Since its release in '99, Silent Hill inspired people to form communities around the series, to talk and wonder about the secrets of that mysterious foggy city. In 2001 i got into internet for the first time and, quite obviously, started searching information on the game i loved. Thus i too became a part of one such community. It was called Black Helix, and we spent hours sitting in the forum and discussing everything Silent Hill related. We argued about reality, we dreamed of what it would be to personally go to Silent Hill. Silent Hill 2 was already released, and still talked about a year after the release. After getting a PC version (i didn't have a PS2) i joined in the heated discussions about the story and the characters. My opinion, just as the opinion of any other member of the community, was "true" in a way, because Silent Hill 2 didn't have any straight answers. I believed that maybe the guilt of leaving the wife to die alone transformed into an imagined murder, and i still do. And i could - there was no trustworthy narrator, there were no clear facts, no definitive "truth" in the game. So, Silent Hill 2 journey was a personal one. Looking back - that was the best time to be a Silent Hill fan.

Everything changed when in the Silent Hill 3 trailers you could see pictures of Alessa, clear references to the first game. I still remember how one of the community members said during the discussion of the trailer: "Who cares what music plays in the trailer? Alessa was there - that's what's important!" Everyone started to expect an explanation to everything in the series. It was a happy thought at first: new info, new stuff to think about, new theories and topics for discussion. In fact, the only worries i clearly had back than were the moments of trailer with Heather mowing down enemies with a sub-machine gun. When i finally played the game, and actually liked it, my main criticism was still that of the amount of action. But as time passed, i suddenly realised that i wasn't really looking forward to new Silent Hill games. I wanted more after the first game, i wanted more after the second one. But now, i just didn't. Only later did i realise why - there was nothing more to find in Silent Hill. It was stripped of its mystery.

Before Silent Hill 3, the city itself could've been anywhere. Somewhere on Earth. Somewhere inside any person. It could've been a real place, it could've been a Limbo or Hell-like place. It could've been ever changing, or being exactly like we saw it in the games. It could've been a normal city, changed by the fog. It could've been just a figment of an imagination, waiting to become real round every corner. And suddenly, that mystery, that uncertainty about it was destroyed. The city was given a place, a purpose, a reason. The details were still fuzzy, but the limits to what it can and cannot be were set in fat glowing lines. Everything actually happened, because of some cult in a usually normal city of US.

The Room tried to change that a bit, but was still tied by the set rules. You already knew what could happen there and what couldn't. The "cult" story was still "true", the characters existed in the same way, they were mentioned in earlier games. It was still a game that "actually happened". Silent Hill: 0rigins worsened the situation by pulling George Lucas, and tying the series even closer to the "alessa arc". The Movie, while starting rather true to the game, devolved into a gore fest with a barbed wire rape and the obligatory Pyramid Head appearance. And do i even need to talk about Silent Hill: Homecoming?

But then, 0rigins developers had an idea. A perfect idea, the one Silent Hill 2 team probably had. They decided to make Shattered Memories different. Simply different. It felt a lot like a "usual" Silent Hill game, but wasn't the same. Like Silent Hill 2 was. It didn't follow any rules from previous games (except for the normal-otherworld transitions structure), it didn't follow the same overall storyline and "mythology". And, much more importantly, it questioned reality and made the players journey personal. In it's own way. And even while it did have answers in the ending, they weren't the "now you know everything, move along" answers. They left you with questions, ideas, topics to discuss with other people. And your opinion, your personal journey through the game, mattered.

For Silent Hill magic to work, it has to be left unrestricted. It has to be left without "mythologies" or "rules". It works when your imagination is a part of it. It works if we can think "Silent Hill can happen anytime, anywhere and with anyone." It's not a haunted mansion in the amusement park. It just is.

(originally in russian here)

Think of any great videogame released 1980-2000. Yep, that game is great. And you know what? I never had a legal copy of it. You see, there were none in Ukraine. And in, pretty much, any post-soviet country actually. What a fun childhood we had.

