(from <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=66981&hl=chernobyl' target='_blank'>this thread</a>) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes! I've been looking for that link. That's a much more realistic account of present day Chernobyl. Note: no gas clouds.
EDIT: Wow, more pictures that normal. It appears there are places where radition is low enough to walk around the area. Still, if I remember correctly the woman has to wear radiation tags and get tested for poisoning because of her exposure, so it's not totally radiation free.
Sweet I have actually been looking foward to this for a while. I watched a video a while back which shows off the physics engine....and it was very nice. Bring it on!
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
edited April 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Apr 7 2004, 04:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Apr 7 2004, 04:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm lost... this game's premise is horribly stupid. For one thing, there are no wild rabid dogs running around... in fact, there is little animal life in Chernobyl. The place is dead. Most of the people in the area don't want to go back there. Want to know why?!
BECAUSE IT'S RADIOACTIVE, THAT'S WHY!
The radiation is five times greater on the ground beside the road than on the road itself! First hand accounts show that it's not wise to go in the area, because there is too great a chance of radiation damage!
And I don't believe there are Gas Clouds of Death floating around... haha, that one had me groaning. What in the world is up with that? Heh, that's pretty stupid.
But what shocked me more is the storyline. You play the part of an adventurous and brave... trinket merchant? Stop. The. Presses. You mean I get to play in a huge, dead city and dig up artifacts?! FOR REAL?! Oh man, sign me up this instant!!!1111 I dunno, maybe it's just the horrible English translation on the Slalker page, or the way the storyline is presented. Sure, it worked in Tomb Raider (although I should note: barely), and Indiana Jones was a hit... but both worked in present day times, dealing with present day problems, and the booby traps left by ancient cultures. This game deals with irradiated dogs, clouds of death, and...? I don't get how this can be fun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Welcome to the world of interactive entertainment. In order to enhance your experiences here, please accept a complimentary copy of "the willing suspension of disbelief".
Riding around Chernobyl on a motorcycle taking photos while the gameworld viciously refuses to present enemies or environmental hazards besides higher-that normal background radiation doesn't sound like a decent premis for the game.
Half-Life wasn't exactly based on real-world events, but that was a hit.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
Ok this is the difference between realism I like and the realism I do.
What I care about:firearm accuracy and physics, as well as blood and possibly vital organs.
Anyone on the chatroom can testify to this.
What I do also care about is storyline.
So for sake of storyline pretend that the land of STALKERS was the real deal. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To hell with realism. I don't care what you <i>call</i> them, this game has some very interesting features (an aspect I like to call "gameplay") that make me want to get my grubby little mitts on this game as soon as possible.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you want realism, go play outside.
That said, this business about needing food and sleep, not having stuff onhand if it's in your pack (etc) is really cool. Equally cool is this intersting gameplay mechanic called "anomalies" - and they only have to call them "anomalies" because of all the realism nuts who'll jump up and down and get upset if they call it "radiation". Grow up. They're both good.
Comments above not directed at anyone in particular.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
stalkers has both Realism and Scifi feel. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> plus realistic guns and stuff!
im so going to bitchslap the lot of you with the AK-74
MedHead, I have to say this. <span style='color:white'>No, you don't.</span> You're arguing about mutant dog things not existing in chernobyl. no ****. It's a game.
The thing I don't get is that you're saying that the fanciful aspects of the game are stupid, when you're on a forum for a game where an alien bacteria that transforms into spiky deadly aliens that can climb walls and teleport is fighting a mini war against marines dressed in green body armor with southern accents an little microscopic robots that can be used as a copout to explain everything that looks like magic.
That pic Versetti posted <b>SO</b> reminds me of my grandmothers house in moscow. THos flowers, wich cover every little road and those same exact walls everywhere built in the soviet time with the exact same buildings everywhere.
I know this sounds fake and corny, but I actually shed a tear <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, medhead, the game takes place after a second explosion/white light/whatever, AFTER which the weird mutants and anomalies start showing up. I bet aliens did it.
