Ostriig on 14/3/2010 at 21:35
Quote Posted by Koki
You do realize the game has quicktime events complete with PRESS X TO NOT DIE appearing on the screen right?
No, I did not realise that. Shitty day got slightly shittier.
vurt on 16/3/2010 at 11:25
Very nice so far. Like a heavily scripted STALKER with a little bit of Thief thrown in. Extremely demanding game though, Crysis is nothing in comparison. Doesnt run too well on c2d 4.2ghz, 4870x2, 4gb on "Very High" (dx10). Runs ok when there's no monsters on screen (maybe 35 FPS), but with monsters maybe 15 FPS, barely playable. "High" looks just as good as STALKER (ok, maybe a little bit better actualy) and runs great.
Animations and faces for the NPC's are so-so, monster animations looks great, the rest (lightning especially) is amongst the best i've seen in a game i believe.
I dont understand the crisitism against the shooting elements at all. I guess it's the CoD crowd that are used to endless of amunition and killing swarms of enemies every second. That sort of gameplay just bores me to death, so this is way better!
Very atmospheric, the attention to detail is amongst the best i've seen.
Edit: updated my impressions a little.
mothra on 16/3/2010 at 11:38
I already guessed that I should get the game after 2 patches and another generation of video cards when it will also be very cheap. When I read that the shooting is crappy I was very happy since "shooting is good" means mostly an arcadey approach to it which certainly would not work for a game with that ambition in "atmosphere". I thought the easy shooting in HL2 ruined many encounters with its "forgiving" design and I am looking forward to clumsy Cryostasis gunplay. but....in a few months when the game of the future has been fixed to play on PCs of today :)
mothra on 16/3/2010 at 15:25
all hail shitty shooting !!!!
vurt on 16/3/2010 at 15:32
Quote Posted by mothra
all hail shitty shooting !!!!
+1
;)
Ostriig on 16/3/2010 at 23:35
Quote Posted by vurt
"High" looks just as good as STALKER (ok, maybe a little bit better actualy) and runs great.
Could you compare to SoC with Complete 2009? I've got a C2D 2.13GHz, a 9800GT and 3GB 667 RAM, and I can run Complete just fine so long as I don't force AA. I'm thinking that if it's also on the 360 I should be able to get a decent experience from it, but you just never know.
I think it's worth pointing out that the same Rossignol had (
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/stalker-shadow-of-chernobyl-review?page=2) an 8/10 "Very Good" initial impression of SoC as well. So even though they're different beasts altogether (the reviewer did state it's more of a BioShock than a STALKER), if you're roughly on the same page with him you're probably looking at a very sweet piece of work here.
vurt on 17/3/2010 at 00:45
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Could you compare to SoC with Complete 2009? I've got a C2D 2.13GHz, a 9800GT and 3GB 667 RAM, and I can run Complete just fine so long as I don't force AA. I'm thinking that if it's also on the 360 I should be able to get a decent experience from it, but you just never know.
It should run ok i think, i read that someone used a 8800gt and "high" in dx9 and it ran really well. I've also read that disabling PhysX on Nvidia does wonders to the framerate..
We'll see what patches does too. i remember how awful Stalker CS ran at first, almost unplayable. I think they need to fix the aspect ratio too for 16:9..
