.... just not yet.

Apparently it's hard to develop a game when your country is being
invaded by a hostile aggressor. But GSC Game World assures us they are
still truckin' along, with an updated release date of September 5th
this year. Maybe. Artillery permitting.

I'm perfectly okay with this. GSC is a tiny developer to start with,
and the fact that they are persisting despite a war raging around them
is commendable. But even if it wasn't, I'd have no problem waiting.
We've seen too often the result of what happens when games release
early; it isn't pretty. Let them take their time and work out all the
problems first, I say.

But moreso... I'm fine with this just because... well... I'm not a
huge fan of the STALKER games. Oh, I'll buy the sequel, sure. Aside
from the whole 'Slava Ukraini!' thing, I'd support them because
a) they're a smaller developer, and those need support, and
b) they're a quintessentially PC developer.

But I'm not really excited about the game itself. Sure, the original
game was impressive for its visuals and atmosphere, but it's gameplay
left me rather cold. And these days, the novelty of the game just
isn't there anymore. There seems little that STALKER 2 is offering
that other games haven't done, often better. Frankly, stripped of its
name and pedigree, I doubt STALKER 2 would get much of a glance from
most people; it doesn't actually look that impressive.

Of course, the developers do have another 9 months to improve on the
game, so maybe that will change.

I'm happy to wait.

On 17/01/2024 16:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> ... just not yet.
>
> Apparently it's hard to develop a game when your country is being
> invaded by a hostile aggressor. But GSC Game World assures us they are
> still truckin' along, with an updated release date of September 5th
> this year. Maybe. Artillery permitting.
>
> I'm perfectly okay with this. GSC is a tiny developer to start with,
> and the fact that they are persisting despite a war raging around them
> is commendable. But even if it wasn't, I'd have no problem waiting.
> We've seen too often the result of what happens when games release
> early; it isn't pretty. Let them take their time and work out all the
> problems first, I say.
>
> But moreso... I'm fine with this just because... well... I'm not a
> huge fan of the STALKER games. Oh, I'll buy the sequel, sure. Aside
> from the whole 'Slava Ukraini!' thing, I'd support them because
> a) they're a smaller developer, and those need support, and
> b) they're a quintessentially PC developer.
>
> But I'm not really excited about the game itself. Sure, the original
> game was impressive for its visuals and atmosphere, but it's gameplay
> left me rather cold. And these days, the novelty of the game just
> isn't there anymore. There seems little that STALKER 2 is offering
> that other games haven't done, often better. Frankly, stripped of its
> name and pedigree, I doubt STALKER 2 would get much of a glance from
> most people; it doesn't actually look that impressive.
>
> Of course, the developers do have another 9 months to improve on the
> game, so maybe that will change.
>
> I'm happy to wait.
>

I'm kinda excited as Stalker is on my list of all time classic games.
Yes there won't be the novelty but if they can make a version that
doesn't have most of the issues that the original did then I'm going to
enjoy it.

I still remember the first combat at the farmhouse when it dawned on me
that this isn't CoD just in a different setting. What do you mean if I
just run in guns blazing I'll get killed. The part that I think they
can't replicate is just how much fun I had exploring the world to see
what it has to offer.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:06:59 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 17/01/2024 16:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>> ... just not yet.
>>
>> Apparently it's hard to develop a game when your country is being
>> invaded by a hostile aggressor. But GSC Game World assures us they are
>> still truckin' along, with an updated release date of September 5th
>> this year. Maybe. Artillery permitting.
>>
>> I'm perfectly okay with this. GSC is a tiny developer to start with,
>> and the fact that they are persisting despite a war raging around them
>> is commendable. But even if it wasn't, I'd have no problem waiting.
>> We've seen too often the result of what happens when games release
>> early; it isn't pretty. Let them take their time and work out all the
>> problems first, I say.
>>
>> But moreso... I'm fine with this just because... well... I'm not a
>> huge fan of the STALKER games. Oh, I'll buy the sequel, sure. Aside
>> from the whole 'Slava Ukraini!' thing, I'd support them because
>> a) they're a smaller developer, and those need support, and
>> b) they're a quintessentially PC developer.
>>
>> But I'm not really excited about the game itself. Sure, the original
>> game was impressive for its visuals and atmosphere, but it's gameplay
>> left me rather cold. And these days, the novelty of the game just
>> isn't there anymore. There seems little that STALKER 2 is offering
>> that other games haven't done, often better. Frankly, stripped of its
>> name and pedigree, I doubt STALKER 2 would get much of a glance from
>> most people; it doesn't actually look that impressive.
>>
>> Of course, the developers do have another 9 months to improve on the
>> game, so maybe that will change.
>>
>> I'm happy to wait.
>>
>
>I'm kinda excited as Stalker is on my list of all time classic games.
>Yes there won't be the novelty but if they can make a version that
>doesn't have most of the issues that the original did then I'm going to
>enjoy it.
>
>I still remember the first combat at the farmhouse when it dawned on me
>that this isn't CoD just in a different setting. What do you mean if I
>just run in guns blazing I'll get killed. The part that I think they
>can't replicate is just how much fun I had exploring the world to see
>what it has to offer.

See, I think the effect was less for me because, as a rule, I almost
never 'run in guns blazing'. Even in games like Doom, my strategy was
always to try and hang back, hide behind cover, and snipe the enemies
from afar (and retreat if the enemy advanced). After all, that's what
I'd do in real life if I were forced into such a situation. Getting
shot hurts!

So that first battle in STALKER didn't really seem all the exciting to
me. Sure, the gun sight was a bit more wobbly than I'd like, and
getting shot took away slightly more hitpoints than I expected, but it
wasn't really that hard to get through for me. The fact that I used up
all my healing (and most of my bullets) in that single battle didn't
make the game seem harder, just more of a grind.