Are you kidding? Sci fi is great. But this game strives for realism in its surroundings, but then exaggerates that with some very poorly chosen plot points. People died in the disaster, yet this game dilludes the deaths by making it a farce. a treasure hunt! There's some sci fi that's simply too stupid (or offensive) to bother playing. Stalker is not (and won't) be on my "Must Buy" list. What a waste.
They did talk about experiments being done... Oh well. You can't please everyone. I'd be willing to bet there's a medhead for every game. even HL2 (gasp).
Never a big fan of Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Hitler wasn't experimenting on zombies or anything like that. I like games based on historical events to have some resemblance to the real events. Return to Castle Wolfenstein wasn't really all that great of a game anyway.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
MedHead, just don't go watch Hellboy, nor play the original Wolfenstein, nor watch Cube, Titanic, Goodfellas, or ANY redeeming piece of fiction. Watch the History channel if you want detailed realism with no creativity or original twists. (And who says Hitler wasn't experimenting with zombies? Might not have succeeded, but there's no evidence he <b>didn't</b> try.)
In any case. This is on my 'to-buy' list as well. It looks like it could be a lot of fun.. the only down side is that I don't know just how interested it'll keep me, honestly enough. Sure, you can go exploring. But eventually, you'll have either been everywhere, or keep running over the same general area over and over, with nothing to really *do*. At that point, mods would come in and save it... which is why Half-Life is still living large. But if there's no moddability to STALKER, and especially if the multiplayer that was being discussed gets canned, it'll be a year.. maybe a two-year game at most.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Apr 8 2004, 01:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Apr 8 2004, 01:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it'll be a year.. maybe a two-year game at most. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is a hell of a lot longer than most games last for me. Only ones that have survived that long(er) for me are Halo, Half-Life (its mods), and Deus Ex.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Heh. HALO lasted you a year? How? I got bored on the third section of the Library level. The rest of the game just hammered itself into a nasty red smear after THAT travesty. Haven't played it since then.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Apr 8 2004, 12:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Apr 8 2004, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> MedHead, just don't go watch Hellboy, nor play the original Wolfenstein, nor watch Cube, Titanic, Goodfellas, or ANY redeeming piece of fiction. Watch the History channel if you want detailed realism with no creativity or original twists. (And who says Hitler wasn't experimenting with zombies? Might not have succeeded, but there's no evidence he <b>didn't</b> try. ) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll have to say don't watch the history channel for many subjects, because their information is off/biased quite often, but I guess that's kindof to be expected. It's not really universal either, it's a bit too 'Americans 0wnz0rz every1!!!!111'-esque.
It's also almost all 'The World War 2 Channel' and not 'The History Channel.'
But MedHead, you should <i>really</i> consider actually exploring and reading the stuff at the stalker website, before you go blatantly hating it and its <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People died in the disaster, yet this game dilludes the deaths by making it a farce. a treasure hunt! There's some sci fi that's simply too stupid (or offensive) to bother playing. Stalker is not (and won't) be on my "Must Buy" list. What a waste. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> aspect.
I.E. <a href='http://www.stalker-game.com/index_eng.html' target='_blank'>Stalker's Chernobyl Information</a> (which some of I can vouge for the truthfulness, but I'm not sure I would trust all of it).
The developers also live 100km from Chernobyl, so the last intention of their game would be to detract from the people who helped in and died during the disaster.
Look, no amount of any information you attempt to get me to read will change my opinion. Just as some here accuse of me of making a rash decision are just as strongly defending an opinon based on the same "loose" (by their claim) facts. When I say I don't approve of the subject material and the way it is handled, I get told I don't know all the facts, truth, or real plot of the game. Yet somehow that same information is more than enough proof for the opposition that the game is worthwhile and not offensive.
Talesin, nowhere did I claim that I can not watch any fiction. I said <b>games</b> (I never stated movies or television) that are based on real events should be as true to the source material as possible. Otherwise, I don't see the point of claiming the source material, other than attempting to gain popularity through the true event!
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
So... we should be playing Pong with actual paddles? Excitebike should allow you to tweak every aspect of your engine? You should be arrested for playing Manhunt? Since the reality of Half-Life didn't really happen, though there IS a place called Black Mesa Research Labs, Half-Life has no value?
