I can't stand STALKER

[nitromullet]

I spend 20 minutes in a gun fight clearing bandits out of an outpost, only to have them all reappear as soon as I walk away.

I just finished playing Dragon Age & all of it's DLC. I'm thinking Stalker is getting skipped. So next it's either Borderlands or Fallout.

If re-spawning bad guys is an issue, I would stay away from Borderlands. Don't get me wrong, I liked Borderlands but there is quite a bit of repetition, especially in the DLC packs.

The DLC zones generally only have one home base that you re-spawn at every time you load up the game. So if you fought through a horde of bad guys to get where you were when you played last... you will have to do it over a again to pick up where you left off.

 

[Nebor]

If re-spawning bad guys is an issue, I would stay away from Borderlands. Don't get me wrong, I liked Borderlands but there is quite a bit of repetition, especially in the DLC packs.

The DLC zones generally only have one home base that you re-spawn at every time you load up the game. So if you fought through a horde of bad guys to get where you were when you played last... you will have to do it over a again to pick up where you left off.

Yeah but it's actually FUN fighting the bad guys in Borderlands.

 

[dust]

Borderlands is one fun game to play all right, the DLC's however, not so much. I played only the Armory and the Zombie Island, the first was meh and the second was complete shiite.

What is it that you like about complete mod so much? Is it the free play? If so there are only dozens other mods the bring that so it's not even new. I even had a sort of a bug with it, the scopes were shrunk so I got through most of the game with the iron sight and yeah I installed several times selecting each option for the scopes.

 

[Nebor]

I didn't realize stalker complete 2009 changed the sequence of events in the game. I thought it just fixed the weapons and such. Though I did think that I was underground MUCH sooner when I first played it a year plus ago....

 

[marmasatt]

I think people tend to not like it because it requires ACTUAL strategy. Personally, I don't like run and shoot type of FPS so STALKER was a very refreshing type of gameplay. Everyone complaining about it being too hard/boring, etc. just can't let go the fact that you just can't run and randomly shoot and hope you are going to beat the game. It's what I appreciated about the game; you need to actually think about what you're doing, imo.

I would agree with that. It's no painkiller or serious sam! You have to think about how you are going to approach or "soften them up" with a grenade or two as someone has said. Or maybe even flank, imagine that?

 

[spaceman]

or it could be that it its just not very good?

 

[dust]

I didn't realize stalker complete 2009 changed the sequence of events in the game. I thought it just fixed the weapons and such. Though I did think that I was underground MUCH sooner when I first played it a year plus ago....

Huh? There's no change in the game play at all, in fact they are advertising the fact that they left the story line intact. That is if you follow the story at all. If you want you can reach NPP within an hour of game play but you skip the entire game for it. There's some dose of free play included in the game that makes it better than most FPS out there.

You might have gotten sooner to the underground(I assume you're talking Agropom) without following the story.

 

[AstroManLuca]

It left a bad impression because it was hard?

No, because it had a point of no return. If I had known about it and prepared I probably would have been able to get through the final section without cheating.

Also, the very last fight in Clear Sky doesn't really involve any of the strategy that everyone here is talking about. It's pretty much on rails. So it's not like I could just "use better strategy" to get through it. I ran into hard parts earlier in the game where I died several times - I tried different things until something worked. But at the end of the game there was nothing I could do.

 

[skace]

I'm glad there are people that don't like STALKER. It means it doesn't pander to every casual FPS gamer in the world.

 

[Chocu1a]

STALKER, Fallout, Oblivion..keep your rpg out of my fps!

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm glad there are people that don't like STALKER. It means it doesn't pander to every casual FPS gamer in the world.

This. You either get it or you dont. And if you don't get it you are the proletariat of fps gamers. :awe:

 

[Nebor]

This. You either get it or you dont. And if you don't get it you are the proletariat of fps gamers. :awe:

Sweet. I's a proletariat! :awe:

 

[dust]

Well I attack those 3 guys on patrol. Get their shit (almost impossible) and then try to take the camp. A well placed grenade will soften the camp up pretty good.

I suppose you talk about the military patrol. It's a good idea to just startle them as they'll soon attack the village, and, if you care to wait long enough, another 5 or so army guys soon follow. You'll get a lot of free stuff this way, only try to keep wolf safe if you care about the quests

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Hm. If anything, STALKER is balanced for the proletariat of FPS games. It actively punishes twitch gameplay, and don't the master twitch 'headshot you in .02 seconds' players make up the FPS elite?



As for borderlands...meh. It's not a bad game, but you spend entirely too much time shooting Scabs, the million and one guns feel like maybe 12 with stat changes, and the arbitrary level damage reduction prevents you from having a realistic chance in harder environments. Oh, and the plotline of the thing is porno-movie bad.

 

[JSt0rm]

Hm. If anything, STALKER is balanced for the proletariat of FPS games. It actively punishes twitch gameplay, and don't the master twitch 'headshot you in .02 seconds' players make up the FPS elite?

In multiplayer yes. But we are talking about a single player game.

I mean honestly I've been playing fps for as long as I can remember. I have played most of them out there and I think at this point in my life I can make a quality judgment based on my past experiences and say that SOC was one of the best fps games to be released.

I played in CAL and did all the multiplayer clan based competitive play but as a single player game SOC is one of the best fps made.

 

[pmv]

This. You either get it or you dont. And if you don't get it you are the proletariat of fps gamers. :awe:

Down with the gaming bourgeoisie!

(I'm not _lumpen_ proletariat though. I guess that would be the console gamers)

 

[Arglebargle]

No, because it had a point of no return. If I had known about it and prepared I probably would have been able to get through the final section without cheating.

Also, the very last fight in Clear Sky doesn't really involve any of the strategy that everyone here is talking about. It's pretty much on rails. So it's not like I could just "use better strategy" to get through it. I ran into hard parts earlier in the game where I died several times - I tried different things until something worked. But at the end of the game there was nothing I could do.

Yeah, that was the point were I lost interest in Clear Sky. It did slew hard to running on rails there. Conceptual error by the devs. Still like all the series, regardless of that failing.

 

[skace]

Down with the gaming bourgeoisie!

(I'm not _lumpen_ proletariat though. I guess that would be the console gamers)

Lol, fun discussion.

 

[BFG10K]

Stalker is a tactical shooter; if you run around like Rambo, you’ll get hurt. Badly.

This is not a console kiddies’ FPS; it’s a PC FPS. You need better skills to play Stalker than you do for most other FPSes.

 

[Nebor]

Stalker is a tactical shooter; if you run around like Rambo, you’ll get hurt. Badly.

This is not a console kiddies’ FPS; it’s a PC FPS. You need better skills to play Stalker than you do for most other FPSes.

I don't have the skills to play a video game. :\ I guess I'm just a console kiddie at heart, despite never having owned a console. How did this happen? Did I get infected by touching one at Target?