Late 80s and the beginning of the 90s were strange times here, both in terms of politics and entertainment. I had a chance as a small kid to play on some Atari clone, the name of which i never knew. I shot white squares on the TV screen and played Pong. All because, Soviet Union was going to be "more open" with it's ongoing "perestroika" period. Then it went completely open, by dissolving and leaving me, still a small kid of 6, happily playing with my "Poisk 1" computer, which was, basically, an IBM PC 186 ripoff. But it played Montezuma's Revenge, Arkanoid (and PopCorn), Saboteur 2, all of which could fit on one floppy. What? Don't copy that floppy? Never heard of it.

But then, somewhere in 92-93 something happened. That something was "Dendy", an "addon" (for TV), as we used to call it (no, we didn't know it was supposed to be called "console"). It had awesome games, most of which came pre-installed on the console itself! Great games, i'm sure you've heard of them: Super Mario Bros, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Ice Climber, Pope-- What? What is "NES"? No, i don't know what it is. Yes, Dendy was a NES clone. And it was a smash hit, if you have any doubts. Where were Nintendo looking? No idea, but we didn't care. We wanted games and we had them. Nintendo didn't want our money, pirates (and, effectively, those who sold Dendy and illegally made cartridges for it were pirates) got them.

Then Sega Mega Drive 2 - that was awesome. Cartriges were illegal copies too, but i don't think anyone even considered trying to sell original ones at the original price here back then. We didn't care, we had games. We had awesomely fast times with Sonic, were flying on the magic carpet in Aladdin, killed each other in all the gory ways in Mortal Kombat. We... SNES? What the hell the SNES is?! Yep, while i've seen some SNES cartridges and consoles at the time, i've never heard anyone played it here. Maybe it was to hard to clone or chip, maybe copying the cartridges was a costly thing. Or maybe after Mega Drive (you might know it as Genesis, by the way) went popular and 16-bit was in the air, nobody cared about bringing a competing console on the market. It's not like SEGA or Nintendo cared.

Then the golden times came. Copying CD's, even back in the mid-90s, was much cheaper than copying cartridges. No surprises then, that Panasonic 3DO and PS1, when it appeared, got instantly popular. No need for a powerful PC, awesome 3D graphics, and insanely cheap games (CD-R's were cheap, remember?). Stupid fun in Way of the Warrior, joys of pro-survival horror completely in japanese in Doctor Hauzer, Jill sandwiches in Resident Evil and.... Should i even go on with the list of popular PS1 games. We all played them, loved them and never ever had a legal copy of them. In fact, my first (and only) PS1 legally obtained game was Critical Depth (twisted metal under water from the same developers), i was given as a gift, while i was staying in Italy in 2000. And even with that, my PS1 was chipped. There were no other variants of it. Why would there be? Would you pay crazy amount of money to order it from somewhere abroad? In the time, when the internet here was in the stage of early adoption (since 98 or so)? No way.

Long story cut short, it's 2011 and the only legal games you can buy in Ukraine (without ordering from abroad) are for PC and Sony consoles. Why? Because we (well, Russia technically, Ukraine has no major publishers, only distributors and developers) had people who knew how important it is to create a good market and Sony cared enough to go with it too. With the help of Emulators and Roms i had to feel the immense joy of experiencing all the Final Fantasy games before FFVII. With the help of SNES9x and some ROM archive site i could fall in love with Super Metroid and understand how Chrono Trigger is one of the best games of all time. With the help of R4 thing i can enjoy Hotel Dusk or Phantom Hourglass. With Dolphin i can finally play Eternal Darkness or any Zelda game. Apart from that cool looking one i saw in Italy, the one that had that flute-like thingy, you know? Yes, i'm talking about Ocarina of Time and yes, i haven't played it. I wasn't given a chance by Nintendo.

Why is Steam so popular today in Ukraine? It has most games available and adapts the prices for our region. Why is PS3 so popular here? You can play games legally, you can use PSN without any hassle and buy games there (almost without hassle). Why Microsoft and Nintendo consoles are pirated so much? Well, not like there is any legal alternative. There is some (rather big, but a bit too little, too late) in Russia, by the way. In Ukraine? Nope. So thank you Nintendo for making a huge part of Eastern Europe to miss out all the best games you had. Thank you Microsoft for not wanting my money and not supporting Ukraine in Xbox Live (and GFWL as well) and making me miss out some great games, like Shadow Complex and having to use friends' chipped 360 to enjoy the amazingly bizarre journey in Deadly Premonition. Just, please, don't get too surprised when you get little to no love here.

originally for AveGamers (in russian)

Not there! Run on the wall! Not up the wall, along it! Why the fuck have you not grabbed it?! Left! Left, you shit!! Welcome to the world of acrobatic action adventure and platforming games of the last 10 years, baby.

