 3 is rough, it becomes a cakewalk once you learn how the AI works. It also has a nice change of scenery. 4 and 5’s stories are bloated, but you could always rush through them. Those last two games have combat almost as good as 0 and have some fun minigames.

It seems like you’ve heard everything about Mankind Divided. The other thing is that the first two DLC should have been included in the game. The first one is forgettable, the second one is decent.

In hindsight, I think imsim is the wrong genre name for Bioshock 1 or 2. I wasn’t sure how to word it, but I guess I mean that you’ll definitely see a difference in pacing and overall gameplay compared to Infinite.

Yakuza: So while this is my favorite series, I don’t want to ignore its flaws. I tried replaying the PS2 games recently and they were way too clunky and miss a lot of quality of life features that the sequels / remakes have. Honestly, I would just skip the PS2 games and substitute them with Kiwami.

The original saga is every numbered game from 0 - > 6. The consensus (which I agree with) is that 0 is the strongest one in this saga. Also, ending the saga with 6 sets up 7 (Like a Dragon) pretty well. Also, Judgement takes place between 6 and 7, although this series doesn’t reference Yakuza that much (and vice versa)

There are a couple of orders that make sense

• Kiwami -> Kiwami 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6 -> 0 (end of original saga, wrapping back around to prequel game. Ends the saga with a bang)

• 0-> Kiwami -> Kiwami 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6 (Chronological order, which is what I did. Starts with a bang but tapers off, and nose dives on 3. Gets better as it gets closer to 6, though)

• Kiwami -> Kiwami 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 ->0 -> 6 (what I wish I did, probably would have given 6 a lot more emotional weight)

• and then there’s release order (ew): 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 0 -> Kiwami -> 6-> Kiwami 2

We live in the future so maybe don’t pick that one lol

Cyberpunk: I see. I played the Witcher 3 (and all of its DLC) so my expectations seem to be inline with what you said. I’ll check it out when it’s on sale. I tend to take breaks from games that are thematically similar, so I’ll check it out after I’ve “recovered” from Mankind Divided (more on that later)

Ghost of Tsushima: Yeah I played parts of it during a Playstation Premium sale and felt no regrets dropping it. I had the impression that it would be ok, but definitely not worth 60 hours of my time.

Metro: Similar viewpoints on the Metro series. I’d say get to Exodus when you are ready. It was on my waitlist for about 2 years.

Mankind divided: It seems the consensus online is that Human Revolution is overall better than Mankind Divided, but Mankind Divided is better gameplay wise. Personally, I liked Mankind Divided more than Human Revolution, although the former has its fair share of flaws. I can go into them if you want, although personally I think its better to just play it and form your own thoughts on it. Personally, I made peace with the flaws and accept the game for what it is. (Also, its “A Criminal Past” DLC is amazing and highly replayable)

Bioshock infiinite: It’s been a few years since I played this, but from what I remember its a solid action shooter. It’s not so much an immersive sim like the previous entries. Go into it with the right expectations and it’s a fun time.

Yakuza: My special interest series, lmao. I have played most games. However, I have not played Infinite Wealth, nor the spinoff games (Man Who Erased His Name, Pirate Yakuza in hawaii, Samurai games, or zombie spinoff). I’ve also played the Judgement series, which feels like Yakuza meets Ace Attorney. As for which to start with… that’s tricky. I played the original Yakuza back in 2004 (with Mark Hamil’s joker voice acting for Majima), took a 15+ year hiatus from the series, returned to the series with 0, and then binged most of the mainline games during covid lmao.

I still need to check out Cyberpunk 2077. I held off due to its launch but apparently the game is in a much stronger state now. Glad to hear that the level design is solid.

This is a great example of the game design sickness Ubisoft inflicted upon the world with the success of the Assassin’s Creed franchise. It’s released right in the window where that was all the rage, and this is absolutely peak Ubisoft Open World^TM. But that trend held for far too long - I’ve leveled that criticism against even titles as recent as Ghost of Tsushima.

YES. I also dropped Ghost of Tsushima, Days Gone, Far Cry 4 for the same reason. Like the formula “works” for a mass audience, but man does it just not work for me anymore.

At this point, give me well thought-out level designs. If I want emergent gameplay and natural discovery, I will play any of the well-received immersive sims like Dishonored or Deus Ex.

Also, unrelated, but have you played Metro Exodus? The game is roughly 50% open world, 50% linear. The open world levels feel natural, and the linear levels are well thought out. I feel like the game was smart about rewarding players who chose a non-lethal playstyle as well. The consequences of being a murder machine are baked into the story and gameplay outcomes, in a way that makes sense.

Back in 2012, I only heard about Sleeping Dogs through word of mouth. Perhaps the marketing was really poor?

Gameplay-wise, I agree. It starts off pretty solid but once you get further, much of the open world feels samey and the missions start to include too much shooting, imo. That, and I didn’t really gel much with the melee combat after a couple of hours, but it seems like I’m in the minority on that. Finally, I feel like a lot of open world games at the time had a similar “formula”; they had many icon activities on the map, which were more-or-less duplicates of themselves.

I’ll focus on the positives, because there definitely were some: Absolutely agree on the graphics. There’s parts of the map that are pretty scenic (beach areas, city areas with more trees and vegetation), and night time looks amazing. Graphics wise it’s hard to believe it came out 13 years ago. I liked the music selection and I also thought the driving physics were pretty neat. Also, I liked that there were many things to buy, so cash isn’t just some point system.

Somewhat unrelated, but in your original post you mentioned losing immersion by the amount of killing you do in Sleeping Dogs. Have you played Metro Exodus? I feel like that game was smart about rewarding players who chose a non-lethal playstyle.

I played the game a few months ago and agree with everything you said, including the final rating of the game.

I’m wondering if you have the same takeaway as me or if you have a different view: perhaps it would have been better to play this game when it came out? At the time, the only recent GTA-likes were GTA IV (overall serious, almost a simulator), and Saints Row 4 (over the top, very arcadey). Sleeping dogs was somewhere in the middle of those two.