Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday

GSC Game World tweets about their plans to respond to the rumors that the Ukrainian developer is shutting down. Here's the short and sweet tweet:

An official statement will be made on Monday.

View
50 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

30. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 23:40 theyarecomingforyou
 
So what you're trying to say is since your personal preference is different from mine (and many others) it should never be discussed by anybody ever or else they are considered to be "moaning"? Troll much?
You said FOV was essential, which I disputed.

Lol, so life-threatening danger is "broken gameplay" to you? I guess that settles why you don't like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
No. Running about the environment - which is necessary due to how vast it is - and then dying without warning is "broken gameplay". It's one thing to have challenging gameplay - it's another to simply kill the player and require loading an earlier save. And I have actually stated on numerous occasions how much I really enjoyed the STALKER series. The original was incredibly atmospheric and the sewers were incredibly scary at times, which is unusual when so many games rely on cheap scare tactics (Doom 3, FEAR, etc). But I also acknowledge that they had serious gameplay / design / technical issues, without even going into the draconian DRM they employed. I also didn't say that checkpoints were less annoying, I said that not allowing quick-saves added tensions - whereas the STALKER series encouraged regular quick-saves which reduces the tension and destroyed the immersion.

eRe4s3r wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 22:06:
Holy god damn crap, the FOV is not an artistic freedom. FOV is a basic biological dependent value that relates to eye distance from screen, screen aspect and screen size.
Which cannot be determined by the game. The problem comes when people have wildly different setups. Many PC users hook their system up to a HDTV, others have 4:3/5:3 monitors or eyefinity setups. Most games therefore tend to opt for a one-size-fits-all approach, which also makes it easier to test games. As I said, I'd like to see all games ship with an FOV setting so that people can make changes themselves. It just seems that a lot of fuss is made, many times by people wanting an FOV as high as 120 - people just treat it as a preference.

I just haven't played any game where I found the FOV to be an issue. I'm sure my position would be very different if I suffered motion sickness.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 23:39 swaaye
 
I thought Metro 2033 was essentially like taking one of STALKER's indoor missions and turning it into a whole game. Call of Pripyat has a few areas with subways/trains.

STALKER is more about roaming outdoor areas and just occasionally going into creepy enclosed indoor places. It's the antithesis of the linear corridor shooter. Of course, the storyline is still linear but that's how stories work generally. STALKER is like a sci-fi Elder Scrolls game without RPG stuff.
 
Avatar 49717
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 23:04 Tanto Edge
 
FOV? 100 degrees or the game can get fucked.  
Avatar 13202
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=705LEH3j2g0&t=0m24s
http://www.youtube.com/user/tantoedge
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 22:06 eRe4s3r
 
Holy god damn crap, the FOV is not an artistic freedom. FOV is a basic biological dependent value that relates to eye distance from screen, screen aspect and screen size.

If you sit close in front of a huge screen with a hor fov of 45 it is too narrow, you automatically get motion sickness. On the other hand on the average console setup 60 is perfect unless you sit too far away or too close. On PC a fov of 60 is WAY too low. /and for the record, Metro's fov of 45 is vertical not horizontal (Which is what everyone is talking about when they say FOV) On widescreen this is perfect, on 5:4 or 4:3 its not. (increase to 50 or 55 works well for me..)

The problem is pc games and console game is no excuse for not having an FOV option, even console gamers require different FOV values for different distances and screen-sizes.

And fov should NEVER be used as a tool to increase atmosphere or gameplay. The wrong fov can make people *sick*
 
Avatar 54727
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:49 Jerusahat
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 19:34:
You do realise that the FOV is just a number used by the game and that Metro's '45' isn't the same as another game's '45', right?

It uses a vertical FOV instead of horizontal. In those screenshots, for that resolution, 60 is equivalent to 85. On my monitor 60 = 91, because my resolution is different.

This is why FOV settings for PC games is important. The resolutions and monitor distances are more variable than they are on console. It's not just PC gamers being fussy.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:37 Alamar
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 19:34:
I dunno, to me it strikes me as just as silly as criticising a car for the curvature of it's windscreen...

I didn't like riding 'shotgun' in my friends F-150 because the windshield angle made me nauseous... : )

-Alamar
 
Avatar 22996
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:36 Mad Max RW
 
bhcompy wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 21:33:
People still have tearing problems? What is this? 2001? Last game I had any tearing problems with was Farcry 1

Do you know what that means? Gather around, children! Not everybody on Earth is blessed with the same exact setup as you. Did I blow your mind just now?
 
