Fallout 3/ stalker call of pripyat..which has the best immersive atmosphere?

Fallout 3 has atmosphere? I thought it was like Oblivion with a new wasteland landscape added, and removal of the forest and snow ones they had in Oblivion.Legolas_Katarn

Yes, I also enjoyed exploring the copy and paste world of Fallout 3. "This office building looks strangely familiar. No matter, it's full of Nuka Cola instead of the other one that was full of mole rats!"

blaaah

[QUOTE="Farkeman"]i have all stalkers games ,i enjoyed it and bought it just because its pc exclusive games and thats the only reason i respect it , but if you dare to compare 100$ and 3 bottles of vodka budget game wich is barely playable againts goty fallout 3 , that has the best moding community in entire gaming history than yes stalker is a crap ... i believe people praises stalker for it being pc exclusive only ... stalker is poor clunky game , with no voice dialogue , no good graphics or animations , everything is weird and clunky , how the hell that could be good atmosphere ?N30F3N1X

Fallout 3's modding community is nowhere near as good as many others. N O W H E R E. That's just, like what you said before, downright ludicrously wrong. Even its older brother Oblivion has a way better community.

Also, you realize STALKER games graphics are considered to be the best just behind Crysis and Shattered Horizon, on par with ArmA 2?

Your words are hollow.

Also you are wrong on the modding community. Just visit Fallout 3 nexus. The mod capabilities and the amount of mods users have made is propably the second best i have seen after oblivion. I dont understand what you mean when you say "its nowhere that good" I honestly cant believe what amazing things the moders have made.

dakan45

Are you confused? I just posted a screenshot of part of my modlist from its own mod manager.

Fallout 3 modding community is nowhere near as good as so many countless others. Nowhere. Saying it's the best is just plain ridiculous denial.

Also i dissagree Blaaah. Thats how things where in oblivion. In fallout 3 there are mant diffirent buildings to explore. I would most definetly not call it copy and paste. But when a worldmap is so big, ofcourse there will be similarities. I dont see how exactly its possbile to make everything completly diffirent like god himself made every are with his own special care. On the other hand stalker maps are much more smaller, linear, unique. Its like comparing a linear game to an open wolrd game, Ofcourse the linear one will have more unique and diffirent enviroments

dakan45

Every house looked the same, every office looked the same, every factory looked the same. I can't fault them for making sewers and subways look similar, that's understandable.

FO3 suffers from the same problems Oblivion did when it comes to level design. The devs create a series prefab items and rooms then glue them all together and stick some . I can understand the enormous amount of work it takes to make levels but a company with as much man power and money as Bethesda could atleast work to make things unique. I have a hard time caring about wanting to explore a place when it looks like I've already been in said place plenty of times eariler in the game. FO3 is a step up from Oblivion's level design, I'll give you that, but not by much.

Are you confused? I just posted a screenshot of part of my modlist from its own mod manager.

Fallout 3 modding community is nowhere near as good as so many countless others. Nowhere. Saying it's the best is just plain ridiculous denial.N30F3N1X

Sorry but i dont understant why you say that. For me its pretty good, I am not saying its the best but it sure is as good as stalker and i personal believe saying no its denial. I dont know whats the problem but i dotn reccomend that mod manager. Its quite buggy. Just install mods manually.

[QUOTE="dakan45"] Also i dissagree Blaaah. Thats how things where in oblivion. In fallout 3 there are mant diffirent buildings to explore. I would most definetly not call it copy and paste. But when a worldmap is so big, ofcourse there will be similarities. I dont see how exactly its possbile to make everything completly diffirent like god himself made every are with his own special care. On the other hand stalker maps are much more smaller, linear, unique. Its like comparing a linear game to an open wolrd game, Ofcourse the linear one will have more unique and diffirent enviroments

blaaah

Every house looked the same, every office looked the same, every factory looked the same. I can't fault them for making sewers and subways look similar, that's understandable.

FO3 suffers from the same problems Oblivion did when it comes to level design. The devs create a series prefab items and rooms then glue them all together and stick some . I can understand the enormous amount of work it takes to make levels but a company with as much man power and money as Bethesda could atleast work to make things unique. I have a hard time caring about wanting to explore a place when it looks like I've already been in said place plenty of times eariler in the game. FO3 is a step up from Oblivion's level design, I'll give you that, but not by much.

