destroying the myth ..... AW IS a linear game.

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] this has to be the worst explaination ever !!!!! background is a back ground ......... what does " the backgrounds in AW are real and fully detailed" mean ???? they can't be reached, that's why they are backgrounds. U2 could make the same thing .. i mean, making all the events in Napal, making you visit the same locations over and over .... does this make it open world ????? 2mrw

Fact of the matter is. AW is less linear then UC2, by some margin.

If you've played both you will agree, if you haven't don't bother responding.

how does one determine that?

it being closer to open-world or being closer to linear?

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] this has to be the worst explaination ever !!!!! background is a back ground ......... what does " the backgrounds in AW are real and fully detailed" mean ???? they can't be reached, that's why they are backgrounds. U2 could make the same thing .. i mean, making all the events in Napal, making you visit the same locations over and over .... does this make it open world ????? 2mrw

Fact of the matter is. AW is less linear then UC2, by some margin.

If you've played both you will agree, if you haven't don't bother responding.

You're not using common sense ... You haven't even played AW

The main plot line is linear, as in from point A to point B to complete C. However the world offers more freedom to explore. Unlike UC2 which is Point A to be to C to D, etc.

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

Fact of the matter is. AW is less linear then UC2, by some margin.

If you've played both you will agree, if you haven't don't bother responding.

how does one determine that?

it being closer to open-world or being closer to linear?

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] if you bothered reading some of the posts, you would know i already said that . but the game shares with linear games alot more than it shares with open world games. i am using some common sense here.2mrw

how does one determine that?

it being closer to open-world or being closer to linear?

trying to measure that is bogus, what I'm trying to say.

there is no official scale, do we just nitpick elements and whichever measures closest?

it doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAM_gx5qH8g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBN04saU4I&feature=related

/thread

asylumni

Might help if you state what, exactly, that's supposed to prove.

Vast, open, non linear areas in AW

Well yea.. The game is out, we've played it, what's with these arguments? GeneralShowzer

A bigger myth is no girls on teh internetz, there's tons of females on this site's OT.

Though Adobe Artist is right.

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

Fact of the matter is. AW is less linear then UC2, by some margin.

If you've played both you will agree, if you haven't don't bother responding.

You're not using common sense ... You haven't even played AW

The main plot line is linear, as in from point A to point B to complete C. However the world offers more freedom to explore. Unlike UC2 which is Point A to be to C to D, etc.

I have seen a lot written about this game Good & Bad. In the end when it hits the $20 mark i'm getting it to play. I want to try it for myself

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]Well yea.. The game is out, we've played it, what's with these arguments? Phazevariance

Tell that to the master of foliage...I dont think he actually played the game to enjoy the atmosphere and story, he spent all his time looking at trees and plants interacting with lighting. I hate when good games end up getting trashed for things that are not even relevant to the game.

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAM_gx5qH8g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBN04saU4I&feature=related

/thread

theseekar

Might help if you state what, exactly, that's supposed to prove.

Vast, open, non linear areas in AW

in the first video, he walks down a bunch of small planks, gets in a car, takes a short drive down in the only direction the road allows him to (one way). Gets to the coal mine area, finds 2 items, walks up another set of stairs (pretty much the only place you can go to advance), then it turns night and he goes between the narrow paths between the train cars

2nd video, everything is caged in, there's only one direction to go to start with, he tries to open the door but it's not even a real door, hops in the car, cutscene, hops in the car again. Drives down the single road in the same direction, gets out, detours around, starts running around up a hill provided that everything is still pushing you forward (but hey you can look around!), narrow path between the moutains, gets to the cliff, runs back around etc.

point being, is there anything you can do outside of collecting items and being pushed through the story line? is there sidequesting? or anything to do outside of progressing through the story line?

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

So... the tc is still right? It doesn't matter if the game is fully-rendered or not, if I can't go to those beautiful mountains in the distance, then it is just a background. Alan Wake has a more of an evolved Half-life 2, linear structure, in that there is a path, but there are also tons of little areas to go off and explore, usually for ammo or a coffee thing.

