S.T.A.L.K.E.R. my next attempt to finish it

[DigDog]

i really want a new IP of games made like stalker (freeroam, difficult, survival aspect, grim, strong weapons, strong enemies, stealth, radiation/anomalies) but in the Gamma World milieu.

think Mad Max meets Fallout.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, I agree. Just gimme a desolate creepy background, missions and weps. Let me drink vodka and kill lots of bandits...

Yep. In some ways background > story, since background lets you make the plot (to some degree) what one wishes. On the other hand, sometimes the developer is so intent on driving the story that one never has much time to enjoy the world. I felt like that in Metro, got this really interesting world and outside these narrow corridors I can only roam it in thirty second spurts.

The cool thing about S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is the story is there. It's not blatantly laid out, but it has a deep science-fiction base. I think this series will always go down as games that had amazing potential, but never quite reached what they wanted to achieve. Technical hurdles, poor funding, a sh*tty publisher, etc...

Overall, it's still my favorite IP in PC gaming. Despite all its shortcomings there is absolutely no other PC game like it, and I never get tired of visiting The Zone in an attempt to recapture that feeling.

If a dev really committed to rehashing this series via Kickstarter, I would duct tape their mouths and rob a thousand convenience stores to stuff their pockets full of every dollar I could find.

I think it's definitely got another trilogy in it. For all its warts, despite its obvious heavy scifi background it felt surprisingly authentic to me. For me it's probably number 2, to the Fallout IP, but it's definitely a contender. And it's got one big advantage: It's game engine is plenty strong enough to compete today without much tweaking required.

 

[werepossum]

i really want a new IP of games made like stalker (freeroam, difficult, survival aspect, grim, strong weapons, strong enemies, stealth, radiation/anomalies) but in the Gamma World milieu.

think Mad Max meets Fallout.

Man, I didn't think anyone remembered that. I think I finally put my boxed set and my one lone expansion (where there ever more than one?) in McKay's free box a decade or so ago. I had friends willing and eager to pretend to be warriors and wizards and thieves, none who got excited over the prospect of being a machinegun-toting man-sized rabbit. Or fighting a machinegun-toting man-sized rabbit. Had an original boxed set that had languished in a game store until the early eighties. Don't think I ever even saw another. I don't remember that as grim, though. More . . . goofy. It wasn't "Oh, bummer, civilization has been destroyed" so much as "Hey, civilization has been destroyed, let's all be scaled monsters with laser beam eyes and steel-tipped tentacles".

EDIT: I don't remember that game fondly. If I am to take on mutant bunnies, I prefer "Macho women with guns".

 

[DigDog]

yes, GW had the potential for abuse(in the silly department). and to be honest, it was never designed accurately.
but the 3rd edition - the one which borrowed the color-coded success system from Marvel Super Heroes - was better than the 2nd, which was the most popular one.

both 2nd and 3rd had some good things going for them though.

the potential of really dangerous situations; some mobs were ridiculously OP, such as the androids/robots/death machines, various radioactive mutants, land sharks, etc.
the tech levels and difficulty obtaining certain equipment.
advanced technology .. the black ray gun, some bombs .. you could really wreck shit with some of the items in GW.

i found that giving limited use of strong items leads to more tactical play, while having continuous average fights with average monsters leads to unexciting rpgs.

same goes for having insurmountable obstacles, such as mobs you are not supposed to be able to defeat, actually lets me - as a GM - shape the adventure in a more interesting fashion.

(and larry elmore's GW illustrations were sick)

i haven't stopped thinking of self publishing a GW edition; oriented more towards the hard-core simulation RPG player.. think Call Of Cthulhu.


the reason why i associate STALKER with GW is that GW had many "monsters" which were essentially environmental dangers; radioactive thorn bushes, carnivorous plants, hypno-moss..

it was also strongly focused towards overland exploration, with a "final dungeon". food and water, various consumables, were also a factor, so that would account for the "survival" aspect.

in other words, what i like about stalker is that it's got "weird stuff, that you gotta be careful about, that you've got to be scared of".
eruptions = awesome.

 

[TechBoyJK]

While I never finished the original Stalker, I still say I loved it.

I didn't feel that it merited a new thread, but I wanted to add that I found Metro 2033/Last Light to feel reminiscent of Stalker.