Ehh no, no just no. You cant say that the school looked the same with all the oter areas or the super duper market? Some ruined houses look similar, but not exactly the same. What do you expect? The first wooden ruined house to have some kinda spcecial "ruined" part on it that would make it unique? For me parts like wooden houses and city buildings gotta look similar. Its not like stalker that has much less buildings to explore. Honestly complain about things like that looking similar is like complaining that the Dwemer ruins in morrowind had similar architecture. I see you do understand that making everying diffirent will take alot of work in a game of this size and that you agree that its a step up from oblivion. But i did not experiance that issue with exploring a place that looks like i have seen them many times earlier. There were times that things looked similar but not in such a rate. I guess you expect ever are to be unique, i dont know what to say!!!

dakan45

Why would a school and a super market look the same, I didn't even bring that up. I'm saying all the offices buildings looked exactly the same. The first office building you came to looked just like any other offices you stumbled across. Same goes for military bases, stores and so on. Yes, I also had issues with Morrowind's repeating level design. Towards the end of the game, I had little reason to go into Dwemer ruins other than for quest. However, the game had such varied and distinct zones and regions that I was able to overlook it.

I put alot of emphasis on level design. If it's boring or repeats itself, it takes away from my enjoyment of the game. This was one of my many issues I had with Mass Effect and Oblivion. All I'm saying is I wish devs would pay more attention to creating details in their game worlds that make them feel more realistic and add some individuality.

For the record, my original comment was partly tongue in cheek and partly a jab at Bethesda's poor "risk/exploration--reward" system. FO3, on the whole, is a pretty decent game and quite a few steps up from Oblivion.

As for the topic, both games excel at what they do. STALKER captures the ominous empty feeling of the Zone and FO3 does a decent job of portraying a post-nuclear world.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

Ehh no, no just no. You cant say that the school looked the same with all the oter areas or the super duper market? Some ruined houses look similar, but not exactly the same. What do you expect? The first wooden ruined house to have some kinda spcecial "ruined" part on it that would make it unique? For me parts like wooden houses and city buildings gotta look similar. Its not like stalker that has much less buildings to explore. Honestly complain about things like that looking similar is like complaining that the Dwemer ruins in morrowind had similar architecture. I see you do understand that making everying diffirent will take alot of work in a game of this size and that you agree that its a step up from oblivion. But i did not experiance that issue with exploring a place that looks like i have seen them many times earlier. There were times that things looked similar but not in such a rate. I guess you expect ever are to be unique, i dont know what to say!!!

blaaah

Why would a school and a super market look the same, I didn't even bring that up. I'm saying all the offices buildings looked exactly the same. The first office building you came to looked just like any other offices you stumbled across. Same goes for military bases, stores and so on. Yes, I also had issues with Morrowind's repeating level design. Towards the end of the game, I had little reason to go into Dwemer ruins other than for quest. However, the game had such varied and distinct zones and regions that I was able to overlook it.

I put alot of emphasis on level design. If it's boring or repeats itself, it takes away from my enjoyment of the game. This was one of my many issues I had with Mass Effect and Oblivion. All I'm saying is I wish devs would pay more attention to creating details in their game worlds that make them feel more realistic and add some individuality.

For the record, my original comment was partly tongue in cheek and partly a jab at Bethesda's poor "risk/exploration--reward" system. FO3, on the whole, is a pretty decent game and quite a few steps up from Oblivion.

As for the topic, both games excel at what they do. STALKER captures the ominous empty feeling of the Zone and FO3 does a decent job of portraying a post-nuclear world.

So much hate for the excellent Fallout 3!

Both games have their strengths, but STALKER has the better atmosphere--though that isn't to say that Fallout 3 isn't impressive in and of itself. However, while a lot of you may look to graphics, I actually credit STALKER's sound design. The rush of the wind, the swooshes of an anomaly as you rush in, the barks of dogs as they invade the stillness, the excellent and understated music (as long as you keep the battle music turned off). STALKER's visuals are not cutting edge any longer (it seems silly to me that anyone could put them on par with Crysis), but the engine holds up because what it does well (lighting and shadows) is so incredibly important to the atmosphere. And being caught outside in the dead of night in the middle of a storm in STALKER is, well, unlike anything else.

I lived in DC, so I have a lot of appreciation for what Fallout 3 does, the game's presentation faults aside. But it falters in some ways, such as the music (the in-game soundtrack, not the radio), which seems more appropriate for a fantasy game than a postapocalyptic one.

The music in the Jupiter map of CoP reminds me of the original Fallout's music.

As it's said in this excellent article, "Russian developers all want to make a new Fallout!"... I'd argue that not only Russians, but the whole Eastern Europe wants that.

Fallout 3 is a good game but STALKER is more than Fallout. It's true that the fist 2 games in the STALKER series weren't exceptional but that changed with COP. Should be a good choice over Fallout. That's what I recommend. Elfwrath

You should've had a poll. I would've voted for Fallout 3 personally. Stalker was too linear compared to Fallout 3...superclocked

Since when is linear bad?

Since when is linear bad?

Baranga

Definitely Fallout. I didn't like CoP at all.