Crysis is more open than Alan, though there is nothing wrong with this, but still, I wonder how the game would have been if it was open-world, as originally planned...

Ninja-Hippo

With all due respect.

Are you sure you were playing Alan Wake? because the more you post, the more your claims becomes against your point.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

So... the tc is still right? It doesn't matter if the game is fully-rendered or not, if I can't go to those beautiful mountains in the distance, then it is just a background. Alan Wake has a more of an evolved Half-life 2, linear structure, in that there is a path, but there are also tons of little areas to go off and explore, usually for ammo or a coffee thing.

Crysis is more open than Alan, though there is nothing wrong with this, but still, I wonder how the game would have been if it was open-world, as originally planned...

HAZE-Unit

With all due respect.

Are you sure you were playing Alan Wake? because the more you post, the more your claims becomes against your point.

think he meant to say it's not entirely like that. it has many more open-world elements.

he should have thrown Gears of War in there to look less biased.

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] I dont think he was right, in that he compared it to Killzone and Uncharted which are linear games in all aspects; a series of levels with a beginning and an end. Alan Wake is not like that at all.

HavocV3

With all due respect.

Are you sure you were playing Alan Wake? because the more you post, the more your claims becomes against your point.

think he meant to say it's not entirely like that. it has many more open-world elements.

he should have thrown Gears of War in there to look less biased.

It doesn't have open world elements whatsoever and it certainly is more similar with Uncharted , Kiiizone, gears and all linear games in general, saying Alan Wake isn't like linear games at all is really taking it too far because I know Im not gonna BS somebody who is going to get Alan Wake and wants to know how Alan Wake is like.

Silent Hill is more open-ended than Alan Wake, if you want to compare games, compare the right games with each other.

I don't see the big deal. Games like Uncharted 2 are linear and are great. Same goes for Alan Wake and it's great as well.

It doesn't have open world elements whatsoever and it certainly is more similar with Uncharted , Kiiizone, gears and all linear games in general, saying Alan Wake isn't like linear games at all is really taking it too far because I know Im not gonna BS somebody who is going to get Alan Wake and wants to know how Alan Wake is like.

Silent Hill is more open-ended than Alan Wake, if you want to compare games, compare the right games with each other.

HAZE-Unit

All i've said is that the world in which that story takes place and progresses is one, big, open environment rather than a series of levels. Anyone who has played the game would know this. I don't see the problem.

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

It doesn't have open world elements whatsoever and it certainly is more similar with Uncharted , Kiiizone, gears and all linear games in general, saying Alan Wake isn't like linear games at all is really taking it too far because I know Im not gonna BS somebody who is going to get Alan Wake and wants to know how Alan Wake is like.

Silent Hill is more open-ended than Alan Wake, if you want to compare games, compare the right games with each other.

Ninja-Hippo

All i've said is that the world in which that story takes place and progresses is one, big, open environment rather than a series of levels. Anyone who has played the game would know this. I don't see the problem.

The world is one and big, but I wouldn't necesssarily call it open. Open denotes that you can go to anywhere from anywhere at any time you want. If you can't, then it is closed. Vandalvideo

My one and only point from the beginning was that Alan Wake takes place in one, very large place rather than via a series of linear levels, missions or corridors, and that the TC appears mistaken in his belief of exactly how linear the game is, if the drawing is anything to go by.

That was all. :)

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] The world is one and big, but I wouldn't necesssarily call it open. Open denotes that you can go to anywhere from anywhere at any time you want. If you can't, then it is closed. Ninja-Hippo

My one and only point from the beginning was that Alan Wake takes place in one, very large place rather than via a series of linear levels, missions or corridors, and that the TC appears mistaken in his belief of exactly how linear the game is, if the drawing is anything to go by.

That was all. :)

Well, that's the very definition of open. At some point in time, the game must open up and allow you to go wherever you want, otherwise it's not an open environment - it's a series of closed environments put next to each other.

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAM_gx5qH8g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBN04saU4I&feature=related

/thread

theseekar

Might help if you state what, exactly, that's supposed to prove.

