Metro 2033

**LuckyNinja** · April 09, 2010, 03:50 PM

FOREWORD: If you like my review, and the style in which it was written, please say so, as I'll make more reviews and most probably take requests too

Editorial note: Imagine its Jeremy Clarkson reading this aloud

The Apocalypse. As according to bible, its the "unveiling", the final sell-out showdown between Jesus and Evil Jesus. In the media, however, its not so much a biblical fight between two divine beings to determine the fate of the world and more as a giant fireworks display across the world. With nukes.

Fallout, Stalker, and many films and literary works show our dread fascination with the green gloop that will give you a second head and a glowing left toe, and its in this setting Metro 2033 slots into place. Taking place in a post-apocalyptic Moscow, the game sees you, Artyom, Gordon Freeman's mute and Russian cousin, travelling through the extensive Russian Metro (clue in the title) desperately trying to work your way through the cobweb of tunnels, fending off attacks from monsters that bear an uncanny resemblance to Amy Winehouse after a night in the boozer.

Or you can try to fend them off, as the combat system will undoubtedly leave you wondering how you haven't managed to stick the barrel of your gun up where the sun don't shine and pull the trigger. Combat is clumsy and awkward, with your bullets seeming to be more attracted to the walls and objects around your enemies, the bullets cleverly reasoning that the big feral thing with claws is not really worth its time, and that the tin can next to it will cause untold pain should anyone step on it. In addition to being broken, the combat is slow to boot, and while some games do this well (Operation Flashpoint for example), its a real game-breaker as the army of Amy Winehouses (now THAT'S a scary thought) can leap halfway across the area and take away most of your health while your idiotic character tries to figure out which way the magazine goes in. Not that you can tell if you've lost any health as the visual system it works upon is so erratic you might as well be playing roulette with chips. Except that the roulette is a gun and the chips are bullets.

At least you can die in agony in a beautifully-atmospheric environment, for if there is one thing that the game developers haven't managed to cock up, its the character of the game. The tunnels are decked out in the harsh orange glow of oil lamps, contrasting with the soft glow of strange mushrooms that will most likely do more to you if you eat them than making the air multi-coloured. The ambient sounds also add to the experience, such as the guitar tunes echoing across the settlements, really giving the feel of a world in ruins. Or maybe just the game.

Metro 2033 leaves a taste more sour than a polonium-flavoured lollipop, and can only be described as an uninspired shoot 'em up (and miss) through a set of gimmicky ill-thought-out features and uninspired storyline, which does no justice to the book upon which its based. Avoid this game like the radiation which is one of the many features which makes this game awful. Apart from the game.

Gameplay: 2/10
Graphics: 8/10
Innovation: 3/10

Overall: 4/10

**motiv-8** · April 09, 2010, 06:00 PM

This review is so different to the game I've been playing that I had to double-check the title on my Steam games list. And yep, it's Metro 2033 and this review does not make any sense to me. But to each their own...

**LuckyNinja** · April 09, 2010, 06:25 PM

Each to their own indeed. In the 10 hours or so I put into the game, I found the combat to be a tangled mess throughout. But it was very atmospheric, although a point I didn't mention in my review as I couldn't put it in anywhere without breaking the flow was that while it was atmospheric and dark, creepy even, it wasn't SCARY, per say. If a monster jumped out from behind a wall (as did happened) I got a little jump out of it, but there was no suspense; it just happened without anything to make me really feel like

my pants. I scare easily, and I NEVER play horror games, and it was ruined for me in that respect too.

**motiv-8** · April 09, 2010, 06:50 PM

The combat didn't impress me much until I played on Hardcore. I think that the biggest drawback is that sometimes the stealth system breaks, which is ridiculous and utterly immersion and fun-breaking when it happens, but the gunplay itself feel pretty nice to me, with a real sense that you're working with very old stock and ad-hoc cottage industry weapons. I guess managing expectations is the biggest thing -- due to the setting I didn't expect a Call of Duty or even STALKER style combat system and weaponry, so it worked out for me.

**LuckyNinja** · April 10, 2010, 03:19 AM

Okay I'm with you on the fact that the weapons do feel right in how they look and act, and it wasn't the slowness that annoyed me, but just the fact that I appeared to have suddenly graduated from the Stormtrooper Academy of Marksmanship and that everything else around me acts faster than I do, so I felt I was going slow and everyone else was going twice as quick.

I can't try out hardcore mode now being as I got it off my computer...

**VOP2288** · April 10, 2010, 06:14 PM

If you like my review, and the style in which it was written, please say so, as I'll make more reviews and most probably take requests too

Yeah...you should probably not do too many more my friend.

Much as with Motiv there I too had to make sure you were actually talking about Metro.

