Print

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

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Well this might be old news to some but I just found out S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 is going to be multiplatform.
I think I'm going to be sick. 

[Jackrabbit]

Uh. Why? I mean, thinking about it, there might be some reasons not to want a game to go multiplatform with relation to hardware issues, but I dunno. Please don't tell me it's just because you don't want console owners to play it. I hate those sorta people to death, seriously.

[Lumbajak]

It really depends entirely on whether it's being made for a console and being ported to PC or being made for a PC and being ported to consoles.

Or being tailored seperately for both but that's never really come up.

[Jackrabbit]

Ports, I can understand, those have a tendency to fuck up, but when it's being made with a multiplatform release in mind from the start I'm not worried.

[Vherid]

They've been thinking about stalker on consoles since shadow of chernobyl was released, it's really nothing new that they actually decided to go with it. It really shouldn't be an issue like most console-PC ports, because it won't be a port. If anything, it's being ported from PC to console.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

No it's just sometimes when a game is designed for multiplatforms it suffer some issues.

For a start theres the balance issue. Stalker was a pretty hardcore game even with a mouse and keyboard. To try and port that over to a console would be near impossible without dumbing it down.

Theres the issue about graphic support for the consoles which means it won't have DX 11 and all the other things I bought my graphics card for.

Theres the whole thing about modern console games always having to ahve a tacked on multiplayer that seems out of place. Even worse Co-Op which all the games seem to be doing for some god unknown reason.

Theres the problem of added development time. Look at the Witcher 2 who said they wanted multiplatform support. They wasted a whole bunch of time trying to figure out a UI that was friendly to both and yet ended up dropping it. 

UI and controls can suffer. I'm not saying they always suffer but the majoirty of the multiplatform games I've came across usually had terrible UIs/controls.  Often they either go full out console or they switch disjointed between the two.

Story line. Why release a game on consoles that theres already been 3 games on the PC? It means the story will suffer having to either explain the plot all over again or start a completely new location.

DLC. Consoles gamers adore their DLC. Personally I hate it and I hope that they don't go this way. Any mention of a Stalker map pack would make me boycott the whole company forever.
Same goes for day 1 DLC. Fuck off you couldn't have realesed this with the game.

Honestly if they make Stalker for the PC and then ported it over to console I wouldn't mind at all. The only problem with that is that is makes no sense at all. It would be near impossible to port and even if you did it wouldn't be fun on a console at all.
So logically why would they do this when they could just "console-nise" the whole game and release it across all platform for extra money?

[Vherid]

No it's just sometimes when a game is designed for multiplatforms it suffer some issues.

For a start theres the balance issue. Stalker was a pretty hardcore game even with a mouse and keyboard. To try and port that over to a console would be near impossible without dumbing it down.

Metro 2033 didn't seem to have a problem, and considering there's a lot of hardcore FPS players on a console, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Console gamers aren't all casual either. Controls might be simplified for the controller, but other then that not much I'm sure.

Theres the issue about graphic support for the consoles which means it won't have DX 11 and all the other things I bought my graphics card for.

Again, metro 2033. Just because it's DX9 on the console, doesn't mean everyone has to play it in DX 9 only now. Crysis 2 also failed to follow this fact it seems. I don't even know what would make you think this.

Theres the whole thing about modern console games always having to ahve a tacked on multiplayer that seems out of place. Even worse Co-Op which all the games seem to be doing for some god unknown reason.

STALKER multiplayer has always been a Counterstrike-like and even then, all the servers are in EU/mostly RUS, so it doesn't really apply to us anyways. They plan on possibly having MP campaign or CO-OP this time around, chances are, it won't be any more tacked on then their MP always has been. Console has nothing to do with this.

Theres the problem of added development time. Look at the Witcher 2 who said they wanted multiplatform support. They wasted a whole bunch of time trying to figure out a UI that was friendly to both and yet ended up dropping it.

They failed, where a lot of others succeeded. Oh well.

UI and controls can suffer. I'm not saying they always suffer but the majoirty of the multiplatform games I've came across usually had terrible UIs/controls.  Often they either go full out console or they switch disjointed between the two.

They probably will suffer on the console.

Story line. Why release a game on consoles that theres already been 3 games on the PC? It means the story will suffer having to either explain the plot all over again or start a completely new location.

Yeah, and the story of the games has nothing to do with the movie or the book, and then theres like 20 books in RUS/GER based off the game series that english speakers will likely never see. So there's already a huge amount of fluff people are missing to begin with. Furthermore, the story is completely unimportant to the seperate games. The 3 games out barely even link up with each other and you definitely do not need to understand the story of the other games to play another. Stalker 2 like call of pripyat I'm sure will explain a quick whats going on and then throw you into a story. What the story will be, no one knows. It could possibly be an entirely new area.

