Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rex_Nex]

You don't understand! That's part of the eastern pizazz!

[MrWillsauce]

Doesn't like running from bears = clearly isn't an Eastern European

[Fniff]

Hm, I personally like games that aren't afraid to make you run like fuck, but I can admit that Stalker's core premise is hard to mass-market. It's always been a kind of game defined by it's fanbase, not it's markets, so you have to change a lot of things if Bethesda wants it to sell as well as Fallout 3 and New Vegas, let alone the Elder Scrolls.

[Cheese]

Mostly for the aforementioned reasons, I hope they don't do it. The atmosphere is the thing that makes the game great and it's something that I think only an east European dev could do. Or at least something Bethesda could not pull off.

[nenjin]

Well, on the plus side, the series will survive.

On the minus side, what form it survives in is debatable. Part of S.T.A.L.K.E.R's appeal to me was that it didn't look or feel like other games on the market. It had its own methods. Meanwhile, Bethesda is the king of imprinting their particular brand of values and design on anything they touch.

So yeah, consider me not pleased. I can't wait for Bethesda to take S.T.A.L.K.E.R mechanics and reduce them down until they can fit neatly in a sandwich baggie.

[Rex_Nex]

It always bugs me when people say that a game loses its dignity if a terrible sequel is made. If anything, all that does is make the original seem all that much better in comparison. I mean, look at Morrowind. People always are giving that game the internet's equivalent of a blowjob simply because Bethesda made what some consider inferior sequels to it. If they stopped at TES at Morrowind, do you think people would still talk about it?

I'd have to say "no.", and there is my reason why keeping Stalker alive in any form at all is better then "letting it die with its dignity intact.". Brother bay12er, a game as good as S.T.A.L.K.E.R has no fear of losing its dignity, do not worry yourself.

[Fniff]

It's just that there tends to be worries about an influx of people who played the remake, liked it, then play the older ones and say "This sucks, it doesn't have any simplified features that I'm used to!" and then there's a sudden burst of complaints in the fan forums and it's frustrating, and you end up with a fucked up community that will never be united as it once was, now a wasteland of yelling and dick comparsions.

At least, that's what I think the core of the fear around remakes and restarts is by the older fans of the series.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Coming soon to PC Play Station/Xbox near "close to" you: Stalker 2. Including and limited to:
Flat, boring world.
Terrible Animation.
Bad plot.
2 Epic storylines based off your alignment.
Horrible port.
Bad engine.
Even worse ruleset (when possible).

But that's not all! Pay with your credit card and receive up to (!) an hour's worth of entertainment free, with the Freedom DLC, usually priced at 79.99 USD, 1919.90 Euros, infinite AUD!

[Aqizzar]

It's just that there tends to be worries about an influx of people who played the remake, liked it, then play the older ones and say "This sucks, it doesn't have any simplified features that I'm used to!"...

Y'know, I don't particularly want to see what Bethesda would do with Stalker either, but it's not like Stalker was a particularly complicated game.  It was an open-world FPS with some robust inventory management.  The only "stats" were your defense values, and the only mechanics were what you were shooting with.

If anything, my concern would be a Bethesda Stalker being more complex, and needlessly so.  I can easily imagine it winding up an RPG pretending to be a shooter as with Fallout 3, instead of a shooter pretending to be an RPG which is what I liked about Stalker.  It was detailed and dead simple at the same time.

It was also designed with the finesse of PC controls in mind, so yeah the shitty console-to-PC effect would be my biggest worry.

If anything about this rumor is even close to true that is.

[Fniff]

It's just that there tends to be worries about an influx of people who played the remake, liked it, then play the older ones and say "This sucks, it doesn't have any simplified features that I'm used to!"...

Y'know, I don't particularly want to see what Bethesda would do with Stalker either, but it's not like Stalker was a particularly complicated game.  It was an open-world FPS with some robust inventory management.  The only "stats" were your defense values, and the only mechanics were what you were shooting with.

If anything, my concern would be a Bethesda Stalker being more complex, and needlessly so.  I can easily imagine it winding up an RPG pretending to be a shooter as with Fallout 3, instead of a shooter pretending to be an RPG which is what I liked about Stalker.  It was detailed and dead simple at the same time.

It was also designed with the finesse of PC controls in mind, so yeah the shitty console-to-PC effect would be my biggest worry.

If anything about this rumor is even close to true that is.

Hm, yeah. Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, it might be the simplicity.

It seems a bad move on Bethesda's part, but Fallout at the time they bought it was a pretty dead IP with a smaller fanbase then the Elder Scrolls. So, I wouldn't put it past them to do this, given how well it worked the last time.

[NobodyPro]

If they end up making it:
Bethesda Game Studios makes it, we get an OK shooter crossed with an OK RPG, with some good characters but overall lack of relevance to main story. Main quest inevitably sucks. 
Obsidian guys make it, we get a great RPG with shooter elements mixed in in he right places, characters you can give a shit about (that can actually die) and interconnected quests and consequences for your actions. Though it will inevitably suffer problems and awkwardness from running on the Gamebryo 2 Creation Engine.
Different developer creates it with Bethesda publishing it, anything can happen.

PRE-EDIT: Ninja has a good point. S.T.A.L.K.E.R is not a true RPG in the first place.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

I was being overly mean, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.; please come back. We'll kill Viktor Yanukovych for you, just bless us with your presence. It's not funny anymore, YOU COME BACK THIS INSISTENCE! We love you. 

[Rez]

It's hip to hate bethesda, because they can't make a polished game for the life of them.  They've released game after game that are only finished after extensive and total mods and overhauls, to the extent that they're claiming it's a feature now.

If it's their in-house studio, they've not built a game with actual tight shooter mechanics in the last 12 years, at least.

If they give it to another studio, I can but wonder who they'll give it to.  Who's going to develop STALKER game-play in the west?  We're pretty keen on auto-aiming iron-sights and regenerating hp in the US.

STALKER could definitely use a dose of AA attention, but I know Beth can't develop it and I doubt they can publish it.

You know who might bring STALKER the attention it needs, in an appropriate way?  Crytek. 

[Mictlantecuhtli]

This is going to be absolute shit. Hope and pray to whatever gods you worship that this doesn't happen.

You know who might bring STALKER the attention it needs, in an appropriate way?  Crytek.

We'd have the same issue of graphics>gameplay.

[Rez]

At least crytek has experience with a real shooter.  I'm surprised that crysis 2 was by the same team as farcry 1 and crysis 1, so maybe they're losing their touch.

Edit: When has anyone accused Bethesda of making pretty games?