STALKER retains a larger level of realism compared to Fallout 3, which makes the atmosphere have more immersion.

I haven't played CoP but if it's atmosphere is anything like SoC than it is much more atmospheric than FO 3.

Get Metro 2033, it's a similar game.juden41

[QUOTE="juden41"]Get Metro 2033, it's a similar game.SF_KiLLaMaN

And to answer the TC's question, Metro 2033 is probably going to be the better game (and most immersive).

Stalker by a long shot imo

Fallout 3's atmosphere is absolutely impotent compared to Call of Pripyat's one. Its immersion/scare factor is comparatively negligible - it doesn't have darkness effects anywhere near what Call of Pripyat achieves with its pitch black nights, its doesn't have any mutants more intimidating than a typical household puppy and its environmental threats might as well be steam baths for all the danger they pose to the player. And if anybody somehow manages to delude himself so badly as to believe that Fallout 3 does ambient noises better....... :|

Fallout 3's atmosphere is absolutely impotent compared to Call of Pripyat's one. Its immersion/scare factor is comparatively negligible - it doesn't have darkness effects anywhere near what Call of Pripyat achieves with its pitch black nights, its doesn't have any mutants more intimidating than a typical household puppy and its environmental threats might as well be steam baths for all the danger they pose to the player. And if anybody somehow manages to delude himself so badly as to believe that Fallout 3 does ambient noises better....... :|

Barbariser

Meh, the exact opposite, the enviroment levels in fallout 3 have a better desolation feeling and the ambient is far better, especially the radio roaches noises and other enviromental sounds. Also the mutants in stalker were poor and uninspired. All of them weak without any disgusting looks.dakan45

Fallout 3 can't be as scary as STALKER because of its much inferior use of lighting. Unless you mod the game, you won't ever get the pitchblack environments present in Call of Pripyat, and most of the time you don't have to worry about threats you can't see. Here's the thing about fear: no matter what it is, it's always less intimidating if you know about it. And in Fallout 3, it is very very easy to figure out what you're up against and then blow it up. STALKER - not so much. Because even if you do realize what you're fighting, the cluttered, overgrown design of the Zone makes it difficult to shoot back at certain threats. Combine that with the fact that STALKER has those anomalies and far more dangerous radiation problems than Fallout 3 and you begin to realize that the game forces you to be completely attentive, which automatically makes it more immersive than its competition here.

STALKER's mutants are a hell of a lot better designed, interesting and effective than the ones in Fallout 3. Call of Pripyat has bloody cloaking shadow-monsters running around which can grab you by the neck and bite your spine out, psychic apemen who you can't expose yourself to for more than a second or two or else you'll get your brain melted, telekinetic/telegravitic dwarves and a good deal more than that. Even the lowly dogs give the player trouble by virtue of being difficult as all hell to hit with any kind of weapon, a trait which they share with most of the non-tanker mutants. Just about every STALKER mutant requires you to be able to dodge and aim very very quickly - no Fallout 3 mutant can actually challenge the player like this because that game has an incompetently designed and imbalanced combat system .

Calling that selection "uninspired" in comparison to Fallout 3 is utterly laughable, mostly because all of Fallout 3's more formidable mutants can only harm you via direct attack, can be seen from a mile away and shot down by any brainless git with a gun and enough ammo and are generally are easy as hell to hit before they even close with you because they are far slower than STALKER's mutants - the only exceptions are the Deathclaws and the Mirelurks, which are still easier to take down at range than most STALKER mutants. You seem to be of the opinion that just because something looks vile, violent and disgusting it must be scary, which is the same sentiment that made the horror genre the a horrible slash-filled milkbottle it is today. Yay for the death of creativity.

i never like the fallout world, parts of it were good, but there was too much time spent traveling in sewers

It does not have the "pitch black lighting" stalker games have, i have to say that i find the pitch blackness kinda meh, i would like some better lighting direction in order to make the areas you step in ore unique, like condemned and bioshock.dakan45

That's beside the point. Immersion isn't a matter of uniqueness, it's a matter of believability. I do not find it believable that I can see everything clearly and perfectly out over a vast unlit wasteland in the dead of night, which I is precisely what I can do in Fallout 3 and the opposite of what happens in Call of Pripyat.

Yes stalker has poltergeists and invisible bloodsuckers but they dont feel much of a threat. Intimedating? Yes but it does not feel like a super mutant or a deathclow feels in fallout. it lacks the challenge of shooting repeatedly the monster trying to kill it. I would say that the human enemies seem tougher than the mutants in stalker. Also they all seem like an animal or a human with some mutatations they lack the visuals of a radio roach or a centaur or a ghoul.

s for inbalanced combat system? Thats stalker, its harder in the begining when you got weak armors and innacurate guns because the ai is super accurate but once you get a decent gun and armor the combat becomes easier because you dont miss that often. Fallout 3 is far more balance by killing low level enemies in the begining such as sall dogs and bigger enemies with heavy guns later on

Calling the cheap and similar mutants of stalker inspired in comparison with fallotu 3 is uttery laughable. LOL when i saw the mAutants in stalker i thought it lacked creativity, also just because you find the fast moving mutants that damage you fast because you cant see them, scary that does not mean everyone does.dakan45

What challenge?

