Why do people like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.?

[TurtlePerson2]

I just finished the game today and I am wondering why the game got such great reviews. I'll admit that the atmosphere was well done and there were some areas that had serious tension, but the rest of the game fell short of my expectations.

I thought that the FPS element was too difficult and not in that fun sense of the word difficult like Call of Duty on the highest difficulty level. It's one thing to have bullets realistically hurt you. It's another to make the guns inaccurate and require headshots. Even with scoped weapons I was having trouble hitting enemies from more than a dozen yards.

I also thought that the story was weak. The game's story was so subtle that I didn't even know anything about the C-Consciousness until I was about three quarters of the way through the game and I learned about it on Wikipedia. Perhaps I was expecting the wrong thing because I have read Roadside Picnic, the book that the game is loosely based on. The cut scenes that the game showed every once and a while were intentionally unclear, which is fine as long as it becomes clear at some point. I didn't do many side-quests, which may have caused me to miss out on some of the story, but if that's true, then it's a design flaw. I don't mind subtlety in a game. I liked Half-Life 2, which had a lot of subtlety.

The bugs were bad in this game more than two years after its release. I couldn't get through a door at the end of the game because I didn't have some item that I didn't know I needed until then. To get through this door, I found a video online showing how you can use a bug that lets you open doors that you can't normally open. I used a bug to get around a bug. If you don't know what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B1_nizEqg8.

Was there something that I missed besides the plot? Why did this game sell two million copies?

[Skrying]

Because it was great. It attempted to mix some RPG elements into a FPS game. The atmosphere was fantastic, it was difficult enough to make most people whine about it being difficult, and the story was great as it did come together eventually. It had major flaws but the package was still worthy of much praise. It wasn't yet another horrible FPS game. For example Call of Duty 4's horrible single player.

[SpikeMeister]

I liked it because it had a great atmosphere, and looting. I love anything with looting (as long as it's not a heavy-ass-RPG ). I didn't find the combat difficult, as soon as you get a scoped weapon you can down pretty much anything with a headshot. Headshots aren't an unrealistic expectation in PC FPS's now are they? Maybe on consoles .

To me the game had the feel of something that could have been absolutely amazing, but just missed it and so was merely good. Too many bugs and tiny niggling flaws; a lot of these are fixed with mods such as Stalker Complete 2009 or Oblivion Lost, but of course a game shouldn't be judged on the quality of it's mods.

[Voldenuit]

I think I liked it best because of the promise and the ambition. It is sad that it fell short of its goals (and that Clear Sky didn't address those shortcomings). But the atmosphere was superbly executed, and reminded me of Tarkovsky's film STALKER (also based on Roadside Picnic). Lest you think I enjoyed the game solely for its promise and literary references, I really enjoyed the action and the pacing of the large scale combats in the game.

Strangely, one game I didn't like that had similar promise was Bioshock. While the environment was great, it really felt too 'consoley'. The controls felt wooden and unresponsive, as though they had simply mapped mouselook from a controller, the weapon physics and handling was 'off', and worst of all, the plot was heavy handed and ham-fisted. The levels were not just corridors, they were railroads, and attempts to 'hub' worked even worse.

At the end of the day, there are different strokes for different folks, and I'm glad for games like Stalker that try to break the mold.

[MixedPower]

I thought STALKER was really fun. I loved the RPG/Adventure elements and found the combat really fun. I'm not sure why you had so much difficulty killing enemies, that's never been a problem for me - especially after I get the Vintar. There are a fair number of bugs, but I've seen worse. As for that door you were trying to get through, there's a progression of prominent side-quests you have to go through to get the item to open the door, like the master sword quests in Zelda games. They're intentionally optional, though, and if you don't get the decipher you're supposed to end up in a different area, with a different ending.

[Philldoe]

eh.. I'm with you, I didn't like it either. I had to force myself to finish it.

