Soldato
Of course it's going to be linear.
Metro 2034
- Thread starter opethdisciple
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,269
There has only been one so far, and tbh, I don't think you have missed much. Pick it up in a sale and you can run through it in a day.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,269
+1
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,824
The "Competing with COD" comment is very concerning indeed 
Soldato
The "Competing with COD" comment is very concerning indeed
Why?
Just last 2 or 3 COD games have, in my opinion, some of the best linear single player stories I've ever seen in an FPS game, if they want to compete with that good on them, I can't wait to see what they come up with.
Seriously people we really need to get over this "OMG CONSOLE PORT! COD IS SILLY BABY GAME! NOTHING POPULAR IS GOOD BLAH BLAH BLAH", it's getting pathetic.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,824
Because I disagree with everything you have just said and I dont want to play an ancient engined game on a system that I pay a lot of money for if I did I would just buy an ancient console, I want another 2033 with improvements and I think 99% of PC gamers will want the same
Soldato
What does anything I just said have to do with the game engine? What does anything anyone has ever said about 2034 have to do with the game engine?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,824
What a pointless argument I have no time for your BS
Out of interest, are the last 2 or 3 CoD games the only games you have ever played? If the answer is no, you're an idiot. Modern Warfare story was nothing special but done extremely well with some very memorable moments. Modern Warfare 2 i can't comment directly but wasn't it just MW rehashed? Black Ops was the most ridiculous macho-american bull**** ever. The only good part about it was the 'twist', other than that it was ridiculous and barely even made sense with the constant flashbacks to random times.
Soldato
Very mature of you, run out of arguments so you insult people and refuse to continue the discussion, well done.
However, to continue from my previous point, I would like to know what exactly you mean by the game engine, do you mean the graphics? The physics? Animation? Performance? I mean the COD series hardly pushed any graphical boundaries but I would say they look "bad", 2033 was already ahead of them so it's not like they would go backwards, now coming to the physics 2033 unfortunately was on the back foot, the shooting mechanics were pretty bad, most enemies were hopeless bullet sponges and some weapons did bugger all. Performance wise again Metro takes a hit here partly due to the fact it was so early to the DX11 party, it made most reasonable systems chug and still does, it also suffered from framerate issues and crashes early on, something AAA titles like CoD don't due to the fact they have more money to concentrate on those areas.
So please, tell me exactly what you mean by what you said, I am genuinely interested in knowing.
Actually I've only played MW 1 and 2 from the COD series and no of course they are not the only games I've played don't be presumptuous. I thought both were incredibly well made and the stories were very well executed, I agree completely that they were rather simplistic and very standard "war" stories, however as you say yourself, they were done extremely well with many memorable moments, neither of which could be a bad thing right?
My point is that people claiming them wanting to compete with cod is somehow a bad thing can't seem to point out why in any coherent way.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
Guys, please keep the discussion friendly, heated is fine, but don't cross the line please. 
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,824
How that is an insult i'll never know, plus your argument is quite poor
COD is at the forefront of consoles ruining PC gaming, Metro 2033 was multiplatform with a fantastic PC version that took advantage of hardware and then some, exactly what recent COD titles do NOT do. Even the mention of a comparison to COD in 2034 is worrying, you decided to take offence at my comment for whatever beyond strange reason you have when the simple fact is, no one wants a COD 2034, they want a sequel to 2033 with everything that was great about 2033 and more
COD is at the forefront of consoles ruining PC gaming, Metro 2033 was multiplatform with a fantastic PC version that took advantage of hardware and then some, exactly what recent COD titles do NOT do. Even the mention of a comparison to COD in 2034 is worrying, you decided to take offence at my comment for whatever beyond strange reason you have when the simple fact is, no one wants a COD 2034, they want a sequel to 2033 with everything that was great about 2033 and more
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
"no time for your..." isn't friendly, or a well thought out point.
If you disagree with him strongly, fine, I respect that not everyone can agree, and that's the point of a forum. But please at least show each other a little respect.
If you disagree with him strongly, fine, I respect that not everyone can agree, and that's the point of a forum. But please at least show each other a little respect.
Soldato
You still aren't answering my question, is all you care about graphics? I mean you talk about taking advantage of hardware and yes 2033 looked great but is that the only thing you use to judge a game? If it doesn't look good is it somehow a lazy console port? That just doesn't cut it. Please, just answer this question, WHY is CoD bad, what about it makes it so inferior to 2033 and why is comparing them such a taboo to you? I am talking purely singe player here, I don't mean things like setting or story, those are vastly different, I mean things like mechanics, execution and gameplay.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,824
"no time for your..." isn't friendly, or a well thought out point.
If you disagree with him strongly, fine, I respect that not everyone can agree, and that's the point of a forum. But please at least show each other a little respect.
Because its obvious that he's looking to argue using a shoddy argument and i'm at work so I literally dont have time
Oh come on, if I didnt care about graphics I would own a console, i've already said I put a lot of money into my PC. COD is bad for the reasons you have read time and again from other users and what I have already said, i'm not repeating myself because you cant understand my point for the sake of wanting to argue on the internets but in a nut shell its an ancient engine that runs on ancient hardware thats been rinsed over and over again to the point that I didnt buy the last one and never intend to
Soldato
Ok I'm done, you aren't answering my questions, you are repeating the same old rhetoric and making yourself out to care only about graphics so you can justify your investment in a powerful PC, you obviously don't want to have a discussion about this so I won't continue, I am genuinely interested in this topic and will leave it open to anyone else willing to discuss it with me,
No i said Modern Warfare was extremely well done with memorable moments. WaW went under the radar as far as CoD is concerned, MW2 was there first blatant cash cow release. Nothing was memorable because everything that WAS memorable was rehashed from MW. Black Ops is the latest CoD and it was 1 of the most farcicle storylines ever.
Wanting to compete with CoD is a moronic thing for any dev to say, especially when your game has NOTHING in common with the style of CoD. As someone said earlier, its like claiming the next Civ game is aimed to compete with C&C. They have absolutely nothing in common. What exactly is that statement even supposed to mean? Understandable if people are concerned they might mean "We want to water down the game for the lowest common denominator".