Metro 2033/Last Light, missed opportunities.

[DementedSheep]

I remember reading the books finding it strange that they picked this book to adapt into a game, especially a shooter being that it's not very actiony and often when it is it's running from some unknown presence that they can't see or the conflict. It seems like a post-apocalyptic as an excuse to talk about philosophy and create some weird new folklore kinda book.

I've not read the second book or played the second game.

 

[Goliath100]

All this talk of nonlinear psychological horror is all well and good, but it's a lot harder to pull off well because there's so many metaphorical moving parts. A Rust/DayZ clone set in the Metro sounds awesome, but those games are still in development because of all the work it takes to make something like that. It reminds me of that thing Jim mentioned about asking people what they want.

I just gonna say it: There is no good nonlinear, survival sandbox game out there. Metro just seems like a good fit for that type of game.

I'm not sure there's any decent way to pull off the Metro itself as the antagonist.

I would say the swamp level from Last Light pulled it off.

 

[rofltehcat]

What Last Light did well was giving you a little more room and choice in the "open" sections. I also liked the increased use of stealth and avoiding conflicts with monsters by avoiding them and giving them some room. In that aspect some of the monsters seem more intelligent than the human enemies.
The boss fights and especially the large final battle were stupid, though.

I'd love it to be even more open world, scavenging and exploration. Maybe limit it to certain tunnels and above ground passages where you have to decide depending on your equipment, time of day etc. which of 3 or 4 routes to take to your destination and allow the player to travel freely between stations outside of story mission if he wishes.
For example the search for the dark one child could have been great for world building, traveling around and asking people. Sure, there are some ambience conversations that tell you about the circus train etc. but in Last Light you're basically just chasing blindly after him.

Another thing I find off is that some passages simply don't make sense: You fall down somewhere, go on a wild uncontrolled wagon ride and crash through a blockade and somehow you are still exactly on track to where you want to go. In Stalker I'd expect a passage of avoiding anomalies, doing platforming and slowly climbing back up through a destroyed staircase or something. But in Last Light you are somehow exactly where you wanted to go despite being far below the normal metro tunnels after your ride.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Elaborate please. What was it specifically.(and no they are not, that why I need you to elaborate)

Dude, you spend voluminous amounts of time in both games riding cars that are actually moving down rails. The RPS review of the original was titled "On rails" as a cute play on words. Unless you are being pedantic and forgetting that "on rails" and "corridor shooter" are colloquial synonyms, I don't understand how the assertion that both games being on rails...both figuratively and literally...could be problematic for you.

Elaborate please. What was it specifically.

It's difficult to find language beyond describing it in terms of itself..."it was shitty because it was shitty". "It felt bad". "I love stealth games but hated this one". Detection seemed fuzzy, the stealth sections were set up like tedious puzzles, and once stealth was broken it could never be re-acquired...enemies become pre-cognizant and would nail you with dead-eye accuracy the second your toe emerged from behind a dusty box in a dark corner. Last Light's stealth mechanics felt like a spectacular leap forward, which is why I found that game tolerable to fun, instead of inexplicably awful.

Elaborate please. What was it specifically.

Respawning enemies, hostile environment with a built-in time limit (your filters), an almost or actually unkillable antagonist who keeps punting you back to earlier stages, spitting creatures who somehow debuffed/affected me even when hitting the wall I was crouching behind. It was just a slog and a misery. I suspect you loved it, as you seem highly defensive of the games in general, so you likely view all of these things as overwhelming merits. I view them as evidence of terrible game design, particularly the first one.

4A was started by people who worked on S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

That's nice. Hellfire London was made by people who did Diablo. Pedigree is not always a mark of quality, and STALKER runs circles around the Metro series in every aspect save production values (in which Metro is superior) and atmosphere (in which they are roughly equivalent).

 

[Barbas]

...and STALKER runs circles around the Metro series in every aspect save production values (in which Metro is superior) and atmosphere (in which they are roughly equivalent).

...Really? Huh. Might have to check that series out. I keep hearing it's good, but the dated visuals kept me away. If it's that good, though, it sounds like it'll be worth getting into.

OT: I would have liked to see the supernatural elements elaborated on by the books explored a little further, when it came to the Kremlin...the stars atop the spires were an interesting and promising idea.