[xxxBennyBlancoxxx]

i have to agree with you TurtlePerson2 on most points. the game was good to look at and the mechanics weren't too bad either. and i just finished the game two days ago so the game play is fresh for me.

the thing that gets me is how it's possible for me to complete like 35% of the game (just a random percentage i came up with but seems right) and still finish the game? just like you TurtlePerson2 i finished the game without knowing wtf was going on. C-Consciousness? wtf was that? i mean damn if a person has to figure out what the game is about by reading wikipedia and watching youtube vids to piece the story together there is some serious problems. that's a reason i try no read as many reviews as possible. but seriously, as glitchy and bug laden as this game is how does it get an 82% metascore and sell 2 million copies?

in closing still not sure what i have to do to pass the game so that i complete all main objectives. i restarted the game a few times just bc the story got messed up along the way, like characters dying (that scientist that gives you special headset for x16 lab) without any indication as to how it happened or how to fix it the next time around.

as bad as stalker ended up being it's it's a million times better than bioshock. i couldn't even finish that one. it was soooooooooo boring, and like some other guy stated, controls we shot from the get-go. that game got a 98% metascore.

but it's all just opinions and i know others very from mine.

i'm having trouble finding a good game to play. i just finished cod5 but way too short. company of heroes isn't too bad.

ps: first ever post on a forum ever. not as bad as i thought it'd be.

[Heiwashin]

I didn't like it either.

[Meadows]

I agree, the game is far too difficult and not very easy to sympathise with, which are problems the graphics won't make up for.

[yogibbear]

Sounds like the OP did none of the side quests and missed all good weapons/good anomalies...

It's a tough game. But it's a game that encourages running away, collecting TONNES of bandages/healthkits and getting the right anomalie loadout.

It's possible to miss the better guns. And the starter to medium guns are all RUBBISH. But that's the point. To make you want the better guns. In HL2 (for example) the submachine gun with grenade launcher and the 6 shooter (can't remember exactly what it was) are still useful even to the end game. In STALKER you are FORCED to search everywhere for gear to deal with the anomalies/zone

[roont]

But it's a game that encourages running away, collecting TONNES of bandages/healthkits

not really my idea of great features for a fps. I dont really see how running away is a positive in any game. pre planning attacks, being stealthy and whatnot sure, but running away, healing up, going back in, running away, healing up and over and over. not that appealing. i played it breifly at a friends place and put it down not long after myself.
of course different strokes and all that, but im with the OP.

[Fragnificent]

I thought this game sucked horribly, little or no plot, impossible to kill anything, and buggy as all hell. I made it through about two hours and gave up.

[Corrado]

I thought this game sucked horribly, little or no plot, impossible to kill anything, and buggy as all hell. I made it through about two hours and gave up.

Thats your issue. The first hour or two are not fun. After that, when you start getting better guns and armor and anomalies, the game becomes VERY good. I played the first hour about 4 times before I forced myself through... once I hit the 2nd hour, I was hooked.

[TurtlePerson2]

I think I liked it best because of the promise and the ambition. It is sad that it fell short of its goals (and that Clear Sky didn't address those shortcomings). But the atmosphere was superbly executed, and reminded me of Tarkovsky's film STALKER (also based on Roadside Picnic). Lest you think I enjoyed the game solely for its promise and literary references, I really enjoyed the action and the pacing of the large scale combats in the game.

Strangely, one game I didn't like that had similar promise was Bioshock. While the environment was great, it really felt too 'consoley'. The controls felt wooden and unresponsive, as though they had simply mapped mouselook from a controller, the weapon physics and handling was 'off', and worst of all, the plot was heavy handed and ham-fisted. The levels were not just corridors, they were railroads, and attempts to 'hub' worked even worse.

At the end of the day, there are different strokes for different folks, and I'm glad for games like Stalker that try to break the mold.

I played Bioshock a month or so ago and thought it was great. In fact, it's easily the best game that I've played all year. I would agree with you that the controls were a tad bit slow, but not too bad. I didn't think that the story was too heavy handed, but it certainly wasn't subtle. What made Bioshock so great in my opinion was that they carried some themes throughout the entire game without being too pretentious. I personally thought that the game was a comment on gaming in general. The "A man chooses, a slave obeys." line was a comment on how you were blindly following the "objectives" that you had been told.

Perhaps part of my problem with the STALKER story was that I kept thinking that the Wish Granter was the goal. In reality the Wish Granter was kind of a fraud and was used as a MacGuffin. I kept on believing in the Wish Granter story up until the end.

[TurtlePerson2]

I thought this game sucked horribly, little or no plot, impossible to kill anything, and buggy as all hell. I made it through about two hours and gave up.

Thats your issue. The first hour or two are not fun. After that, when you start getting better guns and armor and anomalies, the game becomes VERY good. I played the first hour about 4 times before I forced myself through... once I hit the 2nd hour, I was hooked.