But that's just me.

On 19/01/2024 15:23, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:06:59 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/01/2024 16:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>
>>> ... just not yet.
>>>
>>> Apparently it's hard to develop a game when your country is being
>>> invaded by a hostile aggressor. But GSC Game World assures us they are
>>> still truckin' along, with an updated release date of September 5th
>>> this year. Maybe. Artillery permitting.
>>>
>>> I'm perfectly okay with this. GSC is a tiny developer to start with,
>>> and the fact that they are persisting despite a war raging around them
>>> is commendable. But even if it wasn't, I'd have no problem waiting.
>>> We've seen too often the result of what happens when games release
>>> early; it isn't pretty. Let them take their time and work out all the
>>> problems first, I say.
>>>
>>> But moreso... I'm fine with this just because... well... I'm not a
>>> huge fan of the STALKER games. Oh, I'll buy the sequel, sure. Aside
>>> from the whole 'Slava Ukraini!' thing, I'd support them because
>>> a) they're a smaller developer, and those need support, and
>>> b) they're a quintessentially PC developer.
>>>
>>> But I'm not really excited about the game itself. Sure, the original
>>> game was impressive for its visuals and atmosphere, but it's gameplay
>>> left me rather cold. And these days, the novelty of the game just
>>> isn't there anymore. There seems little that STALKER 2 is offering
>>> that other games haven't done, often better. Frankly, stripped of its
>>> name and pedigree, I doubt STALKER 2 would get much of a glance from
>>> most people; it doesn't actually look that impressive.
>>>
>>> Of course, the developers do have another 9 months to improve on the
>>> game, so maybe that will change.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to wait.
>>>
>>
>> I'm kinda excited as Stalker is on my list of all time classic games.
>> Yes there won't be the novelty but if they can make a version that
>> doesn't have most of the issues that the original did then I'm going to
>> enjoy it.
>>
>> I still remember the first combat at the farmhouse when it dawned on me
>> that this isn't CoD just in a different setting. What do you mean if I
>> just run in guns blazing I'll get killed. The part that I think they
>> can't replicate is just how much fun I had exploring the world to see
>> what it has to offer.
>
> See, I think the effect was less for me because, as a rule, I almost
> never 'run in guns blazing'. Even in games like Doom, my strategy was
> always to try and hang back, hide behind cover, and snipe the enemies
> from afar (and retreat if the enemy advanced). After all, that's what
> I'd do in real life if I were forced into such a situation. Getting
> shot hurts!
>
> So that first battle in STALKER didn't really seem all the exciting to
> me. Sure, the gun sight was a bit more wobbly than I'd like, and
> getting shot took away slightly more hitpoints than I expected, but it
> wasn't really that hard to get through for me. The fact that I used up
> all my healing (and most of my bullets) in that single battle didn't
> make the game seem harder, just more of a grind.
>
> But that's just me.
>
>

I think that's because when it was released my mind set was very much
based around the likes of MoH and CoD and that's what I thought I was
getting, don't ask me why I thought that. I was glad to be wrong though
as I actual prefer a more tactical approach. That's why I enjoyed
Brothers In Arms, well the first two anyway. The biggest flaw it had was
that at some point I began to realise how the AI worked and although it
was better than a bog standard FPS it was still predictable. The second
one did try to address this with the addition of flanking but it was
still problematic. Rather a shame the series died, ho hum.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:33:19 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>
>I think that's because when it was released my mind set was very much
>based around the likes of MoH and CoD and that's what I thought I was
>getting, don't ask me why I thought that. I was glad to be wrong though
>as I actual prefer a more tactical approach. That's why I enjoyed
>Brothers In Arms, well the first two anyway. The biggest flaw it had was
>that at some point I began to realise how the AI worked and although it
>was better than a bog standard FPS it was still predictable. The second
>one did try to address this with the addition of flanking but it was
>still problematic. Rather a shame the series died, ho hum.

I had several issues with the "Brothers in Arms" games:

1) it was /so/ overhyped as being a realistic, WW2
simulator-shooter prior to release, while in actuality
it was anything but

2) The game felt very mechanical once you started playing.
As you mentioned, the enemy AI was very predictible, to
the point it was more of a puzzle game than a simulation.
"If I move soldier here, enemy moves there, allowing
manuever to here, causing enemy redeploy there, allowing
final reposititioning where bad guys are in my kill zone
and instantly die". The fact that the tactics were so
repeatable stripped the game of any challenge once you
figured out the basic pattern.

3) The friendly AI was... well, not useless, but far
less useful than it should have been. Too often it was
the player that had to make all the kills; often, the
sensible tactic was just to order your troops to hunker
down and then sprint out ahead and do all the dirty
work yourself. This turned one of the game's key features
- it's friendly AI fireteams - into annoying busywork

4) While it wasn't an ugly game, neither did it boast
any spectacular visuals... even for its time. Its voice-
acting and story were run-of-the-mill tripe (too heavily
influenced by HBO's 'Band of Brothers' tv show, but not as
well written) and its orchestral soundtrack was annoyingly
bombastic. And, once again, the game retold the tale of
the D-Day invasion, a topic that was already overdone in
video games.

The games weren't bad, but they suffered from serious flaws that made
what could have been excellent games into very average titles. The
first game of the franchise was, I always felt, the best. The sequel
felt like leftover missions not good enough to make the cut in the
first, and the third changed the formula too much in the direction of
the "Call of Duty" games.

On the other hand, the "Full Spectrum Warrior" games, though placed in
a pseudo-Iraq War setting and still suffering a bit from the "tactical
puzzle" issue, better realized the ideal of manuevering troops in a
battlefield.