174
rate

Metro 2033 Arrives On The 360 2010 – We Were Right In 08, A Brilliant Game Awaits

January 08, 2010 in Previews comments 29

This is shaping up to an excellent game, and looking forward to getting some hands-on time with it via THQ in the not too distant future. This along with several new games scheduled for release on both the PC and 360 will definitely help 2010 be a great year for gaming.

Come check out the brand new video as well as new screens only released today

Well we hate to say it, but we will anyway – told you so.

To all those naysayers who debunked OXCGN back in Dec 08 for dare saying that Metro 2033 would appear on the 360 (console platform) . . with many commenting on many forums that it would ‘never become a console game’ – well we’re here to tell you that it is in fact on the console, and that it has been underway under the expert hands of the Russian developer, A4-Games from as early as 2006, while the PC version was started in 2005. Also known as Metro 2033: The Last Refuge.

But back to Metro 2033. THQ and 4Games are putting together a sizeable front with this game, and so it should. It looks the part, and by all accounts, has the mechanics behind it to light the way to a successful run for the game.

I only hope it’s the first of a few in a series to be honest. But then again, we come back full circle to those retched “so-called-gamers”‘who will no doubt shun the game due to it being a new IP and an “unproven product”, and not willing to give either a new, fresh game a chance, or willing to embrace new ways of engaging ones self in gameplay.
XboxOZ360 via oxcgn.com »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:
Images about this story:

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 2
    FinalFantasyFanaticc Jan 9, 10
    Another console exclusive in the bag for 2010. It's a good year to have a 360!
    • 1
      chautemoc Jan 9, 10
      Except it's not console exclusive..?
      • 2
        dwg14390 Jan 9, 10
        technically seeing as in 360 is just so easy to make on and port over to 360 and PC isn't really considered a console and theirs just so much 360/PC games out their it's just classified as an exclusive. Even big hitters like Gears of War and Halo are on PC.

        And when I first looked at the title I had to sit down as that boggled my poor old brain hehe.
      • 2
        FinalFantasyFanaticc Jan 9, 10
        It's only on 360 and PC.

        The PC is not seen as a console and is in it's own different league to the 360 and PS3.

        Therefore console exclusive.
      • 2
        Onvacation Jan 9, 10
        You think a PC is a console?
  • 1
    XboxOZ360 Jan 10, 10
    No, he's saying that thegame is exclusive to one of the 3 cosole platformes, namely the 360. It also appears on the PC . . PC and CConsoles are two different "platforms" . . It would be like saying a PC game only appears on say a DELL unit, as PC's are a platform played on many different rigs/units.

    Consoles are 3 different platforms . . Sony, Nintendo and of course Microsoft.

    So in fact, he is right, from the consoles, it is exclusive to the 360.
  • 1
    chautemoc Jan 10, 10
    I'm saying if it was console exclusive, it would be on consoles only (not handhelds or PC -- though some consider handhelds consoles), since that's what console exclusive means, or is supposed to mean.
    Perhaps you meant "360 exclusive" instead of "console exclusive."
    • 1
      Onvacation Jan 10, 10
      Wouldn't "360 exclusive" incurr the exact same semantics
      • 0
        Ech0ez Jan 10, 10
        What he's saying is if you say [Insert] exclusive it applies to whatever the insert is. If you said Wii exclusive it's only on the Wii, PS3 exclusive it's only on the PS3, ect. Therefore if you say 'console exclusive' the game would only be on consoles, as in not the PC or debatably the handheld systems.

        chautemoc is right, but it seems incredibly pedantic to go about it, especially since everyone knew what FFF meant.
        • 0
          chautemoc Jan 10, 10
          I honestly thought he meant it was on 360 and not PC.
        • 0
          Ech0ez Jan 10, 10
          Ah, well that explains it then.
  • 1
    chautemoc Jan 10, 10
    I give up.
  • 0
    ruledbysecrecy Jan 10, 10
    BRING BACK THE THUMB DOWN BUTTON.
    • 2
      chautemoc Jan 10, 10
      You're the reason we killed it.
      • 0
        Hideo1 Jan 10, 10
        Was he one of the people who bitched about it, or a fellow abuser?
      • 0
        ruledbysecrecy Jan 11, 10
        I was the only one that just thumbed you up like 3 times for your comments on this article chautemoc.

