Metro: Last Light doesn't sound appetizing with its "suffocating despair" and "gnarled monstrosities," but it's that kind of loveliness that made Ludwig enthuse about the Metro 2033 follow-up in his four and a half stars review. He deemed Last Light "an unusual, meticulously detailed shooter inextricable from its environment."

Of course, Ludwig wasn't the only brave soul to delve into the underground sequel. Here are some other thoughts we dug up.

• GamesRadar (90/100): "Subtlety is what makes Last Light such an exceptionally immersive game. It nails the core tenets of a shooter, then forces you to react to enemies in ways outside of simply taking cover. It plops you in a post-apocalyptic world, then fills it with tons of minor but substantial details, like the shadows of once-living people now permanently nuked into stone walls. It strips you of hope, only to dangle a tiny sliver of it ahead of you like a carrot on a stick."
• Game Informer (88/100): "This sequel plays more like a shooter than its predecessor, but doesn't sacrifice its intricate narrative or creative vision in the process. Masochistic fans will appreciate the harder difficulties that recreate the grueling experience of the original, but no matter how you approach it, exploring Last Light's absorbing world is wholly entertaining."
• Giant Bomb (80/100): "By its very nature of being a sequel, Last Light doesn't feel as fresh as Metro 2033 did, but there's still nothing else like it. Few games generate immersion through gameplay and transport you to their world the way Metro does."
• Eurogamer (70/100): "Metro: Last Light is not a bad game, but nor is it a good one in quite the same sense as its predecessor. Metro 2033 was flawed but trying to do its own thing. If anything, Last Light feels like a regression. Similarities abound, but this is a more conservative FPS, one looking at the competition rather than itself, and one with some terrible missteps. So go in with low expectations, and you might be pleasantly surprised."