@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@ghosts4ever said:
@uninspiredcup said:
It's extremely guilty of using practically every detestable modern FPS trend. Only reason it gets a free pass is because A) It was pc oriented and B) People associated it with stalker.
Extreme hypocrisy, really big.
so was Call of duty 1 and medal of honor allied assault yet they got free pass tot. they were as scripted as most of todays shooters.
Metro has something COD lack and thats atmosphere. and its immersion.
Call Of Duty had tons of atmosphere and immersion. More so.
Metro is basically influenced by Call Of Duty, but while Call Of Duty at least lets you shoot things, this has you running around doing nothing most of time.
Fallout, Stalker, Wasteland e.t.c.... it's not original. It's gameplay is bare-bones. It's DLC was terrible.
It's very overrated game. It's pretty much the Uncharted 4 of FPS, even console FPS (which are designed for children) like Killzone Shadowfall are a million times better.
You're fighting a losing battle here.
Metro had an atmosphere that rises well above and beyond most first person shooter campaigns. It had an ending that was meaningful, combining the futility of war with humanity and compassion.
It had difficulty. You had to juggle air time, finding breathing aparatuses, healing yourself, conserving bullets so you could spend them on better guns. At many points in the games, you could go stealth or guns blazing, and there was no game over if you chose to not do one or the other.
You literally had to survive, and make choices depending on situations. Small acts of humanity also garnered a different ending if you went out of your way.
In Call of Duty, there are no choices. You simply just go.
Unfortantly this was never a losing battle, I was a fact from the start. Anyone claiming this isn't a simplstic Call Of Duty style shooter is delusional. Except Call Of Duty (the original not those billion sequels) executes it better.
Also your own about small acts of humanity, and "meaningful", like somehow Metro is really deep and of higher esteem. It really isn't. If anything Call Of Duty is more so.
How many kids heard of Stalingrad? Or The Battle Of Pegasus Bridge? Do you think kids watch old 1940/60's war movies? Highly doubtful. Much like Total War, it presents history in an interactive matter, and more importantly, fun. Pegasus Bridge conveys a sense of seemingly futile heroism in the face of overwhelming odds and Stalingrad the propaganda machine of the Russians with a complete disregard for life. Thematically, Call Of Duty does have ideas behind it, albeit primarily taken from movies - more relevant than anything in Metro. And this is coming from a guy who views Call Of Duty as digital cancer.
In fact, if you watch the clip above, the player returns thinking he will be given a rifle, as many people would have at that time. It's a great example of subverting player expectation.
Unfortantly when pc gamers (once and a while) get something approaching a AAA game, they tend to oversell and hype it most likely for validation, as they do when they wave their plastic boxes in a series of jpegs, while contrary to that, a game of equal or better quality on a console will be disregarded and mostly likely mocked.
If you enjoy Metro knock yourself out, I found it incredibly underwhelming and generally find it insulting that people attempt to compare it favorably to Halflife.
Log in to comment