Forgot Password / Register
image
  • Game Review - Metro 2033

    by Zak Parrish -April 14, 2010
    Understand going in that I am a huge fan of post-apocalyptic stories. I just love dark, dreary glimpses into the terrible ways we imagine we're going to wipe ourselves out. The more conspiracy and plot twists, the better.

    However, in the world of games, post-apocalyptic tales have become so prolific that it's really hard to say which ones are going to be good and which ones will rank among the common ash-covered clay which coats the game industry landscape.

    In this review, I take a look at the latest contender for a noteworthy spot among the hordes of post-nuclear lookalikes, Metro 2033, from 4A and THQ.


    A tiny bit of back story: Metro 2033 started off in 2002 as a book written by Dmitry A. Glukhovsky, a Russian writer and journalist. The book apparently won all kinds of awards, has a sequel, is published on the web (in Russian), and is supposedly amazing. I'd never heard of it until this game came out, and after playing through Metro 2033 I'm not sure I ever will. I'd be surprised if this game didn't end up doing to the book what Sylvester Stallone did to the Judge Dredd comic series.


    So let's move to the present. A group of developers who formerly worked on S.T.A.L.K.E.R., which was a first-person shooter set in a Russian nuclear wasteland, got together and decided they wanted to make a new game. In the most amazing display of creativity and originality since the Microsoft Zune, they decided that the best way to further their careers was to create another first-person shooter set in a Russian nuclear wasteland. That said, I never had the opportunity to invest much time into S.T.A.L.K.E.R., so I have no intention to compare it to Metro 2033. We'll look at this new game strictly on it's own merit.

    Overall, I thought the game was superficially interesting. It was kind of like getting a date with that cute chick across the bar who you've heard all these great things about. However, when you get her alone you find out that she's got Tourette's Syndrome, a chronic 5-pack-a-day smoking habit, and is all but cadaverous in the bedroom.

    My Metro experience (I suggest you pause a moment to really take that in) had enough grief in it that I can't say I'm really glad I played the game or that I got a lot out of it. There are a lot of good ideas and concepts, and I feel like there was a tremendous amount of potential. However, there really isn't much of anything we haven't seen before. Even beyond the fact that it's the same group of people making the same type of game in what is, essentially, the exact same setting as their last game.

    Story:

    You are Artyom, a 20-something-year-old guy who lives in the subway system beneath the ruins of Moscow. You were a child when your homeland was nuked and have spent your entire life underground in a subway station, hiding from the terribly unoriginal beasties that swarm the frozen landscape above. Unless you are already a fan of of the book, that's about all the intial story you're going to get out of the box. The only other noteworthy bit is that the bulk of gameplay revolves around Artyom having to travel across Moscow in a daring attempt to request help from a nearby camp.

    Visuals:

    Metro 2033 is very dark and moody, and overall, the graphic presentation is one of the game's few pluses. It delivers its fair share of ambiance, and the visuals do a decent job of making you feel the bleakness of the world. Every visible surface in the darkly oppressive tunnels is rendered in beautifully dingy and dented metal, chunks of wood, and tattered fabric, and is really just a few dirty socks and used condoms away from looking just like a midwestern collegiate frat house.

    The outdoor areas of the game leave a bit to be desired. You do get a nice general representation of a nuclear winterized wasteland, but not much else. While there are plenty of trashed buildings, fissured streets, and puddles of radioactive urine to go around, most of the outdoor landscape just isn't quite as polished as it probably should be. It's like the developers realized that the players wouldn't be spending a great deal of their time outdoors and didn't waste a lot of time describing that environment.

    The lighting delivered by the 4A engine is actually fairly impressive for such a dark game. The shadows cast by your flashlight feel right. Most sources of light have just the right amount of falloff, and bloom is used to make you involuntarily squint at just about any major light source. The way the game treats light, especially in the tunnels is probably the biggest help to the overall visual delivery. Unfortunately, you just don't get to see a lot of light in much of the game outside of your own flashlight.

    If there is any place that the graphic presentation falls short it's in the characters. The facial animation and character texturing can be really hit or miss. While facial animation certainly isn't something you generally “wow” over in games even today, there are some faces in Metro 2033 that feel like they were done about 5-7 years ago, or were perhaps motion captured by someone with a severe case of cerebral palsy.

    Gameplay:

    Before we start talking about gameplay, understand that Metro 2033 is simultaneously trying to be a first-person shooter and a role-playing game. If you're a reasonably flexible gamer, this prospect should excite you, as the mix of the two has certainly led to some of the more memorable gaming moments in the last decade or so.

