Not yet.

So any new news about this? Is there anything happening?

It's not quite what I was expecting (after the years of waiting) you can see where certain shortcuts were taking.

However, it's still the most interesting PC game for a long time and well done to the devs for it.

http://www.realityfakers.com

This comment was edited on Apr 12, 11:17.

I agree that the combat is the best part of STALKER. Fortunately, you don't need to accept a randomly generated mission in order to find a good fight in the game.

Fact is, the only reason why people play randomly generated missions is so that they can get a reward.
Many of the firefights in this game are pretty random. For me, the fights are the reward and the artifacts are more or less dead weight.

edit: for the record, I think most of the side quests are completely pointless, as well as some of the plot, and could care less if the bandits are involved in a quest or not. If I want to kill bandits, I am going to kill bandits

I suppose this post is rather pointless
This comment was edited on Apr 12, 05:07.

Not being in-depth or interesting does not equate with bad design. Missions do not need to be be in-depth or interesting, as long as they have a potential positive impact on the player.

Um, wait, so according to you, a mission can be shallow and boring, yet still be well-designed? Interesting.

And what is this "potential positive effect" you mention? The unlikely chance that the player might enjoy completing the same tedious missions over and over again?

Random missions allow for object-based exploration, and loot acquisition, which some people really do like.

Loot acquisition isn't a mission, it's a reward for completing a mission. If you took away the loot rewards, how many of the side-missions in STALKER would you bother completing? Very few, I'm sure, because the most of them are shallow and generic. Like all random missions. Because they are random. Created without planning or forethought. Random missions, by their definition, cannot be well-designed because there is practically no design even involved.

And "object-based exploration"? By this I'm assuming you mean "go find random object" missions. Again, these missions are shallow and generic. And if a person really likes to explore, they'll do it anyway regardless of mission. Oh, and the arbitrary time limits on side-missions are definitely not conducive to exploration.

Fact is, the only reason why people play randomly generated missions is so that they can get a reward. Without the rewards, they have no incentive whatsoever because the missions themselves are shallow, generic and boring.

So once again, you are back to projecting your personal opinion as inherent fact when that's not the case.

The problem with notions of "good" and "bad" is that they are wholly subjective. To me, things like random mission assigment and side-mission time limits are inherently bad design. And to me, this is an absolute fact, for the many reasons I've already mentioned. While you are free to disagree, there is little point in repeatedly stating that my opinions are not fact simply because you don't agree with them.

This comment was edited on Apr 12, 07:55.

One could argue that it's realism. You can't ever always win, and you have to know your limits.

(Now, if those limits include "well I'm not allowed to go to that part of the Zone yet," then I guess that's wiggle room for debate.)

Um, they are bad. "Go defend this factory" or "Go clear this bandit camp" aren't exactly meaningful objectives. Nor are they especially in-depth or interesting.

Not being in-depth or interesting does not equate with bad design. Missions do not need to be be in-depth or interesting, as long as they have a potential positive impact on the player. Which the ones in STALKER do.

A completionist mentality is hardly rare. A good game fosters that mentality by providing missions that are interesting and fun to play.

No, a game that appeals to completionists does that. Not every game does, or needs to appeal to completionists. And not appealing to completionists is not evidence of bad design.

They play them solely for the rewards gained by completing them. And this is bad game design.

No, it's not bad design. It's just a design you don't like. Random missions allow for object-based exploration, and loot acquisition, which some people really do like.

So once again, you are back to projecting your personal opinion as inherent fact when that's not the case.

I don't choose to do some side missions because I'm not interested in completing them. That doesn't mean they were a bad design, it means they don't appeal to me.

Um, they are bad. "Go defend this factory" or "Go clear this bandit camp" aren't exactly meaningful objectives. Nor are they especially in-depth or interesting. You go to the factory, kill a bunch of enemies (without the aid of the people calling for help who seem content to just sit there and let you do all the work). Or you go to the camp and kill a bunch of bandits. Then you come back to the area a few days later and get the same missions again.

Bad design, no matter how objective you claim to be. I'm really interested in finding out if anyone actually enjoys completing those missions over and over again. I'm willing to bet nobody does.

If you've decided that you need to complete every mission to enjoy the game, that's cool. But everyone doesn't play like that.

A completionist mentality is hardly rare. A good game fosters that mentality by providing missions that are interesting and fun to play. As opposed to the randomly assigned missions of STALKER, which are tedious and annoying.

Another topic? Hardly, it completely biases your entire position. You're certainly not in a position to objectively look at the missions in STALKER.

Of course I'm biased. Anyone who isn't omniscient is inherently biased. To claim otherwise is simply fooling yourself. As for random mission generation sucking, I think that's a fairly logical deduction.

Randomly generated missions lack thoughtful design: By their very nature, randomly generated missions are created without thought. "Go kill random enemy" or "Go retrieve random item" are about as generic as you can get. Now, a lot of non-random missions use the same basic objectives except they develop them much more thoroughly. With randomly generated missions, the game just picks an enemy or item and tells you to go kill them.

In the end, people don't play randomly generated missions for the actual experience of playing those missions. They play them solely for the rewards gained by completing them. And this is bad game design. As I've said before, people should want to play each mission and not just for the completion reward. As a game designer, it's your task to create missions and levels that people want to play. It is your job to compel them through good design. And if the only way you can get people to complete missions is by essentially bribing them, you've got a problem.

If they have no interest in doing a mission, the mission should never be assigned to them in the first place. Players should have a choice.

They do have a choice - whether they decide to do the mission or not.

So you prove my point. Randomly assigning side-missions adds nothing to the game.

Unlike you, I don't try to suggest that my playing preferences define good/bad game design. I don't choose to do some side missions because I'm not interested in completing them. That doesn't mean they were a bad design, it means they don't appeal to me. They might not appeal to you as well. Fine. Say that. But don't conclude that because you don't enjoy them, they are inherently "bad".

You act as if wanting to avoid failure is some kind of eccentric or irrational personal goal.

Yes, I act like that because it is. Once again, you seem overly attached to the word "failure", when by your own admission, you'd feel the exact same way if we changed it to "uncomplete". So it's not really about "failure" at all. If you've decided that you need to complete every mission to enjoy the game, that's cool. But everyone doesn't play like that.

In fact, randomly generated missions are inherently bad design regardless of how they are given but that's another topic entirely.

Another topic? Hardly, it completely biases your entire position. You're certainly not in a position to objectively look at the missions in STALKER.

k, speaking specifically about yantar, I think it is a bug that could be fixed by only enabling that quest if you have the gear. Arguably, it is not a bug but indeed a design decision. Since devs never speak with mere mortals, we will never know.

I don't think it's a bug. A bug would suggest an error in the code that the developers didn't know about. I believe that the developers knew about the quests that can't be completed but just didn't care. And the Yantar quests aren't the only ones that can't be completed. The random item retrieval quests rely entirely on random drops from random creatures. I failed the first "Collect a Pseudodog Tail" quest because I only found two Pseudodogs within the time limit and neither of them dropped a tail. Similarly, a side-mission may task you with acquiring a certain artifact but given that the contents of crates and boxes are mostly random, this can also lead to failed missions.

Also, the items you have to find aren't always available to you yet. They may require you to find an enemy you can't encounter yet due to your lack of progress with the main missions. However, the game gives you these side-missions anyway. Again, none of this would be a problem if there were no time limits. But there are and that's why it's bad game design.

IMO:

• ability to accept quest you cannot complete (yantar . . .) = bug
• randomly assigned quests = OK, repeated iterations of same randomly assigned quest = bad

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 02:26.

You are free to do whatever you want within the areas that you have "unlocked".

Except the side-missions aren't provided to you based on what you've unlocked, meaning you can take on missions that you can't yet complete. Of course, they don't tell you what you need to complete the missions or anything like that. Throw in the time limits and you have a design problem.

I think there are many players who don't mind "failing" missions that they have no interest in doing.

If they have no interest in doing a mission, the mission should never be assigned to them in the first place. Players should have a choice. That is the nature of a side-mission. It is an optional mission which players choose to accept.

It doesn't "punish" players. It requires actions from them.

It requires actions that are tedious and mundane. That = punishment.

As long as it doesn't require me to go vastly out of my way, I don't mind it. And if it does require me to go vastly out of my way, I simply don't do it.

So you prove my point. Randomly assigning side-missions adds nothing to the game. They are just a nuisance. Fortunately, they are a nuisance that doesn't have severe repercussions for avoiding but regardless, the developer should never have put them in there in the first place. Like I said, a player should want to complete side-missions and it should never seem like work, which the randomly assigned side-missions certainly feel like.

The fact that the game doesn't facilitate your personal goal in no way makes it a bad design.

You act as if wanting to avoid failure is some kind of eccentric or irrational personal goal. Anyway, the fact that the game randomly assigns me missions that I don't want to do is bad design. If the missions were fun, in-depth and unique, I would want to complete them and this wouldn't be as much of a problem. But they aren't. Bad design. In fact, randomly generated missions are inherently bad design regardless of how they are given but that's another topic entirely.

That's the problem. If the developers wanted the game to be linear, they shouldn't have let the player take on side-quests that can't be completed without being at a certain stage in the main questline. They shouldn't have let players explore areas designed for the main missions either (like Yantar). This is a game design flaw, not a matter of style or taste.

The game isn't linear. It's progressive open-ended. You are free to do whatever you want within the areas that you have "unlocked". In order to move on to new areas, you need to progress along the main path. This is a quite common game approach.

So you believe that players like failing? Because my only general claim was that players don't like failing and I don't think I need to take a survey to verify that statement.

I think there are many players who don't mind "failing" missions that they have no interest in doing.

On the same hand, I'm sure there are a lot of people that greatly dislike "failing" to stay alive (ie, dying), but I don't see you castigating the developers for allowing you to die.

None of your arguments change the fact that the game punishes players who want to avoid failing missions.

It doesn't "punish" players. It requires actions from them. The game is going to give you missions. If you want to not fail, you need to complete those missions, plain and simple.

Do you enjoy completing the same randomly assigned missions over and over again?

As long as it doesn't require me to go vastly out of my way, I don't mind it. And if it does require me to go vastly out of my way, I simply don't do it.

And I'm sure you can agree that this isn't good game design.

No, I don't agree in the slightest. Because there is no in-game requirement to do those missions. The only argument that you've made for doing them is that you personally don't want to have a mission "failed". The fact that the game doesn't facilitate your personal goal in no way makes it a bad design.

It's like playing Chess with modified rules that let you move pieces in any way you like it. When designers make games, they put a lot of thought into the game balance and rules (or at least, they should). If you use a mod that alters these things, you are basically spitting on their work.

Or like the changing the rules to Monopoly. The Parker Brothers put a lot of time and effort into designing the game "Monopoly" and creating the rules.

Man, doing stuff like that might just get you belted.






"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurmama
This comment was edited on Apr 10, 16:34.

The game was designed as psuedo open ended. You don't have complete freedom over where you want to go, and what you choose to do, because you are limited by the main mission.

That's the problem. If the developers wanted the game to be linear, they shouldn't have let the player take on side-quests that can't be completed without being at a certain stage in the main questline. They shouldn't have let players explore areas designed for the main missions either (like Yantar). This is a game design flaw, not a matter of style or taste.

Despite what you may think, you have no claim to speak for "players" in general. You don't represent players, and I highly doubt that you've polled enough of them to have any idea what they think.

So you believe that players like failing? Because my only general claim was that players don't like failing and I don't think I need to take a survey to verify that statement.

If they changed "mission failed" to "mission uncompleted", is that going to make all your objections go away?

No, for all my objections to go away, they'd have to take away time limits and stop assigning random side-missions without asking me first.

None of your arguments change the fact that the game punishes players who want to avoid failing missions. If I want to avoid failing the randomly assigned side-missions, I have to repeatedly complete them. And they aren't fun. They are tedious. I have to go out of my way to complete them.

Do you enjoy completing the same randomly assigned missions over and over again? Do you enjoy having to go out of your way to backtrack to the quest givers because of arbitrary time limits? If you find these things fun then there isn't much point to this debate since you clearly can't understand my grievance.

However, if you don't find them fun then at the very least, you can concede that the game repeatedly assigns you side-missions that you don't want to do. And I'm sure you can agree that this isn't good game design.

Sigh. You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with my own tastes. The game is open-ended. It doesn't force you through the game in a linear manner. You can go where you want to go, take missions as you like, etc. However, if you actually take this route, the game's design is fundamentally flawed because it gives you quests you can't complete. This is a fact, not an opinion. If the developers wanted you to play through the main missions first, they shouldn't have made the game so open-ended.

No, the one who doesn't get it is you. The game was designed as psuedo open ended. You don't have complete freedom over where you want to go, and what you choose to do, because you are limited by the main mission. That is not a bad design choice, it's just a particular style. You apparently don't like that style, which is fine. But there are others who do like it.

with high levels of realism (as you claim STALKER to have).

And once again you are putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing. I said that it may be that GSC was trying to pull in people who prefer high levels of realism. Compared to a majority of FPS, STALKER has a fairly high level of realism. That doesn't mean that there aren't numerous areas that aren't ultra-realistic.

Your comparisons are completely invalid. STALKER is supposed to be open-ended. This is why you can request side-quests and explore in an open-ended fashion.

No, my comparison is quite valid. You want STALKER to be open ended. But the game is very closely tied to the main mission. Within that mission you have a degree of freedom over what you do, but you are locked into the main mission parameters.

1) Failures are bad.
2) Players don't like failing missions.
3) STALKER forces players to either complete randomly assigned, tedious missions or accept a failure.
4) Players who don't want any failures have no choice but to complete the tedious missions.

Let's correct this somewhat:
1) You think failures are bad.
2) You don't like failing missions.
4) You don't want failures, so you have no choice but to complete the missions.

Despite what you may think, you have no claim to speak for "players" in general. You don't represent players, and I highly doubt that you've polled enough of them to have any idea what they think.

That, I think, is where the major flaw in your argument comes from - this misguided belief that you hold that you are entitled to speak for the "players". You don't - you speak for yourself. And while it's obvious that you dislike these points, that doesn't mean everyone else does, or that they are inherently flawed.

Eventually, this all begins to feel more like work than play, defeating the very purpose of gaming in the first place.

And once again, it feels like that TO YOU. That doesn't mean it does for everyone. If the game is such "work" to you then once again - don't play it. There are plenty of games that I don't play because I don't have fun with them. That doesn't mean the developers made bad design decisions, it means that I don't enjoy that particular style/design of game.

That doesn't mean there aren't things about STALKER that I'd like to see changed. But I recognize that those are personal preferences, and not flaws in the game.

Failure itself has always been looked down upon in society and every game in existence relies upon the perception of failure as a negative in order to motivate the player to progress.

Oh, please. The fact that missions are described as "failed" is not a societal issue. Or are you trying to tell me this is all about wording? If they changed "mission failed" to "mission uncompleted", is that going to make all your objections go away? Now you're not "failing" missions, you're just "not completing" them.

So once again, you are whining because they haven't designed the game with your particular play style in mind.

Sigh. You still don't get it. This has nothing to do with my own tastes. The game is open-ended. It doesn't force you through the game in a linear manner. You can go where you want to go, take missions as you like, etc. However, if you actually take this route, the game's design is fundamentally flawed because it gives you quests you can't complete. This is a fact, not an opinion. If the developers wanted you to play through the main missions first, they shouldn't have made the game so open-ended.

Yes, and I said compared to what? Name some games that have higher levels of realism than STALKER has, and in what way?

Armed Assault (as I mentioned before) and Operation Flashpoint come to mind, as they are both shooters with high levels of realism (as you claim STALKER to have). Both ArmA and OPF have an emphasis on realism. Both you and your enemies have realistic locational damage, meaning you can get shot in the head and die. In these games, enemies can't take multiple shots to the chest and not die. The game takes place on one big island where you can go anywhere and tackle missions in any manner you choose. You can also pilot any vehicles you find. You can also go prone and hide in bushes.

So, compared to ArmA and OPF, STALKER doesn't have high levels of realism. And this is totally discarding the setting and sci-fi theme.

And what's the justification for your "no"? How do you know that they are able to gain reinforcements just by requesting? How do you know that they aren't short of personnel, and need assistance whenever they can get it?

Um, how can they be short on reinforcements? NPCs spawn practically every minute. However, every time I'm ordered to defend a factory, the exact same amount of people are there.

If you happen to not have a powerful enough radio, then yes, it's entirely possible.

If a barkeep or merchant can call me and order me to do something, then I'm obviously not out of radio range.

No. And there are plenty of games that do the same thing. Did HL2 let you decide whether or not you wanted to risk saving the rebels? Did Doom 3 let you decide whether you wanted to risk fighting the demons?

Both HL2 and D3 are extremely linear games. They don't have any side-quests or RPG aspects. Your comparisons are completely invalid. STALKER is supposed to be open-ended. This is why you can request side-quests and explore in an open-ended fashion. However, the time limits are entirely useless and only work against the open-ended nature of the game.

Again, so what? I don't have any problem grasping the fact you don't like failure. But the game doesn't force you to fail. If not failing is that important, then you'll do the missions. If you dislike doing the missions, then you need to accept some failure. The choice is up to the player.

Sigh. Okay. Let me explain in a simple fashion:

1) Failures are bad.
2) Players don't like failing missions.
3) STALKER forces players to either complete randomly assigned, tedious missions or accept a failure.
4) Players who don't want any failures have no choice but to complete the tedious missions.

It's that simple. The problem is that you don't perceive the failures as a negative thing. You could care less. To you, failure is a perfectly acceptable choice. However, there are others, like myself, who don't like failures. Failure is not an option. If we want to avoid failures, the game forces us to go out of our way and complete randomly assigned, unwanted and tedious side-missions.

Comprende?

If you want your precious "failure free record", you actually have to work for it. How dare those devs! Making it not pathetically easy for you to accomplish your arbitrary goal.

Not wanting any failures isn't exactly an arbitrary goal, since society teaches us that failures are bad in all facets of life. Hell, the fundamental nature of gaming requires that we do not fail. Though, your wording couldn't be any more fitting. In order to avoid failure, I have to work to complete the same, tedious missions over and over again. And yes, it certainly feels like work. Shouldn't it be fun? I mean, isn't that the most important part of any game? Fun? I have no idea how you can defend a design choice that forces players to work instead of play. And yes, it is "forcing" because as I said, failure is not an option.

To sum up my argument: A game should never feel like work. The player should always want to progress. They should want to complete every mission. Unfortunately, this is often not the case in STALKER due to numerous poor design choices. The game emphasizes a large, open-world and encourages exploration, as made evident by the loot hidden around the world, the various NPCs you can talk to and assist, the numerous factions you can align yourself with, etc.

Unfortunately, they contradict this sense of open-endedness by giving the players missions they can't complete. These missions can't be completed because they require you to get to areas or acquire items unlocked through the main missions. To further compound the issue, arbitrary time limits placed on these side-missions mean that you can't just go back and finish them once you have completed the necessary prerequisites. The time limits would suggest that the developers want you to prioritize the side-missions but this is clearly contradicted by the fact that many of them can't be completed until you have made certain progress with the main missions.

Randomly assigned missions are given to you when you enter certain areas. They repeat often and you have no choice in accepting them, despite the fact that you are not a soldier and shouldn't be taking orders from anyone. These missions usually require you to defend a location or kill a group of enemies. However, even after completing these missions once, you'll inevitably have to do them again upon reentering the area at a later time. Failure to complete these missions results in a failure on your record which also affects your reputation. Failure itself has always been looked down upon in society and every game in existence relies upon the perception of failure as a negative in order to motivate the player to progress. As such, players who want to avoid failure have no choice but to repeatedly complete these randomly assigned missions.

In addition, a mission isn't officially complete until you've talked to the NPC who gave it, necessitating frequent backtracking into areas you otherwise have no need to travel to. The lack of driveable vehicles prolongues these trips and the excessive enemy respawn rate means you'll usually have to wade through annoying enemies along the way. Eventually, this all begins to feel more like work than play, defeating the very purpose of gaming in the first place.

This comment was edited on Apr 9, 19:07.

When I play open-ended games, I usually leave the main quest for last except STALKER's design requires that I prioritize the main missions first.

So once again, you are whining because they haven't designed the game with your particular play style in mind. That's not "bad" design, it's just one you don't like.

I said that STALKER doesn't have high levels of realism.

Yes, and I said compared to what? Name some games that have higher levels of realism than STALKER has, and in what way?

If I help defend a factory or clear out an area of bandits, will I then be forced to do so time and time again because the people I'm helping are too inept to actually get reinforcements and hold their own territory? No.

And what's the justification for your "no"? How do you know that they are able to gain reinforcements just by requesting? How do you know that they aren't short of personnel, and need assistance whenever they can get it?

Is it realistic that although I have radio and GPS tracking with which people can contact me and give me missions based on my location, I can't just call them and say that I've completed the mission but won't be able to pick up my reward for a while? No.

If you happen to not have a powerful enough radio, then yes, it's entirely possible.

The mission isn't bugged, it's just poorly designed. It doesn't check whether or not I have the necessary equipment to complete the mission and once I'm in the appropriate area, a scripted, non-bugged event blocks my only exit. The mission itself requires that I go into a level that is designed solely for a main mission. A mission with scripted events and obstacles that make it impossible to complete unless I've completed a previous main mission. Good design would have put the item I needed to retrieve for the side-quest in a different area.

No, it is bugged. As I stated twice now, giving the player a mission that ends up with them getting trapped in a particular area with no way to exit is a bug. If they gave you the mission, and you couldn't complete it, but you could still get out, there'd be no problem.

Shouldn't the game be letting me choose whether or not I want to risk failure in the first place?

No. And there are plenty of games that do the same thing. Did HL2 let you decide whether or not you wanted to risk saving the rebels? Did Doom 3 let you decide whether you wanted to risk fighting the demons?

Putting the player into a situation where they have to risk failure is extremely common, and absolutely not a bad design choice.

Unfortunately, it has an impact on the player. In general, players don't like failing missions.

Again, so what? I don't have any problem grasping the fact you don't like failure. But the game doesn't force you to fail. If not failing is that important, then you'll do the missions. If you dislike doing the missions, then you need to accept some failure. The choice is up to the player.

This is what separates good game design from bad game design. Good game design encourages the creation of personal goals. If you care enough about a game that you are willing to set your own goals within it, that's a good sign. Good game design facilitates this. Bad game design punishes you for this. In STALKER, if I want a failure-free record, I have no choice but to play tedious, randomly assigned missions over and over again.

Yes, you do. Boo hoo. If you want your precious "failure free record", you actually have to work for it. How dare those devs! Making it not pathetically easy for you to accomplish your arbitrary goal.