Original Prince of Persia was released in 1989 and instantly became a template for new platforming genres. Prince's agility and tricks became a standard. And, along with beautiful animations, one of the important elements of its success was the permanence of rules. Player could always tell by eye if he can make the jump, when he can outrun the closing gates, when the fall will kill him. This simple set of rules was especially easy to follow in the game's two dimensions. But then 3D became popular and rules had to change.

Probably, the best and definitely the most popular successor of PoP was Tomb Raider. It followed the original formula and even the original move list, adding only swimming and item collection (also, a female lead, which was still very rare in gaming). It tried to utilize three dimensions to enhance the game, not to frustrate the player with needless gimmick. And every TR game after it (till Legend) used the same successful formula of simple and permanent rules from PoP. You could still know if you can make the jump, if you will be able to grab the ledge, since the only surface you couldn't grab was a flat wall. "Tank" controls, dependent not on camera angle, but on which way the character is facing, made the gameplay slower, yet more precise. You will run in a straight line and make the jump, even if the camera decides to change the angle. But with the beginning of 00-s and the desire to make games faster and "cinematic" came the next change.

The first herald of this change was, ironically, again Prince of Persia. Sands of Time changed players' perception of what acrobatics and platforming should look like in action adventure games. More agile, with new tricks under his sleeve (wall run, for example), but with the old concept of rule simplicity and permanence. In Sands of Time it's rather hard to notice the change between the "permanent" acrobatics to "context sensitive" ones, because of the ingenious design. One cannot check if the acrobatics works the same way throughout the game if there is no opportunity to notice this change. But the seed of context sensitive change was planted.

I will skip all the changes through the last 10 years you probably know yourselves, with just saying how an "honest" acrobatics turned into a "cinematic" one. Your character jumped the same distance in older Tomb Raider games? Now you can't! Embrace the progress. And the funniest thing is, that in creating the randomness element in the acrobatics (adding to player's frustration), making it that player never knows for sure what the character he is supposedly controlling will do, and, thus, creating a new problem in the design, developers decided to throw out the magic wand of the old design - the ability to save when you want. Looking back at Tomb Raider: every classic game in the series (excluding the console release of the first and third one), where you could fail only by your own mistake or chunkiness of the controls, you could save at any time. You could restart at that last tricky jump in the long ascent, where falling down doesn't mean death, but another try. And this ability with retarded ease was discarded in the modern games, where your failure depends on "camera trying to be helpful" much more than on your actions.

How to fix it? There was one wonderful and underrated game, released last year, called Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, where you can see one of the ways to fix the current situation. So if you, dear developer, want to create random platforming rules in your game so much, than, please, make it so i can't make a wrong jump at all. Failing because of one's mistake is understandable (and great, as we learn on mistakes). Failing because of camera, or, what is even more frustrating, because you jump through the object your character was supposed to grab onto (since the context sensitiv script decided that you were in the wrong place)... Grrr! That's not a challenge, that's bad game design.

Another solution can be in, surprise, return to the older working set of rules. You don't have to return the tank controls and the slow pace. You just have to make platforming work the same way throughout the entire game. And not making lazy "platforming puzzles" which wouldn't even be puzzles with "honest" platforming.

I'm sure, there are more, and probably better, solutions to this problem. And developers should search for them, because the current situations with such games is scary. I'm the cool treasure hunter who just died by jumping to the left instead of up. I'm the cunning and deadly assassin who just decided to sit on the bench instead of climbing up the building. I'm the three-eyed spy, who would really like to twist your neck, but unfortunately i happened to hide under the table instead of climbing into an air-duct (i'll twist your ankle instead). "What a bunch of misfits, " - thinks Monkey as he climbs up on the roof, where old Lara, pixelated Prince and tired Abe wait.