Vast, open, non linear areas in AW

Areas that lead to nowhere, like cliffs and empty houses? Or a game that should of been titled Alan Wake: Car Thief? Seriously, how does he have the keys to every single car in the game?

From those videos it makes the game look a whole lot worse to me. In fact the only thing going for it is the Jacket and lighting, everything else looks like crap. So no it's not an open world game. Unless you could call a wider spaced Resident Evil 4/5 open world?

edit:

Also, why can't he jump over a fallen tree? Minutes went by in that video with that stupid tree. Really is it that hard to climb over? I have done it many of times. So can a tree beat Alan Wake?

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] The world is one and big, but I wouldn't necesssarily call it open. Open denotes that you can go to anywhere from anywhere at any time you want. If you can't, then it is closed. Ninja-Hippo

My one and only point from the beginning was that Alan Wake takes place in one, very large place rather than via a series of linear levels, missions or corridors, and that the TC appears mistaken in his belief of exactly how linear the game is, if the drawing is anything to go by.

That was all. :)

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]Just about the entire atmosphere in the game of Stalker got to me, and the segments with the underground labs, those were damn scary. You mentioned in a post above, you were scared in games like System Shock 2, which personally, never scared me. SS2 also had randomly generating badguys as well.Vandalvideo

The thing about Stalker is, is that it's an entire world. There is contrast, there are places where it is sunny and you only fight humans, and then there are places where you go down into a creepy underground tunnel, after having spent much time in a less scary environment, and it does help a lot in terms of scare factor. I would go as far as to say, that open-world horror games, have the potential (after looking at Stalker) to be the very best kind of horror game, because a large unpredictable world, has much more potential than some theme park type ride, that a lot of horror games end up feeling like.

Obviously it wasn't just the "buggers" (wtf?) that made the game scary, it was the atmosphere combined with their presence/existance. Stalker has some of the most haunting atmosphere in a game, the Chernobyl zone setting creeps me out more than any other setting in a game, and I've played my share of horror games.

I obviously wasn't alone in thinking the underground sections were great, considering they added them back into the most recent game, since people loved them so much in the first. Personally SS2 doesn't even come close to Stalker, the zone feels much more real and bleak, it's haunting and mysterious, and best of all, it's hugely explorable, thus giving the atmosphere more room to stretch it's legs.

It's obvious we just a different opinon on what's scary, personally, I just like my scary games to be more geniune than others, which is what Stalker is.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] The world is one and big, but I wouldn't necesssarily call it open. Open denotes that you can go to anywhere from anywhere at any time you want. If you can't, then it is closed. Ninja-Hippo

My one and only point from the beginning was that Alan Wake takes place in one, very large place rather than via a series of linear levels, missions or corridors, and that the TC appears mistaken in his belief of exactly how linear the game is, if the drawing is anything to go by.

That was all. :)

Yeah I think you're stretching it. It is a linear game, despite being set in one giant box.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] The world is one and big, but I wouldn't necesssarily call it open. Open denotes that you can go to anywhere from anywhere at any time you want. If you can't, then it is closed. Ninja-Hippo

My one and only point from the beginning was that Alan Wake takes place in one, very large place rather than via a series of linear levels, missions or corridors, and that the TC appears mistaken in his belief of exactly how linear the game is, if the drawing is anything to go by.

That was all. :)

But it is a series of linear levels. Either you're making the game into something it's not, or you somehow have a copy of the original open-world Alan Wake that was in production long ago...

[QUOTE="HAZE-Unit"]

It doesn't have open world elements whatsoever and it certainly is more similar with Uncharted , Kiiizone, gears and all linear games in general, saying Alan Wake isn't like linear games at all is really taking it too far because I know Im not gonna BS somebody who is going to get Alan Wake and wants to know how Alan Wake is like.

Silent Hill is more open-ended than Alan Wake, if you want to compare games, compare the right games with each other.

Ninja-Hippo

All i've said is that the world in which that story takes place and progresses is one, big, open environment rather than a series of levels. Anyone who has played the game would know this. I don't see the problem.

