Gaming S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky

3 is way off base, that issue was fixed in a patch, and before the patch was out the forums had fixes for it. I would rather have a game like Stalker be relaesed a little buggy, then not and the game be another Blah shooter. Great game.

 

It seems to me all games have been released with less and less quality testing over the last few years and just rushed out the door with the implicit implication it'll be fixed later, this is just taking the piss though. A beta too far imo.

 

Aye indeed, 3 out of 10, come on, I've seen you guys score total piss poor games 5 out of 10 and higher.

Yes you can score a DS title 3/10 that was made in a matter of days, but not an FPS on a PC, I don't even think that's possible tbh.

 

I posted this in the other STALKER thread:

I stand by the comment, despite knowing how difficult it is to release a functioning product on the PC platform. Valve and Blizzard seem to have nailed getting good games out to people, that are predominantly stable. Even Indy developers seem to get this one right.

I guess the low score reflects the developers decision to sell the game in a non-working state, expecting to release patches after the public has effectively beta tested the game.

 

No, I've played it a fair bit and bit-tech are right on the money with the score. It's the difference between a studio producing crap game professionally and a studio producing a good game unprofesionally (i.e. not finishing it properlly). Stalker: CS is the latter. A game that I would have given 6 out of 10 if it wasn't fundamentally flawed and with far too many bugs. It CTDs frequently and the 1.5.03 patch just made things worse by introducing new bugs. It plays and feels like a rough beta with polished graphics, not a finished game.

It's not to say there isn't anything not to like about this game, though I think you really have to be a fan of the first game to appreciate what is there that's good. Unfortunately all problems the game has is a real test of one's patience.

I'm surprised other reviewers have been so lenient with their scores and glossing over the bugs, etc.

 

Keep in mind, a game of this ambition, scope is being made by a small developer in the Ukraine, not saying that makes it right, but that is were the issue lies. I disagree with the guy above, 3 is way too harsh, tonens of people are playing without much of an issue. The game is ambitious, very large and tries a lot of unique ideas, GSC tends to bite off more then they can chew. Still, 3 is hogwash. I have seen other games on here get higher scors that were not even good games and in terrible states.

 

Do you work at GSC?

 

Do you have any relevant comments?

 

Right, so what you're saying is we should just lie about our experience and make it up based on what you say?

 

The game was released broken, that's all there is to it. There is nothing to argue.

A broken game is no longer a game by definition, it becomes an exercise in bug fixing.

 

Do you?

 

very nice,

will have to give that one a go (freind speaks fluent russian so it shouldn't be an issue for him)

 

I still think Bit-Tech did the best review with the shell of a game they were given. Yes the results vary from system to system but that is to be expected and always occurs. There are a few lucky ones with near flawless game play and there are those that can't run the game at all. So I think they gave the game a justified rating. It is a shame and I am sure most of us thought it would receive a 7 or an 8 but that's how it was rated and unless future patches fix the problems then it will probably stay this way. So GIVE BIT-TECH A BREAK.

 

Nope. The first game Shadows was overly ambitious. How long was that in development hell? And Shadows itself came out rushed and slightly unfinished like a rough diamond only because GSC were under legal pressure by THQ to deliver the game. That's why a lot got dropped out of the original (epicness) and we got crap like that Gawd awful cliched teleporting crap at the end.

A fair few of the original people who worked on Shadows left GSC soon afterwards. What remained of GSC just re-gigged/borrowed what they already had, added a few new bits and took a step backwards to a more generic FPS with the content. It shows. Clear Sky lacks a lot of the original's charm and atmosphere. The-STALKER-game-the-way-it-was-meant-to-be it certainly ain't, as they were promising us.

And I wouldn't say tons of people aren't having any issues as I've visited a fair few forums. I'd say a minority are having a problem free experience, either they're jammy gits or rabid fanboys being oblivious to any flaws. Most are having CTDs by the very least.

3 out of 10 is harsh, but I think justified against GSC's totally slap-dash approach to releasing such an unfinished product. It's like ordering a cake and then finding it hasn't been cooked properly, there isn't any filling and the icing looks like it been dropped onto it from high height. Nice cake, but a bloody mess.

 

It seems some people just look over the contents section then skip to the last page and look at the number. They clearly explain that the game has 2 different scores depending on which way you look at it, and in the end they had to look at it from that specific point of view.

To state that just because the patch is out and that most people will have it when they buy it, doesn't look at the big picture. More then just the hardcore game on a pc. What about the mother that buys her kid the game? That game box isn't miraculously going to have the patch pre-applied. The game out of the box is still going to have these issues. Not everyone patches things like they should, and many don't even know how. Just because people have pc's that they play games on doesn't mean they actually patch them. Yes, virtually everyone here knows and patches their games, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

Bit-tech explained their reasoning on the score, and it makes perfect sense. It seems that some people don't actually read the reviews, or they choose to completely ignore the content and look at the big number at the end.

Gameplay and graphics aren't everything. A game that crashes and simply doesn't work on many systems IS an issue and should be looked at as such. To have to wait for patches to play a game you dropped $30-$70 on is ridiculous. The fact that many people accept this is what encourages it to keep occurring.

Also, I could care less if it is a small ambitious developer or a large heartless one, if its money out of my pocket the game NEEDS to work, UNCONDITIONALLY.

 

I wanted to get this for my 21st. *sigh*

I will have to resign myself to the fact that there are no amazing games I have not already completed! I even managed to finish Arma despite the horrible, horrible bugs in that. I bought clear sky for my friend actually and in order to get the sky to work I had to change it from full screen to windowed mode. Something to do with his geforce 7300 and incompatibility with the stalker engine.

 

I don't think i've seen such a persistant fan boy on bit-tech in a while. i actually started skipping posts just to read his garbage and the replies.
bravo on making me feel better.

 

First game was horrible, over-rated and offered nothing new. I was amazed at how much hype was behind it too...man..

 

on the plus side, it does alt+tab really nicely!
no lag and no issues when you tab back in

 

Fifth page, second 'shot about lighting - 404 error.

Isn't the NPP in Ukraine and not Russia?

In my country the games are just to expensive and I personally can't justify buying all the tittles I play because four games are equal to the minimal salary here.And now I hear this about a series which I really like so what am I suppose to do?Get another tittle that's sure to be a AAA one and pirate the other, or pirate both and get a new pare of shoes instead?This article was informative and reinforces the fact that we're being sold unfinishied games at high prices.