During the recent Games Day video game expo, a small expo in Kyiv, Ukraine, we, at AveGamers, had a chance to speak with Metro 2033 developers, 4A Games. Creative director of 4A games - Andrew Prokhorov aka PROF, senior game designer - Evgeniy Fedorets aka Lin and lead game designer - Slava Aristov aka Must, drinking beer to ease their minds after another day in the long process of developing the awaited sequel, Metro: Last Light, answered our questions about the past, the present and the future. PR campaign for the sequel is not in its full power yet, a lot of things are still kept secret and some things are still being balanced out. And yet, we never hit any "no comments yet" questions. Read on to find out, what we talked about

Diodoroff: A lot of foreign sites say that Metro 2033 is a "Russian game", does it frustrate you?:)

Evgeniy Fedorets: No, actually. It's not frustrating much. It's usually considered a "Russian game" because the story is about Moscow metro, after all.

Andrew Prokhorov: Well, it's sometimes annoying. But not that really.

Dio: I just haven't seen it being said anywhere it was made in Ukraine.

EF: It sometimes is.

AP: They write "Russian game, made in Ukraine". But only the most learned journalists do that.:)

Slava Aristov: Well, Americans don't care who made Call of Duty. If some stereotypical farmer from Texas buys the game, it's because he saw an ad for it during the Super Bowl.:)

Klarden: You were probably asked a lot about it, but... The game is about Moscow metro, but the train cars were...

AP: From Kyiv metro, yeah. We were asked a lot about it. When the game was in development, we were asked about it too: Will you change it later? We were: Sure, no problem! It's just a different texture. But forgot about it. It happens like that: We have to change this! And then it's like: sure, yeah, haha. So it gets in the release version...:)

SA: And we don't know why the war started, anyway.

Kla: The war started because of the wrong train cars, heh. So, the game was in development for quite a long time. And it looked like, for me personally, as if when THQ came on board they just went: ok, guys, now we go and finally finish the game. Or was it different?

AP: When we founded 4A Games, our main quartet - lead designers from STALKER - we were wearing the rose-colored glasses. We were like: We made STALKER! - it was actually in the testing phase - We'll quickly find the publisher and make the game in half a year! But we were searching for a publisher for a year and a half instead. Little financing during that time, so the full production was about two years and a half. It doesn't sound long, but if you add that year and a half, when a small team was trying to find publisher - it's four years of development. And a year and a half went on creating the technology itself. At first it was done in really... Well, Slava and me, we worked since the first day... even since the minus... half a year day.:) And there were no mechanics, nothing. We were creating the game second by second. I mean the demo. Each second had some specific action...

Kla: Kind of a storyboard?

AP: Yeah, it was a linear thing.

Kla: The demo, to show to the publishers, right?

AP: Yes. After half a year we created it, finally. And then, we were searching for a publisher for a year... We were lucky with THQ - they knew us from the STALKER development. Otherwise i don't know how things would've gone...

Kla: They decided to not publish STALKER sequels in the end.

AP: Yep. When we came to them with the demo, they were definitely not sure and suspicious about it. But everything went great after that. We had a really small budget before that moment. But when you find the publisher, everything is great. You have food to eat... *laughs* And before that moment we actually had a local investor, but... Well, local investors are a fun bunch. Once, we were sitting with guys, drinking beer... (to Slava) You tell the story, you had more moments like that. But it often happens like that. "Oh, I heard you were talking about videogames. I had this idea..."



SA: So, we were sitting in the pub. A small nice place on Podol (part of Kyiv). I was with another game designer talking about games. And there's one guy coming up and going : Wow, so, you make games? Maybe he read about it on the internet or something. So he continues: Hey, let's make a game! How much will it cost? I go: Well, which platforms? Two platforms and worldwide release? He's: Yeah, sure! Then I go: Ok, let's count... You need a team of, well, fifty people. Let's think of their monthly pay. Now multiply it by two years of development... So, you give us two million and we start working tomorrow if needed. And POOF the guy was gone. I guess, he was expecting like 10-12 thousand.

AP: Hryvnia. (currently, 1USD=about 8 UAH)

*we laugh*

SA: I mean, of course if someone is just creating some gameplay at home for fun, without cool visuals and stuff - that's one thing. But when there are a lot of people, working on a game each day - that's s completely different thing in terms of money. Everything depends on the amount of people and the development time. But we had people like that guy from time to time. They expect to invest 10 thousand and get 10 times more.

