The Deathest Games of All Time

Yeah Prototype is definitely brutal. It's the closest to feel godly I've experienced in a game, you feel invincible sprinting at lik 90km/h hopping on car roofs and jumping up buildings! Then you get to slice people in half at random and punch cars around. I think I'll go play it
 
Well, I mean you technically could I suppose by not killing innocent civilians, but naw your character pretty much says in the beginning that he is a monster/evulz. You're some guy that was affected by a government DNA mutation that makes most into mindless mutated fucks, but you gained the ability to morph your flesh into whatever you desire, very Carnage-esque if youre familiar with the Spider - Man villain.

Oh, did I mention you can pick anyone up and CONSUME them to gain health?
 
I'd love to see that if it was rated R. Would be extremely hard to make a Carnage flick without gore, it would end up quite bad....like the last flick with Venom otherwise.
 
Oh, and Singularity is kinda brutal. Especially when the creatures choose to give eachother head...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
prototype is amazing, its like grand theft auto, except your now a superhuman god :p, you can still die, but the carnage you wreak is almost unfathomable

peopel complain the controls are bad....they take a little getting used to, i never really noticed though, too busy having fun

highly reccomend
 
If Prototype's game world was a little bit more fleshed out (like GTA4 is) it would be possibly the best game ever created. But the fact that most civilians/cars are just props you can smack around or turn into, makes the gameworld feel more shallow than GTA games. If you could steal cars and the civilians had variety and more behavior types, and the missions were not so straight forward I would not need to play GTA again.

I did what I could to make myself superhuman in GTA 4, I got the super speed, the crazy jumps and the ability to kick folks around like soccer balls. In the end though it's still GTA with some cool perks:(.

Please let there be a Prototype 2

is it that game when you can pick between being evil and good?

You are definitely evil in Prototype. Alex Mercer tries to "question" if what he does is acceptable, but then teh first thing you do when you can roam is kill the fuck out of every living thing in sight.
 
The STALKER games are kind of Metal. Open world concept shooters where you explore the wreckage of the area around Chernobyl. The game assumes an alternate reality where the 15km area around the plant goes all crazy and alien after the meltdown. Basically it's a wasteland full of people called "stalkers" that are looking for wealth by exploiting the artifacts the "Zone" creates. Also there are tons of mutants that can get fuckin scary when it's night time and you can only see the glow of their eyes and hear them panting as they run towards you. Worse if your gun sucks (which most the early ones do) and it's damaged bahaha.

The games are awesome because they combine open world mechanics with survival horror, and a bunch of RPG elements complete with an inventory which is a big part of it. The only way to survive is to scrounge for food, healing items and ammo which are all rare in the beginning stages. Every other Stalker you meet (and The Zone has tons of NPCs) has weapons you can loot if you kill them, but killing them will make their allies start to dislike you, and their enemies like you better. There are tons of quests and weapons/armors can be upgraded and repaired etc etc. It's an amazing series of games but it's more of a cult following because the games got panned by reviews for being glitchy when they came out (which is fixed mostly now).

Glitches aside they all deserve like a 9/10, except maybe Clear Sky which was a bit of a miss.

Stalker2_800big.jpg

When it's dark, things go more survival horror, and when you end up underground trapped in close quarters with chameleon mutant things making noise in the background it's very death!
stalkerclearskyb.jpg

stalker-Shadow-of-Chernobyl_03.jpg

stalker_021.jpg

clearsky65.jpg

l06rostok.jpg


The best is when you start getting high calibre sniper rifles and surround a bandit base in pitch black with night vision. Just shoot, sprint to a new location and watch them freak out trying desperately to find you in the dark as you pick them off one by one.
 
If were going the route of stalked, metro 2033 kicks its butt as it actually functions, and the world around you feels alive in a way that only Bioshock has done before hand. Not to mention the story is amazing.
 
Metro 2033 is not as good, not even close. Stalker was glitchy on release but it's fully functional at this point, and if you go to the huge modding community(it's quite big) the games can be made into amazing experiences.

Metro 2033 has you cramped in corridors almost the entire game and it's like 8 hours long. Stalker is a free-roam type game.

