* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Nov 27, 2024, 08:11. Reason: Personal attacks (rule 1)

Beamer wrote on Nov 25, 2024, 17:22:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 25, 2024, 16:54:

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 25, 2024, 10:12:

Beamer wrote on Nov 25, 2024, 09:26:
Pentagon says it's paying for Starlink in Ukraine

Initially, SpaceX provided and funded Starlink services to Ukraine largely on their own.[7][8][9] As of June 2023 Starlink expenses for Ukraine are covered by the US Department of Defense through a contract with SpaceX.[10] SpaceX executives have declined to extend Starlink availability to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine like Crimea.[11][6] This was criticized by Ukraine as it prevented them from carrying out military operations in those areas

Of course, since 2022, Musk has spoken out repeatedly about ending support for Ukraine.

Hush
That's not what musk worshipping sycophants want to hear.

When I joined this community actively instead of from the sidelines, you personally almost held me back from that. I hate it how you get to troll the way you do. Please stop.

Beamer, according to your Wikipedia link, Elon Musk has donated an estimate of a 100 million to Ukraine's war effort by providing Starlink for free from February 2022 to June 2023 before they made the US government chip in.

How is this used against Elon Musk? I really like to dig into your mindsets about this, because it honestly just looks like Musk Derangement Syndrome to me.

I was simply clarifying. Musk donated about a year. He has not donated the next two years. He should be commended for that first year, as it was the right thing to do, and he stepped up to do it. It was also a great case study for Starlink, and great advertising, and I'd wager they got more than their money back from those dollars if you consider them marketing budget.
Regardless, he is on record for saying the US should not be supporting Ukraine, which isn't Musk Derangement Syndrome, just Musk being deranged.

He advocated for diplomacy and for the U.S. not to get involved in offensive measures. The push for Ukraine joining NATO was a huge mistake, one that history will probably see as another foreign policy disaster. Putin was crystal clear about this: "Niet means niet."

Think about it. What if Russia and Mexico formed a military alliance? How would the U.S. react? The analogy isn’t perfect, but the principle is the same: big powers don’t tolerate military moves near their borders that they see as threats.

The way we’ve been looking at the state of the world these past few years is just too idealistic. There are only two real options here: either we pursue diplomacy with Russia, or we risk WW3. Sure, "Putin bad" is an easy line to repeat, but let’s not pretend flexing muscles while yelling that gets us anywhere. Diplomacy isn’t perfect, but it’s the only real choice we’ve got. Sadly, if I were a political figure saying exactly this, some would call me a Russian asset (and/or deranged).

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 25, 2024, 10:12:

Beamer wrote on Nov 25, 2024, 09:26:
Pentagon says it's paying for Starlink in Ukraine

Initially, SpaceX provided and funded Starlink services to Ukraine largely on their own.[7][8][9] As of June 2023 Starlink expenses for Ukraine are covered by the US Department of Defense through a contract with SpaceX.[10] SpaceX executives have declined to extend Starlink availability to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine like Crimea.[11][6] This was criticized by Ukraine as it prevented them from carrying out military operations in those areas

Of course, since 2022, Musk has spoken out repeatedly about ending support for Ukraine.

Hush
That's not what musk worshipping sycophants want to hear.

When I joined this community actively instead of from the sidelines, you personally almost held me back from that. I hate it how you get to troll the way you do. Please stop.

Beamer, according to your Wikipedia link, Elon Musk has donated an estimate of a 100 million to Ukraine's war effort by providing Starlink for free from February 2022 to June 2023 before they made the US government chip in.

How is this used against Elon Musk? I really like to dig into your mindsets about this, because it honestly just looks like Musk Derangement Syndrome to me.

Teddy wrote on Nov 24, 2024, 18:34:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 24, 2024, 16:25:

Teddy wrote on Nov 23, 2024, 20:02:

OhLordNick wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 15:13:

Cutter wrote on Nov 20, 2024, 22:01:
Why are these guys making Musk richer? I thought they were Ukrainian. Anything that helps Musk hurts Ukraine.

WTF? Seriously? If not for Musk, Ukraine would have lost the war 2+ years ago. Ever heard of Starlink? He is providing this service to Ukraine, I believe basically for free. Man there are some ungrateful people in this world.

You believe incorrectly. He's just billing the US government, not Ukraine. See Here.. So no, not ungrateful people. But there are definitely some very naive fanboys.

As per that very article, Musk donated Starlink's services for a long time, costing him millions. But the war endures, and SpaceX is losing money rapidly because of if, so at some point wanted others to chip in. HOW is this a bad thing, exactly, Teddy? Does the fact that he provided critical communication capabilities to Ukraine for free for months not outweigh the "shadiness" of him not being transparent about a US govt contract later on? Who is naive here? The "fanboys" or the lefties who couldn't get over the fact he bought their favorite public square soap-box?

If you think for one minute that any of that time he 'donated' was "free" and not something he directly billed the US government for after the fact as part of the contract he essentially forced upon them, then yes, you are exactly the naive type of person I'm talking about.

Naturally I could be wrong, but in the very article you refer to it's said that he's been donating most of it for the first chapter of the war. What do you know that I don't? Or are you just assuming he didn't donate a dime, because he switched political sides and now everything he does is viewed under a thick, cynical lense?

Teddy wrote on Nov 23, 2024, 20:02:

OhLordNick wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 15:13:

Cutter wrote on Nov 20, 2024, 22:01:
Why are these guys making Musk richer? I thought they were Ukrainian. Anything that helps Musk hurts Ukraine.

WTF? Seriously? If not for Musk, Ukraine would have lost the war 2+ years ago. Ever heard of Starlink? He is providing this service to Ukraine, I believe basically for free. Man there are some ungrateful people in this world.

You believe incorrectly. He's just billing the US government, not Ukraine. See Here.. So no, not ungrateful people. But there are definitely some very naive fanboys.

As per that very article, Musk donated Starlink's services for a long time, costing him millions. But the war endures, and SpaceX is losing money rapidly because of if, so at some point wanted others to chip in. HOW is this a bad thing, exactly, Teddy? Does the fact that he provided critical communication capabilities to Ukraine for free for months not outweigh the "shadiness" of him not being transparent about a US govt contract later on? Who is naive here? The "fanboys" or the lefties who couldn't get over the fact he bought their favorite public square soap-box?

Jivaro wrote on Nov 23, 2024, 12:52:
I would argue that FOMO can extend after launch quite easily. MMOs and battle arena type shooters for example. If everybody else is playing WoW or Fortnite or whatever....sooner or later most people will check them out, even if they aren't normally a genre they play, to see what the fuss is all about. In fact, I would say FOMO plays a bigger part in lifetime sales then it does in first week/month sales......if I had any numbers to actually prove that....lol

That's not FOMO. That's WTFA.

VaranDragon wrote on Nov 22, 2024, 07:01:
You forgot that it looks about 10 years out of date, and that it's buggy as hell, but......there is no other game like Stalker out there there are plenty of games like SM2. This is the reason why this game has a cult following.

All of those issues you mentioned will be fixed, if not by the developers, then by modders. In time. If you don't believe me go play the GAMMA project mod for Stalker 1. I agree with your points about Space Marine 2, I just don't think that it's a valid comparison to this game and that the points apply.

Oof, you're confusing me That isn't hard to do because my train of thought derails the moment someone sneezes.

Wasn't my point that this game has great acclaim due to cult behavior that's blind to objectivity? And aren't you making that point for me now? Can you rephrase what your position is compared to mine?

Bradley wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 17:54:
On the whole early access thing, I think it's odd when a game stays in early access forever, but I don't really see what illicit benefit the developer gets out of it, and I don't really see what harm it does to the consumer. Other than wanting to be pedantic about the language, I don't understand what all the fuss is about there.

I bought an EA PC VR game once called EVERSLAUGHT. Then they decided to partner with Meta and make another, Meta exclusive game. "Yeah we'll be delaying the EVERSLAUGHT development for about a year" and then *crickets*.

If you and people like RedEye don't see the anti-consumer part of this, I don't know what to tell you. "Read the fine print" doesn't really apply in a thread about Valve changing said fine print so anti-consumer becomes pro-consumer.

VaranDragon wrote on Nov 22, 2024, 04:41:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 22, 2024, 03:25:

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 12:15:
And this is why I say the game is super hyped. I bet it's not even that good (not bad, just not great) but the FOMO effect has taken hold and thus it's a huge success. It also proves that having the right hype is more important than a smooth launch these days.

THANK YOU! Sorry, it just feels really good when someone shares your own opinion almost verbatim. This is what I've been saying about Space Marine 2 (on my deathbed I'll one last time utter that that game is fucking mediocre, "Fie, popular opinion! Fie!"). You call it the "FOMO effect", I call it the meme cult but I mean the same -- some games just get this zealous cult following before release, and the idea of the game turns out to be stronger than the actual product. It's infuriating, and I can breathe a little bit easier now that someone else shared this same thought. I guess I'm petty like that.

I get that the game is not for you, but your comparison is not valid. SM2 is a horde shooter, a pretty one, but nevertheless just another horde shooter. Nothing special. Can you name another game quite like Stalker 1 and 2? One that has hardcore survival elements, "living" factions and a reactive persistent world. It's rough around the edges, I'll give you that. I didn't like Stalker 1 when it came out, it was janky and buggy as hell. But there was definitely no other game quite like it. There still isn't. Other than Stalker 2.

Like SM2 I just don't see what's special about Stalker 2. It feels like a Remaster or Remake with no ambition (except landmass), like I also mentioned in another thread. You talk about hardcore survival elements? Everywhere I turn I find food. I'm never hungry, because I just eat everything I find and hardly fill my inventory with it. The bleeping warns me of anomolies, and the only time they get me is when I don't see shit because (at least on my hardware) the lighting is completely off. They superficially make encounters harder by making mutants annoying as hell having them move sporadically and making some very hard to see. They injected an AI that drops enemies in areas you thought you cleared. Sneaking is a joke, because they made it "realistic" by making it impossible. These shortcuts don't make it fun hard, just stupid hard. It's that fine line between a good Souls game and torturing yourself.
What hardcore survival elements am I missing? Like SM2, every aspect of the game is a mediocre execution of a good idea.

This "FOMO effect" or "meme cult" thing occurs when a zealous fanbase (Warhammer 40K... Stalker) infects a huge portion of the rest of the gaming community with their super hype. At least that's what I must believe. Because, as an age long gamer myself, I just cannot look at these two games objectively and see anything that warrants their acclaim.

That said, I watched Worth-a-Buy's review and his rig is shit, yet his experience was stable and even smooth. I even noticed how I think his flashlight generates more light than mine. I'm 90% sure this Lumen tech is absolute garbage.

Xeth Nyrrow wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 12:15:
And this is why I say the game is super hyped. I bet it's not even that good (not bad, just not great) but the FOMO effect has taken hold and thus it's a huge success. It also proves that having the right hype is more important than a smooth launch these days.

THANK YOU! Sorry, it just feels really good when someone shares your own opinion almost verbatim. This is what I've been saying about Space Marine 2 (on my deathbed I'll one last time utter that that game is fucking mediocre, "Fie, popular opinion! Fie!"). You call it the "FOMO effect", I call it the meme cult but I mean the same -- some games just get this zealous cult following before release, and the idea of the game turns out to be stronger than the actual product. It's infuriating, and I can breathe a little bit easier now that someone else shared this same thought. I guess I'm petty like that.

RedEye9 wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 14:57:

jdreyer wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 13:58:
And now if we could get rid of early access abuse. Some games are approaching a decade in EA. Max allowed should be two years or so. Failure to release should make players eligible for refund.

Or, people could read what early access actually is.

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 20, 2024, 17:42:
I’m guessing that you folks that say don’t buy EA have never read what it is.

https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/6554-ED29-FBDB-1612

You might want to pay close attention to this one question and answer.