Dio: Recently there was a lot of talk about Metro: Last Light being like CoD. And you did some comparisons yourself several times. What can you tell us about this rumor?

AP: All the talk started after an E3 demo. We had to create a 12-minute demo. And if the demo consists of a character walking in tunnels and "experiencing the atmosphere"... well, it doesn't work for a game expo. So we had to create something fast and intense, something CoD-like. And we still couldn't fit the monsters or any of the atmospheric stuff in it. So this myth was born, that the game will be like Call of Duty. Trust us, it won't be. The main concept was: don't break what works, fix what's broken.

Dio: What was fixed or improved?

AP: Well, the main complaints we had, were about the AI and the weapons. That the weapons were weak... Stuff like that. But, again, it's not that simple. We were thinking: people can't have great weapons in this poor world. People create some handmade bullets. And also we had this... a lot of time was spent on creating the armor system. It was done in a way, that when the bullet hits the armor, game calculates how much energy armor absorbs, and how much hits the body. And we were thinking if we should tell the player about this system or not. We decided that it was interesting to find out on your own, that you better hit enemies in the gap between the armor pieces. But players didn't get it. "I'm shooting at an enemy and he won't die". If we made tooltips, or a tutorial of some kind, people would have fun. But in the end, nobody got it and did not have fun. We learned it the hard way.

Dio: So, what did you do in the sequel: a tutorial or better weapons?

AP: Well... both, I guess. We're not discarding the old idea. We made it easier to understand, made weapons faster and more powerful... But it's still being tested and balanced out. We're still playtesting it.

Dio: Do you have a planned release date? Estimated one?

AP: Erm... someday next year... When it's done:) Definitely not four years later this time.

Kla: Back to the thing with armor... There's this site, called Destructoid, and they once did a non-review of Metro 2033 - reviewer didn't finish the game because, among other things, he didn't get how a headshot couldn't kill and enemy (he hit the helmet). And a year later, just recently, another reviewer decided to give the game another chance...

AP: Yeah, it was really nice of him, by the way.

Kla: And he really liked the feel of the game. So he also had some fears that the survival and the feel of the game will be thrown out to make the game more action-based. It is understandable, that expos need a more action-based demos, like it happened with Hitman, but still...

SA: Yes, videogame shows need demos, filled with wow moments. Later, when the PR campaign will fully start and we will have some dev diaries and will be able to tell more about the game, we will show other ways of playing the game as well.

[youtube]AvhxaKQSMUE[/youtube]

Dio: So, what platforms do you cover this time?

AP: The same as before plus PS3 aaand plus Wii U... The fun thing about the last one is, that it was our lead programmer, who insisted on a Wii U release. When we went to E3 and saw our game in the Wii U rooster we were like: WHAT? There will be a Wii U version? But, challenge accepted, i guess.:)

SA: And the PS3 version was demoed on TGS.

Dio: Ok, back to the Metro 2033 questions: was there something that you wanted to implement in the game, there were problems while doing it, but in the end you did what you wanted?

EF: Nothing specific, really. It was rather hard as a whole. And I'd call them difficulties, not problems. For example, we had difficulties with making the game varied. It's hard to create a level that has a central theme. And it's hard to make every level varied, yet unique and memorable. We wanted the player to constantly deal with something new and exciting. But no real problems, no. Just difficulties with elements like this.

AP: I would also like to add, that it was hard developing the game without the completed technology. You plan on doing something, knowing that soon there will be means to do that, but you can't just sit doing nothing. So you do it some other way. And in the end you have to redo it entirely, when the proper means are ready.

Dio: Now everything is finalized, you only update it?

AP: Well, you shouldn't really stop with the engine development. There's something new every day.

Dio: Last game had "cool stuff", like tessellation, are you adding something like that in the sequel?

SA: Tessellation is just a render thing - programmers do this stuff. There are other things. We have Game designers, adding new gameplay elements...

We: Mechanics.

SA: Yeah, new mechanics. We have art department, who constantly think of something cool and new. Some flowing dirt, cool particle effects and stuff. And each day we have something new like this. Tessellation is simple. You just write "tessellation=1" or "true".