"a series of levels with a beginning and an end. Alan Wake is not like that at all."

These are your own words, I didn't create anything from my own imagination, Alan Wake has a series of levels with a beginning and end they called them episodes instead of chapters or levels.

When you say Alan Wake takes place in one big open environment you are misleading people with this description because the moment I read or hear these words I think of GTA, Castlevania: Symphony of the night, Assassins Creed...etc.

God Of War 3 takes place in one big environment going from level to another level, is it open world? hell to the freaking no.

Obviously it wasn't just the "buggers" (wtf?) that made the game scary, it was the atmosphere combined with their presence/existance. Stalker has some of the most haunting atmosphere in a game, the Chernobyl zone setting creeps me out more than any other setting in a game, and I've played my share of horror games.TheGrayEye

I obviously wasn't alone in thinking the underground sections were great, considering they added them back into the most recent game, since people loved them so much in the first. Personally SS2 doesn't even come close to Stalker, the zone feels much more real and bleak, it's haunting and mysterious, and best of all, it's hugely explorable, thus giving the atmosphere more room to stretch it's legs.

It's obvious we just a different opinon on what's scary, personally, I just like my scary games to be more geniune than others, which is what Stalker is.

[QUOTE="2mrw"]

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

There

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAM_gx5qH8g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOBN04saU4I&feature=related

AdobeArtist

be serious,man ... i have 2 of the most credible gaming sites stating that the game is linear .... i have dev saying the game isn't open world ..... the videos shows large area with only one way to go, no side missions or anything to do, only some ammo to collect ........ i can't own you more :P .

I said in my very first statement - the main plot path is linear, but that the environments are subtantially open to offer a layer of free roaming off the main path to explore for collectibles, or maybe just to explore the scenery itself.

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"]

Someone else described Alan Wake perfectly in another thread, but I can't remember who said it or what thread it was (yeah, im useless) But anyway, the jist of it was that Alan Wake is a linear game, but despite that it manages to create a sense of freedom and openess. You don't feel trapped while wondering through forests or along paths.

GeneralShowzer

Alan wake is a linear game. I don't see why people fight it. Sure there is some open space to explore but it's not OPEN like people wanna think it is.

One set path. Linear with some room for exploration.

Alan wake is a linear game. I don't see why people fight it. Sure there is some open space to explore but it's not OPEN like people wanna think it is.

One set path. Linear with some room for exploration.

Animal-Mother

I blame theseeker

Like I mentioned to the other poster, I don't see STALKER as having the type of thriller assets to even begin to compare to games like Silent Hill; games which due to their linear nature were able to create masterful set pieces which you just simply don't find in games like Stalker. I never once was scared or frightened in Stalker as oppose d to Silent Hill or System Shock 2. Also, I'm not looking forward to Amnesia. The gameplay elements look extremely poor. I just don't see the fun of hiding inside a cupboard. Real time cupboard hiding was attempted in Deadly Premonitions and it was meh at best. Vandalvideo

Sometimes you gotta try be real with yourself aye. Then again, you did run a mile in 4:30 so who am I to know :P

I say that because Stalker and System Shock 2 use very similar tactics to try and scare the player. Both have extensive use of shock moments, but unlike Doom 3 or Dead Space they didn't feel gimmicky, because they were put to very good use. Silent Hill 2 uses a more elaborate dread method to induce the same amount of tension that Stalker and System Shock 2 have. Unlike SS2 and Stalker however, you're less likely to get jumped by a monster. In Silent Hill 2, I felt Team Silent wanted to compel you to walk towards the 'fear' as opposed to the 'fear' coming towards you.

Anyone who's played both games knows that Stalker's and System Shock 2's horror tactics are quite similar. Incidentally, both are in my top twenty, though SS2 gets a top five spot. Anyone who hasn't played both games would probably bank on System Shock 2 being scarier because it's got the greater legacy ;)

It's cool and all you're trying to downplay The Dark Descent but it's not a monster hiding game. It's a physics-based adventure game like the original Penumbra series. Adventure game teasers usually highlight non-gameplay elements to make their games look exciting.

