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.

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.

FO3 pure win , wtf your talkin about guys ? stalker doesnt have real exploration , most of the fields look the same and you cant really find anything there besides artifacts ... in fallout you explore for various things , like lore notes , books and weapons , bobble heads and nuka cola , also the music sound effects and graphics are way better...Farkeman

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!"

If you are a PC gamer hang on to your fond memories why you can because you are in your last years of survivalHonkyTonkGamer

The guys that worked on Deus Ex, Unreal and UT made some of the best sound tracks out there.

Mass Effect 1 had some music that had a very Tangerine Dream-ish and that's a WIN in my book. The music made that game slightly less of a chore to play through.

Thief: Deadly Shadows had some nice ambient pieces.

[QUOTE="blaaah"][QUOTE="alextherussian"]Game looks great. Now if the requirements for it weren't absolutely unreal I would be a bit happier for its coming...alextherussian

They don't even state what "optimal" is. Does it mean running it at the highest possible resolution with full AA and never having the FPS dip below 60?

Game looks great. Now if the requirements for it weren't absolutely unreal I would be a bit happier for its coming...alextherussian

what's a "4A shooter"? F1_2004

4A are the developers.

Some graphical plus on the PC:

Digital Foundry: Does PC hardware offer up any additional bonuses in Metro 2033 aside from higher frame-rates and resolutions?

Oles Shishkovstov: Yes and no. When you have more performance on the table, you can either do nothing as you say, and as most direct console ports do, or you add the features. Because our platforms got equal attention, we took the second route.

Naturally most of the features are graphics related, but not all. The internal PhysX tick-rate was doubled on PC resulting in more precise collision detection and joint behavior. We "render" almost twice the number of sounds (all with wave-tracing) compared to consoles. That's just a few examples, so that you can see that not only graphics gets a boost. On the graphics side, here's a partial list:

Most of the textures are 2048^2 (consoles use 1024^2).
The shadow-map resolution is up to 9.43 Mpix.
The shadow filtering is much, much better.
The parallax mapping is enabled on all surfaces, some with occlusion-mapping (optional).
We've utilised a lot of "true" volumetric stuff, which is very important in dusty environments.
From DX10 upwards we use correct "local motion blur", sometimes called "object blur".
The light-material response is nearly "physically-correct" on the PC on higher quality presets.
The ambient occlusion is greatly improved (especially on higher-quality presets).
Sub-surface scattering makes a lot of difference on human faces, hands, etc.
The geometric detail is somewhat better, because of different LOD selection, not even counting DX11 tessellation. We are considering enabling global illumination (as an option) which really enhances the lighting model. However, that comes with some performance hit, because of literally tens of thousands of secondary light sources.

From link posted above