It's a different game, very linear, very much on rails, but the atmosphere and feel of the game is similar. I'm playing Metro 2033 and Metro Last Light (redux) back to back (as one big game) and I'm tempted to go back and either finish Stalker.. or start one of the newer ones.

 

[Stringjam]

While I never finished the original Stalker, I still say I loved it.

I feel like finishing any of the STALKER games is really just optional. For me, just playing the game is the enjoyable part.

 

[Blitzvogel]

While I never finished the original Stalker, I still say I loved it.

I didn't feel that it merited a new thread, but I wanted to add that I found Metro 2033/Last Light to feel reminiscent of Stalker.

It's a different game, very linear, very much on rails, but the atmosphere and feel of the game is similar. I'm playing Metro 2033 and Metro Last Light (redux) back to back (as one big game) and I'm tempted to go back and either finish Stalker.. or start one of the newer ones.

Yeah, the Metro games made me want to go back to STALKER too. I've beaten the first and Clear Sky, but not Call of Pripyat. I'd install it but the case and DVD is in a mini storage unit right now, and I don't feel like rummaging through it just to get a game DVD!

 

[werepossum]

yes, GW had the potential for abuse(in the silly department). and to be honest, it was never designed accurately.
but the 3rd edition - the one which borrowed the color-coded success system from Marvel Super Heroes - was better than the 2nd, which was the most popular one.

both 2nd and 3rd had some good things going for them though.

the potential of really dangerous situations; some mobs were ridiculously OP, such as the androids/robots/death machines, various radioactive mutants, land sharks, etc.
the tech levels and difficulty obtaining certain equipment.
advanced technology .. the black ray gun, some bombs .. you could really wreck shit with some of the items in GW.

i found that giving limited use of strong items leads to more tactical play, while having continuous average fights with average monsters leads to unexciting rpgs.

same goes for having insurmountable obstacles, such as mobs you are not supposed to be able to defeat, actually lets me - as a GM - shape the adventure in a more interesting fashion.

(and larry elmore's GW illustrations were sick)

i haven't stopped thinking of self publishing a GW edition; oriented more towards the hard-core simulation RPG player.. think Call Of Cthulhu.


the reason why i associate STALKER with GW is that GW had many "monsters" which were essentially environmental dangers; radioactive thorn bushes, carnivorous plants, hypno-moss..

it was also strongly focused towards overland exploration, with a "final dungeon". food and water, various consumables, were also a factor, so that would account for the "survival" aspect.

in other words, what i like about stalker is that it's got "weird stuff, that you gotta be careful about, that you've got to be scared of".
eruptions = awesome.

I didn't know there had been more than one edition. Somehow that ran under my radar.

I feel like finishing any of the STALKER games is really just optional. For me, just playing the game is the enjoyable part.

Isn't that the case for every game? I play a game until it is finished OR until I no longer enjoy playing it. Finishing a video game is not an actual accomplishment, it's just finishing a video game.

EDIT: Although admittedly there is sometimes value to be had in finishing. I remember one very short game (7?) that was the world's most generic shooter, plus cel-shaded which I much dislike. But luckily I hadn't quite given up when the villeins trying to take over the US government revealed themselves - as Klansman, in full white robes and pointy hoods. Shooting Klansman is even funner and more satisfying than shooting Nazis. Something about the hoods I suppose.

 

[Stringjam]

Isn't that the case for every game? I play a game until it is finished OR until I no longer enjoy playing it. Finishing a video game is not an actual accomplishment, it's just finishing a video game.

I think a better way of putting it might be that STALKER is best played like a "persistent" world game without an ending, where as a lot of single player games drive you to the end (like Metro).

I think Skyrim is a good example. I never beat that game. I made it all the way to the end and I was like...hmmmm.....nah, I just want to play and explore.

 

[werepossum]

I think a better way of putting it might be that STALKER is best played like a "persistent" world game without an ending, where as a lot of single player games drive you to the end (like Metro).

I think Skyrim is a good example. I never beat that game. I made it all the way to the end and I was like...hmmmm.....nah, I just want to play and explore.

Understood. That was one knock I had against both the last Fallout games. If developers wish to install any sense of urgency or importance for the main quest, then they certainly should not make the world exploration end when one finishes the main quest. Thankfully Bethesda seems to have figured this out.