Peter said:
Gunplay is shit, though. Half of the time I can't tell if I'm even hitting anything.
Accuracy doesn't depend only on you but also your weapon. You may have not noticed but the game takes place in a post-apocalyptic world and most weapons are made from parts scavenged on other weapons. Some of the guns are very accurate, typically with a lower rate of fire, and some simply aren't. It takes some time to get used to but given the setting it is much better than having weapons perform perfectly well in all conditions. Takes some time getting used to but it's one of the details that give personality to the game.
Peter said:
The mutant enemies don't react to bullets at all, it seems.
They die at some point :D More seriously I've seen some of the mutants, like the small scavenger, retreat when I managed to hurt them and came back later. No limping or something like that as far as I can remember, but then again I had a tendency to drop them down fast.
Peter said:
Stealth is pretty badly implemented too, or maybe I just suck at it. There's no margin for error here at all. Maybe if the levels weren't so tiny, stealthing around would be a more realistic proposition. Or, again, maybe I just suck.
Stealth isn't as bad as you describe it. It's not Thief but it takes a bit of inspiration from it and is much better than the forced stealth sections of many FPS, and makes for a nice alternative to shooting stuff. First, stealth works best on humans because mutants will almost invariably detect you — makes sense — though an exception to that are the sleeping mutants in some levels. Second, there is some margin for error but you need to be aware of how easy to detect you are. You can check that easily by looking at your watch: one of the three lights will be lit and tell you if you are well-hidden (green), partially hidden and thus detectable (yellow), or easy to see (red) — the stealth suit, that you may purchase in Armory, will help you hide better and even allows you to reach the invisible (no light) state. Of course an enemy will instantly detect you if he stumbles upon you, independant on your detection level. Third, enemies will also react to noise and stealth levels often have noise traps, like hanging cans or broken glass. Dropping an enemy close to another one, even in a stealthy way, will still alert another. Be aware that weapons that need to be pumped, like the tihar or the volt driver, will cause a noise when overcharged which may also get you detected by someone close. The stealth suit here again allow you to move at normal speed, not sprinting, without alerting anyone. And last but not least: once detected, everyone on the level will know of your presence and will be able to see you. It's a bit of a weak point because they can pretty much see where you are everytime from that point, while it would have been better to give them a permanent start of alarm but still allow you to get some element of surprise, but so be it. If anything it's an incentive to be even more careful when using stealth.
You're right when you say that it's hard to stealth in a narrow corridor but even then there are possibilities to do it, like learn the path a patrol takes or some items that may conceal you. Also if you prefer bigger, wait until you get to the Frontline level.
Peter said:
At 10 Euros, it's a pretty nice purchase. Nowhere near as good as STALKER, though.
What I do not really get is why people insist to compare this game to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Yes, there are some points where they can be compared — they are both FPS set in an Eastern European post-apocalyptic setting, with mutants and anomalies, and it seems that 4A Games people previously worked on SoC — but they have also important design differences — S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is mainly free-roaming and lets you pick several missions to complete around the world, some to advance the plot and other to befriend a faction and/or receive a material reward, but Metro 2033 takes a more linear approach to level design with no side-missions though levels typically have nooks and crannies which you can chose to explore; ballistics in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. are realistic and uses a modern and sometimes slightly futuristic arsenal while Metro 2033 deals with makeshift weapons that aren't on par with modern weaponry and isn't even supposed to be; S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s story is rather loose and lets you deal with it on your own terms but Metro 2033 is very story-driven, which also explains its linear structure — Artyom's mission is urgent and emotionaly important to him.
I don't mind comparisons to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. but in all fairness both games attempt to achieve something different and so it depends exactly on what you attempt to compare. If we take the genre and overall design direction, Metro 2033 is much closer to Half-Life 2 and Bioshock, and much better than both of them.