It's a double standard, Med. An indefensible position. There are 'reality based' games which kinda-sorta follow reality a little bit, and there are sci-fi games which take a familiar setting and tweak it. Stalker is the latter. It's current-day, in a different dimension if you wanna call it that. They aren't SAYING that there are mutant dogs there. Or poison gas clouds. Or dwarves. They're saying 'what if this happened, instead of it just slowly turning into background radiation?', and presenting it in a shiny little box so that people can go through that what-if.
Though honestly, I'd have to chuckle if you felt that BF1942 or BF:Vietnam are anywhere NEAR realistic. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not really angry at anyone, so don't take it to be a flame war with me. It's a game, in the end. Not a big deal.
I don't own Battlefield: 1942, nor do I own Battlefield: Vietnam. You consider it an indefensible position because you have yet to understand what I'm saying. I'll explain it one last time. Games that claim to be based on real events should follow the real events as closely as possible.
Example:
Game 1: Claims to follow the events on September 11th, 2001, during the attack and collapse of the World Trade Center. You play the role of a firefighter, battling the blaze. But in the game, you're also solving a murder mystery of a company ceo! You also have to battle Arab terrorists with your Uzi and fire hose, as well as stop rabid zombies from overtaking the city!
Suddenly the base event (attack on World Trade Center buildings) isn't really all that important, and overall feels cheapened with the added on gameplay events.
Game 2: Set in New York, before the destruction of the World Trade Center. You play as Bill Cayne, a private detective. A request to investigate the murder of a CEO leads you to finding undercover terrorist action. You soon find they have released a toxin that causes the people of New York to turn into zombies! Packing your Tommy Gun, you begin to mow down Arab terrorist leaders and zombies alike, ridding the city of the filth that has polluted it!
The game is <b>based</b> in a real area, but does not claim to follow any real event. It's just a setting. There is no feelings to hurt, or stories to bend and stretch to the point of breaking. It's just a setting.
But...
Game 3: You play the role of a Arkansas firefighter who must battle the blaze of a large building attacked by terrorists in planes.
Wait... we've heard this before. This is copying a real event, but changing it to not be real! This has a potential as being just as bad as Game 1. There are some things that shouldn't be done.
If a game company is going to take a real event and make a game off of it, it should follow the real events as closely as possible. If they don't wish to do so, don't use the names of the real event!
This works the same with game sequels. If the sequel has nothing to do with the previous game, more often than not the players chastise the developers for using the title for a quick buck, rather than taking the time to craft the game to match the excellence of the previous version.
In the end, it's a moral decision for me. My conscience doesn't feel right with this game. I'm trying to present it to you in a word form, but it's hard to do.
Maybe your too cynical to enjoy a game without having to bring all those metaphors to the table...
It's a game. Based on real events or not. It's there to be enjoyed. If FPS's aren't your cup of tea. Fine, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. But please don't try and justify yourself by stating "Even though it's only loosely based on such and such event, it happened differently in real-life and because I know this I won't enjoy it"
Don't take offense to this. But stop being one of those pseudo-military-omg-that-gun-is-2.7mm-longer-in-real-life people, play the demo when it comes out and just try to enjoy the damn thing... It's a game, not a lecture in life and it's philosophical implications...
From what I can tell, STALKER takes place IN post-plant-explosion Chernobyl, but it doesnt have much to do with the event. Its essentially like your Game 2. You dont seem to have a problem with your Game 2...
btw, you must bang your head on the wall whenever a new FF comes out <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Umbraed Monkey+Apr 8 2004, 02:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Umbraed Monkey @ Apr 8 2004, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From what I can tell, STALKER takes place IN post-plant-explosion Chernobyl, but it doesnt have much to do with the event. Its essentially like your Game 2. You dont seem to have a problem with your Game 2...
btw, you must bang your head on the wall whenever a new FF comes out <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No it doesn't, it creates an entirely fictional "2nd blast" scenario with heavy sci-fi leanings. I can't see how it's disrespect full to those that died in the disaster.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Apr 8 2004, 12:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Apr 8 2004, 12:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look, no amount of any information you attempt to get me to read will change my opinion. Just as some here accuse of me of making a rash decision are just as strongly defending an opinon based on the same "loose" (by their claim) facts. When I say I don't approve of the subject material and the way it is handled, I get told I don't know all the facts, truth, or real plot of the game. Yet somehow that same information is more than enough proof for the opposition that the game is worthwhile and not offensive.