    Unfortunately, Metro delivers poorly in both genres, with a shooting aspect that is almost devoid of ammunition, and a role-playing aspect that is almost invisible and adds nothing to gameplay other than controlling which of two equally boring endings you get to sit through. I think the worst part is that the FPS and RPG genres can work very well together (as seen in such games as Deus Ex and Bioshock), but by severely hamstringing both aspects of the game, the result is something that just doesn't fit and ends up making you feel embarrassed that you even took part, like watching a romantic comedy starring Gerard Butler.

    There is a fairly limited number of weapons, which makes sense when you consider that most of the guns in the game are homemade by people living in subway stations after the entire world has been destroyed. Some of these homebrew shooters are actually pretty cool. For instance, you can get a special version of a .357 revolver outfitted with a wooden stock, an extended barrel, a foregrip, a silencer, and a scope, effectively turning a pistol into a compact six-shot medium-range sniper rifle. Unfortunately, since there are practically no bullets in this game, you get about as much out of them as I do from ladies at a nightclub, spending the whole time simply staring at their back ends and thinking how nice it would be if you could actually use it and squeeze off a round or two.

    Which brings me to ammunition. Bullets are an interesting mechanic in Metro 2033. The idea is that after the war, good quality (military grade) ammunition is so rare that it's actually become currency, and can be traded for anything you need, including lower quality homemade ammunition. And to really drive home the mechanic, the developers made the game so that the military rounds could easily down a fairly large rabid bull elephant with the sheer awesomeness of their sound effect, while the lower quality rounds have all the stopping power of a half-chewed gumball thrown by semi-comatose six-year-old.

    Continued...

    Comments 18 Comments
    1. js_dmacb's Avatar
      Nice review!

      After reading it I'm thinking why didn't they went with the survival horror??? The story fit's the concept, I think...

      If you can, check S.T.A.L.K.E.R. It's a really great game...
    1. DigitalDemigod's Avatar
      Awesome review. You had me rolling with the sexual analogies, especially 'you just want to use it and squeeze off a few rounds'.

      I am really, really picky about games and it's games like this that make me so paranoid about picking up a brand new game. This is also why independent reviews are so important. You just can't trust the gaming mags anymore.

      I also had to wonder why they released this game at all. Fallout 3 has its flaws, but it's hands down one of the best games ever made. Unless they think they can top it, they really shouldn't even bother trying.
    1. euanc's Avatar
      I agree with DigitalDemigod. Developers need to realize that if they produce a post nuclear RPG/FPS it will be compared to fallout 3, and it probably wont top fallout either.
    1. Zak's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by euanc View Post
      I agree with DigitalDemigod. Developers need to realize that if they produce a post nuclear RPG/FPS it will be compared to fallout 3, and it probably wont top fallout either.
      Yeah, but you can't really compare this to a hardcore RPG such as Fallout 3. I always felt that Fallout put more focus on the RPG element, and the FPS part was really just the way they happened to design the combat system. With Metro 2033 the RPG element to the game is really more of an afterthought. A sprinkle on top of what is otherwise a straightforward FPS.
    1. DigitalDemigod's Avatar
      Just got the latest Game Informer. They rated this a 9 out of 10. Granted, I haven't played it, but when someone with tastes like mine writes a review and isn't 'scoring' it that high, I tend to think that the gaming mags are full of crap. Not to mention that this issue has a feature on Farmville.
    1. magnus3159's Avatar
      Nice review with regard to the technical and gameplay aspects of the game. However, I have to say that I found the sexist tone of the review to be pretty off-putting, and only funny in a way that might have made me laugh when I was a 7th grader. And as an ex-Marine, a combat veteran, and a confirmed horror shooter junkie, I have to admit I'm feeling a little embarrassed for my gender right now.

      Considering that this is a site primarily devoted to game programming tutorials, and you're one of the principal players in this organization, it looks to me like you're intentionally or otherwise putting up a subtle stink barrier to entry for the non-male half of the populace that might be interested in learning how to build games -on behalf of 3d Buzz.

      I'm sure that I'll get flamed for mentioning this, but quite frankly, if you think that this is worth flaming me over, I really couldn't care less what you have to say. I'm not looking for an apology either, I just thought that you might like to know that this is probably not a good direction to go with the incidental language in your reviews -unless of course, you are that sure about who your readership is.

      In which case, screw it -why not break out the racial jokes too?
    1. Zak's Avatar
      You know, I can't comment on whether or not GI (or any other mag for that matter) is slanting their views. It's entirely possible that someone played this game and really felt into it and loved it. I didn't, that's all. I didn't quite hate the game, though that was a bit of a near thing, I just think that it was a game that tried to play 2 separate genres, and both of them weakly. The aiming mechanics aren't horrible, there is some story to dig out of it, and if you can overlook all of the technical faults I've written about, then you'll likely love the game.