Mutants in Fallout 3 can be killed by VATS-ing them to death. Shooting isn't at all enjoyable when all you have to do is bring up a silly menu (which pauses your goddamn game and removes all sense of urgency), choose something and then watch your character pump shots which you have almost no direct control over whether or not they hit - and freefire mode is so horribly clunky that there's no point using it over VATS. In STALKER, mutants pose a threat mainly by virtue of requiring you to take cover (especially against psymutants) or perform "dodge and shoot" maneuvers against the fast beasties. In Fallout 3, what normally happens is that you stand still, go into VATS, pop shots off at a target's head, relax, rinse, repeat. There is nothing engaging about this repertoire, as opposed to STALKER's mutant-fighting which requires you to be as attentive and sharp as possible at all times.

The "imbalanced combat" system in STALKER is perfectly believable and immersive (of course getting better armour and guns means you survive better. What's the point of having such things if they didn't help you?), and it's not actually imbalanced once you realize that no matter how good your equipment is, being bad at shooting and a lot of other stuff is liable to get you killed. Fallout 3, on the other hand, has that magical "level up and your laser pistol gets 100 times the energy yield!" effect, and is in fact the one that's guilty of having a "get good enough and you don't need any skill" issue, because all you have to do most of the time is top out your small-guns skill and let VATS do the work for you.

And yes, the mutants in STALKER are "far" more creative than any in Fallout 3. You'll notice something about Fallout 3 mutants: they're either big, tough, fast or a combination of those qualities. Extremely archetypal. Call of Pripyat has all of that... plus psychic apemen, telekinetic dwarves, cloaking beasties and whatnot, and it becomes extremely easy to see here that STALKER mutants explore a much greater potential for gameplay effect and in general have had more imagination poured into their mechanics.

You step in a radiated are and you begin to lose health. I think fallout 3 does that element better, step into radiation or drink radiated water and you get radiation. Ofcourse as in reallity, you dont know just yet but the effects appear later. I find that way of getting radiated much more immersive just like the stalker movie when the charater did not know he was radiated, in stalker however radiation is like fire, you touch it, you burn till the effect wears off. In stalker it fills too much like a game mechanic that damages you But in fallout it feels much more immersive both as realism but also as gameplay mechanic since you have to pay attention in order not to get too much radiation also the effect of increased radiation is lowering your abilities and perfomance. I find that much better use of radiation than in stalker.dakan45

.... Fallout 3 radiation is pathetic due to the fact that you need to spend a good quarter hour bathing in the stuff for it to have any effect on you. In STALKER, standing in an irradiated zone for five minutes without treatment kills you dead. The latter is generally what happens in real life.

Well i hate night and not being able to see, i actually like the fact that in fallout 3 its not pitch black and you can actually see where you are going. I always sleep in games i can sleep in order to play during daytime, i believe it looks better.

Vats that stop the dogs and miss/hit depending on your skils > horrible shooting mechanics with weapons that dont perfom well even against small dogs. I got seriously tired of shooting dogs that decide to turn around and run away, make a circle and then come back at me. If you think its easy just raise the level. Fallout 3 is an rpg it does not pretend it has rpg elements like stalker, yet many people believe fallout 3 was suposed to be a shooter and often complain for its weak shooting mechanics. Besides, vats = dissmemberement which is part of the immersive element of all fallout games, far better than shooting something in stalker and enemies reacting like you throw rocks at them.

Unlikelly, in stalker the weapons are weak but in the begining the ai gets the unfair advantage because they are many and not as innacurate as you are since they are ai and dont count the weapons innacuracy. Cleraly fallout 3 has a beter balance as far as regarding in the begining when you play the game and expect it to be easy and then it gets harder. Whats the point of the game being hard and then get easier because you got better gear? It creates a confusions "But it was harder when i was shooting bandits with the pmm and the sawed off but now with the an 94 and the stalker armor the game is much easier" Because your shots are sharper since you got a better weapon. In fallout 3 however as the developers have said sometimes they will give you a good gun but in a bad condition and sometimes with low ammo. So you gonna have to use everything you got to survive and constantly switching between weapons and saving ammo and condition. But in stalker once you get better guns and armor the old ones are rendered useless, which is sad because you cant have a favorite weapon and keep using it since its outdated by the new ones. It makes no sence how the assault rilfe A is far less accurate and less powerfull than the assault rilfe B. They are both assault rilfes, the diffirence cant be that high that you will drop one weapon over the other. Instead, weapons could use diffirent statistics and have a diffirent feel so one weapon is better than the other weapon in some stats but the other weapon is better on other stats, therefore its still usefull. Diffirent weapon prefences suiting diffirent player types.

