Review: Metro 2033

[ninja51]

I actually love this game. ya it has flaws, but this review seems like the reviewer got pissed, and never stopped being pissed through the game. I understand the game is ment for a small minority of gamers, but this was a rant not an actual critical review.

 

[MortisLegio]

Its not sparta

THIS IS MOSCOW!

 

[Brian Hendershot]

Yeah I loved the game. To me it was a bland grey FPS shooter done right. I mean I wish there was more physiological aspects of the game, I really felt like the game was trying to convey it more then it actually did. As for enemies or the stealth I really didn't have a problem. The game allows you to sneak past all the enemies, often though you have to wait and observe. The game is also very specific about were you have to hit people to get them to die with one shot.

Good review, I just don't agree with it.

Though the fucking amoebas at the end of the game warrants it the loss of a star or two.

 

[CaptainLudicrous]

I was thinking about getting this game, it seemed a lot like Fallout 3. This review made me reexamine that.

 

[Moon_Called]

>>
Your voice.
It is awesome.
More reviews, please.

 

[Christemo]

let me just say that the 360 version has a lower framerate, worse graphics, worse sound quality, pretty much worse everything. if Logan knew what he was talking about, he should´ve played the PC version, which is far superior.

 

[Makszi]

I'm starting to lose faith in The Escapist's reviewers... First they mutilated Just Cause 2 (which is a fucking incredible game) and now this too, it'd be really cool if they had people who play a variety of video games to review video games instead of amateurs who don't like the games because they are bad at them.

 

[kibayasu]

Maybe I'm just that good, but I've played through Metro 2033 a few times on Normal and Hard and when I wanted to run and gun I did so just as easily as stealthing. Killed every Communist and Facist in "Frontline?" Done it. Didn't kill anyone in "Black Station?" Done it. Some of the video clips used in the supplement seemed dreadfully contrived as well. Standing out in the middle of three or four guys and not even hiding behind a wall when you have to reload? Even in Serious Sam you still have to occasionally hide behind things.


And those damned Librarians will still occasionally attack you even if you stare at them.

 

[MadCat55329]

I'd like to jump on the bandwagon and say that I had a much different experience with this game than the reviewer did, while certainly not an incredible work, I found that Metro 2033 provided me with something that I've been missing from comparable first person shooters recently. I played the PC release and found a game that to me seems more like a throwback to games like Half-Life than it feels like a game from the current generation, which to me is a good thing, possibly because I'm a curmudgeon and hate everything new.

Between a relatively understated narrative, reliance on iron sight aiming, and a near constant tension caused by the all-or-nothing stealth approach to the firefights against other humans I found myself enjoying Metro far more enthralling than your standard Modern Warfare or Gears of War-style affair. I may have simply been in the mood for a survival-horror game at the time.

While I enjoyed the mechanics and atmosphere of the game, the AI was really nothing to write home about, and many of the environments, while breathtaking are not necessarily imaginative places in which to shoot men in the face. Overall though, Metro 2033 is probably a game that's both interesting enough and short enough to come back to again in a year or a few months, which for me is far more than I can say for Red Faction: Guerrilla which I received with this one in a bundle deal on Steam.

 

[VanBasten]

If you blindly follow a review's score without considering the actual content described and how it might suit you differently from the reviewer who played the game, that's not the review's fault. That's a problem with the audience.

It's nice that you're idealistic, and I wish that were the case, but most people just focus on the score, see 2 stars out of 5, which translates to 40% or the equivalent of an utter crap game by today's ratings standards(basically anything under 80% these days gets classified as crap). It sucks, but that's just the way it is. And it' s selling this game way short.

 

[Sneaklemming]

I loved Metro 2033, for PC. Apparently its a different game on Xbox. I wish reviewers would mention that.

 

[SextusMaximus]

is the escapist have an office in The UK now? it the first time i heard some one outside the states do a review on this site. (besides zero punctuation)

Or maybe there's a guy from UK in the US office? Or is that too much of a long shot...

OT: Enjoyed this review, and I have trouble understanding why other people disliked it.

 

[Shjade]

If you blindly follow a review's score without considering the actual content described and how it might suit you differently from the reviewer who played the game, that's not the review's fault. That's a problem with the audience.

It's nice that you're idealistic, and I wish that were the case, but most people just focus on the score, see 2 stars out of 5, which translates to 40% or the equivalent of an utter crap game by today's ratings standards(basically anything under 80% these days gets classified as crap). It sucks, but that's just the way it is. And it' s selling this game way short.

