Paoxy
Still mediocre 5/10
The less :
- The story is better in the first.
- Build-up and set-up are better in the first one. ( The plot of the first game felt more smooth in terms of progression is gone with a rather boring and unengaging story, I admit in the last few hours I lost all interest and just wanted to finish the game )
- Too many chapters that serve no purpose and are too short, which was better in the first one ( duration length )
- No climax, and the story is far-fetched and cartoonishly portrayed, predictable and annoyingly clichéd.
- No new mechanics, that must be used.
The pros :
- The game is a little more fun.
- Better art direction.
- Better enemies, mini/bosses, environment.
- More gunfights.
- Better areas and hub.
- Sexy pleasure dancers.
- Improved graphics.
- The AI seems to be legermenetly a bit better than its predecessor.
- Some new weapons.
- The game is oriented more towards action than infiltration, whereas it could be more discreet.
- The mechanic of shooting projectors/lights is there, but the player is never forced to use it, which I think is a shame.
- The soundtrack is still absent, as it was in 2033, which could have helped reinforce the atmosphere if it had been emphasized.
- DLC, which makes it longer and more complete than 2033.
My conclusion :
The writing is laughable except if you have low-standart I guess.
If you care more about the gameplay/fun you will prefer LL, if it's for the ambient/build-set-up and atmosphere probably 2033.
But LL atmosphere is not hugely different from its predecessor, but I would say less present overall ( still averrage as 2033 ) I loved the level in the Swamp per example.
It's considered as a survival horror but ammos are plenty and you never feel you're gonna run out, the game itself isn't very scary as well, I never felt scared nor did I feel desperate for resources, and the same applies to the Survival mode, when you play as little as possible without exploring too much.
Movement is very jerky. Movement on the ground sometimes feels glitchy. Slight elevations from the ground can give you a glitchy feeling.
Gunplay is slow; on most levels, you can simply run past enemies without any consequences, without needing to waste ammunition. It's true, you can ignore most enemies. They don't detect you very well, so you can just walk right past them.
Honestly a lot of the game is slowly following an NPC through a very boring scripted walk with nothing happening at all, it felt like one of the least interactive games, even a visual novel had more interactivity at times.
The gameplay can be chosen from hard-hitting, infiltration, tactical or a mix of all of these.
The game alternates between action and rest phases, depending on the level and chapter.
Exploration is supposed to be a minimum requirement in Survival mode, with difficulty higher than Normal; in Spartan, the player can just rush around without worrying, without encountering any difficulty in most levels.
Metro is a slow fps-shooter in its gameplay, and even if you play like a brute in action with a nervous gameplay, the game will remain slow.
Because it's a game that's simply immersive in a first-person shooter and relies mainly on its atmosphere, and its not very addictive gameplay, which is generic in the fps world in my opinion, it innovates and doesn't bring anything to the table, although I applaud the studio's work.
"Artyom!"/10 is a bad character who is just a <fetch quest>character when his psychological state could have been put forward to care about him a little.
Scripting a game with (dialogues, discussions, questions/answers) without Artyom being able to answer, the impression of controlling a mute spoils the whole immersion.
The less :
- The story is better in the first.
- Build-up and set-up are better in the first one. ( The plot of the first game felt more smooth in terms of progression is gone with a rather boring and unengaging story, I admit in the last few hours I lost all interest and just wanted to finish the game )
- Too many chapters that serve no purpose and are too short, which was better in the first one ( duration length )
- No climax, and the story is far-fetched and cartoonishly portrayed, predictable and annoyingly clichéd.
- No new mechanics, that must be used.
The pros :
- The game is a little more fun.
- Better art direction.
- Better enemies, mini/bosses, environment.
- More gunfights.
- Better areas and hub.
- Sexy pleasure dancers.
- Improved graphics.
- The AI seems to be legermenetly a bit better than its predecessor.
- Some new weapons.
- The game is oriented more towards action than infiltration, whereas it could be more discreet.
- The mechanic of shooting projectors/lights is there, but the player is never forced to use it, which I think is a shame.
- The soundtrack is still absent, as it was in 2033, which could have helped reinforce the atmosphere if it had been emphasized.
- DLC, which makes it longer and more complete than 2033.
My conclusion :
The writing is laughable except if you have low-standart I guess.
If you care more about the gameplay/fun you will prefer LL, if it's for the ambient/build-set-up and atmosphere probably 2033.
But LL atmosphere is not hugely different from its predecessor, but I would say less present overall ( still averrage as 2033 ) I loved the level in the Swamp per example.
It's considered as a survival horror but ammos are plenty and you never feel you're gonna run out, the game itself isn't very scary as well, I never felt scared nor did I feel desperate for resources, and the same applies to the Survival mode, when you play as little as possible without exploring too much.
Movement is very jerky. Movement on the ground sometimes feels glitchy. Slight elevations from the ground can give you a glitchy feeling.
Gunplay is slow; on most levels, you can simply run past enemies without any consequences, without needing to waste ammunition. It's true, you can ignore most enemies. They don't detect you very well, so you can just walk right past them.
Honestly a lot of the game is slowly following an NPC through a very boring scripted walk with nothing happening at all, it felt like one of the least interactive games, even a visual novel had more interactivity at times.
The gameplay can be chosen from hard-hitting, infiltration, tactical or a mix of all of these.
The game alternates between action and rest phases, depending on the level and chapter.
Exploration is supposed to be a minimum requirement in Survival mode, with difficulty higher than Normal; in Spartan, the player can just rush around without worrying, without encountering any difficulty in most levels.
Metro is a slow fps-shooter in its gameplay, and even if you play like a brute in action with a nervous gameplay, the game will remain slow.
Because it's a game that's simply immersive in a first-person shooter and relies mainly on its atmosphere, and its not very addictive gameplay, which is generic in the fps world in my opinion, it innovates and doesn't bring anything to the table, although I applaud the studio's work.
"Artyom!"/10 is a bad character who is just a <fetch quest>character when his psychological state could have been put forward to care about him a little.
Scripting a game with (dialogues, discussions, questions/answers) without Artyom being able to answer, the impression of controlling a mute spoils the whole immersion.