*laughing*

Dio: If only the programmers were here now to hear it.:)

SA: I mean, the thing is, that's programmers stuff - they work on designers and artists, add new cool stuff. And every day we have something new. The visuals, the optimisations and gameplay mechanics - everything changes every single day. It's not like we took Metro 2033, did something quick and dirty and voila - a new game. No, it's a huge step forward, everything's going to be much more awesome. Mostly it's because we started like: txt, lua-file. 10 seconds, 15 seconds, we have a monster running. Now we have powerful tools, updated daily.

EF: Becoming more user-friendly.

Kla: You have a good toolkit now?

EF: Yes, very good and it gets better with each day.

SA: If we have a chance someday, we would really like to release an SDK, so other people could work with it. There are lots of talented modders out there. A lot of people come to developing games after the modding experience. We have several people on our team who made some mods for STALKER, for example.

Kla: I won't be surprised if Valve has half the staff, who were modders as well.

AP: Because it's one of the best ways to find new talents. We have a severe shortage of game developer professionals in Ukraine. Lots of enthusiasts, mid-level specialists... Well, professionals and modders are different, of course. But talented young people, who already know how to work with you engine - this is always a plus. We did want to release an SDK before. "When will you release it?" "Probably, after we finish the first game." But instead we started working on the second game.

Dio: SDK for mods often implies a non-linear game that has something to add upon its structure.

SA: What about Half-Life?

Dio: People created completely different games based on it.

SA: Well, Counter-Strike is a completely different game, yeah. But it was a technology of a linear game that allowed creating it. Or Team Fortress. Thing is, Source is a very flexible engine, so modders could create some incredible things with it. We hope our engine to be is as flexible. I mean, if someone wants, he can go and create some Space Wars game with it right now.

AP: We are often asked "When will you turn Metro back to STALKER?" No problems.

SA: Yeah, we can do it right now, no problems with that.

AP: No problems with the engine. There is with the setting. We don't want to lower the quality bar we set with the first game, but creating a fully explorable Moscow... it will take a lot of time. We really don't want to work on a game for 6 years.

Kla: I would've been hard to explain with the story as well.

AP: It's not like an open world always asks for an explanation, really. It's just that, entering another six-year development cycle... Everything in this world is evolving very fast now. With STALKER it was: 2004 - we have the best visuals, we're awesome. "We're going to release the game in half a year anyway!" When it was finally released in March 2007 it wasn't looking that great, really.



Dio: But you were working on Metro 2033 already... So, the next game will have a more open world?

AP: Well...

Dio: You were saying that it's hard to make the game varied, how do you deal with this difficulty during the development of the sequel?

EF: It's really hard to combine the cinematic experience with an open world. It's hard to make that every piece of that open world has unique and exciting moments, some interactions for the player. So the game is still focused on a more linear cinematic action approach. There are moments in the game, when player is given more open locations. We decided to think of the best way to vary between the tight-packed cinematic moments and open levels, where player can explore, interact and do some side quests. We're fusing these two approaches in one game.

Kla: So, basically, you have the same idea as with Metro 2033, but evolve it even more?

AP: Yes we do. In a reasonable way.:)

[b]Dio: Any restrictions because of the console versions? In terms of memory, space or design?

Kla: Or optimisation troubles?[/b]

AP: No, not really.

EF: We're doing fine, so far.

AP: Not to speak to soon, but we're doing really fine.

EF: Yet, still, the more space you want to have, the less details you can have in it.

We forgot if we wanted to ask anything else and were going to leave, when I suddenly remembered few things.

Kla: Oh, right! The name change. Why exactly was it decided to call it Last Light instead of 2034?

AP: We wanted to go with Metro 2034. A really fun and original name for a sequel, I think. But Glukhovsky said that since his book of the same name was not connected with the game, it would be better to change the name, to avoid confusion.

SA: And the name we have now works really well with the storyline of the game.

Kla: *hint-hint*

SA: Yep. So, to avoid confusion, we changed the name. Otherwise Moscovites would read the book, buy the game and will go "WTF is this?" Oh, sorry, i wanted to say: Moscovites would download the game from torrents...