Talesin, nowhere did I claim that I can not watch any fiction. I said <b>games</b> (I never stated movies or television) that are based on real events should be as true to the source material as possible. Otherwise, I don't see the point of claiming the source material, other than attempting to gain popularity through the true event! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll have to say I think this is slightly hypocritical (but being as it's mostly opinion, not much). As much as you'd hate to admit it, alost every game is based off of something that has happened (at least in some aspect).
From your perspective (and what you're saying), you can't play Sports games because they don't follow actual seasons and you're creating a new, fictional season. You can't play tactical FPS like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon or possibly Call of Duty, because they're usually based on real world locations, and weapons, but their political system/battles/characters are made up. You can't play most RTS games, because many of them are based on wars, tactics or military units that we have at some point had in use.
In fact, it seems the only games that do fit your criteria are medieval (and maybe a few future) based RPGs, made up sports games and games based on movies (which doesn't really make sense, because if Stalker the game were based of Stalker the movie - then it'd be okay). Then again, all of those have to be disbanded too, since they all have humans and humans have never done many of the things in movies or RPGs (look, I can cast magic! [twinkle, twinkle - lightning bolt! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->].
It might be your opinion, and an opinion can't be directly wrong, but it can be based off illogical moral standards or non-empirical evidence.
Then again, I don't want you to take this the wrong way, because I'm with you in part of this. They have mirrored weapons (CS weapons...), they're (as far as I'm aware) making the American version lack Russian voice acting, as it stands there's no explicitly planned action in the water (ie, maybe swimming, but that's not sure yet).
However, even if you minimalize the extremity I placed on the above example, Stalker doesn't base itself off the Chernobyl disaster. The only parts it has in relation is that the Chernobyl disaster had an effect which probably caused the zone blow out, and the fact you can visit real world locations (which are actually very accurate, so if you ever wanted to visit Chernobyl without the radiation, then you can pretty much check out the 30km square area (some of the distances between cities have been changed there though).
The game does not take place in 1986, it takes place in 2006 (its first changed event) and mostly 2010. For all intensive purposes, everything in the game <i>could </i> happen (despite the improbability).
It's like hating Predator 2 because a group of Predators didn't attack LA in 1997, and not because Danny Glover shouldn't be able to be a Predator. (okay, obscure example)
Additionally, if someone gives you various information on a way that might influence your decision it would be in your best interest to accept it and try to gain a new opinion around new and relevant information.
But to hate games because they share the name of a real place, person or function, well, that just doesn't make sense (NS has marines <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), you basically miss out on every game that gives an example of revisited history or a new interpretation of history (Hearts of Iron is an awesome example, you can see what it's like to recreate (or reenact) history, but you probably wouldn't like that game because you can make WW2 not exist if you want).
Some of them happen to be purely fun (like RtCW, which would be debatable in some aspects of its 'funness'. Hate games for bad intrinsic storylines, originality or controls, not of external events and historical accuracy.
Just leave Medhead to his opinoins and you to yours. If he doesn't want the game, he doesn't have to get it. I don't like the Tom Clancy brand of games because they don't appeal to me, even though I do know they are good games. I do admit, he seemed rather angry at the time when he made his first post, that's my only gripe. No need to start blasting people on a forum for them posting about a game they are interested in.
I saw the preview of this game on IGN in 2003 and I was like "Cool, that sounds like a cool game. I'll keep an eye out for it." I had forgotten all about it till now, and I have to admit, the new screens look so much better than the old ones. Even though in one of them, the "casings" still have the bullets in them. <a href='http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/stalker/screens.html?page=364' target='_blank'>Those are still good bullets!</a> The only dislike I have about it is that it has "realistic weapon physics." I never liked those kinds of physics as that they are usuall predictable or extremely hard to work with. That would be the only thing that would cause me disliking it, but other than that, it is definatly a game I will keep my eye on, like NS, HL2, H2 and D3.