The first few hours was incredibly dull. I would argue that that was a design flaw though. It's not like there was a ton of plot exposition in the first few hours of the game. They started you off with little to no ammo, inaccurate weapons, and no artifacts. They then have you run through areas that just show you what the zone is like without telling much of the story. Maybe it was just me, but I had the military follow me back to the trader and had to sprint out of there to avoid dying. I almost gave up after the first five hours, but I stuck with the game and wasn't really impressed with the last five hours either.

[roont]

The first hour or two are not fun.

exactly. if a game (or movie, or tv show, or book, or news article, or anything) doesnt hook me within the first little while, im not interested.

[FubbHead]

I thought it had that accomplishment feeling to it. You were dropped in the outskirts of nowhere, and when you got somewhere, you actually felt you've been through ****, and accomplished something. That, plus the the atmosphere is just awesome, with the weather, music, and all the broken people. And I'm a looter.

Bioshock on the other hand, was almost completely lost on me. It looked good, but the atmosphere and game in general felt rather superficial, and it was pretty much on rails, so nah. And I liked the first 2 CoD games, and the Modern Warfare game (which I believe still had the CoD title), even the single player campaigns. But the other CoD games are just crap, so horribly poor scripting it looses all immersion, and a really crappy idea of difficulty, a fault it unfortunately share with STALKER.

[derFunkenstein]

The first hour or two are not fun.

exactly. if a game (or movie, or tv show, or book, or news article, or anything) doesnt hook me within the first little while, im not interested.

And why should you be interested? I agree. If I have to slog through HOURS of nonsense to get to the point that it's actually interesting, it's a chore and the level designers and story writers should be beaten with a shovel.

[Skrying]

I guess it comes down to how you like the story and world to be presented to you. I like stories that are slow to build, dump you into a world where you're not entirely sure what to do first. I don't like to be directed. This is why I find games like Call of Duty 4 so boring in the single player. They might as well be on rails. Stalker ignored all of that and wasn't afraid to turn off a great majority of people. I don't mind a movie that takes a couple of hours of thinking to even start to grasp the plot (probably why I can stand David Lynch films even with the horrible acting), just like in a book.

[Meadows]

Thats your issue. The first hour or two are not fun.

If anything, that's a catastrophic flaw.

[danny e.]

I agree, the game is far too difficult and not very easy to sympathise with, which are problems the graphics won't make up for.

haha It always makes me smile when people claim a game is too difficult.
I thought even the dumbest of the dumb knew about the difficulty settings. If it's too hard for you, then maybe you arent so "leet" and should bump the difficulty setting down.

Its a different story if you have a legitimate reason for the way in which the difficulty is implemented. IE if the difficulty setting merely makes your guns less accurate to the point of being completely unreasonable, then maybe there is a point.

I typically play all games on "medium" or "medium-high" because I suck at having patience to die a ton in a game. I play for fun.. and fun to me is never the most difficult

[ClickClick5]

Shadow of Chernobyl (SOC) was excellent. The perfect blend of fear, atmosphere and dark places. Clear Sky did not move me near as much as SOC...it felt more silly then anything else. Then there was the darker action and chase at the end through the red forrest, but still, the NPC's lines were of a more comic nature then in SOC. Yet from what I have read about Call Of Pripyat coming out soon, it return to the darker feel of SOC. And I await the release (and all of the lovely bugs).

[Blazex]

the first stalker was good in the atmosphere, the difficulty wasn't bad at all(clear sky is a different story with difficulty...), i liked that the weapons actually jammed and needed repairs, looting was always fun, and weapon inaccuracy just felt right instead of being able to shoot and never miss like in nearly every shooter game there; didn't run into much any bugs and completed the game with no problems, it was a good experience. its a different experience loading clear sky though it adds a bit more element to it all though.
on the other hand i like clear sky in its own regard it's just the lowest difficulty is harder than s.o.c.'s highest difficulty, it feels like there's a bit more story to clear sky though despite the single ending, im like 2/3 through it, it doesn't keep me wanting to play as much as s.o.c. did though but it did improve in some ways overall.

[Meadows]

I agree, the game is far too difficult and not very easy to sympathise with, which are problems the graphics won't make up for.

haha It always makes me smile when people claim a game is too difficult.
I thought even the dumbest of the dumb knew about the difficulty settings. If it's too hard for you, then maybe you arent so "leet" and should bump the difficulty setting down.

