mur'phon Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Metro 2033 I haven't wanted a FPS this bad since Bioshock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I admit, when I first saw it announced all I could think was "f***, not another one." After reading a few articles the game is starting to interest me. The use of bullets as currency is freaking brilliant if used well. Its one of the idea me and some friends had thought up when we were questing why Bottle Caps were currency in Fallout 3. I also like the concept of no HUD and everything being manual. I'm cautiously optimistic at the moment and give it like a 20% chance of being worth anything, but if they do it right it could definitely take the post apocalyptic idea to a worthwhile level. If it is at least better than Fallout 3 it'll be worth it. Although, it isn't very hard to make a better game than Bethesda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Now I know you've formerly lived in Russia and that you have an eye for great games Murph, so I'm going to take a look at this one. I did look at its announcement trailer back when it came out and it looked little more than a rehash of STALKER and Fallout 3. Looking at it now, it still looks mostly the same, but I like the harcore 90s-style design - hitting a button to check your wristwatch? I'm interested. Still, atmospherically, the game has little new. A post-apocalyptic Russia was already done quite well in STALKER that maintained a marvellous sense of bleakness. Perhaps the only way I'm surprised is that the game is a story-driven, linear experience and not open-ended as is the nature of these post-apocalyptic treats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 it actually sounds like it could be a lot of fun. hopefully, we'll see a PC version. if they do that, then count me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Post-apocalyptic: Now With Improved Apocalypse!!!! I laughed so hard when I saw this title!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Although, it isn't very hard to make a better game than Bethesda.Yeah, Fallout 3 isn't very good at all with all those game of the year awards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Yeah, Fallout 3 isn't very good at all with all those game of the year awards. Sorry, Ave, apparently you forgot Rule One: Quality Is Quantified In Awards, Not Assessed By A Critical Evaluation Of Merits. Its one of the idea me and some friends had thought up when we were questing why Bottle Caps were currency in Fallout 3. Being serious for a moment, bottle caps as currency goes back to FO1, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Yeah, Fallout 3 isn't very good at all with all those game of the year awards. Undeserved awards in my opinion. Bethesda once again proved that they can hold a game concept, but their development of a game turns out a monumental failure that has to be patched by the community in order to work properly. It passed as a "shooter", barely passed as an RPG, had one of the worst "stories" of the year (immersion and ending wise), and redeemed only by its entertaining free-roam aspect that was crippled... no, paralyzed by glitches and shoddy programming. The final cherry on top of this is that they dedicated the rest of their time to awful DLC. So yeah, it isn't very hard to make a game better than Bethesda considering Oblivion suffered the same problems. It really hits nearly any opened ended world, but I give it no props especially since it came out the same year as GTA4 that, while being a let down, still had a working city with much more going on than post-bomb Washington D.C. Sorry, Ave, apparently you forgot Rule One: Quality Is Quantified In Awards, Not Assessed By A Critical Evaluation Of Merits. Awards are nice, but I think a few of Fallout 3's awards are undeserved compared to the lineup of that year. I think some voters were tossing some votes to the underdog instead of handing more awards to the already drowning games like Metal Gear, GTA, Lich King, etc. Being serious for a moment, bottle caps as currency goes back to FO1, IIRC. Well, the Fallout series in general. Seems that in a broken, survival of the fittest type environment there would be little communication on what is and is not currency. Bottle Caps just seems like an odd choice overall. The idea of using bullets as currency makes a certain amount of sense as they would be a great bartering tool considering their uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The concept of using bottle caps as currency is rather ingenious, IMO. After all, who's going to have a multitude of bullets in their homes? Everyone drinks, so why not use something as universal and wide-spread as bottle caps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted December 5, 2009 Author Share Posted December 5, 2009 Because, especially in a post-apocalyptic world, you have no guarantee that others will accept it, bullets are more secure in that they'll always be worth something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The original idea of using bottle caps in Fallout was likely twofold. First, they would be a fairly plentiful resource that survived the war, being just rubbish pre-war and being fairly resistant to degradation (more so than paper money anyway). Second, bottlecaps have pretty much zero intrinsic value, and are therefore a non-precious resource. Metro's idea of using a limited resource that has a more important primary function as currency doesn't make a lot of sense to me, either from a realism standpoint or a game mechanic one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 The original idea of using bottle caps in Fallout was likely twofold. First, they would be a fairly plentiful resource that survived the war, being just rubbish pre-war and being fairly resistant to degradation (more so than paper money anyway). Second, bottlecaps have pretty much zero intrinsic value, and are therefore a non-precious resource. Metro's idea of using a limited resource that has a more important primary function as currency doesn't make a lot of sense to me, either from a realism standpoint or a game mechanic one.well, it does make a lot of sense to me. by definition, currency is nothing more than a medium of exchange so that value can be attached to something that isn't already a form of currency. the idea of paper money today is still a valid one since its a form of exchange, but it would be meaningless in a society that has no central monetary system (much less an actual government). that's why you used to see a lot of pure silver and pure gold coins: the value of the metal itself was such that you could even split the coins to use for trading purposes. (pieces of eight anyone??) in a society where you faced the prospect of dying the moment you walked outside, i can imagine that a tool used to protect yourself would be paramount for survival. as such, bartering with bullets makes a lot of sense. the more bullets you have, the better your odds will be to survive since you won't have to resort to hand-to-hand combat so quickly. as such, bullets are a valuable commodity, and if bullets are more common than precious metals, then it would make sense that you could attach the value of a gun or food in terms of bullets which would then make the bullets a medium of exchange. and, yes, i do think that bullets as currency makes more sense than bottlecaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I laughed so hard when I saw this title!! Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted March 14, 2010 Author Share Posted March 14, 2010 Gamesradar review While I'm scepticall of GR reviews, it seems like the game plays on it's strenghts, in adition to not compromising for the sake of consoles, which makes me one happy PC gamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I gave it a spin right now. It runs bearably good on my computer, though near-unplayable during combat. Guess that calls for a graphics card then. The engine is still spectacular, graphics looked terrific even at the lowest on 800x600, but that probably goes to say more about how they didn't lower the graphics enough for lower-end settings. :/ I like Russian atmosphere around which is honestly a lot more endearing than anything American. There's some of the old stuff here: a son draawing a picture of a house while his father promises him that his mother will come soon (hint: she won't). But there's some well-executed, tension-filled sequences and the characters have a sense of camaraderie and joviality that adds colour to the game. People hate the game's shooting, but I haven't seen much to complain about. If anything, guns don't seem to recoil much in your hand, even though your shots are wild enough. Combat is tense and unpredictable enough for a pseudo-horror game. All in all, it's got surprisingly AAA production values and is good as any good game, which doesn't say much, but I'm feeling uncreative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.