I think you leave out ALOT in your "review", both good and bad, and just decide to focus mainly on the slow and "crappy" gunplay which you later agreed was fitting for the older and custom made weapons that are a part of the game's environment.

Honestly, I believe this game has but a few drawbacks: 1) the broken stealth mode 2) the possibility of getting confused handling/buying all the different types of ammo 3) the game never really commits to being scary when it has the chance to.

Beyond that, Metro is pretty freakin' good IMO. I actually like the gunplay a lot and like all the different crazy looking weapons, the characters and the environment in general is very well done, and the story is pretty solid.

**LuckyNinja** · April 10, 2010, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by VOP2288

Yeah...you should probably not do too many more my friend.

Much as with Motiv there I too had to make sure you were actually talking about Metro.

I think you leave out ALOT in your "review", both good and bad, and just decide to focus mainly on the slow and "crappy" gunplay which you later agreed was fitting for the older and custom made weapons that are a part of the game's environment.

Honestly, I believe this game has but a few drawbacks: 1) the broken stealth mode 2) the possibility of getting confused handling/buying all the different types of ammo 3) the game never really commits to being scary when it has the chance to.

Beyond that, Metro is pretty freakin' good IMO. I actually like the gunplay a lot and like all the different crazy looking weapons, the characters and the environment in general is very well done, and the story is pretty solid.

Paragraph one: Okay, I know I've left out a bit, I'll admit but in my lame defence I have but to say I was tired and bored witless so I didn't give it my one hundred percent, and I believe I was focusing upon the more important aspects of the game, and no I haven't contradicted what I was talking about with the guns, I was merely saying that they are in keeping with the style of the game. They added to the feel of a war-torn post-apocalyptic world, but in my opinion the gun fighting still left a lot to be desired.

Paragraph two: I agree with you on all accounts

Paragraph three: As I stated I thought the environment was very well-made, it was just how it acts that others me. I can't go back and play it again as the copy has already been uninstalled and given back to my friend (who lent it to me).

Thank you for your time though to write out an informed, reasoning reply which is constructively critical, although when I referred to talking about the review, it was the style in which it was written, as I was hoping to add a bit of chuckle into it, and try to inflict a bit of my dark sense of humour.

-Lucky

**motiv-8** · April 15, 2010, 03:46 PM

One thing that bothers me about the weapons is that the combat sequences are so broken-up -- meaning that, they are short, tightly-defined sequences separated by narrative or other non-combat sequence -- and ammo is such a troublesome issue in places, which means some weapons rarely get used. In my play-througs I have only used the spear-gun and pneumatic ball-bearing gun (sorry I forget the names) once each, and hell if I ever really want to use the ball-bearing gun again. The plain fact is that once you get an AK or especially the Vintorez with the laser sight, there's not much use for any of the other weapons given the propensity of the 5.45 ammo and the relative sparcity of other ammo types, plus the contained nature of combat sequences. And that's somewhat annoying, even though it makes sense (IRL I'd rather have an AK with ammo to be found all over the place rather than a homemade air-rifle with ammo that's ridiculously hard to come by).

Then again, this is an experience I have with most shooters. Like in STALKER, where you're given a reasonable armory to play with, it seems like one or two weapons are useful in pretty much all situations, making others useless in practical terms, relegated to bored flings. Maybe part of this problem is with this poster's lack of creativity.

**LuckyNinja** · April 17, 2010, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Then again, this is an experience I have with most shooters. Like in STALKER, where you're given a reasonable armory to play with, it seems like one or two weapons are useful in pretty much all situations, making others useless in practical terms, relegated to bored flings. Maybe part of this problem is with this poster's lack of creativity.

Are you referring to yourself, or me?

**Jaketh** · April 17, 2010, 11:00 AM

gunplay was fine for me

**motiv-8** · April 17, 2010, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by LuckyNinja

Are you referring to yourself, or me?

Myself, motiv-8. Sorry, I guess I was using the first-person a little awkwardly.

**LuckyNinja** · April 17, 2010, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Myself, motiv-8. Sorry, I guess I was using the first-person a little awkwardly.

No, grammatically you're being correct. I've just become so adjusted to forums, where people often use a word similar to that of which they're intending, but completely changes the meaning, that over first glance I saw you as saying "this" taken to be "the" which would of course refer to me. I was prepared to fly into a well-articulated rage against you, all because you actually used grammar correctly (I thought I was the last one left...)

**motiv-8** · April 17, 2010, 06:55 PM

This forum has made me a worse writer and speller. Fact.

**Moorish guy** · April 24, 2010, 11:09 AM

the game was okay it wasnt great but the scores you gave are far to low. but the first couples of hours playing a quite repetitive seeing as how all you do is get chased by giant moles and then find some random station under attack and have to defend it. and then theres the voice acting it sounds like the hired 5 people.