*laughs*

Kla: "My download rating is more important than this game!"

SA: Yeah, exactly.:) So, we have a different name for a different story.

Kla: Was it profitable to release the game on Steam? It was THQ's decision, right?

SA: Well, we were... it's not really our field, but I think we were in the top games for a while.

EF: We just pressed the magic "upload" button. Not our area of expertise.:)

Kla: And what about the translation of the game and the achievements and stuff? Also THQ work?

SA: Sure.

AP: We sent them the Russian script. They checked it for internationalization stuff, so everything is understandable for English-speaking players. Then they sent the translation back to us. Glukhovsky speaks English well, he checked it...

SA: They had their own great US writer who worked on the localisation. Then he sent the localised text to us, but translated back into Russian. And then Glukhovsky edited the text, so both versions have as less differences as possible.

Dio: About Steam: my girlfriend bought the game first, and then i played it and bought it on a recent Steam sale.

SA: For five bucks, sure.

AP: Yeah, this is why Steam is good.

Dio: Yeah, so it's also to say, that not only manly guys play your game.:)

SA: Good point, by the way. When we were showing the first game at Igromir - it was almost ready back then - we had lots of fans of Metro universe. And there were lots of girls as well. They were excited about the game. When they played a moment where you shoot nosalises with a duplet, they were definitely not expecting the gameplay to be so fast, though.:)

AP: But there were lots of people, who read the book and were interested in the game.

SA: There were people, who never played before. Old or young. And we taught them to play the game, how to use the mouse...

AP: W to walk forward... Touching moment.:)

Kla: Well, the game did feel like a book. I think a lot of people were interested.

SA: It was interesting to see people, who read the book, reacting to the game. Interesting to see if it meets their expectations.

AP: On the other hand, they were the harshest critics as well. "I was expecting this to be different!"

*laughing*

Ave: Thank you for your time.



After the interview, they were answering fan questions on stage. The answers gave more insights about Metro: Last Light.

PC version of Metro: Last Light will have Steamworks support and will be released on Steam.

There will be multiplayer in the game, with unique game modes being developed right now. Developers test it daily, balance the maps and weapons out. On PC it will use the usual Steam conveniences and VAC to fight cheating.

There will also be a co-op game mode, but nothing can be told about it right now.

There will be new mutants in the sequel, having new animations and tactics. But the “main villain” of the game is, pretty much, the people living in the Metro themselves. An important part of the story will revolve around preventing an open war between stations.

Artem will revisit some of the stations from the first game and will see the new ones. Also, much more time will be spent on the surface this time, since he is a Ranger now.

Developers are not planning to create non-Moscow subway games (there are other cities in the expanded universe). But if they release an SDK, modders will be able to create something like that with ease. Interestingly, Andrew explained that before he was given Metro 2033 book, they were thinking about a game in the ruined Kyiv. But "It would be a shame to destroy Kyiv and it wasn't like that with Moscow" they joked, being Kyivians themselves.

While they don't know if Glukhovsky ever finished the first game, he did work on the story for the second one.

Second game will have more anomalies. Developers couldn't find a great way to introduce more anomalies apart from the moment with Khan in the first game. The sequel will have more time for Khan as well. Also, there is a chance Artem will meet the boy he saved in the first game.

The minigun in the E3 demo was created as a wow moment and it will have a smaller role in the final version of the game. But it will be in the game and it's actually also handmade "using alarm clock parts".

The entire E3 demo level was destructible. Final game will be balanced in terms of physics and destruction for optimisations. Also, Metro show stand attendees were apparently very happy with the idea of being given a free soviet-made gas mask.

DX11 will get you the best visual quality, but is not required. nVidia called 3D in Metro 2033 the best 3D in any game on any platform and it will definitely be upgraded even further in the sequel.

They joke, that nVidia really helps them by "inviting them to restaurants". But, obviously, 4A programmers are really happy with the support nVidia constantly gives them with code and driver optimisations.

Yet, there is no "leading" platform for the game. It will be definitely best looking on hi-end PCs, but the game itself is the same on all platforms.

HUD and other interface elements in the sequel will be better and more intuitive. And you will be able to configure the HUD on any difficulty, completely removing it and reticules.

