Furthest removed from the core gameplay? What is the core?
The difficult survival? Not knowing what next will try to kill you? The uncertainty of the future? Living in darkness both figuratively and literally? The longing for the life before the war? Exodus is just the least dark game, but the core is still very much there I feel like?
True, though I was a bigger fan of Metro Exodus for the fact that they left the psychic stuff out honestly. Exodus is a good example of how you don’t have to follow the recipe exactly to get a good cake. Nevertheless, there has always been a big focus on the atmosphere and the people, regardless of the psychic part of the story, where they’re coping with survival while piecing together what has been going on before during and after the bombs.
However, I just read an article here that reassured me greatly: https://www.ign.com/articles/metro-2039-developers-on-how-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-changed-their-plans
They still focus on the slow burn story, so all is good, I believe! :-)
This one I’ll be keeping tabs on - sounds like a great and fun game!
I’m stoked for another Metro game, but I feel like they’re leaning a little hit too heavily into the radioactive monsters with this one? I feel like it’s becoming less “possible dystopian future” and more “save the world/country from the supernatural creatures” kind of game…?
What I really like with the franchise is how everything is grounded in possible everyday reality. Sure they have some monsters, but it’s not trippy or fantasy-like. There’s atmosphere through the environment being filled with everyday items in a post-war world, like printed photographs hung up on the walls, letters left behind by now-skeletons, and the general scarcity of resources that make survival a core piece of everyone’s mind. I hope they will achieve this like in their past games, with storytelling grounded in reality being front and center.
On another note, it’s interesting how they have made what looks like Pripyat, and I kinda hope it is! I’d much rather explore Pripyat in Metro than in Stalker.
As a lot of people here are saying, education is alpha omega. However, what makes or breaks this education (whether they end up starting to “test” this education), is how you present it:
Saying casually “You’re not allowed to go to these websites because I say so.” is like inviting them to explore anyways, and try and find out for themselves whether it’s as bad as you say or not (because their classmates have gone to these sites after all, and they’re fine).
Instead, make sure to tell them why you’re doing it is because you yourself don’t even go there, because of X serious reason. Be it big tech spying on and manipulating you, risks of implication in illegal activities, getting scammed, or psychological trauma of seeing too much. Perhaps refer them to a documentary that explains your point, so that you’re not the sole source of trust.
The internet is a dangerous place, and that should be communicated from a person who genuinely thinks so themselves (the parent).
This is not to say that the internet can also be useful, but only if used correctly. As for guardrails that can prevent accidentally ending up in the wrong place can indeed be as others mention here, family mode, blocklist, safe DNS, etc… It’s not there to restrict them, but to safeguard them (and you).
Make sure you’re also a safe person to talk to about taboo topics. Things like sex, porn, suicide, hacking, gore, drugs, war crimes, school shootings, and various illegal activities should all be safe for them to seek you out as the first point of contact. NOT the internet!
The best monitoring tool I can recommend for a child is for them to feel safe in self-reporting.
Good point! I’m confident that they’ll deliver some thought provoking elements to the story in this regard.