It's not idealism. You just reinforced my point: it's a problem with the audience, not the review.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Lolz at "this is sparta too" comment XD

 

[VanBasten]

It's not idealism. You just reinforced my point: it's a problem with the audience, not the review.

It is idealistic in a sense that you expect reviews should be scored expecting the people to actually think about the text that is written above the number(which i fully agree on, just almost no other review publication really sees it that way). We both agree that people should bother to read a review(or several of them preferably) and then form an opinion based on what they find out. Except, most don't, they just look at the score and move on. The audience is definitely at fault there and I'm not gonna argue that.

One could argue that the review's fault is in grossly misrepresenting this games quality when compared how the almost all other game reviewers assign grades. Just take this game's score(40%) and compare it with the games at metacritic in that range for instance. But I'm not even going to argue that, because I don't really like how the games are rated right now.

But there's also another problem with the review that most people here complain about. It presents some of the good elements of the game as bad(story not being overexposed, relatively weak weapons, stealth elements). It reads as the reviewer went in expecting MW2 type gameplay and got disappointed, and that's, in my opinion, the problem.

 

[Shjade]

I don't recall saying anything about how reviews should be scored. I did comment on how people should interpret reviews.

One could argue the review's score misrepresents the game. Then again, there are people posting that they agree with the review, which suggests that it is an accurate score - for some people. Sounds like a polarizing game, in which case no review would make everyone happy as there are those who like it and those who find it quite absent of fun qualities.

What you see as the problem I see as being open for interpretation. Yes, he did remark on several aspects of the game in a negative way, but in doing so he also brought up those aspects of the game. That he didn't like them is a personal issue; he included them in the review which brings them to my attention. I would not have known anything about Metro's interesting flavored-ammo-for-money system if he hadn't commented on how difficult it makes the game seem when in constantly choosing whether to keep the ammo for gear swaps or use it to save your life right this moment. He found this to be a negative thing; I found it curious. His opinion doesn't much matter to me - it's what he has the opinion about that's most relevant.

Of course, the moment he mentioned that the majority of the game involves what is essentially an ongoing escort quest it would've killed any interest I had in this particular game regardless. It could have been the precursor to the Second Coming and I'd still give that a pass. No thank you to long escort segments regardless of how they tie in to the story. I've had enough of game failure due to AI partner failure.

Almost five in the morning. ... That bed is looking awful comfy. I think I shall test it.

 

[TheBritish]

Yeah I loved the game. To me it was a bland grey FPS shooter done right. I mean I wish there was more physiological aspects of the game, I really felt like the game was trying to convey it more then it actually did. As for enemies or the stealth I really didn't have a problem. The game allows you to sneak past all the enemies, often though you have to wait and observe. The game is also very specific about were you have to hit people to get them to die with one shot.

Good review, I just don't agree with it.

Though the fucking amoebas at the end of the game warrants it the loss of a star or two.

One of my favourite things about this game is that you have to try to aim for gaps in the armour, even places under people's arms. It's great

Can someone explain why Metro 2033 is compared to Stalker?? If anyone has both games, start them up, and name 1 thing that is similar.
I am being serious, so don't say, they speak w/ Russian accents, or a developer is listed to have worked on both.
They are both FPS games, but Stalker takes forever before it tries to be 'moody', while Metro is 'moody all the way through.
I have both games, and it erks me that one would compare them.
Please help!!

Oh yeah, by the way.... when will 'reviews' start being reviews and stop being opinions?

4A Games is an offshoot of GSC Game Word who made STALKER.
Both games are set in Russia featuring Russian locations, post-apocalyptic landscapes and appearances and themes.
Both games place you in the role of someone often relying on their teammates for support.
Both games have what I usually describe as the "Russian Game Factor", which means that you're put in the role of someone who has bad, inaccurate weapons, can't take many shots before they die and doesn't really know what's going on.
Both involve people called Stalkers? Now I'm getting desparate

But it's a little weird to say they're "incomparable". Crash Bandicoot and Sonic the Hedgehog are "comparable".

 

[UtopiaV1]

Watch a few of Susan Arendt's recent reviews, they were very well written.

D'awwww...thanks, man. That's sweet of you to say.

I'm not being nice, I'm just telling the truth!