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
edited April 2004
He did not "blast" Medhead, he simply pointed out the major flaw in his argument. And before you ask why he did it: When you disagree with someone and their argument seems to make no sense, it is fun to point it out.
Comments
<a href='http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html' target='_blank'>Real is better</a>
(from <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=66981&hl=chernobyl' target='_blank'>this thread</a>)
<a href='http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html' target='_blank'>Real is better</a>
(from <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=66981&hl=chernobyl' target='_blank'>this thread</a>) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes! I've been looking for that link. That's a much more realistic account of present day Chernobyl. Note: no gas clouds.
EDIT: Wow, more pictures that normal. It appears there are places where radition is low enough to walk around the area. Still, if I remember correctly the woman has to wear radiation tags and get tested for poisoning because of her exposure, so it's not totally radiation free.
BECAUSE IT'S RADIOACTIVE, THAT'S WHY!
The radiation is five times greater on the ground beside the road than on the road itself! First hand accounts show that it's not wise to go in the area, because there is too great a chance of radiation damage!
And I don't believe there are Gas Clouds of Death floating around... haha, that one had me groaning. What in the world is up with that? Heh, that's pretty stupid.
But what shocked me more is the storyline. You play the part of an adventurous and brave... trinket merchant? Stop. The. Presses. You mean I get to play in a huge, dead city and dig up artifacts?! FOR REAL?! Oh man, sign me up this instant!!!1111 I dunno, maybe it's just the horrible English translation on the Slalker page, or the way the storyline is presented. Sure, it worked in Tomb Raider (although I should note: barely), and Indiana Jones was a hit... but both worked in present day times, dealing with present day problems, and the booby traps left by ancient cultures. This game deals with irradiated dogs, clouds of death, and...? I don't get how this can be fun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Welcome to the world of interactive entertainment. In order to enhance your experiences here, please accept a complimentary copy of "the willing suspension of disbelief".
Riding around Chernobyl on a motorcycle taking photos while the gameworld viciously refuses to present enemies or environmental hazards besides higher-that normal background radiation doesn't sound like a decent premis for the game.
Half-Life wasn't exactly based on real-world events, but that was a hit.
What I care about:firearm accuracy and physics, as well as blood and possibly vital organs.
Anyone on the chatroom can testify to this.
What I do also care about is storyline.
So for sake of storyline pretend that the land of STALKERS was the real deal. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you want realism, go play outside.
That said, this business about needing food and sleep, not having stuff onhand if it's in your pack (etc) is really cool. Equally cool is this intersting gameplay mechanic called "anomalies" - and they only have to call them "anomalies" because of all the realism nuts who'll jump up and down and get upset if they call it "radiation". Grow up. They're both good.
Comments above not directed at anyone in particular.
im so going to bitchslap the lot of you with the AK-74
The thing I don't get is that you're saying that the fanciful aspects of the game are stupid, when you're on a forum for a game where an alien bacteria that transforms into spiky deadly aliens that can climb walls and teleport is fighting a mini war against marines dressed in green body armor with southern accents an little microscopic robots that can be used as a copout to explain everything that looks like magic.
I know this sounds fake and corny, but I actually shed a tear <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In any case. This is on my 'to-buy' list as well. It looks like it could be a lot of fun.. the only down side is that I don't know just how interested it'll keep me, honestly enough.
Sure, you can go exploring. But eventually, you'll have either been everywhere, or keep running over the same general area over and over, with nothing to really *do*.
At that point, mods would come in and save it... which is why Half-Life is still living large. But if there's no moddability to STALKER, and especially if the multiplayer that was being discussed gets canned, it'll be a year.. maybe a two-year game at most.
Which is a hell of a lot longer than most games last for me. Only ones that have survived that long(er) for me are Halo, Half-Life (its mods), and Deus Ex.
