Metro Exodus is a good first person (cdpr can learn)

+
Metro Exodus is a good first person (cdpr can learn)

1. Some immersive animations ( first person ) ---------> Wear a jacket, take things (fast), open the door... want to have an animation.

2. Interactive graphical options (very intuitive, good looking)



 
I think I tried one Metro, but it didnt exactly excite me, I suppose I gotta give it another shot one day, but Ive a feeling theres better options out there.
 
Meh, looks fairly boring...I'd be pretty disappointed if CDPR couldn't deliver better than that.
 
Looks ok, but 2077 gunplay is already better. I'm more interested here in survival aspect.

There is a game called Robo Recall that would be a better example ( it's in VR though): it's literally visual/audio effects porn .
Which is what every (good) FPS gameplay is really all about ( compared to Third Person action which highlight animations)

 
I completely agree, CDPR should especially pay attention to the animation quality and animation diversity that you have in Metro games, there's an animation for almost every interaction, which is one of the largest contributors to this games' reputation as one of the most immersive FPSs.
The UI of the game is so diegetic, that there's an option of playing through the games without any HUD, it's the best execution of such immersive UI and i applaud 4A games for sticking to it.

Once again, CDPR should pay great attention and take notes from Metro, if they want to improve on their immersion factor.
 
Why should C2077 copy from something which is not an RPG?

I don't think the OP is saying that Cyberpunk should ape Metro but rather expressing that the shooter aspects feel more refined in the Metro demo.

And: fair enough. But that brings us right back to the inherent differences in both games. Metro has a pre-defined character with very limited customization options, and the gameworld, while feeling expansive, is clearly smaller and very linear in terms of actual scope. (The "expansiveness" is an illusion created by using backdrops -- the vast majority of distant environments are just facades.)

That's not criticism of the game, just an observation of the difference in design, approach, and mechanics. Now, it's a matter of where the time and resources are spent. The fewer assets I have for the player character, the more detailed the geometry, textures, animations, etc. can be to execute that player character. If I start adding in the ability to customize, I'll need to either create all of those detailed assets for every possible combination of options, or I'll need to limit the details to things that can be universally shared between assets. It's a trade-off, because I'm certainly not going to have unlimited time and resources, and technology can only do so much.

And then there's the rest of the game to think about. Metro is not a massive, open-world, non-linear RPG.

So, 4A can spend time on precise finger animations while handling the 50 or so assets that the player will ever pick up or interact with. An RPG can't really develop the same level of fine detail for every potential character model interacting with the hundreds or thousands of assets a player may potentially interact with. (Not yet. :))
 
I love me some METRO but METRO gameplay features should stay exclusive to METRO. If CP2077 should learn anything regarding First Person, it should be from Deus Ex (especially Mankind Divided), Dishonored, PREY and other Immersive Sims. There isn't much NPC interaction, apart from Artyom spying on enemies talking about something or getting quests from minimal interaction NPCs hanging out at one of the very few hubs. That's why METRO games always make you feel like you're trapped in a dangerous world with its abandoned claustrophobic spaces and creepy subway tunnels. Even the FOV is optimally set to default around 50-60 to really make you feel the isolation, which is an issue for people with motion sickness. CP2077 is a sprawling open world with lots to look at. That itself makes copying METRO's camera angles and fps camera movement questionable for a game with tons of interactive NPCs and a huge City to explore.

I don't believe there will be much immersion gained from simulated reflex actions such as opening and closing doors, wiping your dope looking shades/gas mask, checking your watch etc, in an RPG like CP2077. Those things only immerse you if you're made to feel isolated/scared. The tension-filled atmosphere in METRO games is exclusive to those games and their emphasis on survival gameplay. I don't think we'll be feeling much of that in CP2077 even during the most intense gunfights. So examining the quality of items while picking up, or opening a door slowly to avoid making noise is not going to be of much use in CP2077 from what we've seen in the demo.

METRO is a great fps, the gunplay is solid and the recoil makes you feel every shot. CP2077 could take cues from that for their gunplay but there isn't much else to take note of. METRO is still an FPS game with linear gameplay/progression.
 
Based on the fact that the two games are very different in design I'm simply going to respond to the OP's specific listing of two main points. I'm assuming they're the things from Metro they'd like to see implemented most.

1. I remember the visible interactions in Metro to be very atmospheric, really helping you feel like you were examining the world around you, really using your items and equipment. I'm talking about seeing your hands on doors, picking things up, pulling on facemasks etc. As long as the animations don't take too long (2077 being a 50 hour+ action-RPG rather than a 12 hour long FPS) then I'm all for it. I mean it's not a top priority or anything but I think it'd add to the game. I liked Dying Light in this regard too. Given the character customisation we'll have though, I have no idea how difficult that would be.

2. Not sure what 'interactive graphical options' OP is referring to. They mention 'good looking' but Metro prizes itself on gorgeous environments/details and only has to make a linear map with the illusion of open space. I don't think the two games can be compared in this way. Besides, we've seen footage of CP2077 already so make of its graphics what you will. I doubt the final game is suddenly going to be the next Crysis when it hits our machines and I don't need it to be either. Looks great as it is.
 
Last edited:
Based on the fact that the two games are very different in design I'm simply going to respond to the OP's specific listing of two main points. I'm assuming they're the things from Metro they'd like to see implemented most.

1. I remember the visible interactions in Metro to be very atmospheric, really helping you feel like you were examining the world around you, really using your items and equipment. I'm talking about seeing your hands on doors, picking things up, pulling on facemasks etc. As long as the animations don't take too long (2077 being a 50 hour+ action-RPG rather than a 12 hour long FPS) then I'm all for it. I mean it's not a top priority or anything but I think it'd add to the game. I liked Dying Light in this regard too. Given the character customisation we'll have though, I have no idea how difficult that would be.

2. Not sure what 'interactive graphical options' OP is referring to. They mention 'good looking' but Metro prizes itself on gorgeous environments/details and only has to make a linear map with the illusion of open space. I don't think the two games can be compared in this way. Besides, we've seen footage of CP2077 already so make of its graphics what you will. I doubt the final game is suddenly going to be the next Crysis when it hits our machines and I don't need it to be either. Looks great as it is.
oh no. The game will look better graphically at release. Right now a shit ton of things look low res. it will look a lot better graphically at release. i expect the lighting to look better too
 
Top Bottom