pretty dissapointing ... :(. While many of the things like the difficulty doesn't worry me much but the complain about the cheap scripted sequences definitely seems worrisome
I know what's gonna make the game difficult this time... the lack of ammo all the time & assault rifles will be too expensive. I hate this shyt... why a developer puts awesome weapons in game & doesn't even allow the player to use them. it's pathetic. & this kind of problem was completely absent in game like COD4.. Lots of weapons & lots of ammo,... also lots of dumb enemies.
Any stalker fan (like me) will still buy this game regardless of what pc gamer UK says. The things they point out as flaws are so minor, it's not even worth mentioning...like wtf...whats wrong with NPC's being able to throw grenades, it worked good in oblivion lost and it's fine in clear sky. Being it hard to access the good weapons in stalker was always been a good thing because it gives you a good sence that you finally got this awesome assault rifle and now you're going to just murder everything. Rather than....all the weapons be handed to you easily and without any sence of reward....Anyways I haven't even played clear sky yet....none of us have.... and so we can't be so quick to judge this game so negativily, just because it gets a 7 doesn't mean it's a mediocre game. I'm buying this game forsure and i know a lot of people who played the original stalker will too.
Lack of atmosphere is a huge flaw in a game like this. Atmosphere was one of Oblivion Lost's best points. You take that away, and you're just asking for bad reviews.
Lack of atmosphere is a huge flaw in a game like this. Atmosphere was one of Oblivion Lost's best points. You take that away, and you're just asking for bad reviews.Qixote
Language aside, I don't see anything that could have ruined the atmosphere from what I'm reading.
The 25 minutes gameplay video seemed very atmospheric to me:|
"Oh God, and the dialogue. Without irony, Russian mercenaries speak like Tim Westwood and Levi Roots, all in English with heavy Soviet accenting, so the game comes off like a bad impressions show. There's deeply amateurish sense of what's cool and what's funny to it, and an overwhelming concern that the developers are lacking vital quality control now they're unshackled from the first game's publisher, THQ. It sounds horribly presumptive but it really does come across as though a bunch of fairly inexperienced designers were let loose on this game with no-one in place to overrule their worst excesses."
Meh, reviews i dont pay much attention to anymore. I seem to be dissagreeing with so many reviews these days that i just rent or buy and try the game for myself then give it a score or opinion.
Ill still get Stalker Clear Sky the first day forsure.
I love it how people look at that number and go "OMG! :o This game must be crap, I'm not buying it now(not like some of you folks were planning to in the first place).:cry: " Personally I don't let these scores prevent me from playing games that interest me and having fun. I'd hate to be as limited as some of you folks who will only play a game that is like a 9.0 or something. :?
I'm still waiting for someone without a clue to come in here and say, "A 7 out of 10 is bad? That should mean it's GOOD," and to try and convince us that the "1-10" point scale is actually applied properly to game reviews.
I always get a good laugh out of those arguments. Simple fact is, a score of 7 means that a game is mediocre and probably won't be anything great to play. Anything below 7 is generally downright bad. 8-9 is usually a pretty good game that's definitely worth checking out, and a 10 is a great game that is generally a must-have, although not perfect or suitable for everyone as a 10 would seem to imply.
7 out of 10 ain't that bad, but I am surprised at the actual content of the review. I don't think I am going to bother with the game now...seems like what made STALKER fun for me in the first game (atmosphere, exploration, pacing) is now second to more action and throwing enemies at the player. I actually hated STALKER towards the end when the story took over full force and the game was no longer exploring a vast world and doing things in your way.
hmm i will just let it go down in price and have time for patches before i get it, boom problem solved.. and i still get to play the game, beat the first one, got all 3 endings... it was a great game... and im looking forward to clear skies, just ill wait till it gets a little cheaper and a few months for patches...
I'm still waiting for someone without a clue to come in here and say, "A 7 out of 10 is bad? That should mean it's GOOD," and to try and convince us that the "1-10" point scale is actually applied properly to game reviews.
I always get a good laugh out of those arguments. Simple fact is, a score of 7 means that a game is mediocre and probably won't be anything great to play. Anything below 7 is generally downright bad. 8-9 is usually a pretty good game that's definitely worth checking out, and a 10 is a great game that is generally a must-have, although not perfect or suitable for everyone as a 10 would seem to imply.
THA-TODD-BEAST
You must not have played a lot of games. There are quite a few great games that scored lower than 7 on a lot of publications, and there is a lot of unplayable garbage that gets 8+ everywhere. Game reviewers have no clue, and following their scores religiously is insane.
I'm still waiting for someone without a clue to come in here and say, "A 7 out of 10 is bad? That should mean it's GOOD," and to try and convince us that the "1-10" point scale is actually applied properly to game reviews.
I always get a good laugh out of those arguments. Simple fact is, a score of 7 means that a game is mediocre and probably won't be anything great to play. Anything below 7 is generally downright bad. 8-9 is usually a pretty good game that's definitely worth checking out, and a 10 is a great game that is generally a must-have, although not perfect or suitable for everyone as a 10 would seem to imply.
ReddestSkies
You must not have played a lot of games. There are quite a few great games that scored lower than 7 on a lot of publications, and there is a lot of unplayable garbage that gets 8+ everywhere. Game reviewers have no clue, and following their scores religiously is insane.
I'm still waiting for someone without a clue to come in here and say, "A 7 out of 10 is bad? That should mean it's GOOD," and to try and convince us that the "1-10" point scale is actually applied properly to game reviews.
I always get a good laugh out of those arguments. Simple fact is, a score of 7 means that a game is mediocre and probably won't be anything great to play. Anything below 7 is generally downright bad. 8-9 is usually a pretty good game that's definitely worth checking out, and a 10 is a great game that is generally a must-have, although not perfect or suitable for everyone as a 10 would seem to imply.
ReddestSkies
You must not have played a lot of games. There are quite a few great games that scored lower than 7 on a lot of publications, and there is a lot of unplayable garbage that gets 8+ everywhere. Game reviewers have no clue, and following their scores religiously is insane.
exactly i mean GTA4 got a perfect 10 on here, but they turn right around and say in the review, that the game is not without flaws... lmao then it wouldnt be a perfect 10 out of 10 would it?? lmao reviewers are mainly bought and paid for on the "big games" and if not bought and paid for, extremely biased.
I'm still waiting for someone without a clue to come in here and say, "A 7 out of 10 is bad? That should mean it's GOOD," and to try and convince us that the "1-10" point scale is actually applied properly to game reviews.
I always get a good laugh out of those arguments. Simple fact is, a score of 7 means that a game is mediocre and probably won't be anything great to play. Anything below 7 is generally downright bad. 8-9 is usually a pretty good game that's definitely worth checking out, and a 10 is a great game that is generally a must-have, although not perfect or suitable for everyone as a 10 would seem to imply.
Lach0121
You must not have played a lot of games. There are quite a few great games that scored lower than 7 on a lot of publications, and there is a lot of unplayable garbage that gets 8+ everywhere. Game reviewers have no clue, and following their scores religiously is insane.
exactly i mean GTA4 got a perfect 10 on here, but they turn right around and say in the review, that the game is not without flaws... lmao then it wouldnt be a perfect 10 out of 10 would it?? lmao reviewers are mainly bought and paid for on the "big games" and if not bought and paid for, extremely biased. the only thing difficult about it, is it takes alot of shots to kill the enemy if not in the head... so put the difficulty on normal, and it makes it MORE realistic, and if the game is too hard for you then, then you need alot more practicing in the gaming world.
Damn , i was looking forward to either Stalker Clear Sky or Crysis Warhead , seems lyk Stalker CS out of the question now as i usually avoid too difficult games :(
I may pick up Stalker later if its price drops in near future :)
the first stalker was alright about a 7/10 to me that is, so it looks like the second one lived up to the first one in my opinion. i'll pick it up down the road sometime when im bored of warhammer online hmm come to think of it i'll pick it up next year.
Log in to comment