Avatar 15920
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:33 bhcompy
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 21:30:
bhcompy wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 21:24:
Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 19:46:
Narrow FOV as a gameplay feature is a total fabrication. For most PC gamers it's as essential as vertical sync, turning on/off mouse acceleration/smoothing, and screen resolution.

It's a single player game. Single player games are about controlling the environment and mood of the game. Stop crying.

/also, vsync is essential?

I can't believe people are making an argument out of this. And vsync is absolutely essential if you're getting tearing across the screen.

Are there any sane people left on this site to back me up?

People still have tearing problems? What is this? 2001? Last game I had any tearing problems with was Farcry 1
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:30 Mad Max RW
 
bhcompy wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 21:24:
Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 19:46:
Narrow FOV as a gameplay feature is a total fabrication. For most PC gamers it's as essential as vertical sync, turning on/off mouse acceleration/smoothing, and screen resolution.

It's a single player game. Single player games are about controlling the environment and mood of the game. Stop crying.

/also, vsync is essential?

I can't believe people are making an argument out of this. And vsync is absolutely essential if you're getting tearing across the screen.

Are there any sane people left on this site to back me up?
 
Avatar 15920
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:28 CJ_Parker
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 20:55:
Personally I don't like the warping of higher FOVs, which is actually why developers use lower FOVs. Valve discusses exactly why they use that FOV here. Developers don't just pick low FOVs to piss people off; nor is it because of cross-platform development (HL2 was PC only until it was ported to X360 years later), despite what people might say. People even complained about the FOV in STALKER as well (even CoP).

LOL. Of course it has to do with xplaform development because the shitty consoles could not handle higher FOV without blowing up (or at least serious game-breaking stuttering).
Also, most games do not look the slightest bit worse with a higher FOV than with a lower one. A lot of games do in fact look much better and more natural.
A narrow field of view would only be more natural to a person that is permanently drunk or drugged because being intoxicated causes a natural narrowing down of the FOV. Or maybe paranoia has the same effect (*ponders your forum handle*)...

Finally have you even read the Valve article? It assumes that most people are sitting at a close distance in front of small screens. That might have been semi-true a decade ago when HL2 was released but today most of us are sitting at the same close distance in front of frickin' huge screens which voids the whole argument.

There are lots of FOV calculators to be found all over and around the intertubes where you can enter your screen size and if you have a large screen like a 24" with a 1920x1200 resolution you'll get results ranging from 90 to 110. There is absolutely NO fucking reason for a developer to limit the FOV or not to give us at least the option to change it at will.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:24 bhcompy
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 19:46:
Narrow FOV as a gameplay feature is a total fabrication. For most PC gamers it's as essential as vertical sync, turning on/off mouse acceleration/smoothing, and screen resolution.

It's a single player game. Single player games are about controlling the environment and mood of the game. Stop crying.

/also, vsync is essential?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:20 jacobvandy
 
Lol, so life-threatening danger is "broken gameplay" to you? I guess that settles why you don't like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Some of the best mods for that game are ones that make it even MORE realistic/dangerous. And how you could think that relying on checkpoint saves is somehow less frustrating than being able to quicksave is beyond me.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 21:14 Mad Max RW
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 20:55:
FOV is a preference...

Personally I don't like the warping of higher FOVs

So what you're trying to say is since your personal preference is different from mine (and many others) it should never be discussed by anybody ever or else they are considered to be "moaning"? Troll much?

On my monitor a FOV setting of 90 has no warping that you speak of. Do want to know why? Because we are different people using different computers with different monitors! WOW! What a thought!
 
Avatar 15920
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 20:55 theyarecomingforyou
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 19:46:
Narrow FOV as a gameplay feature is a total fabrication. For most PC gamers it's as essential as vertical sync, turning on/off mouse acceleration/smoothing, and screen resolution.
Really? You think that "most" PC gamers are concerned by FOV? The only people that seem to moan are those, like yourself, that are affected by motion sickness. As I said, I think it should be an option for all FPS games but it's far from "essential"; it would be as ridiculous as arguing that all games should support 10bit per-colour.

