• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Metro: Last Light

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,080
1,218
126
Can't wait to play it and I don't have a shift tomorrow so I'll get to play tonight :thumbsup:

I think the Ranger mode DLC business is garbage as well. I may end up getting it though. I only paid $20 for the game by buying one of the nvidia promo codes from somebody over a BS/T forum.
 

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,718
437
126
Can't wait to play it and I don't have a shift tomorrow so I'll get to play tonight :thumbsup:

I think the Ranger mode DLC business is garbage as well. I may end up getting it though. I only paid $20 for the game by buying one of the nvidia promo codes from somebody over a BS/T forum.
Just so you know, in the past the nvidia codes have not counted as a preorder. So if you're expecting Ranger mode I would be surprised if it counted.

This ranger mode thing is a pretty BS move too. Even though I'd never use it I'll be avoiding this one for a long time. I didn't really care for the first one though so they probably didn't lose a full price scale anyway.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,848
280
126
Can't wait to play it and I don't have a shift tomorrow so I'll get to play tonight :thumbsup:

I think the Ranger mode DLC business is garbage as well. I may end up getting it though. I only paid $20 for the game by buying one of the nvidia promo codes from somebody over a BS/T forum.
For $20 I'd say that's worth it. I'll buy it for that price.

Some reviews are up:

IGN (7.2): http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/13/metro-last-light-review

Gamespot (9.0): http://www.gamespot.com/metro-last-light/reviews/metro-last-light-review-6408240/?tag=Topslot;Slot1

I bought the first game for $6 but wasn't a big fan. I'll pass until it's ultra cheap.
Of these reviews (I have read both), the IGN review seems to be more true. What I mean is that Gamespot seems to forgive sloppy gameplay, bad AI etc because of the story. Most of the review is focused on the story elements and suspense etc. However, why should you have to suffer through poor game design just because of the story? IGN basically says the game is hindered by the poor AI and story that seemingly goes from great to "meh". After reading the both reviews I don't know why gamespot decided on a 9. Seriously...9 is kind of reserved for truely awesome games that have very few flaws. I think 7.5 is more than good, not every game needs to have a 9.

Having not played it obviously I can't say for myself, but what I gathered out of these reviews is that Gamespot's reviewer went into it as a giddy fanboy and ignored the gameplay entirely while also ignoring some of the flaws in the story pointed out by IGN. IGN went into it as a gamer, yeah story matters but you gotta tighten up some things to make it a true classic.
 
Last edited:

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,080
1,218
126
Just so you know, in the past the nvidia codes have not counted as a preorder. So if you're expecting Ranger mode I would be surprised if it counted.

This ranger mode thing is a pretty BS move too. Even though I'd never use it I'll be avoiding this one for a long time. I didn't really care for the first one though so they probably didn't lose a full price scale anyway.
I meant I might spring for the $5 DLC if I feel like I want to play the game in that mode. The nvidia promo code gives you the base game, no preorder bonuses. I already have it added in Steam and none of those bonuses are available.. I think. I guess it might be there, will have to wait and see.
 

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
How could they possible use the same locked down video options as the first game? I literally can't even begin to understand this. Then holding a difficulty level as DLC on top of it? Honestly? Fuck them.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,848
280
126
How could they possible use the same locked down video options as the first game? I literally can't even begin to understand this. Then holding a difficulty level as DLC on top of it? Honestly? Fuck them.
I'd say cause of consoles, why the FOV is how it is.

I could understand if there was a certain atmosphere that was achieved with a specific FOV but in this case? No.
 

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
I'd say cause of consoles, why the FOV is how it is.

I could understand if there was a certain atmosphere that was achieved with a specific FOV but in this case? No.
The lack of FOV options stink, but having these silly "low, medium" presets that control nearly everything in the video settings is just as bad for a game like this.

Of course it's the DLC that makes me resent them. I can't believe the utterly disgusting state the industry is in right now.
 

Dankk

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2008
5,558
25
91
Bummer. You'd think after all the complaints about the extremely narrow FOV in Metro 2033, they'd implement an option to change it in Last Light. Apparently not.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,003
637
126
Of these reviews (I have read both), the IGN review seems to be more true. What I mean is that Gamespot seems to forgive sloppy gameplay, bad AI etc because of the story. Most of the review is focused on the story elements and suspense etc. However, why should you have to suffer through poor game design just because of the story? IGN basically says the game is hindered by the poor AI and story that seemingly goes from great to "meh". After reading the both reviews I don't know why gamespot decided on a 9. Seriously...9 is kind of reserved for truely awesome games that have very few flaws. I think 7.5 is more than good, not every game needs to have a 9.
I wonder if it's really the same situation as Bioshock Infinite where people were able to sort of forgive some of the poor gameplay because the story was engrossing enough.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,848
280
126
I wonder if it's really the same situation as Bioshock Infinite where people were able to sort of forgive some of the poor gameplay because the story was engrossing enough.
Maybe but reading them in detail I find the IGN review held them accountable for the problems that make the game play suffer slightly. It's reasonable to knock off some points for bad AI that makes doing stealth too simple and boring, or the story that misses on an area (political ties) that would be very interesting to dive into. In contrast to the review on gamespot where the whole thing felt as if someone was so enamored with the first game they have a more fairy tale view of the sequel. Granted it's just opinion, but I tend to find IGN a little more believable here as they actually seem to point out the inconsistencies.

