Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
CloudNineGT wrote:I thought it did, that’s the purpose of the missions. I was disappointed by the enemies responses, at least the last one should have run for his life. Still, that was most likely a programmed sequence not a random encounter. The game will run fine and look great, I think the biggest problem is what will it do to be better than the rest so I want to buy it. This whole FPS race is dependant on the one that gets the most modders, and farcry being out now gives it a lot of a head start.
Will run fine based on what? the latest in-game movie?
"We have OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone-scorpions" -Chucky Cuevas
I have serious doubts if Stalker will run fine. AsFA the trailer encounter sequence goes: it's obviously scripted for the purpose of the trailer, but it's pretty realistic. Last guy runnin for life? c'mmon only noobs do that (unless u hear a nade). Anyway I hope the AI eventually will be good.
How Stalker can be better than other FPS? Well obviously it won't be tryin to become TaH GRAYtaZT MOnstAH ShoooTER EvAAR with lush graphics beatin the opponents. It will have these RPG elements, non-scripted world simulation system (hopefully), and unique atmosphere, plus SCARCITY of AMMO - i.e. you don't run around and shoot.
In the end it all depends on what you expect from a/this game.
You guys should definitely know by now not to trust video playbacks for framerate assumptions....
...with that said, and I did mention this before, but I got a chance to check it out and it was faster than Farcry and looks very tight, very detailed( Farcry has the greater draw distance). Then again, Stalker is in alpha while Farcry is a finished game so, not fair to compare.
EvoG wrote:You guys should definitely know by now not to trust video playbacks for framerate assumptions....
...with that said, and I did mention this before, but I got a chance to check it out and it was faster than Farcry and looks very tight, very detailed( Farcry has the greater draw distance). Then again, Stalker is in alpha while Farcry is a finished game so, not fair to compare.
Cheers
Yeah but if they really wanted to show of their engine in full glory, wouldnt a better recording really give people something to long for? (asuming it is a bad recording, wich i dont think it is really)
"We have OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone-scorpions" -Chucky Cuevas
Not really. If they released a trailer with a smaller resolution 6 months ago that looks less muddy than this, perhaps they should stop releasing shit?
The trailer is 2 months late, the revolutionary AI seems to stand still and shoot at oncoming enemys and the voice-acting is shit. Graphics don't mean much if, like Far Cry, you can't run the game at maximum. Also they don't matter much a year or two later, espeacially now that the quality doesn't differ much between games.
But you've seen hundreds of screenshots and all the other videos everyone else saw? Why do you think the interest in this game is high? Because of just THIS video? No, because most of everything released about this game was pretty tight, so who gives a shit about one video, that again, I didn't see any problems with, that at the very most, its the video that has problems apparently, not the game itself.
I mean hell, do you base everything on the absolute last thing you saw? Maybe look at the bigger picture instead of just one crummy video playback(you said crummy, not me).
Not really. I'm more bored/annoyed with the game because it's been delayed for nearly 1 and a half years, and I'm guessing it's going to be delayed again as they don't seem to have incorportated AI, direct x 9 and are more busy showing it off too the press or giving shit interviews than releasing stuff on time, like the video.
The video was also scripted, making it even more pointless. It was meant to be a gameplay trailer, yet we get a shitty physics trailer that they pulled because it was out of date, now this? Why don't they show us some real gameplay instead of a scripted movie that was edited by some retard.
The screenshots and movies aren't looking as impressive as they were last year. And graphics don't add too gameplay. They can add all the cool features they want, but what's the point if the release is going to be buggy or the gameplay is fucking boring?
I haven't seen the proper game yet, how am I meant too know if it has a good atmosphere or whatever? All I've seen so far is something that looks pretty good, sounds like counter-strike and all the previews and interviews are saying the same thing they were saying 6 months ago.
And I didn't say crummy :-(
meh, whatever. If it's good, yay. If it's crap, who gives a shit?
Jeers
Agreed. Truth be told, I feel all they have is an engine, which IS pretty, oh and graphics absolutely DO add to gameplay, which is why we love Farcry so much. 'Graphics' allow for the dense, immersive forests and great draw distances, which contributed to gameplay. Great graphics don't make a bad game more fun to play, which I agree, but graphics do contribute to gameplay. Another example would be the lightmaps for games like Thief and SystemShock2(and later SplinterCell), which added tremendous atmosphere and allowed for more immersive stealth experience(you could see the shadows and hide).
I agree, but these are little touches. It's the little details that add too the bigger picture. Meanwhile, copying and pasting a bunch of grey buildings together onto a brown landscape, rinse and repeat, isn't looking as sharp as it could do.
Far Cry has a lot more scope as you're on a tropical beach one level, an abandoned tanker, a research facility etc. Here you have the countryside or a town?
GET WITH THE PROGRAM DAWG
A little off-topic, but hitman 3 is coming out at the end of this month ^-^