Right, mutants in stalker are more creative than fallout 3. Lets see, we got a dog, something like a dog with more fur which is more agressive, a boar, something like a pig that feels like copy of the boar but less agressive and often they ignore you. A mutate human with psychic powers called controller, a mutated human with psychic powers but it has no legs and it has telekenisis, a small human wearing a coat called a dwarf that also has pshycic powers....see a pattern here? They are all slightly mutant humans with bad skin and they all have phychic powers, oh wait we got an invisible one which also moves fast and has fur and its called bloodsucker, i guess i have to give them congrats for the mouth that mutant has which is pretty much inspired from Cthulhu. Also there is the psedogiant, big yes, but apart from that its nothing special really. Still deathclaws and super mutants defeat that cheap enemy type any day. Atleast in fallout 3 the monsters come in more colors

Nope, fallout 3 radiattion is the best, the raddiation in stalker is pathetic. Its diffirent to drink iradiatted water and jump into a heavilly radiatted area. One is a weakened form of radiattion and the other is a freshly created one. Besides it will be hard to find such a heavy radiatted area nowadays even if you to chernobyl right now. In case you dont know after some time the radiation is no longer in the air, it falls to the ground and plants and its asborbed at a lesser form. In fallout 3 the map you playing at was nuked 50 years ago. Another thing will be that in stalker i picked up a radiated exoskeleton suit and i was constantly lossing health fast. That does not happen in real life. The effects will take a significant amount of time to come up. Also you got rad x which is a very good gameplay mechanic to grant you some protection from expossure to radiation but in stalker you can use a syringe any time you want and as many times you want all the freaking time and they come in large amounts and they are cheap.

Atleast in fallout 3 the rad away are hard to find which hits that you better avoid being expossed to radiation alltougether, but if you do, its not a "die fast or use a syringe all the freaking time and as many times you want to make the effects go away instantly" It feels kinda dumb to me that you are starting to die fast if exposed to radiation but a simple syringe takes away all your radiation instantly and you can feel free to jump back right in and use another syringe and a medkit afterwards with no penatly. Atleast in fallout 3 there is a penalty for being exposed to radiation, you get irradiated and you are lossing efectivenes and it will take many radaways to get completly clean and they dont come by as easy as buying a beer.

Uhmm... weapons in STALKER are far more powerful then in FO3...

Interresting discussion tho, STALKER destinguish between weapons for the job... ie a SPAS-12 will oneshot kill basicly any snimal apart from the Bloodsucker, and Chimera (the BLoodshucker needs about 3-4 at close range, where the Chimera is more of a "good luck" thing...

Gunplay is far better in the STALKER series O.o as in have weight feel, and dmg that matches, FO3 does not have either O.o

And since he asked for CoP specificly the weapons in that game requires the player to be REALLY bad in order to NOT kill... 1 5.56 shot in torsostuns, or killsjust about anything Not wearing heavy armor (or wildlife), and the 2nd bullet usually calls it "nightie" against just about anything with a pulse.

It is also a count towards immersion that nights are dark ya know? Unless it is placed at one of the poles.

Apart from that, everyone can only go by thier own oppinions on these games, Ive had my input on this thread long ago, and I said CoP, was the most atmospheric. Not meaning FO3 was not, but the odd wired (think stopmotion) animations, rollerskat movement, and the general lack of feedback took out of immertion for me. I always prefer both games at nighttime, FO3 looks quite pretty when the sun is down, to the point where I consider daytime downright ugly in comparison.

STALKER CoP I also prefer in nighttime, but due to the advantages the player gets when fighting... problem is that when nighttime comes mutants comes out. I am a tension/horror fan anyways so it wouldnt surprise :P

If the OP asked "what game is likely I will like" I would likely say FO3, STALKER is an aquired taste, likely for the same kind of people that liked games such as System Shock 2... It is harder, less helpful a game, if the player does not adapt, he will die... FO3 was a great deal more helping, and even if you cranked the diffeculty up to max, the only place you would ever have real problems would be the DLC with the island (forgot what it was called). You have to try in order to die (as in want to die).

So I will still say CoP has the best atmosphere, because the gameworld is coherrent, same rules apply for anything, day/night have a huge say, in alot of areas, weapons are less anomonus (only reason I would switch between Sidnys smg, and the xi-fu ar in FO3 was when ammo for one of them were low, other then that there were not a reason).

it is also the hardest of the two, and will punish anyone who as much as tryies to play rambo, or think that they are posisioned as a "hero" class, amongst inferior creatures.Which also adds to atmosphere...

