Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Both are taking part in a distrophic setting after a nuclear war, both offer FPS combat, both have a story.
Differences are to be found mainly in the genre.
Fallout is an RPG of the atompunk genre, Metro is more like an dystrophic action adventure / Shooter based on our current time.
Fallout is open world, Metro is linear (but with huge levels)
Metro is way more story telling driven than Fallout is.
No. it's just huge levels.
They're not transitive and you can't hop between those areas.
Once a biome is finished, you move to the next one.
Never Played LEGO Star wars, so I don't know about its level concept.
But you might compare it to Dying Light 2, The (latest) Tomb Raider Triology, or the good old GTA games that were released before GTA SA.
So it's a huge area that's similar to open world games, where you're free to move, explore, do some stuff till you continue with the story.
But you won't be able going to another area without a loading screen.
In Metro, there're also indoor levels that have a point of no return.
So once you finished a section of a specific level, you wont be able to return to its entrance, for example.
Thats different compared to fallout