I'll have to say don't watch the history channel for many subjects, because their information is off/biased quite often, but I guess that's kindof to be expected. It's not really universal either, it's a bit too 'Americans 0wnz0rz every1!!!!111'-esque.
It's also almost all 'The World War 2 Channel' and not 'The History Channel.'
But MedHead, you should <i>really</i> consider actually exploring and reading the stuff at the stalker website, before you go blatantly hating it and its <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People died in the disaster, yet this game dilludes the deaths by making it a farce. a treasure hunt! There's some sci fi that's simply too stupid (or offensive) to bother playing. Stalker is not (and won't) be on my "Must Buy" list. What a waste. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> aspect.
I.E. <a href='http://www.stalker-game.com/index_eng.html' target='_blank'>Stalker's Chernobyl Information</a> (which some of I can vouge for the truthfulness, but I'm not sure I would trust all of it).
The developers also live 100km from Chernobyl, so the last intention of their game would be to detract from the people who helped in and died during the disaster.
Talesin, nowhere did I claim that I can not watch any fiction. I said <b>games</b> (I never stated movies or television) that are based on real events should be as true to the source material as possible. Otherwise, I don't see the point of claiming the source material, other than attempting to gain popularity through the true event!
It's a double standard, Med. An indefensible position. There are 'reality based' games which kinda-sorta follow reality a little bit, and there are sci-fi games which take a familiar setting and tweak it. Stalker is the latter. It's current-day, in a different dimension if you wanna call it that.
They aren't SAYING that there are mutant dogs there. Or poison gas clouds. Or dwarves. They're saying 'what if this happened, instead of it just slowly turning into background radiation?', and presenting it in a shiny little box so that people can go through that what-if.
Though honestly, I'd have to chuckle if you felt that BF1942 or BF:Vietnam are anywhere NEAR realistic. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
/me huggles MedHead, as crazy and misguided as he might be
I don't own Battlefield: 1942, nor do I own Battlefield: Vietnam. You consider it an indefensible position because you have yet to understand what I'm saying. I'll explain it one last time. Games that claim to be based on real events should follow the real events as closely as possible.
Example:
Game 1: Claims to follow the events on September 11th, 2001, during the attack and collapse of the World Trade Center. You play the role of a firefighter, battling the blaze. But in the game, you're also solving a murder mystery of a company ceo! You also have to battle Arab terrorists with your Uzi and fire hose, as well as stop rabid zombies from overtaking the city!
Suddenly the base event (attack on World Trade Center buildings) isn't really all that important, and overall feels cheapened with the added on gameplay events.
Game 2: Set in New York, before the destruction of the World Trade Center. You play as Bill Cayne, a private detective. A request to investigate the murder of a CEO leads you to finding undercover terrorist action. You soon find they have released a toxin that causes the people of New York to turn into zombies! Packing your Tommy Gun, you begin to mow down Arab terrorist leaders and zombies alike, ridding the city of the filth that has polluted it!
The game is <b>based</b> in a real area, but does not claim to follow any real event. It's just a setting. There is no feelings to hurt, or stories to bend and stretch to the point of breaking. It's just a setting.
But...
Game 3: You play the role of a Arkansas firefighter who must battle the blaze of a large building attacked by terrorists in planes.
Wait... we've heard this before. This is copying a real event, but changing it to not be real! This has a potential as being just as bad as Game 1. There are some things that shouldn't be done.
If a game company is going to take a real event and make a game off of it, it should follow the real events as closely as possible. If they don't wish to do so, don't use the names of the real event!
This works the same with game sequels. If the sequel has nothing to do with the previous game, more often than not the players chastise the developers for using the title for a quick buck, rather than taking the time to craft the game to match the excellence of the previous version.
In the end, it's a moral decision for me. My conscience doesn't feel right with this game. I'm trying to present it to you in a word form, but it's hard to do.
