S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Where do I begin? This game has been getting reviews ranging from 58/100 to 93/100. As usual, the gaming community is split between "sucks" and "awesome". No middle ground for the gamers but major sites like IGN, Gamespot, and EuroGamer scored it in the 80% range. Out of 52 reviews only 6 scored it below 80/100.

I was hoping this game was just "good". Fearing a complete mess I was suprised with a great experiance. I was thinking, how the hell could a gamer not like this one?

Here are some issues I think some people had with it...

1) Realistic aiming, No aim assist

This is also scaled by weapon quality. Right-clicking to aim and use ironsights or a mounted scope is the only way to get hits at a distance. So Call of Duty really pushed this on people but there was a little aim-assist. There is none here. If your target is 25m out and you crouch low, line the ironsights on his chest and you will likely score a few hits...with a shitty weapon. Later in the game with better weapons its zoom, squeeze off a burst at the head or zoom and aim at the chest and single-shot rounds up the body and they drop. Later in the game, alot of enemies are heavily armored.

I looked back on the few times I fired a real gun. A milk jug not very far away can be missed easily using ironsights. Once you get a feel for the shooting in stalker its alot of fun. I enjoyed it. Too many games are about lining up pixels (as CliffyB said, hes right about that). How quickly can I twitch and know I'm going to take someone down. Is that the case in RL? What if the player is not a super soldier? Stalker throws you in a very harsh world with nothing but a PDA in hand (which ties into point #2). So as I remember the few times I shot a rifle with iron-sights, this game feels more like that than any other.

2) It is Difficult

Novice, Stalker, Difficult, and Expert...or something like that. Even on stalker (normal?) you can be dusted rather quickly. Especially if you stick your nose where it doesn't belong. Guerilla tactics are important when attacking larger groups. Add to that no quicksave and forgetting to save often will result in annoyance. Just going to the menu and saving alot takes some people out of the experiance. It didn't hamper my experiance much.If it ever gets ported console gamers are already used to auto-checkpoint saves and going to the menu to save. Otherwise, play smart and its less difficult though more rewarding.

3) Story/Quest Direction

Too much open-ended play can result in confusion and alot of screw ups. I like that style of play but traveling on foot is a task at times. Getting jerked around trying to get all the quests can hurt your first play through the game. Until you know how things work. Basically, you are given a main quest, which you should then populate your PDA with sidequests from that same area. You don't know this though, I just figured that was the best way to play after my 1st game. Questgivers don't tell you (most of the time) where a quest is. If you take it (all sidejobs are on a 1-day timer) and its on the other end of the map, the timer can run out while you are caught up in other things and you fail it. Then you can't do it again. If you don't do certain quests it affects the quality of your game ending (this is only the case with 2). It is (in those 2 times)left entirely up to the player to discover the various aspects of the main plot...which can be viewed as good or bad.

Sidequests and their timers is another issue. That system is a major flaw and does nothing to improve the experiance. But, its the best story I've played in a while. If you manage this correclty it only makes the experiance better. The game is not a 1-time singleplayer throw away then go all MP either. So you may find yourself wanting to start a second game...how often does that happen nowadays. Not much with myself.

4) Bugs

Although its way better since the 1st patch there are a few bugs. The 1st patch killed gamesaves. Whoever bought this day 1 with no patch was treated with the chance of corrupted saves.

-------------------------

Its one of the best games I've played in a while. I know this blog reads too much like, "well, heres why stalker sucks" and maybe I convinced someone not to buy. I just was thinking of the possible reasons why people do not like this game or just stopped playing it, which seems like a waste. I thought I'd write about it here. For every issue I found there where 5 things that were really cool. Although its not a perfect game, if you're a serious gamer with a PC and like RPG elements in games you should play this one.

--------------------------

Played on AMD 3700+, 1GB PC3200, 7600GT. 1440x900, HDR on objects, view distance 30%, textures 10%, everything else 0% or off. Was getting 25-40fps pn low settings and it didn't bother me at all.

Posted by Rhysode @ 6:10 pm EDT | Permalink | 0 Comments

PC Gaming Mythos from Non-PC Gamers

I see alot of false statements about PC gaming that people seem to state so confidently as fact. To think some people miss out on a possible great new experiance because of someones misinformation, half-truths, un-truths, or just plain nonsense, is unacceptable. I've corrected peoples statements on here before with no rebuttal. And sometimes only to see them show up later and say the same thing they said before.

Yes, some people take your advice as light on facts as it is. Even your friends who you wouldn't see on XBL as much if they had a gaming PC...maybe. We both have our motives for our opinions on this but lets atleast keep it truthful. There are reasons some people should not PC game, so I won't be biased or untruthful.

"You need to upgrade every 6 months." Or any statement that makes in seem that uopgrading every 6 months is mandatory.

That is only true if you must have the best and latest gear. If you must play every new game at highest possible settings and you will accept nothing less. So some gave up totally on PC gaming because they tried to do this. They would rather walk if they can't drive the Ferrari.