      I don't like saying that reviewers are lying just to appease some publisher, though I'm sure that does happen. But this is exactly why I don't give numerical scores. I just tell you what I do and don't like about a game, and the rest you can decide for yourself. Perhaps, for these other reviewers, the remaining stuff wasn't a problem.

      If they were playing on "Easy" mode, the enemies do go down with little more than a stern look, meaning they won't live long enough to expose their faults.That also alleviates the ammo problem, and it follows that it would also ease up on the filters issue. Perhaps that has something to do with it. This is also why I never run through games on "Easy" when reviewing them.
    1. DigitalDemigod's Avatar
      Well who knows, in the scoring system for reviews, maybe 9 is the new 6.5.

      Magnus: No one's going to flame you here. But my condolences on the loss of your sense of humor at such a young age.

      And considering the demographics for FPS games players,I would say the review was written appropriately.
    1. Zak's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by DigitalDemigod View Post
      Magnus: No one's going to flame you here. But my condolences on the loss of your sense of humor at such a young age.
      Hey, DD, that's contradictory. You do know that, right?

      I realize in advance that not every writing style, series of jokes, use of simile, or whatever you like, will appeal to everyone. I'll be the first to admit that I'm relatively new to the world of "professional" reviewing, and I still want to try a few different approaches. Each of my reviews have been a bit different from one another.

      Regardless, I love getting the feedback, whether you love what I write or if you hate it! Have something serious about it to discuss, why don't you PM me?

      Z
    1. DigitalDemigod's Avatar
      Fine line between honesty and flaming I guess.

      I guess I should've said "no one's going to skin you alive and then flame you here, but you may get a little toasty".
    1. Zak's Avatar
      Fine line between honesty and flaming I guess.
      Perhaps, but there shouldn't be; a personal and negative remark aimed at someone is always flaming. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. And frankly, I learn more from people not liking my work than I do from them liking it.
    1. DigitalDemigod's Avatar
      Personally, I just find it annoying that people are so easily offended these days yet at the same time, all forms of media are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. We're growing and regressing at the same time.

      My comment was meant in a more lighthearted way, but obviously it didn't come through that way and I was thinking of flaming as more along the lines of what one would see on all the 'normal' sites on the internet that are full of keyboard commandos.
    1. Zak's Avatar
      I hate to see the comments have to digress into this, but there isn't a second standard for flaming on these so-called 'normal' sites. They just don't care as much when one user abuses another. We do. Now, let's keep the comments on track, shall we?
    1. Mysterious Mr M's Avatar
      i'm sorry but this review is bloody nonsense...
      the game is 100% FPS with not a bit of RPG in it. and no, currency and buying better guns aren't RPG elements.
      it should be compared to is STALKER, not Fallout 3.
      this is a review i would expect from someone who requires commercials to tell him what is good and what isn't.

      the story is good, but also demands some thinking from the player himself.
      a player expecting a story ready for simple consumption that doesn't need to be processed will be disappointed.
      it's no cheap "bad and good guy" story where you just need to "kick bad guys asses" and it's end of the story (like Fallout 3 or Modern Warfare 2 for example).

      the game isn't so hard if you try to play it differently from other shooter. just don't run and gun.
      for example it isn't required to "kill everyone in the level". also stealth makes things a lot more easy if done properly.
      if enemies are alerted than get to cover, because you can't eat a million bullets like in MW2.
      i have actually player through the game at hard difficulty without requiring to use a medkit even once.

      the visuals are certainly better than average FPS titles, but without having been able to max it out or use DX11 i cannot yet make a final conclusion.

      there are only 3 bad things worth mentioning.
      1st are the messed up collision of the mutants as they just go right though the player.
      however they ARE supposed to climb through holes in the ground and walls (which you might not actually have spotted) so the collision issue is just localised to the player.
      2nd is the slightly shortcoming and a bit inconclusive ending.
      3rd is how linear the game is. a game like this would actually benefit more from a open world design than a linear one.
      however that would sacrifice the storytelling a bit.

      personally i give Metro 2033 a 8.5 out of 10. which is far better than the 5 out of 10 i would give Modern Warfare 2.
      and the best game of all time for me is S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
    1. Zak's Avatar
      As I mentioned, I'm thrilled that some folks are enjoying this game, but I really REALLY didn't. I thought it was well-rendered rubbish. It had a few endearing moments, but nowhere near enough to justify the overly buggy gameplay and unclear implementation of gameplay mechanics. If you have a taste for that sort of thing, I'm happy for you, and no, that's not sarcasm! I welcome any and all opinions over any game, and I do hope that, even if we don't agree, you welcome mine.