 

[Goliath100]

Dude, you spend voluminous amounts of time in both games riding cars that are actually moving down rails. The RPS review of the original was titled "On rails" as a cute play on words. Unless you are being pedantic and forgetting that "on rails" and "corridor shooter" are colloquial synonyms, I don't understand how the assertion that both games being on rails...both figuratively and literally...could be problematic for you.

There is hidden areas, optional objectives and multiple paths. The level design is every Deus Ex actually for most stealth sections.

"It felt bad". Detection seemed fuzzy, the stealth sections were set up like tedious puzzles, and once stealth was broken it could never be re-acquired...enemies become pre-cognizant and would nail you with dead-eye accuracy the second your toe emerged from behind a dusty box in a dark corner.

The checkpoint is placed well enough that it never get frustrating, or have to go through that many encounters. I think you don't wanna be the weak survivor, because a lot of this is about the game being lethal.

Respawning enemies, hostile environment with a built-in time limit (your filters), an almost or actually unkillable antagonist who keeps punting you back to earlier stages, spitting creatures who somehow debuffed/affected me even when hitting the wall I was crouching behind. It was just a slog and a misery. I suspect you loved it.

Yes, I do like it when the game is being frustrating and lethal, and the game seems design around it too. 2033 was very much design that way, and if you can get behind it (if you like stealth you should), it's great.

 

[OneCatch]

Gameplay-wise, I agree that wading through hundreds of humans through the course of the games was a little daft - fighting a few clusters of terrifyingly experienced and well-armed human enemies would have been more immersive and in-line with the setting - kind of like the rather tough ambush where you fight

Spoiler

Pavel

towards the end of LL.

If you play it on Ranger, Hardcore. And go for a pacifist run. It feels like a truer experience.

Most of the time, you were aiming to make it through a station and not let any one know you were there.

There's a few scripted combat experiences, but overall. You feel like a ghost by necessity. Not because you're uber stealth master supreme Sam Fisher or Snake Plisken. But because if you got into a fire fight, you'd probably lose. (I mean, it was actually much easier to just stealth kill everyone. But that ends up feeling more like a game than a stealth experience.

Moar stealth sections involving librarians or demons! They're actually scary and there's a real reason to stay hidden from them - which is more disempowering and thus the survival/horror aspect comes to the fore.

Yea, the library section from the first game was awesome. I loved how they librarians would treat you differently depending on how you'd acted in the game.

Most the librarians left me alone, the only ones I had to hide from were the black ones lower down.

Oh I do play on ranger! Unfortunately that also reduces human enemy health and thus makes it trivially easy to kill enemies with suppressed weapons. I've actually RP'd it by not allowing myself to use suppressors because that makes a more fitting challenge (on Last Light, 2033 is generally more difficult anyway).
But my point was more that even being able to stealthkill your way through loads of unsuspecting enemies by definition puts you in a position of power. Last Light tends to be a little more guilty of this - it's not really plausible that Artyom's going to be able to just murder his way out of the central Red base. If they had to include lengthy human stealth sections then giving some of the enemies night vision, or having alarms that put enemies on alert and made things horribly difficult (emergency floodlights illuminating greater areas, numeric reinforcements, closing of doors and routes, enemies equipping more weapons and armour and proactively hunting, perhaps time limits to complete certain actions, that kind of thing).

Totally agree about the Librarians btw- was a nice touch.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yes, I do like it when the game is being frustrating and lethal, and the game seems design around it too. 2033 was very much design that way, and if you can get behind it (if you like stealth you should), it's great.

I have absolutely no problem with "lethality" in games. I played and enjoyed Dark Souls, and classic Everquest was my favorite MMO. The latter title was more punitive than Metro by an order of magnitude that cannot be expressed in words. It wasn't the "lethality" that bugged me. It was the shoddy game play.

I suspect, alas, that we can go back and forth on these titles all day. We are at a fundamental subjective divide. We should probably just agree to disagree.

...Really? Huh. Might have to check that series out. I keep hearing it's good, but the dated visuals kept me away. If it's that good, though, it sounds like it'll be worth getting into.

Buy Pripyat and mod it. It's almost as visually striking as the Metro games, and offers 1 billion times more freedom of movement. The story, what story there even is, is terrible, but anyone playing either of these series for their story content is barking up the wrong tree.