In the case of Bioshock infinite, the game isn't as linear and the story much more thought provoking. I'm not saying IGN is right, as it's opinion. I am saying that they seem to be more realistic in their view of it.
 
Last edited:

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,718
437
126
I'd say cause of consoles, why the FOV is how it is.

I could understand if there was a certain atmosphere that was achieved with a specific FOV but in this case? No.
No, that excuse is bullsh... no it's even worse... it's WHALE SHIT! Blaming consoles for locking things down like this is completely asinine when we have plenty of PC games (that also exist on consoles) that have much more flexibility in video settings. I can't think of a more simplistic port than Call of Duty, and even there they at least let me change the FOV up to 90. Quit blaming consoles for what is obviously the fault of certain developers. I'm sick and tired of every PC gamer crying "consolitis!" if there's anything wrong with a PC game when there's games that prove you can do the PC side correctly AND make it on consoles.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,848
280
126
No, that excuse is bullsh... no it's even worse... it's WHALE SHIT! Blaming consoles for locking things down like this is completely asinine when we have plenty of PC games (that also exist on consoles) that have much more flexibility in video settings. I can't think of a more simplistic port than Call of Duty, and even there they at least let me change the FOV up to 90. Quit blaming consoles for what is obviously the fault of certain developers. I'm sick and tired of every PC gamer crying "consolitis!" if there's anything wrong with a PC game when there's games that prove you can do the PC side correctly AND make it on consoles.
And yet you have yet to prove it ISN'T the reason. So you're calling it bullshit is in itself...bullshit.

Here's one fact. Consoles have made developers fucking lazy on the PC.

CoD is geared toward being a competitive game so they know FOV on PC is a must. Lazy port yes but they understand the point of their title.
 
Last edited:

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,204
287
126
Pre-loaded and the game is only slightly bigger than Metro 2033 at around 7.6GB, so time to low quality textures and console graphics with typical Stalker-level optimizations!
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,003
637
126
Maybe but reading them in detail I find the IGN review held them accountable for the problems that make the game play suffer slightly. It's reasonable to knock off some points for bad AI that makes doing stealth too simple and boring, or the story that misses on an area (political ties) that would be very interesting to dive into. In contrast to the review on gamespot where the whole thing felt as if someone was so enamored with the first game they have a more fairy tale view of the sequel. Granted it's just opinion, but I tend to find IGN a little more believable here as they actually seem to point out the inconsistencies.

In the case of Bioshock infinite, the game isn't as linear and the story much more thought provoking. I'm not saying IGN is right, as it's opinion. I am saying that they seem to be more realistic in their view of it.
I haven't read the two reviews, but from what you've said, I'd probably agree that IGN provided a better review overall. However, I always try to stress to people that it's important to look at why they praised or panned something. For example, if you know you care more about the story and IGN's main complaints are some gameplay annoyances, then you might not care.

... not that I'm directing that at anyone in particular.
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,591
968
126
I finally finished playing through Metro 2033 a couple months ago. Looking forward to playing Last Light. Hope the game plays better than 2033. Even with the system in my sig, the game would still dip below 60 fps. Sometimes for no apparent reason.
 

WiseUp216

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2012
2,251
50
101
The whole package is much more polished than 2033, which I never finished.

I don't know how many frames I'm getting but it is running smooth and playable for me with everything set to max with AA off.

Looks pretty good, too:



I have advanced PhysX on but haven't seen enough action yet to know how much of a hit I'll take performance wise.
 

CrystalBay

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2002
2,175
1
0
Well , I'm about 4 hours in. The combat and stealth is definitely very fun. I find the menu selections for weapons /grenades awfully wonky though and it pissing me off.:confused: help. Do I have to drop a weapon to equip grenades ?

However FOV is fine for me.
 
Last edited:

litwicki22

Senior member
Sep 13, 2012
340
0
0
OK guys. What details and which tesselation can be used with Gtx 680? With good fps of course. Can be V.HIGH with PHYSX ON without AA?
 

lilrayray69

Senior member
Apr 4, 2013
501
1
76
The game features plenty of shadow-flickering and problems with the lighting. Hooray! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMTJp_p2NLQ

This game is unplayable for me until they fix it.
I'm getting this problem too. The game also is generally running poorly. Some textures drastically kill performance. I'll be looking at a wall getting 60, then turn to look at door and it drops to 17.

The fog effect also looked awful, there was just like a patch of it on the ground that's motion was very jittery.

Tesselation, even on normal, also hurt performance significantly. It's too bad you can't change individual options - just High, Very High, etc...I'm trying on High, no AA, no physx, no tesselation, as I played Metro 2033 on Very High DX11 but it's not very playable.

Could do that config change to DX9 but rather not...

Also find it odd it's not even using 1GB of VRAM but still running so badly

EDIT: Found this article: http://www.gamefront.com/metro-last-light-performance-tweaking-guide/
using the settings it recommended: Very High, Tesselation Normal, 1080p, Motion Blur Normal, SSAO off, and AF 16x it now actually runs much better and looks much better. There are still occasionally lighting glitches but they are quite minor compared to before. Strange thing was I ran the benchmark that came with the game and on the same settings as before it ran fine...not sure what's up with that. Anyway, got it working pretty well and now the games much more enjoyable. So if you're having similar issues try changing settings - even upping them.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY