Metro 2033 = most underrated FPSOTY, Halo Reach = most overrated FPSOTY

[Mr Puggsly]

Doobie_wop said:

Sorry for the late reply, but most of the things you disliked about the game are things that I actually enjoyed. I enjoy a scripted atmospheric experience, with weird gun play and a lack of vehicular combat. After I finished Reach, I didn't feel anything, I enjoyed the game, but the story was rubbish, none of the characters had been played out very well (besides Jorge) and I never got the big invasion moments they were trying to push onto me. From a gameplay perspective, Reach is a much better game, but from a presentational perspective, it falls flat.

Like I said earlier, Metro 2033 is a rent. I wouldn't recommend that someone actually buys the game over a multi-player experience like Halo, but it doesn't stop it from being a better game (in my opinion) either. I want different things from my games, one delivered them more than the other.

Well the problem with the atmosphere of Metro 2033 is it gets really boring and it lacks the depth I was hoping. I couldn't really distinguish the levels, gunplay gets boring because enemies take tons of bullets to kill and they are ALWAYS jumping around, and there was very little memorable about the campaign. The final chapter was a blast, but I felt like I just labored to get there.

I'm also turned off that its a psychological thriller. Its like they crowbarred F.E.A.R. in there. I don't see why a nuclear explosion made ghosts and monsters that appearently fuck with your head nor did they bother to explain it. The story should be more Fallout and less F.E.A.R..

Metro 2033 was a solid game overall. It was worth the rental. But I prefered the Halo Reach campaign simply because the gameplay is superior.