DLC. Consoles gamers adore their DLC. Personally I hate it and I hope that they don't go this way. Any mention of a Stalker map pack would make me boycott the whole company forever.
Same goes for day 1 DLC. Fuck off you couldn't have realesed this with the game.

There's no way in gods hell this would even come close to happening. What the hell would they hand out a map pack for? The MP is so underplayed it's not even funny. Map packs don't work in SP. Day 1 DLC, in a heavily modifiable game, won't work either.

Honestly if they make Stalker for the PC and then ported it over to console I wouldn't mind at all. The only problem with that is that is makes no sense at all. It would be near impossible to port and even if you did it wouldn't be fun on a console at all.
So logically why would they do this when they could just "console-nise" the whole game and release it across all platform for extra money?

It's probably going to be on the PC first, and consoles later, or maybe it will be Multiplat from the start. But regardless of whether you think it would work, or if you want it, there are plenty of people who actually want it, and I'm sure they have a rather good idea of how to make it work because again, they've been thinking about multiplatform while developing CS and COP.

They won't make it on the console or for the console first. That's just not them at all.

[Jackrabbit]

e: I don't give enough of a stuff about Day One DLC to get into a discussion about it.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Might sound like I'm grasping at straws but Metro 2033 (which is a very good game) had very different combat.

The combat in Metro 2033 was more "linear" due to the map design. A couple quick saves and quick loads and you'll know all the hot spots where the bad guys are.
There was also the (much easier) option of stealth with the human enemies. A silenced pistol and/or a couple throwing knives could get you through those levels without much twich aiming required.

The mutants in the game were all close up and personal attackers. Pull out a shotgun or start spraying with an assault rifle and they're down, not much aim needed.

Now Stalker puts you in a very large open world where the majoirty of the weapons are focused on range.
Human enemies are intent on hiding in the long grass and shooting you from half way across the map.
The mutants on the other hand have such strong attacks that it's usually best to take them down from afar before they even get near you.

Now it might sound elitest but that almost sounds impossible to me on a console. I think FPSs work best when they're made around their platform. Computer games can have their twichy long range snipe happy camp battles. Consoles can have their short range + auto targetting.

See Stalker SoC versus something like Metorid on the gamecube. They're both good on their own platform but I wouldn't want them to be ported to the other.
Meeting in the middle doesn't make any sense to me when the chances are one side is just going to end up with a crappy experience.

Now I might be a bit cynical but the Stalker series is one I love and was one of the few games I was going to preorder without hesitation. Learning about this makes me want to wait untill reviews on release to see if it has been done right or wrong.

[Cheese]

If you guys haven't heard, Stalker 2 may just be awesome. It's one big area, as opposed to several separated levels, the story will again focus on Strelok and then something else amazing that I forgot.

Also, I think LURK intended to make the game much more difficult and realistic, as did AMK, complete intended to make SoC 'complete'.

[Vherid]

If you guys haven't heard, Stalker 2 may just be awesome. It's one big area, as opposed to several separated levels, the story will again focus on Strelok and then something else amazing that I forgot.

Also, I think LURK intended to make the game much more difficult and realistic, as did AMK, complete intended to make SoC 'complete'.

No, the point of lurk was to completely rehaul it as a what they (/v/) considered a proper FPS experience. They did make it more realistic and difficult, but realism and such wasn't their objective, as they did make some things unrealistic and such.

AMK is more of the proper mod to quote for realism.

and yes as I said, complete was made to make the games more complete. Huge amounts of bug fixes, graphical improvements, optimization, etc.

But again that's also why I like it, because I'm not looking for some mod to add all this stupid stuff to a game just because a bunch of fanboys of whatever other universe want to add to the stalker universe. I would just like my stalker universe to be a little better.

[Asehujiko]

So the military base is the result of the russian difficulty curve, anybody know where the upgrade for the armorer is?

[Akura]

According to Gamefaqs, you get the armor upgrade data(assuming you mean the one for CS's technician) as a reward from quest where you get hit with the second emission.

[Asehujiko]

I get 3 quests for upgrades, the first one auto completes after the tutorial mission, the second one almost immediately after as a random reward for faction warfare but it's the third one I'm still looking for.

[Phantom]

Hey hey hey, wait, Strelok again? I thought he left and became a supervisor.

As for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 bullcrap, I'm just gonna wonder why the hell they are making both a TV Show and a Movie.