In alot of ways I would consider STALKER to be like SS2, BG2 and other games from the days of old. back from when games required people to observe, understand the rules, and then begin to fight (I know the 3 games I mentioned has no gameplay mechanics in common, but the game philosofy is the same). I guess that is why I generally dont like newer games as much... "hero complex" games today are so afraid to put out a challange. -.-

Well i hate night and not being able to see, i actually like the fact that in fallout 3 its not pitch black and you can actually see where you are going. I always sleep in games i can sleep in order to play during daytime, i believe it looks better.

Doesn't matter which you like and which you don't. The fact remains that the nights in Fallout 3 have magic light shining from the sky is rather difficult to believe if you have ever paid attention to how dark nighttime is in, you know, real life.

Vats that stop the dogs and miss/hit depending on your skils > horrible shooting mechanics with weapons that dont perfom well even against small dogs. I got seriously tired of shooting dogs that decide to turn around and run away, make a circle and then come back at me. If you think its easy just raise the level. Fallout 3 is an rpg it does not pretend it has rpg elements like stalker, yet many people believe fallout 3 was suposed to be a shooter and often complain for its weak shooting mechanics. Besides, vats = dissmemberement which is part of the immersive element of all fallout games, far better than shooting something in stalker and enemies reacting like you throw rocks at them.

Shooting effects in neither are realistic. :| If people lost limbs as easily as they did in Fallout 3 I would be in a wheelchair by now.

Unlikelly, in stalker the weapons are weak but in the begining the ai gets the unfair advantage because they are many and not as innacurate as you are since they are ai and dont count the weapons innacuracy. Cleraly fallout 3 has a beter balance as far as regarding in the begining when you play the game and expect it to be easy and then it gets harder. Whats the point of the game being hard and then get easier because you got better gear? It creates a confusions "But it was harder when i was shooting bandits with the pmm and the sawed off but now with the an 94 and the stalker armor the game is much easier" Because your shots are sharper since you got a better weapon. In fallout 3 however as the developers have said sometimes they will give you a good gun but in a bad condition and sometimes with low ammo. So you gonna have to use everything you got to survive and constantly switching between weapons and saving ammo and condition. But in stalker once you get better guns and armor the old ones are rendered useless, which is sad because you cant have a favorite weapon and keep using it since its outdated by the new ones. It makes no sence how the assault rilfe A is far less accurate and less powerfull than the assault rilfe B. They are both assault rilfes, the diffirence cant be that high that you will drop one weapon over the other. Instead, weapons could use diffirent statistics and have a diffirent feel so one weapon is better than the other weapon in some stats but the other weapon is better on other stats, therefore its still usefull. Diffirent weapon prefences suiting diffirent player types.

....... the weapons in STALKER are based on "real" guns, you know. They can't go around magically tweaking stats, and yes, guns in the same category of weapons can be wildly different from each other. Shows how much you know about firearms. :|

Besides, we are talking about immersion here, which is based on believability. And how exactly is it believable that you become worse at fighting when you get better gear?

Right, mutants in stalker are more creative than fallout 3. Lets see, we got a dog, something like a dog with more fur which is more agressive, a boar, something like a pig that feels like copy of the boar but less agressive and often they ignore you. A mutate human with psychic powers called controller, a mutated human with psychic powers but it has no legs and it has telekenisis, a small human wearing a coat called a dwarf that also has pshycic powers....see a pattern here? They are all slightly mutant humans with bad skin and they all have phychic powers, oh wait we got an invisible one which also moves fast and has fur and its called bloodsucker, i guess i have to give them congrats for the mouth that mutant has which is pretty much inspired from Cthulhu. Also there is the psedogiant, big yes, but apart from that its nothing special really. Still deathclaws and super mutants defeat that cheap enemy type any day. Atleast in fallout 3 the monsters come in more colors

You're focusing too much on aesthetics, you realize that? Fallout 3's mutants may have more vibrant looks (btw, unlike STALKER's mutants they look utterly ridiculous, which, considering that we're talking about immersion here, is a BAD thing) but the effect they have on the gameplay is far less interesting. Just about every Fallout 3 mutant can be effectively countered by standing still and shooting it enough. This is NOT the case with STALKER.

Nope, fallout 3 radiattion is the best, the raddiation in stalker is pathetic. Its diffirent to drink iradiatted water and jump into a heavilly radiatted area. One is a weakened form of radiattion and the other is a freshly created one. Besides it will be hard to find such a heavy radiatted area nowadays even if you to chernobyl right now. In case you dont know after some time the radiation is no longer in the air, it falls to the ground and plants and its asborbed at a lesser form. In fallout 3 the map you playing at was nuked 50 years ago. Another thing will be that in stalker i picked up a radiated exoskeleton suit and i was constantly lossing health fast. That does not happen in real life. The effects will take a significant amount of time to come up. Also you got rad x which is a very good gameplay mechanic to grant you some protection from expossure to radiation but in stalker you can use a syringe any time you want and as many times you want all the freaking time and they come in large amounts and they are cheap.

...... Do you realize just how the radiation got there? In Fallout 3 it was dumped all over the place by a nuclear missile barrage. In STALKER it was caused by a single reactor going "phut phut phut". The former is going to leave MUCH greater traces of radiation which would take FAR longer to dissipate. THOUSANDS of years, for the record. And yes, radiation pockets from a failed reactor ARE enough to kill you in minutes. The radiation pockets from Fallout 3 should be far more deadly, but for some reason that game actually portrays them as being some three times weaker.

Atleast in fallout 3 the rad away are hard to find which hits that you better avoid being expossed to radiation alltougether, but if you do, its not a "die fast or use a syringe all the freaking time and as many times you want to make the effects go away instantly" It feels kinda dumb to me that you are starting to die fast if exposed to radiation but a simple syringe takes away all your radiation instantly and you can feel free to jump back right in and use another syringe and a medkit afterwards with no penatly. Atleast in fallout 3 there is a penalty for being exposed to radiation, you get irradiated and you are lossing efectivenes and it will take many radaways to get completly clean and they dont come by as easy as buying a beer.

THEY DO. I distinctly remember piling up somewhere around 50-60 RadAways the LAST time I played Fallout 3 unmodded, whereas I've not even reached half that in Call of Pripyat. It doesn't help that radiation in Fallout 3 is stupidly impotent, when in real life getting irradiated to levels anywhere near what you'd expect from nuclear wasteland pockets is going to want IMMEDIATE treatment. AntiRads are valuable PRECISELY because you have to use them all the time. And, unlike Fallout 3's magic equivalents, they actually WEIGH something.

dakan45

"Shooting effects in neither are realistic. If people lost limbs as easily as they did in Fallout 3 I would be in a wheelchair by now" Now wait a minute, you are saying that in an rpg that it takes many shots to kill someone, people lose arm and legs easilly? Yet you defend a game that has zero dismemberement and say that in real life people have to take tons of shots on arms and legs? "

Did you miss the part where I said "Neither"? Besides, you seem to be forgetting that you can fire a Missile Launcher at a Raider in Fallout 3 and you won't kill him in one shot.

Also, get that silly hollywood ideal out of your head - Rifle-calibre guns DO NOT dismember people. In fact, if you know anything about stopping power you'll realize that people get disabled by single shots because of PAIN. It's only with a heart/brain shot that they get one-shot-killed for good. If someone is hardy, determined and resistant to pain (like, incidentally, stalkers), he CAN take a half-dozen shots to the limbs/chest/abdomen/.etc before going down. Most certainly he'll need more than that.

...... the weapons in STALKER are based on "real" guns, you know. They can't go around magically tweaking stats, and yes, guns in the same category of weapons can be wildly different from each other. Shows how much you know about firearms. " Most foolish riddiculous response ever. Real firearms dont differ that much, assault rilfes have about the same firepower depending on the caliber, the gun wont gain accuracy and firepower just becaue THEY think its a better gun in every way.

In case you didn't notice, most of the guns in the game DO have differing calibres. And yes, REAL guns can have differences in reliability, accuracy, fire rates and whatnot even if they're the same type of weapon. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Because when i say that it does not make sense how the pistols are so weak you come up with a fake excuse "The game is based on real firearms" Whats next? Stalker being reallistic? Well sorry to dissapoint but shooting someone as many times as in stalker with a pistol is not reallistic, now thats done i would also like to point out that the game is not based on real firearms neither its trying to since all the guns have fake names and yes the stats are tweaked by the developers.

The guns are using ALTERNATIVE names. Also, you don't seem to be able to read properly - My point for them being based on real firearms is the fact that guns in real life DO DIFFER significantly in their respective characterisitics, which you are for some strange reason complaining about.

Also having such a diffirence while fighting with better gear is not something based on believability, it will be more believable if it did not matter that much what gun you were usiing like arma or rainbow six vegas, its not like you switched an old mp40 for a mp7 to see such a diffirence. Also i never said you are getting worse i just said it makes no sense how the game is harder in the begining when you enemies have the same weapons as you, the only reason its harder is because the ai does not give a damn if a makarov or a sawed off shotgun is innacurate for the player in a medium range, they will shoot you and hit you anyway.

