S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chornobyl

[Ash]

Metro is a piece of shit precisely because the gameplay is mole-pop tier. Literally often almost comparable to whack-a-mole in depth, variables to manage etc.

It's a cool of dooty campaign with a more interesting story, setting and atmosphere.

 

[Tacgnol]

The only thing I especially like about the Metro series is I think they managed to get a good atmosphere/sense of bleakness.

Gameplay wise, I hope the STALKER 2 devs keep as far away from Metro as possible.

 

[jaydee2k]

Oh boy oh boy. Sometimes dreames come true.
I'm playing Stalker SoC to this day, atmosphere is best there ever will be in this game...

 

[Astral Rag]

You misspelt nightmares and also dreams

 

[sullynathan]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R can't be anything like metro in this day and age, linear fps isn't a big money maker. Even Metro is going open world

 

[Konjad]

Might be popamolish shit far cry ubishit clone

How does Stalker differ from the Far Crys? I never played the FCs.

Both are open world shooters with no player advancement except for gear, right? The FC games have a more comical style/setting and I'm guessing are much easier, what makes else makes them worse?

Metro has the Stalkerish atmosphere but plays like a linear CoD game, including Bioware style cinematics, couldn't stomach it myself, even though I really wanted to.

Did you even play STALKER? It's zone-world not open-world. FC series has crafting & unlockables along with grinding to obtain crafting materials and clearing repeatable sidequests/points of interest to unlock equipment.

Metro has the Stalkerish atmosphere but plays like a linear CoD game, including Bioware style cinematics

Bioware style cinematics

It's zone-world because it's an old game, no? Was hard to just make everything one big map.
The zones are locked behind the main plot, but it's still pretty big to freely explore, don't think that warrants a distinction. Googling makes me think "zone-world" isn't even a thing.

So does metro 1 / 2 give you a freedom later? I played 1 a bit and it looked like all linear missions with plenty of cutscenes, when does it change?

yeah, it's not like there was a game that could pull it off without a problem years before, like operation flashpoint

 

[GrainWetski]

99.99% chance this will be generic console trash.

 

[Sykar]

Celebratory music:

Nice but not a single Cheeki Breeki in it. This fullfills all your Cheeki Breeki needs:


or



or

 

[Zer0wing]

Slow down, there's too much breeki.

 

[Lyric Suite]

This meme is eternal, and will never die.

 

[Citizen]

 

[unfairlight]

Stalker was always overrated.

 

[Mark.L.Joy]

Stalker is fine, you never forget your first emission.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I really want this to be good.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Stalker was always overrated.

Spot the western spy everybody.

 

[Mikeal]

I hope it will be more like SoC than CS or CoP.

 

[Lyric Suite]

First footage of the game released:



True slav experience confirmed.

 

[Zer0wing]

I hope it will be more like SoC than CS or CoP.

For atmosphere, ambition and visuals, sure. But CoP has one undeniable advantage - it has direction, choices and actions mattering and carefully simulated bandit behavior (they do infact loot stashes).

 

[unfairlight]

I never understood how come people are so defensive over Stalker while Bethesda is literally the antichrist. The core concepts are exactly the same with a "mods will fix it" mentality. The two aren't too far apart yet Stalker is universally loved while Bethesda is almost universally hated. Why the double standards? I've always seen Stalker as a just okay game, never as the second coming of Christ as some treat it. The story, atmosphere and world are all quite good, but the poor quests and gameplay never made it a cohesive or enjoyable experience for me. Admittedly also the budget variance of these two are extremely far apart, but I don't see that as an universal excuse for any and all flaws that a game may have. Maybe I just don't look at Stalker via rose tinted goggles as I have never played it modded.

 

[Santander02]

Celebratory music:

Nice but not a single Cheeki Breeki in it. This fullfills all your Cheeki Breeki needs:


or



or

I see your cheeki breeki'ng and I raise you the objectively best song in the entire get out of here STALKER franchise

 

[DeepOcean]

Metro is a piece of shit precisely because the gameplay is mole-pop tier. Literally often almost comparable to whack-a-mole in depth, variables to manage etc.

