I know I know 2 different games but still I found it not as interesting as STALKER. Mind you guys I played this game on survival and hardmode gameplay and I played this game with characters speaking in Russian and the Music turned off for enhanced realism. (This is Russia, people should be speaking Russian)

Pros:

1. Graphics are great of course.
2. Scary moments were good.
3, Stealthy moments were surprisingly stealthy almost Thief/Splinter Cell level of stealth.
4. I find the outdoor levels better then the tunnel levels of the metros.
5. Gunplay feels meaty.

Cons:

1. Only character that I remember is Khan and Pavel and the girl I bang. Speaking of that girl the romance came out of nowhere I only met her like 2 times after long intervels. Forced romance is forced.

2. I know its unfair to say but I found the Mutants in STALKER to be more interesting then the Mutants here. STALKER had more realistice looking animals and scarier humanoid mutants especially those with Psychic powers. Here its just bland looking savage monsters including a litiral looking Demon how does Mutation make something look like that? And the Dark Ones are just generic lookng Greys (The typical looking alien people think of) I will admit I found the roars and sound effects they make is scary. I liked the Watchman mutant.

3.This game could have been so much better if it was non linear like exploring the subways of Russia on your own train cart for survival and unraveling the bigger plot.


Thats my thoughts on Metro games. Personally though I find Metro Last Light better then 2033.

Also Playing this game made me realize how overrated The Last of Us is gameplay wise. I felt like I played the same game. I just find Metro better because its in First Person.

And to anyone who has it I suggest you turn off the music and have the characters speak in Russian while the subtitles are of your preferred language. It really feels more realistic and the lack of music enhances the scary moments.

Thank you for this review. I have been following both the metro and the stalker series and they are both on my wishlist, so information like this is helpful to me.

Metro is just a shooter, while STALKER is... STALKER. I love them both, but for very different reasons.

btw: Read Metro 2033! The book will make you a bit sad, because you'll realize the missed opportunities of the game ;)

Bump?

Well yes, STALKER games are far more unique and individual than Metro games. Then again, Metro, especially 2033, is much more challenging, and exists for players looking to get their ass kicked repeatedly by the game, so it has its own merits.

I found Metro Last Light harder on Survivor mode.

And these 2 moments, The shootout against Pavel and the Bear.

Did both on the first try playing Ranger Hardcore :-P Did you play redux version on 2033 or the original? Supposedly, the original is tougher.

I have Redux. But I played on Survival mode (which supposedly brought back the old diffiiculty) but it did have regen health albiet slowly so having the health shots would not be worthless. Also is there anyway to check how much ammo you have on ranger difficulty?

S:CoP + Misery Mod v2.1.1 = Difficult to compare except an extremely modified Fallout 3.

But then CoP wins just because of how well you can fight in it.

I'm guessing Metro is just a taste of the a fore mentioned titles. Guess it doesn't make my want list after all. Thanks for the info mate =)

Actually, shooting feels a lot better in Metro than in STALKER games, and if you're a fan of post-apocalyptic shooters, a game being worse than STALKER doesn't mean much - STALKER is top of its genre. Doesn't mean Metro is not absolutely phenomenal. Well, kind of - buy weapons with clearly visible magazines, like the gun which has it on top. When you reload and your mag is full, you have spare ammo, when it's not, you don't - you can then check ammo by looking at mag. This is a lot easier in basic Metro 2033 which has actually been designed with this feature in mind, magazines of all weapons quite clearly visible.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is one of the best franchises of the past decade to be certain. And while Metro is really cool I would definitely agree that it is the less good of the two. However, they are almost too different to compare, save the post-nuclear disaster story that is. Metro is far more action based and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is more about exploration. Every single S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game had at least one moment where I just stared at how pretty the environments were, contrast to other games like Skyrim where I never once felt the need to stop and stare at anything, but that's another matter. In Metro just for instance the environments are all kinda bland and uninteresting, of course given its setting they have to be.

Feel free to gift it to me ;D

But I think I shall pass on it for personal buying. I think I'm far to gone to the extreme side of survival sims. I'm currently playing Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead for my fix. Doesn't get much better if you can stomach the bad controls and low graphics....but tis free so....can't complain....much XD

^ Exactly! I second that! It enhances the immersion greatly!

They are two very different games though...

I left some impressions and [url=http://www.gog.com/forum/general/release_metro_last_light_redux_cc473/post86]here.

Basically, I agree. Stalkers are better IMO. I just like the open-world gameplay more, and I don't miss the 'mash the enter key; QTE's.

For the type of game that Metro is, it's pretty good.

But I felt that way too about Bioshock - and for whatever reason I ended up abandoning it - not sure if I was bored with it, or tired of the corridor set-piece layout, or maybe this so-called 'AAA' stuff (with it's many QTE's, one-way doors, and contrived situations) just isn't really my cup of tea. Hopefully that won't also happen with Metro - but I have already seemed to put it aside to play Invisible Inc, which seems to be drawing me in more ATM.