Or maybe there's a guy from UK in the US office? Or is that too much of a long shot...zombie711 said:
OT: Enjoyed this review, and I have trouble understanding why other people disliked it.
Review: Metro 2033
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: Enjoyed this review, and I have trouble understanding why other people disliked it.
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.Shjade said:
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.
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.
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.
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 greatBrian Hendershot said:
4A Games is an offshoot of GSC Game Word who made STALKER.Sober Thal said:
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".
I'm one of the people who like Metro-2033, but I'll say that if you are "playing a game wrong", the developers are probably at fault somewhereSir_Tor said:Logan Westbrook? New to the escapist or have I missed something?
I ask my friends wether it's good or not as they have the same taste as me and they said it's awesome. Maybe you played the game wrong?
If you try running in in Splinter Cell, it makes it pretty damn clear you're playing it wrong. That's not the case in Metro. Most of the time you feel like a survivor, sneaking through the shadows, then suddenly it'll throw you into an action set-piece where there's no chance for stealth ... Did I just convince someone not to play a game I've been defending?
In contrary to the fanboys here I played the game fully trough twice and I can understand the marks. What I don't understand are fanboys trying to make somthing better than it actually is. Just some points I snapped up here:
Stealth:
You can stealth, yes, but it's as annoying as carrying out trash cans all day long. These people saying the stealth is great "never" ever player a real stealth game as otherwise they would kick themselves for such an incorrect comment.
Weak weapons:
They are horribly weak. some people attack the reviewer in his video for standing in the open but he "damn tried to show a point"! With other words he stood on purpose in front of a bandit to show how broken the shotgun is. Took 3 blasts until he went down and I can confirm this. I often even had to use 5 blasts to the head until he went down. On the other hand an air-gun kills with one hit. The balancing is totally off. Making weapons weak is not what makes a game good. It's the combination of weapon strength, enemy weapon strength and consistency which makes a good game where you fight for survival. No problem with a game where you die fast but then the enemies have to die fast the same way if you are smarter. For example he showed "sparta" in the video. At two times NPCs in cut scenes kill enemies with one knife-throw or knife-stab. You as the player you can throw 5 knives silently and the enemy doesn't go down. Try stab monsters/people with a knife. You are stabbing like 5 minutes until the go down. This is not survival, this is bad implemented and balanced weapon design.
Librarians don't attack when you look at them:
As incorrect as it gets. Tried that out. They always attack you also if you look at them. Should this not be the case you hit a game bug. The only ones which often don't attack you when you look at them (if your lamp is enabled) is the black coated "thing" in D6 which comes down from the ceiling. Otherwise Librarians eat your ammo like nothing else.
Atmosphere:
I disagree here with the reviewer and many others. While the scenery itself would lend to good atmosphere it fails at it for various reason I don't want to repeat (as I did it already on another website). In general though Stalker-SoC had better atmosphere than this game and that's a pity as the scenery itself would have been a good starting point for well done atmosphere.
There are many more points to send into the field but I don't want to make this post any longer. So in the end I agree with the reviewer, it's a game you should only rent if possible (careful, it has steam-sucks included... get yourself first a steam-remover before you play if you value your PC!). I would say though 3/5 would be okay or 3.5/5 . It's not bad by any stretch of imagination but it's not the big thing they claimed beforehand it would be.
EDIT: As some people liked to attack me previously here a reminder before-hand. My view is always the one from the view of a game-developer as this is what I do. So I'm not a hater or otherwise moron but a critic fellow developer who judges products with hard but fair means as only this can improve quality in the long run.
Stealth:
You can stealth, yes, but it's as annoying as carrying out trash cans all day long. These people saying the stealth is great "never" ever player a real stealth game as otherwise they would kick themselves for such an incorrect comment.