It's a game. Based on real events or not. It's there to be enjoyed. If FPS's aren't your cup of tea. Fine, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. But please don't try and justify yourself by stating "Even though it's only loosely based on such and such event, it happened differently in real-life and because I know this I won't enjoy it"
Don't take offense to this. But stop being one of those pseudo-military-omg-that-gun-is-2.7mm-longer-in-real-life people, play the demo when it comes out and just try to enjoy the damn thing... It's a game, not a lecture in life and it's philosophical implications...
btw, you must bang your head on the wall whenever a new FF comes out <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
btw, you must bang your head on the wall whenever a new FF comes out <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it doesn't, it creates an entirely fictional "2nd blast" scenario with heavy sci-fi leanings. I can't see how it's disrespect full to those that died in the disaster.
Talesin, nowhere did I claim that I can not watch any fiction. I said <b>games</b> (I never stated movies or television) that are based on real events should be as true to the source material as possible. Otherwise, I don't see the point of claiming the source material, other than attempting to gain popularity through the true event! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to say I think this is slightly hypocritical (but being as it's mostly opinion, not much). As much as you'd hate to admit it, alost every game is based off of something that has happened (at least in some aspect).
From your perspective (and what you're saying), you can't play Sports games because they don't follow actual seasons and you're creating a new, fictional season. You can't play tactical FPS like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon or possibly Call of Duty, because they're usually based on real world locations, and weapons, but their political system/battles/characters are made up. You can't play most RTS games, because many of them are based on wars, tactics or military units that we have at some point had in use.
In fact, it seems the only games that do fit your criteria are medieval (and maybe a few future) based RPGs, made up sports games and games based on movies (which doesn't really make sense, because if Stalker the game were based of Stalker the movie - then it'd be okay). Then again, all of those have to be disbanded too, since they all have humans and humans have never done many of the things in movies or RPGs (look, I can cast magic! [twinkle, twinkle - lightning bolt! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->].
It might be your opinion, and an opinion can't be directly wrong, but it can be based off illogical moral standards or non-empirical evidence.
Then again, I don't want you to take this the wrong way, because I'm with you in part of this. They have mirrored weapons (CS weapons...), they're (as far as I'm aware) making the American version lack Russian voice acting, as it stands there's no explicitly planned action in the water (ie, maybe swimming, but that's not sure yet).
However, even if you minimalize the extremity I placed on the above example, Stalker doesn't base itself off the Chernobyl disaster. The only parts it has in relation is that the Chernobyl disaster had an effect which probably caused the zone blow out, and the fact you can visit real world locations (which are actually very accurate, so if you ever wanted to visit Chernobyl without the radiation, then you can pretty much check out the 30km square area (some of the distances between cities have been changed there though).
The game does not take place in 1986, it takes place in 2006 (its first changed event) and mostly 2010. For all intensive purposes, everything in the game <i>could </i> happen (despite the improbability).
It's like hating Predator 2 because a group of Predators didn't attack LA in 1997, and not because Danny Glover shouldn't be able to be a Predator. (okay, obscure example)
Additionally, if someone gives you various information on a way that might influence your decision it would be in your best interest to accept it and try to gain a new opinion around new and relevant information.
But to hate games because they share the name of a real place, person or function, well, that just doesn't make sense (NS has marines <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), you basically miss out on every game that gives an example of revisited history or a new interpretation of history (Hearts of Iron is an awesome example, you can see what it's like to recreate (or reenact) history, but you probably wouldn't like that game because you can make WW2 not exist if you want).
Some of them happen to be purely fun (like RtCW, which would be debatable in some aspects of its 'funness'. Hate games for bad intrinsic storylines, originality or controls, not of external events and historical accuracy.
I saw the preview of this game on IGN in 2003 and I was like "Cool, that sounds like a cool game. I'll keep an eye out for it." I had forgotten all about it till now, and I have to admit, the new screens look so much better than the old ones. Even though in one of them, the "casings" still have the bullets in them. <a href='http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/stalker/screens.html?page=364' target='_blank'>Those are still good bullets!</a> The only dislike I have about it is that it has "realistic weapon physics." I never liked those kinds of physics as that they are usuall predictable or extremely hard to work with. That would be the only thing that would cause me disliking it, but other than that, it is definatly a game I will keep my eye on, like NS, HL2, H2 and D3.