FOV is a preference. Most recent games default to a much lower FOV than games from 10yrs ago. Don't forget, people complained about Half-Life 2 because it had an FOV of 75. Personally I don't like the warping of higher FOVs, which is actually why developers use lower FOVs. Valve discusses exactly why they use that FOV here. Developers don't just pick low FOVs to piss people off; nor is it because of cross-platform development (HL2 was PC only until it was ported to X360 years later), despite what people might say. People even complained about the FOV in STALKER as well (even CoP).
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 19:46 Mad Max RW
 
Narrow FOV as a gameplay feature is a total fabrication. For most PC gamers it's as essential as vertical sync, turning on/off mouse acceleration/smoothing, and screen resolution. On my widescreen monitor a narrow FOV is unplayable because of the clumsy zoomed in view, resulting in headaches and motion sickness. Now on my ancient CRT it's fine. In a perfect world everybody would have an identical setup where you never have to fiddle with settings. That's not reality.

And I'm not writing the game off nor do I hate it. Metro 2033 is a decent title and should be checked out by people who want a different and very nice looking yet incredibly gloomy setting. I'm just warning people who are expecting something like STALKER that it's nothing like it.
 
Avatar 15920
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 19:34 theyarecomingforyou
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 16:29:
Prepare to be let down. Metro 2033 has great atmosphere but the game design is the exact opposite of STALKER. It is totally linear and takes control away from you at key moments, essentially playing for you.
I didn't claim that Metro 2033 was a replacement for STALKER. It is indeed a very different game - and very linear - though that works for the context of the game. But the STALKER games are far from perfect - from a gameplay perspective they're pretty broken, as death can come in a second (either anomalies, mutants or enemy fire) and encourages regular quicksaving whereas Metro works on checkpoints which prevent that and adds a lot more to the tension. Sure Metro 2033 features a few quick-time events - which aren't really my thing - but they make up a tiny fraction of the game and don't amount to the game "playing for you" any more than the cutscenes in the STALKER games.

Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 16:29:
Oh, and the default FOV is 45! Not even console ports are that bad. In order to change it you have to edit 3 obscure config files.
You do realise that the FOV is just a number used by the game and that Metro's '45' isn't the same as another game's '45', right? The default FOV is fine, upping it to 60 works and going up to 90 breaks the game. It's a horror/survival game and the FOV is designed to complement that. Yet the people complaining about FOV seem to be incredibly vocal. I dunno, to me it strikes me as just as silly as criticising a car for the curvature of it's windscreen... considering those that want to fiddle with the FOV can if they want. Sure I'd like to see FOV added to game options - to stop people moaning as much as anything else - but I'd NEVER write off or criticise a game for it. I mean, people criticise Team Fortress 2 for limiting the FOV selection to 90, saying they'd use 120 if they could - they'd rather the game look completely fucked up just so they could see more on the screen. It just baffles me.

I dunno, it just seems like you're trying to find reasons to hate on the game. It was produced by a tiny studio that did a really good job. The game had issues and shortcomings, though the developer is looking to address those in the sequel. It's linear but that's deliberate - the Half-Life series is linear but they're not bad games.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 18:33 bhcompy
 
I just hope that if it does continue development somewhere it remains in indy hands. Any mainstream publisher/developer would kill what makes it great  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 17:48 jacobvandy
 
Metro 2033 is great, but it is in no way a replacement for or "better" version of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. It's more analogous to Half-Life than Deus Ex or Fallout. Apples and oranges, despite what they have in common.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 17:27 Bumpy
 
Rosco wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 16:07:
Apparently I am going to have to try out Metro 2033 one of these days. I've held off on it since I wasn't sure my OC'd E6400 and GTS250 could handle running that game.

Try the demo. I found 2033 way too different from Stalker. Linear and not open world.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: GSC/S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Statement Monday Dec 10, 2011, 16:29 Mad Max RW
 
Rosco wrote on Dec 10, 2011, 16:07:
Apparently I am going to have to try out Metro 2033 one of these days. I've held off on it since I wasn't sure my OC'd E6400 and GTS250 could handle running that game.

Prepare to be let down. Metro 2033 has great atmosphere but the game design is the exact opposite of STALKER. It is totally linear and takes control away from you at key moments, essentially playing for you. Oh, and the default FOV is 45! Not even console ports are that bad. In order to change it you have to edit 3 obscure config files.
 
Avatar 15920
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo