S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in 2006?

Oblivion-Lost.com has a story up speculating that the release of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl has slipped until 2006, offering the following quote from THQ responding to questions about the game's absence from their recent financial reports covering releases through the middle of next year: "We have no definitive release date yet for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. We do expect to have some announcements, including a public demonstration this summer. More news to follow." In an amusing side note, the THQ's S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Website (thanks Rhialto) actually lists the game as "now available," much to the amusement of those who frequent the GSC Game World Forums.
View : : :
39.
 
Re: No subject
May 6, 2005, 18:41
39.
Re: No subject May 6, 2005, 18:41
May 6, 2005, 18:41
 

It doesn't seem that ambitious to me really. It's almost like taking GTA:SA making it bigger, forcing a FPP and giving it a better AI and giving it a change of setting. GTA:SA worked fine, why not STALKER?

It's the AI that's the issue, I believe; from what I gather as well as the expected intelligent fighting behaviour (flanking, taking cover, all that rubbish), they're trying to get all the NPCs to function as if they were entities in an actual ecosystem; hunting, hiding, sleeping, etc.

AFAIK GTA:SA never had that sort of independent interaction between NPCs; they'd meet, travel about, but they wouldn't actually go and search out stuff to do, for example.

I'd imagine it's an absolute bastard to test a system designed to simulate individual interactions, because it's potentially completely unpredictable.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
2.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
3.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
4.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
5.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
7.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
6.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
8.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
9.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
17.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
30.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
32.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
33.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
38.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
31.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
10.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
28.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
11.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
12.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
16.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
13.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
14.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
15.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
19.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
18.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
20.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
21.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
23.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
24.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
   oops..
25.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
    Re: oops..
22.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
27.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
29.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
34.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
35.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
36.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
 39.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
 Re: No subject
41.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
42.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
43.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
44.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
45.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
     Re: No subject
47.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
37.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
49.
May 7, 2005May 7 2005
50.
May 7, 2005May 7 2005
40.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
46.
May 6, 2005May 6 2005
54.
May 9, 2005May 9 2005
48.
May 7, 2005May 7 2005
51.
May 7, 2005May 7 2005
52.
May 7, 2005May 7 2005