As a sequel, Metro: Last Light is undeniably a fascinating one. It's certainly more polished than 2033, while delivering some subtle improvements and modifications to the stealth-horror-action formula. It's absolutely gorgeous, maintaining the combination of creepiness and poignance through its environments, atmosphere and lighting. And it further expands the world of Metro with striking moments and world-building.

At the same time, in the three years since 4A Games unleashed Metro 2033 upon the world, I feel like they took some wrong lessons from contemporary AAA titles. Metro: Last Light is a good game, but as it edges closer to some of the trends that began to pop up around 2033's release, I can't help but feel a little conflicted.

Everything good about 2033 is still here, though. Last Light is a wholly atmospheric affair with intense action and claustrophobic dread. The guns work just as good if not better, and stealth has been further refined with better utilization of its lighting mechanic. Level design has also improved considerably, with even more elaborate stages and even a tiny bit more exploration for resources and other secrets.

Many of the small touches that made 2033 so personal and lifelike are also still here. Artyom's mask will shatter if he takes too much damage in radioactive areas, and he needs to replace it alongside more oxygen when the time necessitates it. You can also clean your visor when it's dirty, and light up your match to burn spider webs or scare off certain enemies. It's those little elements that make the survival feel all the more real. There's nothing new here that wasn't in 2033, but it's all done so well.

At the same time, it's clear 4A or whoever paying for them got some cold feet about 2033's more unforgiving (if still far more manageable than, say, STALKER) nature. It's already evident when you're allowed to pick between a more survival-focused difficulty and a more action-oriented one. Nothing wrong with it, before I continue. I think it's always great to give more options to players. But this does give us the first indication that Last Light's development was partly driven by making it a more 'marketable' title.

There is more affinity for set-pieces here, a little more explosions in the road. The story is more straightforward in its presentation. It's certainly more chatty than 2033. About 80% of the campaign is actually spent being with an ally NPC by your side. Not a bad thing necessarily, but some of the horror and animosity of the setting does lose a bit of itself in the process. The game is also a lot more blatant in other ways of keeping players engaged. There are some eye-candy moments in the game, you can even take a lap dance lol. Games are allowed to have some fun in them, but in Last Light's case this comes off as more forceful and juvenile in comparison to the rest of the game.

And as well all know, survival-horror games can't do boss fights well. FPSs also can't do boss fights well. And as a survival-horror shooter, Last Light has a few of them. There is some great build-up to some of them, but the end result is all the same. It's rather meandering and clunky; neither the arenas nor Artyom's controls are too suited for such encounters. And I'd much rather those times to have been spent on more exciting combat arenas or horror sections that allow better use of Artyom's abilities.

As far as the story goes, it's decent. The environments tell the narrative much better than the actually spoken dialogue, but the overall story arc of Artyom seeking either redemption or damnation for his actions in the previous game is compelling and touching enough to work. Of particular note, Artyom's visits to mass graves of damned souls are especially memorable and haunting.

Well, that's Metro: Last Light. I do like this game. A lot. In some aspects it a much improved successor to 2033. At the same time, it willingly falls into trappings of then-modern trends that its predecessors wisely ignored or remained ignorant of. Either way, this only makes Last Light more fascinating as a video game, and it still accomplishes some of its lofty ambitions to present a truly harrowing yet hopeful tale of redemption even when the world around of you dies. So how can I hate it?

A rich, well-developed world and atmosphere that alone is worth the price of admission with challenging combat that far too often veers into frustration. Unlike most shooters where ammo is around every corner, in the world of Metro ammo is a precious resource to the point where higher-quality rounds are a literal currency. While it’s an interesting system, the scarcity is so extreme that it’s possible to soft-lock yourself from completing certain combat encounters, forcing you to reload an earlier save. In my play through I ran out of ammo fighting a boss and since there were no other means of damaging it, I had to load an earlier save and turn down the difficulty just so I could collect enough ammo to defeat the boss.

I've said most things about this game in my previous post about the Redux version and there isn't really a lot to add to be honest.

I do however have the feeling that this version felt better over the redux version. I can't really tell why, maybe the nostalgia kicking in... . Overall it took me 5 playthrough's to platinum both the original and redux version. A 5th playthrough was required because somehow the shadow ranger trophy did not pop on my 4th run. Even though a 4A developer said in which levels you could use your gun it seems the trophy tracks kills in an other way... on my final playthrough I only killed the very last guy.

The DLC are also pretty fun but way more difficult on the PS3 since it has other trophy requirements. I enjoyed every run I did and I'm very excited to play Metro Exodus for the first time.