S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow Of Chernobyl Comments by Jim Rossignol
In the zone.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
PearOfAnguish
19/03/07 @ 12:30
0
Hey, Mr Reviewer Person, did you figure out a way to repair weapons?
|
|
0
Of course it's not finely polished. It was an extremely ambitious project that went through several serious changes during the development. It's a bit of a wonder that it got released at all, and even more so that it is , from all we've read so far, very, very good. I'd rather play an ambitious, unusual game like this with a few rough edges than the next finely polished, linear generic game.
Reducing the score because of a lack of polish (or reducing it even further, if it has been reduced) would be criminal, and a completely wrong signal. Unless the game is somehow broken, of course, which the review doesn't sound like at all. We need this kind of game, let's be gald that stuff like this still gets made at all, not punish it because it's not perfect.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 19/03/07 @ 12:50
|
|
0
I've just played it. GET OVER IT. this is not Boiling Point. this is just unfinished ukrainian semi-crap. It should've been finished and released 3 years ago. It's bloated and unpolished, thanks to probable lazy-ness, lack of money or plain bad designing. It's not the "lack of time" because they had plenty of it.
|
|
PearOfAnguish
19/03/07 @ 13:15
0
8/10 is quite reasonable. It's a lot of fun and that shines through any rough edges.
And again, a patch will only solve minor problems, it's not going to fix the story. |
|
0
Anyway, FWIW, EG's review was the "worst" so far. It got a "9" in Gamestar and Games TM, and several times an "8.5" in other British and German printmags. Not saying they can't be all wrong, but so far it doesn't sound like it's a game that's burdened with overwhelming problems at all.
I for one am really looking forward to it again, after having pretty much forgotten it for years. |
|
Introspectre
19/03/07 @ 14:01
0
Damn. I really wanted this to be crap. That would have been funny.
Oh yea, will my PC run this? |
|
0
the line that stood out to me from the review was:
"there's almost nothing to care about" A lot of the other stuff sounded very interesting, in particular the atmosphere. But if you don't care about it then why play? Reminds me a bit of what Pathologic was trying to achieve, in all it's broken potential. |
|
BremXJones
19/03/07 @ 14:27
0
I reviewed it for Gamer UK and gave it 87%.
(Think review goes online tomorrow) I'd have given it an 8/10 too on EG. It's not a nine, but it's a damn good eight. KG |
|
MrWonderstuff
19/03/07 @ 14:36
0
Ah Mr Gillen? How did you find the performance? Not much has been said in any reviews about this (ie PCG, PCZone, Eurogamer).
|
|
BremXJones
19/03/07 @ 14:40
0
Performance was okay, basically. It's fairly demanding, but it's not Supreme Commander.
I mean, I was initially playing it* on a shitty machine (P2.6, 1 Gig, 9500 or something) and with stuff turned right down - and still looked okay. Had to turn it *right* down though. (Were I to call, I think the memory is going to be the issue. You'll want at least 1 Gig.) My general rules of games reviews is to only talk abouts something if it's an issue. By it not being mentioned you can generally assume it's not a problem, at least compared to the more obvious ones. KG *Before swapping to a better one.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 19/03/07 @ 15:27
|
|
stoopidgreg
19/03/07 @ 14:40
0
"I'm going to leave this for now but I'll definitely pick it up once Play.com start selling it for £19.99! :)"
you can get the limited edition for £18 with delivery on http://www.blahdvd.com |
|
stoopidgreg
19/03/07 @ 14:45
0
seems blahdvd don't list the limited edition anymore, i must have been lucky when i preordered it a couple of days ago :D
you can still get the normal one for £17.99 though link here |
|
Introspectre
19/03/07 @ 15:00
0
You know times have *really* changed when a 7800 is "shitty".
MrWonderstuff won't be a happy bunny. |
|
0
MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Microsoft® Windows® XP (Service Pack 2)/Microsoft® Windows® 2000 SP4 ; Intel Pentium 4 2 Ghz/AMD XP 2200+ ; 512 MB RAM ; 10 GB available hard drive space ; 128 MB DirectX® 9c compatible card/ nVIDIA® GeForce 5700/ATI Radeon® 9600 ; DirectX® 9 compatible sound card ; LAN/ Internet connection with Cable/DSL speeds for multiplayer ; Keyboard, Mouse. ; RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: Intel Core 2 Duo E6400/AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ ; 1 GB RAM or better ; 256 MB DirectX® 9c compatible card/ nVIDIA® GeForce 7900/ ATI Radeon® X1850. does that help anyone? |
|
Introspectre
19/03/07 @ 15:37
0
"Introspectre: Sorry - was wrong. Was a ATI 9700, not a GeForce"
Well, they both have a 7 in the name. I can see why you got confused. :p |
|
Flightrisker
19/03/07 @ 15:48
0
STALKER review? I never thought I'd see the day.
Tomorrow: Duke Nukem Forever. |
|
GitSomE UK
19/03/07 @ 17:47
0
Wasn't sure about this but I'm going to go for it the whole "didn't know what I was doing one minute to the next in the story" sounds pretty cool especially considering the environment it was set in.
After all if you knew what you were going to do and where you were going I think you'd lose the suspense. The thing I didn't like about HL in it's various forms was you were on rails no matter how good it looked. I felt I was steared from one set piece to another. Guns - Check Chernobler - Check Spooky weird shit - Check SOLD! |
|
thefilthandthefury
19/03/07 @ 19:07
0
Sounds bloody brilliant! Can't wait to get my hands on this one.
|
|
MrWonderstuff
19/03/07 @ 19:43
0
The MP is good fun but hackers are rife (well in the beta anyhow). I hope the full game doesnt suffer likewise.
|
|
0
Aye, I think the MP deserves a bit more credit than the review gave it though tbh. Been playing the MP Beta a while now and games can range from mass manic bloodshed to slow distant sniper duels. The vast amount of cover make for some awesome games of cat & mouse, that's for sure. Plus it's highly addictive and just as instantly accessible as Counter-Strike ever was.
From what I have exprienced of the MP, and what this review tells me about the SP - S.T.A.L.K.E.R. sounds like it should be one hell of a worthy package considering the long wait. And that will do me just fine. |
|
MrWonderstuff
19/03/07 @ 21:52
0
Yea it does. In fact the different between dynamic (directx 9 mode) and 'static' (directx 8 mode) is around 40fps. You miss out on the bump mapping and nice shadows but it runs smoother than butter and looks sharper than a pin.
IMHO I think the directx 9 renderer is badly implemented. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