        Just because I disagree with you elsewhere doesn't mean I've got some kind of juvenile grudge against you, or anyone else for that matter. It's simple, if you speak nonsense then you deserve a negative thumb, if you speak some sense then you deserve a thumb up.

        Why get rid of the negative thumb button because it was "abused," wouldn't you agree with me that the positive thumb button gets abused just as well? Also, one person can't abuse the negative thumb button, I only count for one point, so If I'm the only one that thumbs someone down it's really meaningless, it's a group effort against stupidity.

        Afterall, FFF got thumbed up here when he's speaking a whole lot of ridiculousness, hence why my only way to support the person who is right (you) is to thumb you up. Where as with the negative thumb I could even the score.
        • 1
          chautemoc Jan 11, 10
          I wasn't taking it personally, I meant people who are bent on it are the reason we removed it.
        • 0
          ruledbysecrecy Jan 11, 10
          So then what's the reason? It's a fact that without criticism you breed ignorance and stupidity. There's no good without the bad. So without a thumb down, thumbs up are worthless, they are indicative of nothing.
  • 0
    chautemoc Jan 11, 10
    I appreciate your understanding of duality. Here was the debate.
    • 0
      ruledbysecrecy Jan 11, 10
      The fact that the thumbs down were removed means some true ignorance went down. We should just get rid of positive thumbs too. This site is pretty broken as is though and that's mostly due to the quality of the articles and a handful of it's participants.
      • 1
        chautemoc Jan 11, 10
        So why do you keep coming back?
        • 0
          ruledbysecrecy Jan 11, 10
          Hope? I don't put a lot of effort into it, this website takes up maybe 20 minutes of my day cumulatively on a good day. But I wish this website to grow into something, right now it's no better than Digg in a different way. Here there's more of a community, which is nice, but the community is severely gimped because of policing. There are too many restrictions for it's own good. The community has to police itself, that's the way something thrives.
        • 1
          Hideo1 Jan 11, 10
          When this community polices itself people like FB (the old unafraid one anyway) and Carouselambra and... well, me, run wild everywhere wearing thumbs down like badges of honor.

          Policing is fine; GG just does it terribly is all. The system amounts to 'wait until complaints build up and blindly take action without proper review'. I think if more people complained about the bad things things might change, but who the hell has the time to do a mods job for him?
        • 0
          ruledbysecrecy Jan 11, 10
          The whole it takes too much time thing is a worthless argument. It takes next to no time at all to write something.

          When it comes right down to it, negative thumbs should have never been moved, or the thumbs system should have been completely removed. It's a broken system now.
        • 0
          Hideo1 Jan 11, 10
          Duh.

          People who cried when they got thumbs downed bitched about it, the mods didn't bother looking into it properly and just did whatever the hell they were told, the system gets *bleep*ed. The people who aren't retards don't care enough to kick up a ridiculous storm so things stay stupid.

          1 + 1 = 2, not 3.
        • 0
          ruledbysecrecy Jan 11, 10
          You really think it would take too much effort to change? I can't post, I'm banned from everywhere.
        • 0
          Hideo1 Jan 12, 10
          It wouldn't take too much effort to change if the right people manned up and did it as is their responsibility, but it would be too much effort for us to force them into it because that seems to be the only way they actually work.
  • 0
    Shinobi_razor Jan 11, 10
    why have i never heard of this game?
    • 0
      chautemoc Jan 11, 10
      Cause hardly anything has been released on it. THQ is publishing -- they don't have a lot of money to blow on advertising.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.