If I was an internet bloody sensation and had thousands of readers, sure I'd enjoy having such a large fanbase, but you know what would annoy me? Nitpicking at articles. Sooner or later, someone would tell me that this article I'm writing is just the same idea as my post about Erik Brudvig, just about different games. And how they expect more. And how I won't accept their Xbox Live friend invites, and how deep down I'm just a dumb Bad Company 2 fanboy. I think, for now, I'm very much satisfied with having five consistent readers who couldn't give a monkey's whether I wrote now or next year. Stay casual.
I was browsing ol' IGN the other day, checking out how the horror shooter Metro 2033 has turned out. I was interested in how they could make a good FPS out of a book and, apparently, it is damn fun and often has moments of artistic genius. However, that's only according to the players, as reviews for the game have named it 'passable'. Frankly I'm annoyed at this seeing as there are quite so many people calling for it be a 9 or 9.5 instead of a measly 6.9, and because from what I've seen in gameplay videos, it's a success. Nonetheless, I don't want to endlessly protest against a review just because it scored lower than perhaps deserved, but I must say I really didn't approve of the constant referrals to Fallout 3 that it is given from reviews, news posts and fans.
It seems that people have completely forgotten what Fallout 3 is. It's an RPG. An action RPG which has shooting in it. Not an FPS. I highly respect Metro 2033 whether it's fun or not as it is a shooter ported from a book, but I will not accept that it is a similar game to Fallout 3 entirely because it is post-apocalyptic.
First of all, Metro 2033 and all the Fallout games are aimed at getting across completely different messages. The Fallout series was even inspired by American movies like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog and features satire about American life and the American dream, whereas Metro 2033 was written by a Russian, set in Moscow, and was at heart a horror story. I'm not criticising it for 'not being deep enough', but these are clearly fundamental differences. You don't compare Call of Duty and Mirror's Edge because they both have guns in them. The games have utterly differing focuses.
Not to mention that Metro isn't even an RPG. Everything about Fallout 3 oozes RPG, in particular Oblivion, with just about everything having stats of its own and having the ability choose whatever missions you like whenever you like. Metro 2033 is a linear shooter, which again is not a bad thing because that's the genre of game it sits into. It was never meant to be like Fallout or any other RPG.
It's a shame that we can't release games now without us instantly trying to think of the last 1000 games that resemble it, and these games are usually blockbusters. The first thing that happened after Bad Company 2 started releasing info was that it got compared to Modern Warfare. There are plenty of other modern military shooters out there - including other Battlefield games which actually came out before CoD4 - that resemble BC2 far more, but no, of course every dev team with a decent game has to be accused of trying to be like the contemporary sales victors. I can't imagine dear old Dmitry Glukhovsky likes his book being said to be like a game which insults Russians more often than I've had hot meals.