"Its way too much of a hassle."

This statement is true for the person who doesn't know much about computers and/or has no time or want to get involved. Works hard, only wants to buy the box and forget. Throw a disk in and play. Can't argue with that. The arguement of convenience and ease of use for being a console-only gamer, its a fair one. Its completely understandable and a very good reason to buy a console and stick with it.

"I don't have the 2 grand for a gaming PC." (Or the money arguement in general.)

If you have a PC already and it has a PCI-X or AGP expansion slot, you are possibly just 150$ away from playing 90% of the PC games out there on pretty high settings. Keeping in mind the many other things you can do on a PC which is why you have one in the first place. The amount of money you save and performance you get on a budget is directly linked to how much you know. The most expensive solution would be buying anything from a big PC company, say Dell.

If people see the PC game videos, they see the games and read about them and get curious and pretty excitied. They should ask someone who does it currently. This is where the AntiI-PC Brigade comes in and tells Dear Dr. Phil, MY PC ABUSED ME stories. Or just elbow their way in and say "But, but....to play it in ultra settings on vista with a hooker on your lap...it will cost this much!" *shows with hands like the 'big' fish he caught as a toddler*

If you need legal help, are you going to listen to a guy who gave up on the BAR exam and talks about law at the local social club? No, you're going to listen to the practicing lawyer who is up on the latest. If you're curious about PC gaming, listen to the people that are active PC gamers.

If you want to state the money arguement, say, "PC gaming is too expensive if you have to have all the best stuff and all the latest on Ultra settings." If you want to begin PC gaming tomorrow and buy a system off the internet and is gaming ready, its going to be $625 on the low-end. Alot of people don't want to drop that kind of money. But you have to consider what else it can do. Lets say you dropped dough on a HDTV for your 360. if you want to play it your way I can say the 360 was $900 - $2000 with the TV. But we all know there is alot more you can do with that TV which makes it worth it.

- The Mac Arguement

This is not about OSX vs Vista. Its about gaming. As a gaming machine, you really can't recommend a Mac UNLESS you already need/have it for other means. Then we are probably talking about a videocard upgrade (maybe) and the ability to boot into windows to play all games. Not a whole lot. (Virtual machine will not do. Unless you only run older games that have smaller requirements.)

In other words if someone wants to get into PC gaming and PC gaming only. You get...a PC. Hell, I really don't care about Vista, I will get it for the DX10 later this year. Some people will come and say you've bowed down to the corporate machine...."you couldn't hold out!". Well, you go get stoned somewhere....I'll play Crysis.

-------------------------------

If you are going to make a comment, please read the entire blog. If you don't want to read it all I would rather have you ignore it completely.

Thanks

 

Posted by Rhysode @ 3:34 pm EDT | Permalink | 5 Comments

Vista Gaming - looking weak right now

Windows Vista - Jumping right into it is something I considered in the past for its "LIVE Anywhere" functionality (which we know little about) and "more powerful operating system", "runs your games better", etc. Was considering hardware, building a new machine, the works.

Buying it for gaming looks a poor choice at the moment.

1. 3DMark benches and game benches are currently worse in Vista than WinXP SP2. Some games lose 20% framerate. Valves steam based games are the few that only lose a few frames per second.
2. DirectX 10 games will not be abundant at first. Supreme Commander, from what I am told, will run fine on XP. It looks very much like a CPU and RAM intensive game (not a huge need to run it in ULTRA graphics settings, thats not the point of it). UT2K7 and Crysis will be coming out later than expected. Hellgate London as well. Alan Wake may be 2008 but also Xbox 360 confirmed anyway. Some games will recieve DX10 patches, not many.
3. Halo 2 in hi resolution is not a good reason to buy Vista unless you are a huge fan.
4. The 360's spring lineup is looking very good. Enough to take up most of someones gaming time.

Add to those things, its expensive. Home premium will be over $170 (no clue on OEM pricing). At the very least, not buying right away will mean more time to consider hardware.

Maybe that summer gaming drought would be a perfect time to build a new machine and pick up Vista. I don't think I'll buy sooner than that. Hopefully, the first 6 months of Vistas life will see a few updates.

Posted by Rhysode @ 12:51 pm EDT | Permalink | 6 Comments

My Top 10 Games of 2006

I wasn't happy with my last blog so I deleted it. It was a bit confusing and forced. I wasn't really up for writing at the time. I like to drop something in here around every 2 weeks about gaming but doing it just because its time is dumb. I probably take this blog too seriously but, thats what blogs are for. Everyone can blog about what they want - in general I guess. For the last one of the year I'm going to keep it simple.