Stealth will also become more intuitive and easier to understand. Most situations of the game will have a stealth approach. You will be able to just kill everyone, or destroy or "unscrew" the light bulbs and use stealth. Someone instantly asked if you will be able to sell the bulbs you've unscrewed, to which devs joked that this is why the game is called Last Light.

The other thing, that will be easier to understand, is the karma system. Sequel will also have multiple endings, but now the story will also be less linear and reacting to player choices.

The game might have a semi-open beta phase closer to the release. There will be a collectors edition of the game and DLCs, but they are unsure at present if THQ will make some pre-order bonuses available. What game will definitely not have is crafting.

And in the end, one person decided to ask the developers, how they came to be in the game development. Slava, apparently, was just lucky, Evgeniy was a dreaming about it and Andrew was always motivated to work in the game industry as well. Answering the question: Do you have anyone with the IT diploma? they joked that "Well, our programmers are supposed to. But we're not really sure."

...probably have nothing in common. But as soon as i've seen the statue of Marcus in Borderlands 2 preview screenshots, i thought of Lyapis Trubetskoy (ska-punkish band from Belarus) record and awesome accompanying video. Just a silly thought, nothing more.

"Whoa, whoa there," - i hear you say (real reactions may vary), - "why would Capcom need any kind of "saving" - they're doing fine!" Well, no. They are not. And their problem is a problem of how big Eastern companies are falling behind Western ones in terms of game publishing. Yes, i have almost no problem with the games themselves - it's how they are treated by Capcom is what bothers me. So I take a mantle of an imaginary superhero Capcom Savior, who knows everything about game publishing I don't, and fly on my keyboard to save the company.



1. Selling new editions of old games as new games is bad.

Super Street Fighter IV came out last year as an entirely new game. Was it a new game, however? Could it have been released as a huge DLC? Dead Rising 2: Off the Record will feature a new storyline and gameplay mechanics but will use the same levels and resources. I have nothing against tis addition, but could it be released as a DLC? Now, in the old days of pre-good-internet connections and online enable consoles, such things were quite fine. Buying a Dual Shock version of RE2, or Director's Cut of RE1 seemed like a nice idea. Because there was no other way to add new content to the game and make money from it except for selling a new edition of the game for a new game price. Maybe it's just me, but doing so in 2011 seems like a bad idea.



2. Capcom cannot into PC publishing.

Latest Capcom games, especially those on MT Framework engine, worked like charm on PC. DMC4, RE5 or even Lost Planet games felt like definitive versions on PC. RE5 looked great, played perfect with Mouse controls, Gamepad controls and even Wii-like controls. But it's not a definitive version. Why? Because Capcom never bothered to update any of the PC versions. No patches, no DLCs. And GFWL on top of that. Is anyone truly surprised that sales were not as high as they could've been? Capcom can do awesome ports of PC games, now they, like most of Japanese publishers, have to understand how to publish them in the west. I think, the only way Capcom can get PC fans back now is if they patch and update all these games and give an option to activate them on Steam. But they wouldn't go for it, would they?



3. "Appealing to the west."

This is something all eastern companies seem to do lately, right? "Let's see what's popular and try to copy it". Keiji Inafune, in his now infamous long interview, criticised Capcom for not outsourcing games more. A very wise criticism Capcom seems to misunderstand. No, it did not mean that you should ask Canadian developers to develop another co-op zombie shooter as if we did not have a lot of them already. Resident Evil name or not, but it wasn't following the conventions and popular trends that made Dead Rising, another zombie game, series popular. And it was not doing the expected that made Shattered Memories great (sorry, Jim) and Homecoming hated of all the outsourced Silent Hill games.



No, Capcom doesn't look good today. People are angry at the treatment of Mega Man. People are not sure if they want to buy an HDfied version of the game they have on PC, PS2, GC and Wii (RE4) or RE:CVX, which looks bad, being a slightly broken 2001 game with hi-res textures and bad voice-acting. But would've gone gladly with a properly redone games, especially if it meant an updated RE2, people ask for 10 years now. People are suspicious, not excited, about RE6 and RE: Raccoon City. And PC gamers don't want to buy incomplete and soon forgotten versions of great games. Capcom doesn't look good at all.