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"]

Alan wake is a linear game. I don't see why people fight it. Sure there is some open space to explore but it's not OPEN like people wanna think it is.

One set path. Linear with some room for exploration.

Anjunaddict

I blame theseeker

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Like I mentioned to the other poster, I don't see STALKER as having the type of thriller assets to even begin to compare to games like Silent Hill; games which due to their linear nature were able to create masterful set pieces which you just simply don't find in games like Stalker. I never once was scared or frightened in Stalker as oppose d to Silent Hill or System Shock 2. Also, I'm not looking forward to Amnesia. The gameplay elements look extremely poor. I just don't see the fun of hiding inside a cupboard. Real time cupboard hiding was attempted in Deadly Premonitions and it was meh at best. FrozenLiquid

Sometimes you gotta try be real with yourself aye. Then again, you did run a mile in 4:30 so who am I to know :P

I say that because Stalker and System Shock 2 use very similar tactics to try and scare the player. Both have extensive use of shock moments, but unlike Doom 3 or Dead Space they didn't feel gimmicky, because they were put to very good use. Silent Hill 2 uses a more elaborate dread method to induce the same amount of tension that Stalker and System Shock 2 have. Unlike SS2 and Stalker however, you're less likely to get jumped by a monster. In Silent Hill 2, I felt Team Silent wanted to compel you to walk towards the 'fear' as opposed to the 'fear' coming towards you.

Anyone who's played both games knows that Stalker's and System Shock 2's horror tactics are quite similar. Incidentally, both are in my top twenty, though SS2 gets a top five spot. Anyone who hasn't played both games would probably bank on System Shock 2 being scarier because it's got the greater legacy ;)

It's cool and all you're trying to downplay The Dark Descent but it's not a monster hiding game. It's a physics-based adventure game like the original Penumbra series. Adventure game teasers usually highlight non-gameplay elements to make their games look exciting.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]Obviously it wasn't just the "buggers" (wtf?) that made the game scary, it was the atmosphere combined with their presence/existance. Stalker has some of the most haunting atmosphere in a game, the Chernobyl zone setting creeps me out more than any other setting in a game, and I've played my share of horror games.Vandalvideo

I obviously wasn't alone in thinking the underground sections were great, considering they added them back into the most recent game, since people loved them so much in the first. Personally SS2 doesn't even come close to Stalker, the zone feels much more real and bleak, it's haunting and mysterious, and best of all, it's hugely explorable, thus giving the atmosphere more room to stretch it's legs.

It's obvious we just a different opinon on what's scary, personally, I just like my scary games to be more geniune than others, which is what Stalker is.

How is it less genuine? By genuine I'm talking about unscripted events, and you are defending games that use lots of scripted events, so I would say an unscripted scary experience is much more genuine in Stalker, than linear horror games, where they pop out at you after you walk a certain place. For me, scripted events hardly ever work, I feel like I'm just walking through some kind of universal horror house ride or something. With Stalker, I can't predict the enemies, and where they will be. Just the idea that an invisble bloodsucker can be following me to camp at sunset, completely unscripted, and just at it's choosing, creeps me out. To me that is a step forward for horror games.

Also, believe it or not, Stalker also has lots of little clues and effects in it's audio and atmosphere. If you're stuck in the wilderness at night, you'll hear strange noises and creatures at night (weird calls from creatures far away in the darkness)- probably scripted, but just as effective once coupled with the open-world and unpredictable nature of the gameplay.

Also, SS2's atmosphere may have been more effective for it's time, but that was a long time ago, I would say Stalker has beaten it at this point.

How is it less genuine? By genuine I'm talking about unscripted events, and you are defending games that use lots of scripted events, so I would say an unscripted scary experience is much more genuine in Stalker, than linear horror games, where they pop out at you after you walk a certain place. For me, scripted events hardly ever work, I feel like I'm just walking through some kind of universal horror house ride or something. With Stalker, I can't predict the enemies, and where they will be. Just the idea that an invisble bloodsucker can be following me to camp at sunset, completely unscripted, and just at it's choosing, creeps me out. To me that is a step forward for horror games.TheGrayEye

Also, believe it or not, Stalker also has lots of little clues and effects in it's audio and atmosphere. If you're stuck in the wilderness at night, you'll hear strange noises and creatures at night (weird calls from creatures far away in the darkness)- probably scripted, but just as effective once coupled with the open-world and unpredictable nature of the gameplay.

Also, SS2's atmosphere may have been more effective for it's time, but that was a long time ago, I would say Stalker has beaten it at this point.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]How is it less genuine? By genuine I'm talking about unscripted events, and you are defending games that use lots of scripted events, so I would say an unscripted scary experience is much more genuine in Stalker, than linear horror games, where they pop out at you after you walk a certain place. For me, scripted events hardly ever work, I feel like I'm just walking through some kind of universal horror house ride or something. With Stalker, I can't predict the enemies, and where they will be. Just the idea that an invisble bloodsucker can be following me to camp at sunset, completely unscripted, and just at it's choosing, creeps me out. To me that is a step forward for horror games.Vandalvideo

Also, believe it or not, Stalker also has lots of little clues and effects in it's audio and atmosphere. If you're stuck in the wilderness at night, you'll hear strange noises and creatures at night (weird calls from creatures far away in the darkness)- probably scripted, but just as effective once coupled with the open-world and unpredictable nature of the gameplay.

Also, SS2's atmosphere may have been more effective for it's time, but that was a long time ago, I would say Stalker has beaten it at this point.

Yes, but sincere stresses the abscene of feigning or exaggeration, and a unscipted monster following me, sounds a lot less "fake" to me, at least from a gameplay perspective, than a monster jumping out at me because I crossed an invisble line in the level, then dissappearing a second later. The creatures in Stalker, for the most part, approach you in the way they were born to do, and not just because you crossed that line.

You're right that the atmosphere could may also been effective if the game were linear, but I still believe the reason it works so well, is because the game drops you into it's world, and does NOT hold your hand, it creates the creatures of the world, and doesn't really control them either. Also, the reason I grade SS2's atmosphere on the same level as Stalkers, is because lots of old school fans still say the game is scarier than most out today, which I personally don't agree with. This brings me to a point I haven't expressed yet, but it is the main reason I believe most horror games of today are uneffective- it is because they over power the player.

The atmosphere is augmented to the stratosphere if the enemies that occupy that world can actually cause you harm. So many horror games today give the player the coolest weapons and powers to fight these enemies, and they don't even have a chance. The scare factor in Bioshock 2 was horrible for example, because you bascially were Iron Man, and you could shoot fire out of your ****ing hands. I think SS2 was a bit scary in the beginning, but then I gradually became powerful, and understand how to master the gameplay, and the enemies didn't have a chance either. With Stalker, I get the feeling these creatures can destroy me, and that if I'm not careful, they will. This is actually the biggest factor for me, in determining whether a game can scary me or not, and so many games get it wrong.

Whether or not they employ similar scare tactics is entirely irrelevant. I'm talking about the relative amount of certain types of moments which you don't find very much in STALKER as opposed to SS2. While there are some similar tactics, you miss out on a lot of the moments that you had in SS2 which involved the ghosts and the SHODAN moments. I already admitted, in the discussion with the other poster, that both use a lot of wandering, respawning enemies to supplement the fear. But where the two games diverge are the other horror elements that just aren't in STALKER. There isn't anything like those poltergeist moments in STALKER. Most of what is in stalker is primarily roaming enemies which, after an extended period of time, gets old. I don't see as many major set piece moments in STALKER that a I do SS2. Also, what else am I supposed to think about the Dark Descent? The gameplay they showed was "real time closet hiding". I go off what I see, not what developers hype. Hasn't steered me wrong in the past. Vandalvideo

No, not entirely irrelevant. Just vandal irrelevant.

Stalker may not have "ghosts", but it has quests. And logs. It does have poltergeists though.

