The Metro series, books and games, are perhaps one of the most idiosyncratic franchises out there that offer vastly different experiences based on the medium you experience. Contrasts exist outside the innate differences between the original as a psychological novel and the survival horror inspired game cowritten by the author himself. The familiarity and the unorthodoxy of the gunplay and the first-person mechanics compared to other FPSs, the emphasis on storytelling and world-building to make linear games appear far bigger than they truly are, and the unmistakable commitment to make a game built on player immersion by taking away accessibility options—these elements are the cornerstones of Metro, and like how threadbare is the line between immersion and the absurd how susceptible you are to accept its world is the largest factor between players who truly appreciate it and players who find the disconnect too detracting from what the game strives to be.
There are some players who will never see this appeal, bemoaning minor faults such as the “linear is awful” mentality when, overall, there is a larger focus on choice in Metro 2033 (Redux or Original) than initial appearances. If, however, you can suspend your disbelief and experience the game the way it was intended to be played, then Metro 2033 will set a new standard for what level of detail it takes to create an atmosphere where players become hyperaware to all the sights and the sounds needed to survive. To describe the matter another way, if game design allowed for the sense of smell, touch or taste, you can be damn sure Metro will be the first to integrate that level of detail because every facet of its design is built on fooling the mind into believing this world is real.
Becoming a Ranger, the Path of the Übermensch Player
In the modern era of “Play it Your Way!™”, it may seem paradoxical to state there is an intended manner to experience games when this truth has always been the case. There is a right or a wrong way to play as systems apply punitive measures to correct bad behavior either with taking damage, suffering loss of resources, people or score, or coming to the inevitable game-over screen. Strategies, builds, or ratings are player-created feedback that drives players to become more adept at something in order to achieve what is deemed by the game as success. Ranger Mode, however, is a different type of intended experience because it doesn’t change the core gameplay to a significant degree—what it does alter is how you experience and how you interact with the same mechanics.
Besides more realistic damage values as well as the amount of ammo and filters you find, Ranger Mode is simply the removal of the HUD as much as possible that obscured far more important details as the result of sensory deprivation. (The differences between Survival Ranger Mode for Redux and the original’s Ranger Mode are so minuscule like time for animations that only the most hardcore audiences will spot the differences save for reworked gameplay.) First-person horror games like Amnesia are known to draw players into the world through removing as many obstructions to their immersion; Metro employs a similar illusion but with more gameplay variety with differing emphasis on the tools you use. In normal mode, there is no reason not to grab the best weapons—there aren’t really any stat advantages, only personal preferences—whereas swapping guns in Ranger Mode comes with more caveats.
For example, the Bastard Gun has a visible magazine whereas other guns require knowing how many shots you have and checking the small sight of your magazine; Red Dot and Stock attachments help when you aim without a crosshair; silencers are always useful, yes, but they come at the cost of accuracy, which is a far greater concern without a reticle and lower rations. These aspects are only about the weapon choices you make. In addition, sound cues like your knife sheathing when ready to stab/knock someone out and the sounds when your flashlight/filter timers are low are aspects you may not notice until your attention is taken away from the UI. Enemy barks, footsteps, environmental details like lighting, sound or visual clues for predicting ambushes all make players pay more attention to the world than their UI. As a result of taking away these the information given to help players, people will play smarter when forced to notice these details, especially when it comes to understanding the character you play as, Artyom.
Reasonable Men Adapt to the World; the Unreasonable Persist Changing the World to Themselves
When it comes to understanding why Artyom is presented as a voice-protagonist between loading screens and silent while the player is in control requires understanding his role in the novel and the game. Artyom is a young-adult who briefly experienced the old world before being thrust into the horrors of the new, and his age plays a considerable role. In the novel, he is often portrayed as an idealist who thinks first before he shoots at shadows and who stumbles into social blunders like offering charity to an unkempt woman who says he needs to give her more for a lay. In the game, his character is mainly defined by how the player controls Artyom and what choices he makes when given an opportunity to exercise violence or restraint.
These portrayals are not in conflict with one another because the game employs a karma system, which doesn’t explicitly punish players who choose to deviate when forced to, yet it does establish what type of character Artyom is meant to be.
Before DOOM (2016) made popular that you could give character to a silent protagonist through his or her animations, Artyom was a major attempt to achieve the same goal after the Freeman craze. His self-pumping flashlight; his distinct animations such as checking his watch or his ammunition; his breathing and gasping for air when wearing a gas-mask; and his constant tumbling from one bad situation into the next are all slightly characterized of Artyom from the novel. As a first attempt, the portrayal of an idealistic young man who remains quiet out of necessity when thrown into the world of political, religious and sometimes philosophical struggles is portrayed exceptionally well in-game. (It’s a shame they couldn’t employ the child cannibalistic Worm God tribe from the book thanks to the ESRB.) Some characters are revised to fit the game such as Bourbon and Artyom’s relationship with Hunter—the whole D6/Ranger plotline is completely different—yet it retains the same framework from the novel which sets up a young boy seeking redemption not only for himself but for mankind.
This topic leads into the more contestable elements of the game, the endings. As someone who often abides being morally righteous out of habit, the extermination ending being canonical always perplexed me until reading the novel. To achieve the moral ending is nearly impossible unless you have mastered the game so well you can avoid killing ANY human, find all the hidden karma points, trade all your extra bullets for charity, etc. to get a good score. In a sense of the book and novel, both endings played out where Artyom commits the atrocity while also realizing the epiphany that the Dark Ones were attempting to communicate with men. Like the player who is constantly trying to obtain the best outcome in a state of limbo, Artyom is stricken with nightmares in Last Light as his decision haunts him to the start of the sequels.
The lesson is quite clear and fitting for a game where you are put into the role of an idealist: Ideals can be great as a foundation but if you hold them to reality you’re bound to hurt yourself, and that truth can be said for the gameplay as certain sections will press you to the point of forgoing them. Keeping ahold of them even when there is always an easier alternative—that is the real value behind a moral, and why many men, even Artyom, are doomed to only dream of an alternative course of history.
Classic, Redux, It’s All Good Times Spent with Me, My Shadow and I
Although there was little time spent detailing other major differences between each release, my nostalgia may be biased when I suggest both versions are worth playing. There are changes between each version that make each game better or worse depending on your preferences; stealth in the original was largely broken by how difficult it could be, yet the Redux took away the choice to buy armor with all the military grade ammo you could afford based on your preferences. The original may also suffer from balance issues with the enemies, yet the easier gameplay from Last Light made stealth almost too simple. In addition, many AI for enemies taken from Last Light like the Watchman and the Scorpion-spiders simply do not work with the original level-design of 2033, making them either too infuriating if spotted or too easy. Neither one of these games are perfect on their own, and had THQ not tightened their deadlines and liberties for the full novel experience, both games share what is undoubtedly one of the most polished immersive games out there to rival the most open of worlds.
Comments