Weak weapons:
They are horribly weak. some people attack the reviewer in his video for standing in the open but he "damn tried to show a point"! With other words he stood on purpose in front of a bandit to show how broken the shotgun is. Took 3 blasts until he went down and I can confirm this. I often even had to use 5 blasts to the head until he went down. On the other hand an air-gun kills with one hit. The balancing is totally off. Making weapons weak is not what makes a game good. It's the combination of weapon strength, enemy weapon strength and consistency which makes a good game where you fight for survival. No problem with a game where you die fast but then the enemies have to die fast the same way if you are smarter. For example he showed "sparta" in the video. At two times NPCs in cut scenes kill enemies with one knife-throw or knife-stab. You as the player you can throw 5 knives silently and the enemy doesn't go down. Try stab monsters/people with a knife. You are stabbing like 5 minutes until the go down. This is not survival, this is bad implemented and balanced weapon design.
Librarians don't attack when you look at them:
As incorrect as it gets. Tried that out. They always attack you also if you look at them. Should this not be the case you hit a game bug. The only ones which often don't attack you when you look at them (if your lamp is enabled) is the black coated "thing" in D6 which comes down from the ceiling. Otherwise Librarians eat your ammo like nothing else.
Atmosphere:
I disagree here with the reviewer and many others. While the scenery itself would lend to good atmosphere it fails at it for various reason I don't want to repeat (as I did it already on another website). In general though Stalker-SoC had better atmosphere than this game and that's a pity as the scenery itself would have been a good starting point for well done atmosphere.
There are many more points to send into the field but I don't want to make this post any longer. So in the end I agree with the reviewer, it's a game you should only rent if possible (careful, it has steam-sucks included... get yourself first a steam-remover before you play if you value your PC!). I would say though 3/5 would be okay or 3.5/5 . It's not bad by any stretch of imagination but it's not the big thing they claimed beforehand it would be.
EDIT: As some people liked to attack me previously here a reminder before-hand. My view is always the one from the view of a game-developer as this is what I do. So I'm not a hater or otherwise moron but a critic fellow developer who judges products with hard but fair means as only this can improve quality in the long run.
Considering that I comepltely accept a hell of a lot of flaws this game has... I completely disagree with you on most of the ones you picked outOdjin said:
The stealth is "different" from any other game I've played and I like it. It doesn't feel like most stealth games where you get seen, hide for ten minutes and everyone says "Well, I guess he must have moved to Canada. That said, the stealth is badly flawed, but... meh
And yeah, the weak bullets are "supposed" to be weak. It's part of the story. Think that this shotgun is more like the old style blunderpusses you'd fill with pebbles. You could take five shots from one of those and still be standing. These bullets were made by people bashing them out with hammers in a dark tunnel. Bullets count for a lot in the real world too. I think the dirty ammo is -too powerful-. I rarely felt the need to switch to Military Grade.
The "balance" of weapons you mention is another weird thing. The arrow gun is stronger because to use it you have to "pump it up". That's an intentional thing to add a weak point to the strong gun. Back in the early days of guns there were times when you'd rather be shot with a gun than arrow.
Also throwing a knife is a one hit kill nine times out of ten. You just have to try to hit one of the gaps in the armour, like under the arm or the back of the neck. Like the NPCs do.
The librarians don't attack if you look at them, crouched and don't approach them when they are looking at you. I also heard something about how if they stand up on their hind legs you have to stand up too to make yourself look taller, but never had a chance to try it out.
And the atmospehere in the stations is spectacular (if you don't spend much time there. It's a shame you don't). I also found that hiding in the dark I was more tense than any other game as I saw flashlights pass "right by me" but not hit me.
And whilst I've disagreed with most of your points, I do think this game is seriously flawed. I do think that it's crippling in some areas. But I also think that if you don't at least "play" it you are missing out on a unique experience.
Crap, I am a fanboy, aren't I? Well, nothing I said was untrue.
Please explain what was annoying? Name a "real" stealth game and the major differences. You hide in the shadows, move slowly not making sound and avoid people with NVGs or flashlights.Odjin said:
And for the sake of it. THIS IS NOT A STEALTH GAME, don't compare it to stealth games then.
Right moving on...
You are the incorrect one, and if there is a bug involved, you hit it.Odjin said:
Instead of blindly following what your followers hastily told you before leaving like it was the word of god will get you nowhere. Sure, my attempts to stare them down failed at first but then discovered this by experimenting.