It's a cool of dooty campaign with a more interesting story, setting and atmosphere.

Yep, if 4A makes STALKER 2, it will be just Call of Duty open world edition like the Far cry games. Sure, it would be a beautiful and "authentic" looking game but the gameplay would be hot popamole garbage.

 

[Ash]

I never understood how come people are so defensive over Stalker while Bethesda is literally the antichrist. The core concepts are exactly the same with a "mods will fix it" mentality. The two aren't too far apart yet Stalker is universally loved while Bethesda is almost universally hated. Why the double standards? I've always seen Stalker as a just okay game, never as the second coming of Christ as some treat it. The story, atmosphere and world are all quite good, but the poor quests and gameplay never made it a cohesive or enjoyable experience for me. Admittedly also the budget variance of these two are extremely far apart, but I don't see that as an universal excuse for any and all flaws that a game may have. Maybe I just don't look at Stalker via rose tinted goggles as I have never played it modded.

Personally I think Stalker is a flawed gem, much like Morrowind for instance. But of course people treat Bethesda as the anti-christ for numerous reasons, such as continually dumbing down their games, their DLC practices, their paid mod scheme. Their butchering of other IPs. The shit you hear that went on behind closed doors such as the Human Head hostile takeover. And so on. Stalker and the companies associated with it is a golden child in comparison. It's quite simple.
There is a game Bethesda was involved in that I prefer over any Stalker, and that is Fallout: New Vegas. Still don't stop me loathing the shit Bethesda does.

 

[Lyric Suite]

There is a game Bethesda was involved in that I prefer over any Stalker, and that is Fallout: New Vegas.

Dude, what?

 

[Big Wrangle]

from the makers of STALKER!

From what I remember the staff that founded 4A left before the first game was even finished.

 

[Parabalus]

I never understood how come people are so defensive over Stalker while Bethesda is literally the antichrist. The core concepts are exactly the same with a "mods will fix it" mentality. The two aren't too far apart yet Stalker is universally loved while Bethesda is almost universally hated. Why the double standards? I've always seen Stalker as a just okay game, never as the second coming of Christ as some treat it. The story, atmosphere and world are all quite good, but the poor quests and gameplay never made it a cohesive or enjoyable experience for me. Admittedly also the budget variance of these two are extremely far apart, but I don't see that as an universal excuse for any and all flaws that a game may have. Maybe I just don't look at Stalker via rose tinted goggles as I have never played it modded.

CoP is great without any mods.

 

[Ash]

There is a game Bethesda was involved in that I prefer over any Stalker, and that is Fallout: New Vegas.

Dude, what?

This actually needs explaining?

It's an RPG. I like RPGs.
I find its gameplay, choices, writing, quests, world design, basically everything more enjoyable, complex and interesting.
Only aspect I strictly prefer in Stalker is the combat, though of course it has plenty minor things going for it like emissions or the ability to move faster than a dude with a ten tonne arsenal on his back.
For me both have just as impressive atmosphere. Stalker's is oppressive so you feel it more, but walking around the desert popping raiders with your .44 to Big Iron playing on the radio to this bizzarro post-apocalyptic spaghetti western feel, or discovering the backstory to some creepy vault can be just as effective and is something you'll never experience anywhere else. Meanwhile there's tons of dark moody oppressive games.
As a gameplayfag, Stalker is also very concerned with realism. Not overly so, but New Vegas is a happy medium for me.

I love New Vegas. Stalker is great but it's not a love interest for me. The final third of CoP was some of the most disappointing shit ever. I was enjoying CoP rather a lot, it addressed some issues I had with the original, and it was potentially going to be an all-time classic for me. Then the final area, Pipyrat happened. Shoebox-size comparative to the previous areas. Little introduction of new content (e.g enemy types, anomalies and such), and like 4 quests then it's over. Rather a short game. Not a good idea when combined with RPG elements. There has to be a point to all the strategy and character building (weapon/armor modding, loot management, artifact attainment and loudout), as well as satisfactory use of it. Well, it wasn't that short, but it wasn't fulfilling enough for me.