SS2's scare tactics are not the ghosts or Shodan. Thoseare the supplementations. No vandal, I don't believe you went out going "Oh wow, I want these ghosts to be scary. Here comes my fear!". It didn't happen like that. You only found those ghosts and Shodan disturbing simply because the security cameras were whirring, the ship was making funny noises, and a monkey was screaming in the distance. That's what induced the fear. Shodan and the ghosts weren't the scare tactics. They were the context.

Stalker also has its context. You read the diary logs, quests, backstory etc. Like SS2, you're given enough information to know what's in store, but you really don't know what's coming. That's the trick. The fear comes from the audio-visual department just like any other horror game e.g Dead Space.The reason Dead Space isn't as scary is that it gave all the audio-visual scares without much context. So there was a barrage of shock without time to really let it sink in.

It's good that you go by what you can see and not by what the developers hype. Because then you wouldn't base your assumptions on a video teaser, and instead have been well versed in the Penumbra games, noted to be one of the better horror themed games to come out in a while. Of course though, you didn't find those scary as well, so therefore The Dark Descent still looks like crap and not scary lol.

You been doing this for years man, you still haven't changed.

Yes, but sincere stresses the abscene of feigning or exaggeration, and a unscipted monster following me, sounds a lot less "fake" to me, at least from a gameplay perspective, than a monster jumping out at me because I crossed an invisble line in the level, then dissappearing a second later. The creatures in Stalker, for the most part, approach you in the way they were born to do, and not just because you crossed that line.TheGrayEye

You're right that the atmosphere could may also been effective if the game were linear, but I still believe the reason it works so well, is because the game drops you into it's world, and does NOT hold your hand, it creates the creatures of the world, and doesn't really control them either. Also, the reason I grade SS2's atmosphere on the same level as Stalkers, is because lots of old school fans still say the game is scarier than most out today, which I personally don't agree with. This brings me to a point I haven't expressed yet, but it is the main reason I believe most horror games of today are uneffective- it is because they over power the player.

The atmosphere is augmented to the stratosphere if the enemies that occupy that world can actually cause you harm. So many horror games today give the player the coolest weapons and powers to fight these enemies, and they don't even have a chance. The scare factor in Bioshock 2 was horrible for example, because you bascially were Iron Man, and you could shoot fire out of your ****ing hands. I think SS2 was a bit scary in the beginning, but then I gradually became powerful, and understand how to master the gameplay, and the enemies didn't have a chance either. With Stalker, I get the feeling these creatures can destroy me, and that if I'm not careful, they will. This is actually the biggest factor for me, in determining whether a game can scary me or not, and so many games get it wrong.

No, not entirely irrelevant. Just vandal irrelevant.FrozenLiquid

Stalker may not have "ghosts", but it has quests. And logs. It does have poltergeists though.

SS2's scare tactics are not the ghosts or Shodan. Those are the supplementations. No vandal, I don't believe you went out going "Oh wow, I want these ghosts to be scary. Here comes my fear!". It didn't happen like that. You only found those ghosts and Shodan disturbing simply because the security cameras were whirring, the ship was making funny noises, and a monkey was screaming in the distance. That's what induced the fear. Shodan and the ghosts weren't the scare tactics. They were the context.

Stalker also has its context. You read the diary logs, quests, backstory etc. Like SS2, you're given enough information to know what's in store, but you really don't know what's coming. That's the trick. The fear comes from the audio-visual department just like any other horror game e.g Dead Space.The reason Dead Space isn't as scary is that it gave all the audio-visual scares without much context. So there was a barrage of shock without time to really let it sink in.

It's good that you go by what you can see and not by what the developers hype. Because then you wouldn't base your assumptions on a video teaser, and instead have been well versed in the Penumbra games, noted to be one of the better horror themed games to come out in a while. Of course though, you didn't find those scary as well, so therefore The Dark Descent still looks like crap and not scary lol.

Yes, but sincere stresses the abscene of feigning or exaggeration, and a unscipted monster following me, sounds a lot less "fake" to me, at least from a gameplay perspective, than a monster jumping out at me because I crossed an invisble line in the level, then dissappearing a second later. The creatures in Stalker, for the most part, approach you in the way they were born to do, and not just because you crossed that line.