Stare at them until they stop and look at you wondering. After a little while they will usually start to growl and do threatening gestures at you. Take the hint! Back off slowly while looking at them. You surrendered to them and therefore you are not a threat and you will be left alone. For me this made this part of the game freaking great, I thought the librarians were well made and felt plausible, like they were animals.
The shotgun is weak as hell against humans though I'll give you that but i would assume that the since they are home made they are very weak and shotgun shells naturally have less penetration power than bullets, most humans halfway and forward have lots of thick armor which would render shotguns useless. We can't really know since we have no idea if these homemade rounds are birdshot or slugs.
That "You hide in the shadows, move slowly not making sound and avoid people with NVGs or flashlights." pretty much described how I played the most part of the game, since its usually sucide to attack lots of people. And if you didn't need to do any stealth stuff then why the fuck do you have a thing on your arm showing how hidden you are?The Almighty Grigard said:
This isnt' a stealth game in the same way that Far Cry isn't a stealth game. Hiding in the shadows to get past large numbers of enemies, or to whittle down their numbers is a good idea, but it's not a game "about" stealth in the same way that Thief or Splinter Cell are... I assume that's what he meant. I don't knowdryg said:
Thanks, so there are more clans/groups.TheBritish said:Well...De Ronneman said:
In the book they're just described as "Fascists". The idea is that after the bombs dropped and people were thrown in together all kinds of ideologies came about. In the book they weren't "traditional" Nazis, but they were damn close. There are also Communists, Christians, Cannibals and god knows what else
Now I get it, it's just people of the same belief clinging together. Somewhat admirable.
Now I only wonder where they got that many identical authentic uniforms in such great shape. Museum I guess.
It sounds like a game with a lot of potential. Apperently your suposed to pay with bullets, so that's dodgy. That will certainly make the "but I might need it later"-thought in your head go mental...
De Ronneman said:Thanks, so there are more clans/groups.TheBritish said:Well...De Ronneman said:
In the book they're just described as "Fascists". The idea is that after the bombs dropped and people were thrown in together all kinds of ideologies came about. In the book they weren't "traditional" Nazis, but they were damn close. There are also Communists, Christians, Cannibals and god knows what else
Now I get it, it's just people of the same belief clinging together. Somewhat admirable.
Now I only wonder where they got that many identical authentic uniforms in such great shape. Museum I guess.
It sounds like a game with a lot of potential. Apperently your suposed to pay with bullets, so that's dodgy. That will certainly make the "but I might need it later"-thought in your head go mental...
In the book, not that the mention it in the game, I've noticed, they didn't have a traditional swastika. It was only three pronged, to represent the three stations they had taken over. They called it the Fourth Reich, but there was never any mention in the book of Gestapo outfits. It's kind of assumed they're wearing the standard tunnel armour, just with an armband
TheBritish said:De Ronneman said:TheBritish said:De Ronneman said:Well...
In the book they're just described as "Fascists". The idea is that after the bombs dropped and people were thrown in together all kinds of ideologies came about. In the book they weren't "traditional" Nazis, but they were damn close. There are also Communists, Christians, Cannibals and god knows what elseThanks, so there are more clans/groups.
Now I get it, it's just people of the same belief clinging together. Somewhat admirable.
Now I only wonder where they got that many identical authentic uniforms in such great shape. Museum I guess.
It sounds like a game with a lot of potential. Apperently your suposed to pay with bullets, so that's dodgy. That will certainly make the "but I might need it later"-thought in your head go mental...In the book, not that the mention it in the game, I've noticed, they didn't have a traditional swastika. It was only three pronged, to represent the three stations they had taken over. They called it the Fourth Reich, but there was never any mention in the book of Gestapo outfits. It's kind of assumed they're wearing the standard tunnel armour, just with an armband
Wow, they thought that through good!
This game is sudenly rising on my "to play" list!
This game is sudenly rising on my "to play" list!
Wrong. Most reviewers gave the game a solid 8. Gamerankings or Metacritic, only takes a second.mchoueiri said: