Why does Stalker: Call of Pripyat look so dated?

The game came out in 2009, but it looks like it came out in 2005. Why? I bought the game on Steam yesterday, and I expected it to look at least as good as Metro 2033, since it's a DX 11 game, but it doesn't compare at all. Why is this?

Let me guess, you are still in the first area? If so, then continue playing it.millerlight89

Is there going to be some phenomenal increase in graphics quality?

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]Let me guess, you are still in the first area? If so, then continue playing it.BluRayHiDef

Is there going to be some phenomenal increase in graphics quality?

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]Let me guess, you are still in the first area? If so, then continue playing it.BluRayHiDef

Is there going to be some phenomenal increase in graphics quality?

Because it is still based on the original Stalker game engine, and Stalker started development about 8 years ago.

The game came out in 2009, but it looks like it came out in 2005. Why? I bought the game on Steam yesterday, and I expected it to look at least as good as Metro 2033, since it's a DX 11 game, but it doesn't compare at all. Why is this?

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The game came out in 2009, but it looks like it came out in 2005. Why? I bought the game on Steam yesterday, and I expected it to look at least as good as Metro 2033, since it's a DX 11 game, but it doesn't compare at all. Why is this?

SF_KiLLaMaN

Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The game came out in 2009, but it looks like it came out in 2005. Why? I bought the game on Steam yesterday, and I expected it to look at least as good as Metro 2033, since it's a DX 11 game, but it doesn't compare at all. Why is this?

BluRayHiDef

Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The game came out in 2009, but it looks like it came out in 2005. Why? I bought the game on Steam yesterday, and I expected it to look at least as good as Metro 2033, since it's a DX 11 game, but it doesn't compare at all. Why is this?

BluRayHiDef

Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] because 1. GSC is not a big time developer with millions of dollars at their disposal. 2. the game doesn't look that bad, it actually has some of the best lighting I have ever seen in a video game. 3. Metro 2033 is a linear shooter while STALKER CoP is a semi-open world game. Like other said, after the first area the visuals get much better. Wait until the CoP Complete mod comes out, then it will look amazing.

millerlight89

Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset.

It's not only that it looks worse than Metro 2033; it doesn't even look as good as Left for Dead 2 (that says a lot). Also, the game is pretty damn weird. There was this part where I went into this cave, and there was this odd looking humanoid creature that made strange gestures with its hands. Very weird.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] because 1. GSC is not a big time developer with millions of dollars at their disposal. 2. the game doesn't look that bad, it actually has some of the best lighting I have ever seen in a video game. 3. Metro 2033 is a linear shooter while STALKER CoP is a semi-open world game. Like other said, after the first area the visuals get much better. Wait until the CoP Complete mod comes out, then it will look amazing.

millerlight89

Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset.

It's not only that it looks worse than Metro 2033; it doesn't even look as good as Left for Dead 2 (that says a lot). Also, the game is pretty damn weird. There was this part where I went into this cave, and there was this odd looking humanoid creature that made strange gestures with its hands. Very weird.

BluRayHiDef

The controller messes with your head, that's the gestures. Weird? It is Sci-Fi, were you expecting realism?

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

It's not only that it looks worse than Metro 2033; it doesn't even look as good as Left for Dead 2 (that says a lot). Also, the game is pretty damn weird. There was this part where I went into this cave, and there was this odd looking humanoid creature that made strange gestures with its hands. Very weird.

millerlight89

The controller messes with your head, that's the gestures. Weird? It is Sci-Fi, were you expecting realism?

It's got nothing to do with realism, but with **** The ****is very strange. For example, Metro 2033 is Sci-Fi, but it doesn't have weird things like that. Anyhow, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but just that it's weird.

t's got nothing to do with realism, but with **** The ****is very strange. For example, Metro 2033 is Sci-Fi, but it doesn't have weird things like that. Anyhow, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but just that it's weird.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

It's not only that it looks worse than Metro 2033; it doesn't even look as good as Left for Dead 2 (that says a lot). Also, the game is pretty damn weird. There was this part where I went into this cave, and there was this odd looking humanoid creature that made strange gestures with its hands. Very weird.

BluRayHiDef

The controller messes with your head, that's the gestures. Weird? It is Sci-Fi, were you expecting realism?

It's got nothing to do with realism, but with **** The ****is very strange. For example, Metro 2033 is Sci-Fi, but it doesn't have weird things like that. Anyhow, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but just that it's weird.

It's not only that it looks worse than Metro 2033; it doesn't even look as good as Left for Dead 2 (that says a lot). Also, the game is pretty damn weird. There was this part where I went into this cave, and there was this odd looking humanoid creature that made strange gestures with its hands. Very weird.

BluRayHiDef

Go play the game completely then judge what you think after it. As of now, your feelings are a bit off base as you are judging a game by a small portion of it. Play through it, beat it... Form a opinion.. Go download the Stalker complete mod (prob give most of the "graphics" you want).. Play it again and then give a overall feeling of the game.

Weird? All games have something offbase at times. Thats part of the jello. Just enjoy it. Enjoy the game for what it is and you might be in for a surprise. Never judge a game by its beginning but by its whole.

as the others said, keep playing, but unlike what the others said, you will only catch glimpses of how good it can look at the second area, the 3rd however is marvelous.

The game aces with all kinds of light and shadow, places that has no real light or shadow never looked too good in stalker, it is an old engine afterall.

Gameplaywise there is however very little that can match stalker, it is not a dumbed down fps game, nor does it hold your hand and make sure you survive.

it is likely the last real FPS game released in a long time where if the player screwes up, he WILL die, if he is careless, he WILL die, and if he thinks the gamerules does not apply to him, but only the opponants, he WILL die.

I think that is what I love so about that game, the ai and that the devs saw the players of people who could think for themselves, anot not be told what to do, not have a small corridor they were always being led through because they were too dumb to nagivate.

Interiors and the city areas looks quite good, aswell as thunderstorms, but yeah the first area looks fairly bad, even worse then SOC in some ways.

I find it disgusting that you base the quality of a game on the graphical presentation. Ignorance is bliss I guess.theafiguy

Wow. All I did was judge the game's graphics. I never said anything about it being an overall bad game because of it. I don't know what gave you that impression. I guess a person can't judge the graphics of a game without people mistaking their judgement as being directed toward the entire game, even though that may not be the case.

. I don't know what gave you that impression.

BluRayHiDef

I would assume it was this statement: "Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset."

At which point it would be easy to assume that because the graphics did not meet metro's standards you believed the game was not worth full price. It would actually be very hard to interpret otherwise.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]. I don't know what gave you that impression.

ferret-gamer

I would assume it was this statement: "Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset."

At which point it would be easy to assume that because the graphics did not meet metro's standards you believed the game was not worth full price. It would actually be very hard to interpret otherwise.

Well, even if a game is great, but has bad graphics, I'd be regretful if I paid a lot for it. The bad graphics should automatically lessen the price.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]. I don't know what gave you that impression.

BluRayHiDef

I would assume it was this statement: "Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset."

At which point it would be easy to assume that because the graphics did not meet metro's standards you believed the game was not worth full price. It would actually be very hard to interpret otherwise.

Well, even if a game is great, but has great graphics, I'd be regretful if I paid a lot for it. The bad graphics should automatically lessen the price.

I would just wait for the complete mod to come out. I played the game for a few hours before I decide to hold off, there some impressive textures on buildings and whatnot, but it does look dated overall.

It also looks and runs worse than clear sky with the complete mod.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]. I don't know what gave you that impression.

BluRayHiDef

I would assume it was this statement: "Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset."

At which point it would be easy to assume that because the graphics did not meet metro's standards you believed the game was not worth full price. It would actually be very hard to interpret otherwise.

Well, even if a game is great, but has bad graphics, I'd be regretful if I paid a lot for it. The bad graphics should automatically lessen the price.

it's your problem. i'd pay more from Stalker title than Metro 2033 any day.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

I would assume it was this statement: "Well, it's a good thing that I only paid $5.00 for it and the other Stalker game that it came with. If I had paid full price, I'd be very upset."

At which point it would be easy to assume that because the graphics did not meet metro's standards you believed the game was not worth full price. It would actually be very hard to interpret otherwise.

groowagon

Well, even if a game is great, but has bad graphics, I'd be regretful if I paid a lot for it. The bad graphics should automatically lessen the price.

it's your problem. i'd pay more from Stalker title than Metro 2033 any day.

Dudes, this guy has obviously never played a STALKER game. STALKER games = pure hardcore s****.dangamit

The game is hideous and lame. I just got into a shoot out. It was the lamest and most non-immersive experience I've had this generation. Absolute rubbish.

yeah the game does look kinda meh, but its pretty fun. Tried using mods, but the game kept crashing on me :(

The game is not ment to be played like a COD or a Half Life game. So yes, if you try to playit like a COD game, it will suck.

The game is not ment to be played like a COD or a Half Life game. So yes, if you try to playit like a COD game, it will suck.

dangamit

Who said that I was trying to play it like a COD or Half Life game? Nobody. Just because someone has a bad experience with this game doesn't mean that they're playing it incorrectly (if that's even possible :roll: ). It just means that they don't like the game. Sometimes it seems very difficult for some people to accept that not everyone enjoys a particular game. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Stalker isn't all that and a bag of chips. It's not even an empty bag of chips.

1. The engine is really old. Ever played SoC or Clear Sky? basically the same engine, and it was old when SoC first came out in 2007. They've done a lot to keep it looking good.

2. Does it really look that bad to you? the draw distance isn't great and the weapon and character models are somewhat mediocre, but the lighting is incredible.

1. The engine is really old. Ever played SoC or Clear Sky? basically the same engine, and it was old when SoC first came out in 2007. They've done a lot to keep it looking good.

2. Does it really look that bad to you? the draw distance isn't great and the weapon and character models are somewhat mediocre, but the lighting is incredible.

Brendissimo35

Good lighting does not hide the horrible textures and bad draw distance. They're both still very very noticeable.

[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

1. The engine is really old. Ever played SoC or Clear Sky? basically the same engine, and it was old when SoC first came out in 2007. They've done a lot to keep it looking good.

2. Does it really look that bad to you? the draw distance isn't great and the weapon and character models are somewhat mediocre, but the lighting is incredible.

BluRayHiDef

Good lighting does not hide the horrible textures and bad draw distance. They're both still very very noticeable.

It seems to for every reviewer who's looked at a multiplat this gen...

Dont know whats the problem with the game, play SoC, then play CS and then CoP(although you could leave CS for last it has some bugs). The game looks great(doesn't have latest in effects but the nights with lightning are beautiful), I played through Soc like 10 time then moded it to extreme and played it ten times more, CS played it about 5-7 times(saveing very often is the key) although never tried mods on it. No tesselation here buddy!!!

Because you're too damn BluRayHiDef. If you lower your graphical standards a little bit, you might not be asking this question.

I never cared about the graphics, really. For me, it was the gameplay, the free-roam and all those side-quests that really got me into the game. I love the emphasis on the survival and you have to save ammo and useful items on your inventory. The scavenging of artifacts is quite satisfactory too.