S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Delayed Again

The German THQ News Page (thanks Frans) has word that STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl, has suffered another delay. Previously expected for May of this year (story), the game no longer seems to carry a specific release date. No reason for the delay is offered, but GSC Game World's PR Manager Oleg Yavorsky gamely spins this announcement, saying they are pleased that THQ has given them more time to develop their upcoming first-person shooter.
View : : :
27.
 
Re: I dont follow this game anymore..
Feb 2, 2005, 15:27
Jim
27.
Re: I dont follow this game anymore.. Feb 2, 2005, 15:27
Feb 2, 2005, 15:27
Jim
 
If GSC can succeed, and from the footage I've seen, they would have to go blatently out of their way to ruin everything about the game, this game should show the world what a game with good graphics and good gameplay can really be like. None of the half-assed gameplay of Half-Life 2 and DOOM 3 (I liked DOOM 3, but it still should've been better, but HL2 was a total disappointment for me).

I found Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 to both be above average games, even though I was expecting MUCH more from Doom 3. I guess D3 just doesn't have much replay value. Sure gfx were pretty, but the physics engine was not much better than Q3:A, which itself was just a rehash of Q2, so essentially D3 was relatively on par with 1998 tech when it came to the physics engine.

HL2 blew D3 away in this regard- and yes, I'm currently playing through my second round of Half-Life2 since it DOES have replay value. The only disappointment for HL2 for me was I was hoping it would be a little less linear, but that's not stopping me from enjoying the game.

STALKER on the other hand shows much promise not only in graphics, but in the physics/world engine, and despite delays I'm still looking forward to playing it.

People bitch about delays so much, but then, when the game finally comes out people will be saying "Wow, this is totally worth the delays." I can understand bitterness towards delays, but if people really didn't "care about the game," why bother even commenting on the delay?

Because they've been promising this game by certain dates, and it was supposed to be completed in 2003. Now it looks like it won't be until second half of 2005 at the EARLIEST. If it's not close to being done, don't promise a release date.

Was Doom 3 worth the wait? Not really. Was HL2 worth the wait, yes it was, and better yet, they kept development details under wraps until about a year before they planned to release it, so when a delay was announced, it wasn't a big disappointment. Numerous delays after delays after delays are frustrating to many, and lead to a lot of slander against the developer- some may be warranted, some may not be- but a lesson should be taken from Valve-- only announce your game when it is nearly complete, and don't promise ANY release dates until you're almost certain that it can be made. Otherwise, it ends up just being a hype engine (D3), and no matter how you try to sell it, the longer people wait for something, the more they expect when they finally get it. Its also not that big of a deal to hear ONE delay announcement rather than 3, 4, 5... or whatever this one is on now.

Tell us when it has gone gold- THEN give us the release date.

This comment was edited on Feb 2, 15:33.
Jim
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
2.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
4.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
5.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
7.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
8.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
10.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
11.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
12.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
13.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
14.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
19.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
20.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
21.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
22.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
24.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
 27.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
          Re: I dont follow this game anymore..
29.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
28.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
30.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
31.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
            Re: No subject
32.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
             Re: No subject
39.
Feb 3, 2005Feb 3 2005
            Revolutionary Features?
40.
Feb 3, 2005Feb 3 2005
           Re: Gandhi
6.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
9.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
3.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
15.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
16.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
17.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
18.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
23.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
25.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
26.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
33.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
34.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
35.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
36.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
37.
Feb 2, 2005Feb 2 2005
38.
Feb 3, 2005Feb 3 2005