Its a different story if you have a legitimate reason for the way in which the difficulty is implemented. IE if the difficulty setting merely makes your guns less accurate to the point of being completely unreasonable, then maybe there is a point.

I typically play all games on "medium" or "medium-high" because I suck at having patience to die a ton in a game. I play for fun.. and fun to me is never the most difficult

That's why I generally play games on medium settings as well.
But the truth is, STALKER is not a game on medium, but punishment.

If you like that, sure, go ahead.

[duncan426]

I love the Stalker Environment. I just finished Clear Sky last night and I am going to go back and play it again. I think the story is awesome, especially at the end of SOC. I think the settings in the CNNP creates a "what if" scenario. Since nobody can live near the plant,it makes me wonder, what is going on there??? For the game play, I was lucky and never had any issues with bugs. The only mod I used was the weight mod. 50lbs is not enough. Can't wait until the Call of Pripyat!!

[FubbHead]

The different endings (of SoC) are awesome as well. Haven't played all of them, but they're all on YouTube.

[xxxBennyBlancoxxx]

you guys are right stating the good qualities of the game. the game play is fun and challenging. but when you finish a game without a clue what's going on with the story and you have to search wikipedia and youtube to find out plot it says something aboot the game.

for me i can put up with a lot. crashes, bugs. but if the story, the most important part of a game that's supposed to take more than a few hours to finish, makes no sense and you can "finish" the game without even being point to right planet let-alone the right area to search for the next step the game is shoddy. it's like watching a full nba team play one guy in basketball. no matter how good that one guy is the game play will be ridiculous (in a bad way). or like buying a choose your own adventure book with half the pages missing. it just doesn't make sense.

[herothezero]

I thought it had that accomplishment feeling to it. You were dropped in the outskirts of nowhere, and when you got somewhere, you actually felt you've been through ****, and accomplished something. That, plus the the atmosphere is just awesome, with the weather, music, and all the broken people. And I'm a looter.

Bioshock on the other hand, was almost completely lost on me. It looked good, but the atmosphere and game in general felt rather superficial, and it was pretty much on rails, so nah.

My sentiments exactly. Bioshock just screamed console port.

STALKER has to be one of my favorite games in the nearly thirty years I've been gaming. It has an amazing and utterly immersive environment and the mods are simply outstanding--fans should check out The Priobi Story. It's a total conversion and very well done.

Looking forward to Call of Priypat.

[Hoser]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. came out at a time when FPS's were getting really boring and really.....really short. The games were not immersive and very linear. Sure it was unpolished, but the idea of the game was fresh, and it was good to see a developer do a game that wasn't just run around & shoot anything that moved. I liken it to the same genre as Deus Ex. There were decisions to be made that affected how NPC's interacted with you and it did make for good replayability.

[TurtlePerson2]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. came out at a time when FPS's were getting really boring and really.....really short. The games were not immersive and very linear. Sure it was unpolished, but the idea of the game was fresh, and it was good to see a developer do a game that wasn't just run around & shoot anything that moved. I liken it to the same genre as Deus Ex. There were decisions to be made that affected how NPC's interacted with you and it did make for good replayability.

I would agree that it's a lot like Deus Ex, but it had all of Deus Ex's weaknesses. I thought that the combat in Deus Ex was dull and unfairly difficult. You couldn't line up a shot quickly until you leveled up, which you can compare to the lack of accurate weapons until part way through the game in Stalker.

Voice acting was weak in both games. Deus Ex had bad voice acting, but at least it had it. Stalker was content to sum up a character in a single line. There were so few characters in Stalker that had any personality that it made the world feel empty.

The two games were very different in terms of storytelling. Deus Ex was almost entirely linear. You could make some choices here and there, but the level design was fairly linear. You played through the levels in the same order and did roughly the same thing in those levels. Deus Ex was also more forward with the story. Characters explained to you what had happened in the world and what was going on at that moment.

Deus Ex also had an ambiguous ending. Any of the three endings were justifiable. In Stalker, one ending was clearly the best. The wish giver endings were clearly bad, since they harmed you and brought no resolution to the Zone. The joining-c-consciousness ending was bad because we see that the Zone hasn't really changed. The destruction of the C-Consciousness ending shows a beautiful day with the Zone turned into a happy field, clearly the happiest ending. Stalker was a sandbox game, but the main story didn't really give you any choices. You could decide whether or not to ally with Freedom or Duty, but neither of those factions were critical to what was really going on in the Zone.