Yeah, I'm glad we made the final present that way.
I wouldn't exactly consider the end of TSub another version of the 3-3 final present, though, even though I see the resemblance. If you had to make a comparison, it would be closer to a combination between the end of 2-4 and 3-3.
In any case, it's much more difficult than any of those examples (I don't think that many players got it right the first time ; I certainly got A LOT of "I'm stuck" posts) in that
1) there's no Mia to lead you through that part, since the Mia happens to be your opponent this time
2) there's a time limit
3) you need to get two non-obvious multiple choices + a present right ; if even one is incorrect, you get a game over
4) the first multiple choice is not related to a contradiction, but requires something that isn't usually expected of the player in AA games, that is, strategic thinking
(asking "what evidence is more likely to constitute an effective trap and help prove the one thing I haven't been able to demonstrate so far?" or alternatively, "what pieces of evidence are NOT likely to constitute an effective trap etc." and picking the remaining one)
5) you're trying to set a trap on Rhea, but the game is also trying to set a trap on you (something so unapologetically evil some found it unfair) by leading you to believe you got the first answer right even when you didn't. Therefore the player can't find out the solution by elimination, which would be too easy in PyWright given that the game automatically saves just before the present, making game overs mostly harmless.
What many players didn't get is the possibility that Apollo could be bluffing when saying he's found a contradiction (after all, he IS desperate). In fact if you get the first multiple choice answer wrong, Apollo is not just bluffing the court ; he's bluffing YOU, as well ^^ Despite what some said, I still think it's fair: if you're resorting to luck and trial and error, that means you're trying to outsmart the mechanics of the game without really thinking about the case at all. That's not how you're meant to find the solution, thus the game has a right to outsmart your trying to outsmart it.
As a consequence, the player gets real satisfaction when he eventually finds - and understands, instead of just happening upon it by chance - the right answer. A killer's breakdown is much sweeter when you're the one responsible for it. In contrast, 3-3 basically just gives you the answer, like in 1-2.
By the way, BP, I never intended the end to be like 3-3... I always wanted a more convoluted version, only I wasn't able to come up with something that fully satisfied me until you came along. I must say your idea was particularly sadistic
But yeah, TSub is a weird (but interesting) breaks-the-rule-and-may-or-may-not-get-away-with-it-depending-on-who-you-ask example.