      Either way, I don't give numerical values. They're all relative. For instance, your 8.5 is only a 3 (possibly less) on my scale, so you can see where we have have problems.

      Case in point, you mention that there are "only" 3 things worth mentioning:
      1. Mutant collisions with player*
      2. Shortcoming and inconclusive ending
      3. Linearity
      See, to me, those are really damaging flaws. Especially the first two. The collisions thing is a nightmare.

      *And no, we're not just talking about the mutants that crawl into holes. I'm talking about watching a mutant literally run (or seem to phase) through a wall or car or shelf, and then dive back through it to attack you. I wish I'd caught it on FRAPS so you could see what I'm talking about. I mean mutants completely ignoring the walls! That is not player localization.

      And the ending being a minor thing? I'm sorry, but what? A linear title such as this really only has story as its driving factor. Look at Half-Life (1 or 2, no matter). Metro is more or less the same game (with less ammo), but Half-Life has a solid story that you can feel moving forward. The game drove the story's pacing. With Metro, that is not the case. The story is in this ongoing state of near-pause that hardly moves until the last mission or so, and then is topped off with two equally disappointing endings. For you, that may be a minor flaw (and that's totally cool!), but for me, since I've already played so many shooters that I really do long for a good story to keep me motivated, it's a complete kill-joy.

      Also, I very strongly disagree that the story requires much by way of thought. I found the story itself - at least how it is presented in-game, saying nothing of the source material - to be just another contrived "world of nuclear refugees" tale. If you've seen one... Yeah, there are some religious/supernatural elements thrown in that are certainly worthy of intervention by Fox Moulder, but they're not explored in such a way that they add very much. I think the story actually has some potential, but they just don't take significant advantage of that potential. From the get-go they present the player with a variety of questions, only a few of which get answered by the end, and not very clearly. Now, if you mean that the story requires thought in the sense that I need to be thinking up all kinds of ways to bridge plot elements to make it all feel smooth and congruous, the way a die-hard Star Wars fan can justify any plot discrepancy in the saga, then perhaps you're right. Maybe, in that case, there really is a lot of thinking needed on the part of a player, since they need to be able to imagine ways in which the story presentation can make sense.

      But to educate you, no, it's not just a first-person shooter. You have several pivotal areas in which you must make a "moral choice" in order to determine which of the two endings you'll get to stare at. As soon as you have to make such choices, you are having to decide what kind of person your in-game persona is going to be. Quite literally,you are assuming - or playing - a role, hence "role playing game." No, it's not a full-fledged RPG. But there certainly are RPG elements in it (as poorly implemented as they may be), which are necessary if you want any control over the outcome of the story. You cannot have such things and just call it a FPS on-par with Modern Warfare two. I will admit that these RPG additions are abysmal and I would just have rather the outcome of the story pivot on which of a few different missions you take, but I wasn't consulted during the design phase.

      Really, I wanted to like Metro 2033. I just think it's a game in which the designers tried to take on too many things and ended up doing most of them in a pretty mediocre manner.

      Sure does look nice, though. We can at least agree on that!
    1. MrStitch3s's Avatar
      Nice review.. I can totally see where you are coming from, but I still really enjoy this game. I think a lot of it has to do with the environment, even though, yeah it does get repetitive.. Throw me in a dark environment, and I'm pretty much in a headspace where nothing else matters because I'm so content with how everything around looks and feels... Meh.. Had the potential to be a great game and just ended up being a good one to me.

      I don't regret my 60 bucks. =)
    1. JiggaWagga's Avatar
      I only got through about an hour before I quit. I just couldn't take it anymore. This game was bs.
    1. slayr's Avatar
      I'm playing Metro right now, I rented it for a week. But so far the game isn't that bad, I mean it definitely has it's weaknesses like inconsistent weapons but I find things like the lack of ammo, the rush to pump your pneumatic weapon so you don't get slaughtered by the nosilisus(I don't know if that's right) is exhilarating. Sure the knives sometimes don't kill people and sometimes the enemies seem to have thermal vision after acting like idiots 10 previously but hey, your not a super soldier. Like Master Chief, Marcus Fenix or hell even Soap can take a beating. It just adds to the realism I would not say the game was amazing though. Fallout 3 was amazing, I'd give about 7.5/10.
  • Recent Videos
    +
    Software Engineering
    +
    Software Engineering
    +
    Character Skinning
    +
    Character Skinning
    +
    Character Skinning
  • Recent Blogs
    +
    Shivanangel
    +
image
Copyright © 2009 3D Buzz, Inc. All rights reserved.
Loading Videos...
spinner