Metro 2033 has better graphics, that's about it. Presentation of story was pretty cool too I admit
 
Better graphics, better story, weapons that work, less repetition, better AI, more atmosphere, interesting characters, things within that world functioning as they would in such a post apocalyptic state, Etc. It comes down to a matter of opinion, but Metro 2033 has received much better critical acclaim. Open world doesn't = better, in many instances, including stalkers, it just made the game get stale before the ending. Metro 2033 has a modding community as well, but nonetheless I was referring to the game in its vanilla state. (Game is closer to about 10-11 hours long if you actually explore and take in all the dialogue of the game, plus has multiple endings.) Once again, comes down to personal taste.

metro_2033.jpg


metro2033-5.jpg


Metro-2033-771.jpg


metro2033x-large.jpg


metroban1.jpg
 
^ah nice, i should look into getting stalker

Just make sure you patch before you play, because out of the box the first one was glitchy. It's also considered wise to quick save at the start of every quest/mission because you can get people killed if you fuck up and you'll be pissed if you save the game that way. Just a touch of realism some people can't figure out, shoot a quest leader in the face, he dies. Save the game that way, you won't see him ever again and therefore can't be rewarded. It's the kind of game you are expected to watch who/what you shoot.

If you add this mod to STALKER you turn it into the ultimate/glitch free crazy fucking experience of survival with massive amounts of extra content made by professional designers, it's practically an expansion. If you have the internet speed and want to get the best experience, you won't regret it if you so choose. It's big because of the revamped textures unfortunately.

http://artistpavel.blogspot.com/2009/04/stalker-complete-2009.html

Better graphics, better story, weapons that work, less repetition, better AI, more atmosphere, interesting characters, things within that world functioning as they would in such a post apocalyptic state, Etc. It comes down to a matter of opinion, but Metro 2033 has received much better critical acclaim. Open world doesn't = better, in many instances, including stalkers, it just made the game get stale before the ending. Metro 2033 has a modding community as well, but nonetheless I was referring to the game in its vanilla state. (Game is closer to about 10-11 hours long if you actually explore and take in all the dialogue of the game, plus has multiple endings.) Once again, comes down to personal taste.

Yeah in the end it really is personal taste. I just find Metro 2033 to be too straight forward in general. I got bored of running through corridors, I like to explore large maps and feel like the next encounter could be anything, and could very well kill me if I'm not stealthy and smart. Stalker is the kind of game where you die if you don't think and use strategy. Most my battles I approached with binoculars and scouted the towns from afar before making my move. I love using terrain/bushes and the elements around me. Metro got slightly better reviews (from critics), but again Stalker got nailed for being so glitchy on release and it still came damn close on average.

I guess for a more corridor-oriented game (kinda doom 3ish) play Metro, for open world play Stalker! They are both death! lol

edit: I loved both for the record, and don't want to push a completely pointless "debate", but for the sake of anyone here that wants to play either game, these folks answers will sum the games up.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27231058


Sorry I shall shut up now, I'm nerding out lmao

Kill the edit button
 
While were discussing creepy, post apocalyptic Russian shooters we may as well bring up the extra odd, and flawed one of the bunch...Cryostasis. Alot of good ideas went into this game...sadly the gameplay didn't execute all that well.

2178_cryostasis_027.jpg


cryostasis-630359.jpg


cryostatsis.jpg
 
If Prototype's game world was a little bit more fleshed out (like GTA4 is) it would be possibly the best game ever created. But the fact that most civilians/cars are just props you can smack around or turn into, makes the gameworld feel more shallow than GTA games. If you could steal cars and the civilians had variety and more behavior types, and the missions were not so straight forward I would not need to play GTA again.

Please let there be a Prototype 2

Prototype had a rather horrible reception, so the likelihood of a sequel is quite low, I think I heard something about the studio being shut down as well? Don't quote me on that. As far as things not being as fleshed out, you can blame that on the fact that you're able to climb so much terrain and go in many areas you couldn't dream going in grand theft auto, while also having an overabundance of enemies in the later portions of the game, they had to make a cut off somewhere, and unfortunately it was in the civilians that things got really dulled down.