Bet when you get a more accurate weapon, then it gets easier. Still the game could get harder by facing tougher troops but the only way it does that is by throwing enemies that use exoskeletons armors, yet your accurate weapons can headshot them easilly and its not that hard after all.

... Again, what's wrong with a hypermodern Assault Rifle being better than an old one? In fact, what makes it ridiculous? So far I know that my current weapon's better than an A.K. because it uses a better scope, fires smaller rounds with less recoil, is more accurate over distances but also has less stopping power and gets damaged more easily. Which is in fact a perfect mirror of the actual relationship between the two weapons.

Have you played Call of Pripyat? The A.I. does not have anywhere near as much accuracy as you're claiming. In fact, if you pay attention you'll realize that their shooting is worse than the player's even at the beginning of the game, and they only hit somewhere around 10-20% of the time. Ironically, magic accuracy is quite common in Fallout 3, much moreso than in Call of Pripyat.

And yes, headshotting people for an easy kill is believable because.... my gosh... that's where their brains are!

"You're focusing too much on aesthetics, you realize that? Fallout 3's mutants may have more vibrant looks (btw, unlike STALKER's mutants they look utterly ridiculous, which, considering that we're talking about immersion here, is a BAD thing) but the effect they have on the gameplay is far less interesting. Just about every Fallout 3 mutant can be effectively countered by standing still and shooting it enough. This is NOT the case with STALKER. " What you dont find the 50s sci fi like mutants in fallout 3 effective? I guess you miss the point of the game, turining them into badass monsters will be like taking away the big daddy from bioshock.

What's the "point of the game" and how is it relevant again? The fact remains that when I saw a giant green half-naked guy carrying around a puny hunting rifle walking around, I laughed. If it was actually immersive I wouldn't have been amused, I'd have been scared for my life.

Also what you mean "Fallout 3 mutant can be effectively countered by standing still and shooting it enough. This is NOT the case with STALKER. " The exact opposite actually in fallout 3 you got to keep moving backwards because the mutants are running at you.

No, you don't. Just about any mutant there can be VATS-ed dead before they get close to you (with the exception of the Behemoth, and all you have to do against THAT is to find someplace it can't fit in and keep shooting), and you can't move back while VATS-ing something. And ALMOST NOBODY uses freefire over VATS.

But in stalker you loose accuracy so you have to duck and be accurate in order to deliever as much damage as possible to kill the mutant quickly, its stalker that you gotta stand still, not fallout 3, in falllout 3 you got to move backwards or use vats to freeze them. "

No you bloody hell don't. "Standing still" an ineffective response to bloodsuckers, burers, dogs, boars, controllers and probably a damn sight more than that - have you ever played the game? If you're fighting a bloodsucker you move around as much as possible and shotgun the things as they strafe you (because if you stay still they grab your neck and start eating your throat), if you're fighting a burer they'll be busy tossing dumpsters at you which you have to DODGE, dogs/boars again have to be dodged and shot at close ranges and STANDING against a controller is liable to get your mind fried because the ONE thing to have to do is make sure that they can't see you directly. Mind you you'll still have to run about from cover to cover because they'll be walking towards where they know you are.

Do you realize just how the radiation got there? In Fallout 3 it was dumped all over the place by a nuclear missile barrage. In STALKER it was caused by a single reactor going "phut phut phut". The former is going to leave MUCH greater traces of radiation which would take FAR longer to dissipate. THOUSANDS of years, for the record. And yes, radiation pockets from a failed reactor ARE enough to kill you in minutes. The radiation pockets from Fallout 3 should be far more deadly, but for some reason that game actually portrays them as being some three times weaker." Wrong, One of my friends took a trip and told me that most of it is cleaned, let alone that stalker takes place in the future.

Normally speaking there is a very low amount of radioenergy. Infact the group took them to pripiyat and red forest and they even took pictures. They required to have a geiger counter and they did not hear any indications not even once. They told them that as long as they dont touch anything, they will be allright and thats when they told them that the radioenegy falls to the ground and the plants after a while. He told me that and thats how i know it.

Yes, most of it is "cleaned", hence the term "radiation pockets". You know, most of the map isn't irradiated and all except for a few lethal spots, which is pretty much how it actually is?

Oh, and I forgot to mention that according to the game, there was a second nuclear disaster at Chernobyl.. which caused the Zone as it appears to you. So even if the radiation from the first disaster had already dissipated (and given the "don't touch anything comment" it obviously hasn't done so completely) it's already been replaced by radiation from a reaction that created a bloody physics-defying nightmare.

Ad for the rad comment? I could find those on corspes on stalker but atleast those many rad away in fallout 3 where stored at a facilitty which makes sense.

What's wrong with AntiRads being found on corpses again? Are you suggesting that they wouldn't be keeping them around on hand.... because they're a bunch of masochists?

dakan45