How will I know when an Early Access game will be finished?
Its up to the developer to determine when they are ready to leave Early Access. Some developers have a concrete deadline in mind, while others will get a better sense as the development of the game progresses. You should be aware that some developers will be unable to 'finish' their game. So you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state.

https://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_5_9_

Isn't jdreyers' whole point that this should change? If you'd ask me, EA should guarantee a release within a reasonable amount of time, delivering on the promises made in the game's description. If the developer isn't entirely sure they'll finish the game by then, possible complications included, then they shouldn't EA it (yet).

jacobvandy wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 11:48:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 10:39:

sauron wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 10:35:
These guys remind me of CDPR - not afraid to attempt to deliver something very ambitious, and not afraid to work on it after release to get it to where it needs to be. I remember Witcher 1 and Cyberpunk - hellishly buggy at release but excellent in their final iteration. Hopefully this will be a similar story, and I am intrigued to watch it play out.

How is STALKER 2 anywhere near as ambitious as Cyberpunk or TW3? Honest question.

I don't see ambition in STALKER 2. I just see a buggy mess of old ideas, like a Remake or Remaster gone horribly wrong.

Then you are unfamiliar with the old games' structure and how much of a difference it makes to format all of that landmass and then some into a 64km² seamless open world. It is every bit as ambitious a transformation as going from Witcher 2 to Witcher 3.

I am not impressed by landmass at all, are you? I feel like it's even become a trope that devs brag about it, and then the gamers go "yada yada yada". So when plucking landmass from the argument and dumping it in the shredder, what's left?

sauron wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 10:35:
These guys remind me of CDPR - not afraid to attempt to deliver something very ambitious, and not afraid to work on it after release to get it to where it needs to be. I remember Witcher 1 and Cyberpunk - hellishly buggy at release but excellent in their final iteration. Hopefully this will be a similar story, and I am intrigued to watch it play out.

How is STALKER 2 anywhere near as ambitious as Cyberpunk or TW3? Honest question.

I don't see ambition in STALKER 2. I just see a buggy mess of old ideas, like a Remake or Remaster gone horribly wrong.

RogueSix wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 05:23:

Scallywag Sally wrote on Nov 21, 2024, 04:58:
I don't care if the developers made this game while literally on fire -- if the game is a buggy mess, it's a buggy mess.

They didn't. The war in Ukraine started on February 24th 2022 and GSC Game World relocated to Prague, Czech Republic in May 2022. They were only "under fire" (mostly theoretically as Kyiv has always been relatively "safe") for three months max which is a pretty short timeframe given the entire scope and development length of the project. S2 has been in development for almost a decade so that kind of puts things in perspective.

I only have the utmost sympathy for Ukraine (let's insert a proper fuck Russia, fuck Putin, Slava Ukraini here) but the war does not fly as an excuse for the state of S2 imo. The dev relocated shortly after the start of the war. They were safe during the vast majority of the game's looong development time.

P.S.: It is also not my cup of tea. I'm not a fan of the Eastern Bloc setting. Everything is so drab, grey, run-down, depressing. I blame my childhood/youth trips to the GDR for this. My family has/had relatives in East Germany and we would regularly visit them before the reunification. It was always depressing from the asshole border guards to the actual living conditions of our relatives. I have developed a pretty strong aversion to that typical Eastern Bloc/Soviet Bloc "atmosphere" where everything is simply kinda trashy, run-down, broken, simplistic, dirty, messy, yucky, fugly, drab, depressing, bleak, gloomy, you-name-it as I'm running out of adjectives .

I agree with everything you've said there.

I've been to some of these places too, and to Prague multiple times. Prague itself is nice, but drive out of it and you're met with exactly what you've described above. I doubt any human being is a fan that atmosphere. Hell, even weather and the lighting (this cold blue; the hue of death itself) gives it the gloomy middle-finger.

Dammit. I was looking forward to this game because I needed something new after Dragon Age: The Veilguard. Ironically, the only other game I can think of is Metro Awakening...

Yeah I don't understand the appeal to this game at all. It's buggy on so many levels, and even comparing it to CP77 duing release it just pales in comparison. I came to this forum because I needed to vent my frustration for Space Marine 2. I believe that game's critical acclaim is due to meme culture -- it's cool to love hard on Space Marine 2 for reasons best explained by 9GAG. I feel the exact same frustation with STALKER 2. Way too many reviewers refer to Ukraine, letting it influene their opinion. I don't care if the developers made this game while literally on fire -- if the game is a buggy mess, it's a buggy mess.