Top Games of 2006

1. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (360)
2. Gears of War  (360)
3. Company of Heroes  (PC)
4. Neverwinter Nights 2  (PC)
5. Rainbow Six: Vegas  (360)
6. Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (360)
7. Half-Life 2: Episode 1 (PC)
8. Dawn of War: Dark Crusade (PC)
9. Galactic Civilizations 2: Dread Lords (PC)
10. Dreamfall: The Longest Journey (PC)

The top 3 I think belong there but otherwise, the list is somewhat loose. For example, 8 & 9 have way more replay value than #7 but, #7 is way more exciting on the first play through. #10 has gameplay issues and questionable replay, but has a storyline above all. #6 I don't play anymore but it set that bar for how next-gen games could play earlier this year. #4 & 5 have their faults but are just awesome in most aspects, etc.

In short - I played 27 games on the PC and 360 combined this past year. If I could only pick 10 to play, thats the list.

Have a safe New Year's celebration.

Posted by Rhysode @ 1:40 pm EDT | Permalink | 1 Comments

WoW to Decline in 2008

With the expansion coming and still gaining subs, WoW is going strong. Nothing but mediocre or unspectacular MMO's coming out next year or since. With what is coming in 2008, I see Blizzard could feel its first real competition. Guild Wars has a nice following but is not quite the same type of game. It doesn't pull in monthly payments like the Blizzard game which is a reason why other game makers envy it so much. You don't see developement houses screaming, "Damn, we NEED a piece of that FREE peer-to-peer PvP/RPG scene!". So again, while I don't see WoW having any real subscription-based MMO competition in 2007. It is only a matter of time until someone gets the formula down, but improves and expands as well.

MMO's are coming in 2008 that bring more to the table than 2007 MMO's. An old license (Conan) or an improvement on an MMO that got crushed by WoW anyway (Everquest designers Vanguard) will be coming forth but drawing few people away from WoW. Its really not worth debating cash-in or gimmick MMO's that people have little interest in like Archlord or older MMO's that are niches now. Besides, anything coming out in 2007 has to compete directly with Burning Crusade in 2007. The first, long-awaited expansion to WoW.

With what is coming in 2008, Blizzard will likely get hurt. Seems unbelieveable if you are a current WoW addict but its more of a possibility than ever. I don't think something will come out and outright crush WoW but I can see some slowly chipping away at it. Thats likely the way it will go being such an enormous game. Hell it has as many subs as people who own Xbox 360's!

Warhammer online

It is 2/3 of the way finished and will likely show up in 2008. This one promises to have everything WoW has but improvement on everything, including much better PvP. If it does atleast PvP well and brings some very new features 2 kinds of people could leave WoW for it. 1) The ones that are thirsty for something new 2) The more serious PvP player. 3) If it proves to have everything WoW has on the non PvP side, and as far as previews suggest, it could hurt WoW. Word of mouth and seeing your server a little less crowded every weekend may urge most people to see why and begin the end of WoW.

A.P.B.

A concept that has been in the back of everyones mind and is ripe for MMO is the GTA-style. APB is rumored late 2008. There is not alot of info on it but it will obviously be somekind of modern or future crime saga. While the GTA creator is onboard, the biggest negative is its in developement by Webzen. Webzen hasn't proven itself as a company that can bring a huge game like Blizzard. A good indication of seeing how Webzen will fair is to judge the quality of the upcoming MMOFPS, Huxley. Though its obvious Huxley doesn't scare WoW (or Halo3 on the 360) it will be a good judge of what kind of quality the Korean developer can bring to the table in late 2007, well before APB is out. If this APB is good, could bring more new players to the MMO world being of a concept more people can grasp as they did with GTA. Based on modern realism Vs Fantasy. I would see more of the Sports or GTA "casual", gamer joing the MMO fray because of A.P.B. Only if its truly a great game can it draw gamers away from WoW or a fantasy MMO.

Bioware MMO

Bioware, enough said really. That name alone gives it a reason to respect it over the cookie-cutter fantasy MMO's coming in 2007. A company that has more than proven itself in the RPG world. Is long overdue for an MMO. Who knows if it will make it by 2008? The only one certain to is Warhammer. If Warhammer is good it comes down to that or WoW, thats one thing. Once the Bioware game joins the fray, and if its good, it comes down to a 4 year old game, or one of the 2 great new ones for your fantasy fix. Makes it harder to go back and regrind another WoW character at that point.

Conclusion: I played WoW for nearly a year. I quit for its eventual boredom and its endgame not-play-but-work feeling. Its a juggernaut and I realize it will not go down without a fight but I have to believe most people feel its getting a little old. Everyone likes new things. Some guild got banned a while back for exploiting because they didn't want to spend hours getting to C'Thun...I don't blame them. Is that really that wrong since they already cleared the dungeon numerous times? Blizzard is not perfect and the decision to ban them should not have gone without realizing they have interest problems among their hooked gamers. Alot of WoW doesn't feel like your having fun alot of the time. So I think its going to take games that will bring atleast the comparable level of quality, greater concepts, and avoid the few but huge negatives in WoW. By then, I'm sure Blizzards next MMO won't be far away.

 

Posted by Rhysode @ 12:54 pm EDT | Permalink | 0 Comments