You're right that the atmosphere could may also been effective if the game were linear, but I still believe the reason it works so well, is because the game drops you into it's world, and does NOT hold your hand, it creates the creatures of the world, and doesn't really control them either. Also, the reason I grade SS2's atmosphere on the same level as Stalkers, is because lots of old school fans still say the game is scarier than most out today, which I personally don't agree with. This brings me to a point I haven't expressed yet, but it is the main reason I believe most horror games of today are uneffective- it is because they over power the player.

The atmosphere is augmented to the stratosphere if the enemies that occupy that world can actually cause you harm. So many horror games today give the player the coolest weapons and powers to fight these enemies, and they don't even have a chance. The scare factor in Bioshock 2 was horrible for example, because you bascially were Iron Man, and you could shoot fire out of your ****ing hands. I think SS2 was a bit scary in the beginning, but then I gradually became powerful, and understand how to master the gameplay, and the enemies didn't have a chance either. With Stalker, I get the feeling these creatures can destroy me, and that if I'm not careful, they will. This is actually the biggest factor for me, in determining whether a game can scary me or not, and so many games get it wrong.

TheGrayEye

Here's a tip, you don't 'win' with vandal :P

It's an exercise in futility. Not because he's right, but because he won't back down from what he said lol.

It took 15 pages of argumentation back in '07 for him to run out of ideas and simply state he didn't mean anything of what he previously said, he likes Halo as much as you do. Then you find out later that he hasn't played Halo in his life :P

So I'm wary he's actually played System Shock 2 or Stalker.

Just two things:

They are entirely irrelevant to the argument which I am advancing at this moment in time.Vandalvideo

That's your problem. You're gallivanting by yourself as usual. See me here? In the ring? That's where you gotta be. Why you always make a silly statement and try to back it up instead of just saying 'you may just be correct' will forever elude me.

You have absolutely no idea what induced mine own fear. You are not me. What induced mine fear were the poltergeist encounters and SHODAN. You have insufficient evidence to begin to psycho-analyze me. Merely because you may have found those things to scare you does not mean you can project and pretend that is what scared me.

..... :lol:

And the cracks in your armour start to show. I have every single idea of what scares you. I, like Team Silent, know exactly what creates fear. I, like every person taking a first stage psych paper, knows exactly what induces fear. The only time I wouldn't know what scared you was if you had a phobia. That's why the term phobia exists; it's an irrational fear. Sorry bud, I don't need to psycho-analyze you to know what freaks you out. Psycho-analyze is a 60's term anyway. You're way behind.

Unless of course, you're not human. Then again, you did run a mile in 4:30 and knew everything there was to know about Halo: CE without playing it.

The fact of the matter is that the gameplay footage, the only gameplay footage, that we've seen of Dark Descent is closet hiding. If you want to claim it will be an adventure puzzle game, then I demand more footage. Insufficient evidence.Vandalvideo

.... I revert to what I said previously.

You're gallivanting by yourself as usual. See me here? In the ring? That's where you gotta be. Why you always make a silly statement and try to back it up instead of just saying 'you may just be correct' will forever elude me.FrozenLiquid

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"]

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"]

Alan wake is a linear game. I don't see why people fight it. Sure there is some open space to explore but it's not OPEN like people wanna think it is.

One set path. Linear with some room for exploration.

Animal-Mother

I blame theseeker

That's your problem. You're gallivanting by yourself as usual. See me here? In the ring? That's where you gotta be. Why you always make a silly statement and try to back it up instead of just saying 'you may just be correct' will forever elude me.FrozenLiquid

I have every single idea of what scares you. I, like Team Silent, know exactly what creates fear. I, like every person taking a first stage psych paper, knows exactly what induces fear. The only time I wouldn't know what scared you was if you had a phobia. That's why the term phobia exists; it's an irrational fear. Sorry bud, I don't need to psycho-analyze you to know what freaks you out. Psycho-analyze is a 60's term anyway. You're way behind.