I tried the game again today. It's simply shit on so many levels, regardless of performance. Don't call this euro-jank. It's just junk.

I'm confused and I think the world will catch up on what I've observed any moment now: Apparently, this game CAN run great and I don't think that it's about how good your hardware is, but more so what type of hardware. Here you can see WolfheartFPS play this game with ZERO performance issues. Here you see SkillUp -- with the best rig available on the market currently -- play this game and it runs as abysmal as on my 4080 rig.

I'm sure their graphical options aren't set exactly the same (WolfHeart was running everything on High, 1440p, like myself), but the difference doesn't warrant the difference in performance. There's something going on here, and it could mean there's a quick fix for the horrendous performance. I'm not sure what GPU WolfHeart has, but maybe it's an NVIDIA issue as BoP isn't complaining on this AMD either.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 20, 2024, 17:41:
I've been playing it off and on throughout the day as work, a puppy, and the emergency replacement of a dead upright freezer allows.

I've not run in to any particular levels of extreme or egregious jank. It plays quite smoothly but has the occasional UE microstutter. That's at 1080p. What surprised me was how well Steam Remote Play has worked. I've been streaming it to my HTPC and have had no visual degradation on the big screen in the living room. It's not really pegging my 3700X as I expected it would. For Remote Play, I've been using Linux on both ends and running Proton Experimental.

Are you extremely unsensitive to low fps or are you running it with most graphical options on Low? The game has forced Ray Tracing, which explains why it's even knee-capping my 4080 because that tech is shit. That said, my brain starts humming below 70 fps and explodes below 50.
It's hitting below 50.

Ray-tracing garbage. I hate it. It offers a highly subjective visual improvement at the cost of immense performance impact that just isn't worth it. Normally, I just turn it off and it feels like my 4080 can run games on Ultimate for the next 5 years. In this game, though, that's impossible. This game is DOA.

Jim wrote on Nov 20, 2024, 14:25:
Obviously it would have been a much better game if it consisted of straight white men throwing gay people off of building rooftops, because F everyone else.

In what world does this comment make sense?

Sepharo wrote on Nov 19, 2024, 19:41:

The_Pink_Tiger wrote on Nov 19, 2024, 19:38:
Oh for gog's sake. Does every game have to start adding RPG features? What's next, adding crafting? The original Control worked well enough as a shooter. It didn't need added complexity. I didn't get to the end of it and say, "this was a fun and trippy adventure, but if only I'd been able to max out my shooting stat!" I just wanted to explore more of the world. Keep the gameplay the same and just give me more freaky stuff.

It's honestly weird to me how much people demand that.
Somebody was just complaining about it here in a Stalker thread the other day to the tune of, "What's the point if I'm not progressing my level?"
Sigh.

Guilty as charged. And I don't think the "demand" is so difficult to understand. To people like me, it just adds a whole extra layer to a game. One that keeps the gameplay loop interesting, as you unlock new abilities as you progress. In The Veilguard my starting Warrior was a one-trick parry pony. 30 hours later, the entire fucking battlefield was somehow on fire and everything around me dropped dead.

Sure, I believe games can still be interesting without RPG elements in them, but only if done really, really well and having this "layer" injected in a different way. They say in Stalker you'll learn ways for your favorite guns to jam less, shit like that. If that's done through some smart game mechanic that isn't a skill point, it's all the same to me.

Kxmode wrote on Nov 18, 2024, 09:21:
Have we reached peak hero shooter? Will studios now return to single-player story driven content?

This is actually the trend that I've been observing too. I like it very much. After a quick search I found that a study by Midia Research found that 53% of gamers prefer single-player games over live-service titles these days. Combined with highly succesful games like Cyberpunk, Elden Ring, I think the publishers finally put two and two together.

Despite my own reservations, I hope STALKER will explode in critical acclaim after tomorrow. That will suck the industry into an era of single-player FPS games like never before. Good times ahead?