How shit will it be?

how shit will it be?

Trailer looked great. LL was good. My bet is solid 8/10.

pretty shit, just like the others.

Just chiming in since I'm on the first game right now.
Am I missing something when it comes to gameplay? Feels like I'm playing Call of Duty but with mild resource management. The overall theme and aesthetic is nice I guess.

Are you playing the redux versions? Those are shit.

i honestly think both game would be much better if they toned down the ffects on your mask a little.

It was impossible to see where the fuck i was going most of the time with a damaged mask so i just powered trough everything on both games,for the exception of the librarian in the first one.

Don't act like gameplay on the original is any better.
They're all point & click brainead games. Only good thing about them is the atmosphere and graphics.

Yes I am playing the Redux version. What's the difference?

i just want to wipe my gasmask and check my watch
if both stay in the game then its good

redux has a better engine and contrarians don't like it

slav far cry. don't hope for new stalker. a4's favorite shooter genre is on-rail theme park. but not half-life - it's call of duty. it will be ok, but nothing groundbreaking.

I love reading novels. Should I skip the games and start the book series? Or are there enough difference between the games and the novels to get into both of the,?

>tfw it could have been stalker 2 but it's a mix of "linear and non linear levels"

The books are better than the games desu.
At least I enjoyed reading the books more.

Read the books and then play the games, it's great

This is probably a stupid question but is the narrative better? Or is it a character describing everything to the reader while he follows anyone that says "Artyom"?

The narrative is better. It's not all in first person, but it has first person narrative sections, mostly it's 3rd person narration, but it works better than the games.
I found the pace of the books better, the games always felt way too mystery. Overall I feel like the books paint a much better image of the world of Metro, much more bleak and depressing and with a much more human approach. In the games you don't really get much interaction with NPCs and with the world in general, the games are just linear FPS gameplay for the most part, the books are the opposite. Lots of dialogue and exposition too.

And let it be clear, I love both the games and the books, but I found the books to be more enjoyable overall. I read them at night in bed, it was really comfy.

The games always felt too short and action packed* I don't know how I deleted a good piece of my post. The books feel much more adequate to tell the story, the games feel like they're too short.
The books give a lot more information on the world without ruining the mystery, they just add lots of neat details. There's plenty of dialogue too, unlike the games.

well if you`re a slav its a pretty /comfy/ game solely based on the ambience
(and also if you set the language to russian )

Sounds like I'm picking up the books then
The game's story has been pretty boring so far
>Artyom! What do you think of X
>...

>Friendly character dies
>New character literally pops out of the ceiling, follow me
>"I FEEL LIKE I HAVE KNOWN NEW CHARACTER FOR SO LONG"

I know it's a video game but fuck me this is so uninteresting.

Yes, the way the books introduce characters is much much better. Remember that the games are adaptations of the book, not the reverse, so the games kind of take for granted the characters introductions in a way. The way Khan is introduced in the books is perfectly fine, while the way he's introduced in the games is just terrible.

Also the books don't only flesh out the story more than the games, the books tell more things in the story. Lots of bits from the book were simply not present in the games, for whatever reason. I feel like if the games had gotten more dev time and had been closer adaptations of the books with much longer story they would have been better. Or, they should have gone the opposite direction and instead of making a linear but bare bones adaptation of the book make a more open and exploration oriented game that allowed the player to explore the Metro in a way the books wouldn't allow. I think that's what the devs are going for with the new game, so I'm really looking forward to it, I hope we get tons of underground sections, because that's the best part about Metro.

Can't be worse than last light

What's so bad about it?

Didn't really evolve the gameplay, story was worse.

>make masks realistic
>"waaaaah i cant see through it"

Literally die

>Remember that the games are adaptations of the book, not the reverse,
The game's opening splash reminds us of this every time we boot it up, hard to miss. Then there's the million books and posters scattered across the game.
I've heard that the game devs were poor as fuck and ate ramen cups while sleeping under their desks during development so an open level/world design was probably too much along with hardware limitations (these settlements are tiny as fuck). Probably were just doing the best that they could.

I don't blame them for butchering the story since cramming in a narrative from a book into a game is basically impossible since you have to worry more about gameplay and fun.

Not as bad as Last Light I hope

I know, I'm just saying what I wish had happened, but thanks to the success of the two games they've released they've gotten enough funding to make the open world game, which I think is what Metro was destined to be, as meme tier open world games have gotten I think Metro has the potential to do it right.
Also if you haven't read the Metro book you'll probably be surprised at how thick the 2033 book is, it's a pretty hefty book so adapting that into a videogame was obviously going to require some concessions.

Better than LL, worse than 2033