@oldmanwade said:
@Sushiglutton: I actually found Far Cry3's mechanics to be more interesting, but that maybe because I liked the stealth a lot. What did you think about Metro's mechanics? I haven't gotten to play it.
I was mainly thinking of the action gameplay of FarCry 3 as I think it's hard to compare stealth as that is a different genre pretty much. Overall I can see why someone would enjoy FarCry 3 more.
As for Metro it's a fairly standard FPS with a couple of tweaks. Like in Farcry there's a seamless blend of stealth and action, but the stealth mechanics are much weaker. However Metro has a couple of survival elements that are pretty cool. Your flashlight needs to be recharged frequently and since you use it to blind some enemies it can get pretty intense. You also wear a gasmask that sometimes get covered in blood and spiders (lol) and you need to wipe it off to see clear. It doesn't sound like much, but it's a pretty cool idea.
Both are very solid games with good narrative and cool art direction imo, well worth a playthrough!
@Black_Knight_00 said:
It's not a bad game, but it's one of those games that doesn't use analog sticks properly, resulting in less precise turning and often having to adjust your aim after overshooting or undershooting your target. That's my technical complaint.
From a design standpoint it's incredibly repetitive, with few enemy types moved by a barely competent AI, redundant weapons and lackluster plasmids (or vigors) that you'll never use. There's only one boss in the whole campaign and aside from being horrible it's repeated thrice in the span of 20 minutes. The whole game is too long, padded with pointless mandatory fetch quests repeated multiple times with a texture swap excused with the dimensional mumbo jumbo. All of it dotted with overly long gunfights with too many enemy respawns.
On a personal note, the excessive gore was an unnecessary and childish crowdpleaser.
I have complaints about story and characters as well, but since we are discussing gameplay....
Played on PC, so can't comment on the stick issue.
I don't think there are that few enemy types. There are normal soldiers, armored rocket troops, snipers, washington robots, firemen, handymen and the ghost ones (from the top of my head). It's not that many, but few shooters have that many more. I agree that there are far too many weapons though making upgrading them kind of pointless. I also think that inly the "heavy" ones (hand cannon, sniper, shotgun) are fun to shoot. Machine guns and the various RPGs etc all feel too light.
I thought most vigors had their uses, even though you obviously didn't have to use them all to progress. It's a tough balance for the designers. If they make all vigors essential than there is less freedom for the player. Bioshock has traditionally been about letting the player choose his own style, meaning you can pick the plasmids/vigors you like and ignore the rest. BS:I is no different.
If you think there are too many/long gunfights or not I suppose has to do with if you enjoy them or not. Since I did, it wasn't really an issue for me.
Log in to comment