S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Clear Sky

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-05-27 05:29pm

There are subtle shader (lighting) differences. It is better, but it's not either surprising or interesting, since most Stalker mods ALREADY replaced or change the shaders to improve the look of the game. These shaders are sharper and more defined, but really being better than the original shaders is so easy MODDERS WORKING FOR FREE did it a year ago.

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-05-27 05:55pm

I am unable to give a shit about the graphical improvements latent throughout the engine! Oh reasons why I can only imagine. Perhaps it's because I learned years ago that jamming 4 extra polygons out of a rock wall impacts game play in precisely no way at all! Or in Stalker's case, turning down the lights a little and upping the quality of the shadows I have NEVER even looked at.

So it's nice to know that for every issue they've been trying to fix, they've been "wild goose chasing" two others.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-05-27 05:59pm

Let's be fair: they were probably butthurt that not-for-profit mods made their game look four thousand times better and are trying to 'keep up' instead of just making the engine actually work.

Remember, those four nose polygons will soak up dev time that could be used on, I dunno... actual AI, better level design, better UI, better economy, etc.. but you've got to have priorities, right?

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-05-27 06:06pm

Stark wrote:Let's be fair: they were probably butthurt that not-for-profit mods made their game look four thousand times better and are trying to 'keep up' instead of just making the engine actually work.

Remember, those four nose polygons will soak up dev time that could be used on, I dunno... actual AI, better level design, better UI, better economy, etc.. but you've got to have priorities, right?

Follow the example set by Bohemia Interactive/Crytek/GSC/Ubisoft! Make graphically superior titles that bankrupt your development team and then wine and moan when everyone thinks they're 100% typical games just with better character nose hairs!

Ohma · Post by **Ohma** » 2008-05-27 06:14pm

Just what kind of gamers are you? Don't you know that the quality of a game is directly proportional to the number of polygons and complexity of pixel shaders used?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-05-27 06:15pm

Ohma wrote:Just what kind of gamers are you? Don't you know that the quality of a game is directly proportional to the number of polygons and complexity of pixel shaders used?

This is CERTAINLY what developers keep telling us...

Anyone remember Timeshift? No? In the back?

Ohma · Post by **Ohma** » 2008-05-27 06:20pm

Stark wrote: Anyone remember Timeshift? No? In the back?

I do! That was the one where you were...uh...this guy...and you had a gun, and you could slow down time to shoot people better...I think.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-05-27 06:22pm

Sadly, the truly great aspects of the game are practically invisible.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-05-27 06:30pm

Zixinus wrote:Sadly, the truly great aspects of the game are practically invisible.

And great games will still be great when tech has passed them by. Selling a game on graphics just works better from a Powerpoint presentation perspective; you can show off pixel shaders and high-poly models easily, whereas game design elements might be impossible to actually demonstrate to a corporate committee.

Commander 598 · Post by **Commander 598** » 2008-05-27 06:43pm

CaptHawkeye wrote: Follow the example set by Crytek/GSC/Ubisoft! Make graphically superior titles that bankrupt your development team and then wine and moan when everyone thinks they're 100% typical games just with better character nose hairs!

Fixed because ArmA was not a typical came, it's unnecessarily excessive gfx just made it an absolute bitch to try and play.

Executor32 · Post by **Executor32** » 2008-05-28 12:33am

Ohma wrote:
Stark wrote: Anyone remember Timeshift? No? In the back?
I do! That was the one where you were...uh...this guy...and you had a gun, and you could slow down time to shoot people better...I think.

Isn't that Max Payne?

Ohma · Post by **Ohma** » 2008-05-28 02:24am

Executor32 wrote: Isn't that Max Payne?

Or FEAR.

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2008-05-28 02:40am

Can't forget Stranglehold. Of course Stranglehold is actually fun, because it doesn't take itself seriously at all.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-05-28 09:43am

Isn't that Max Payne? Wink

No, because in Timeshift you could also reverse time and stop time altogether.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2008-05-28 06:34pm

Losonti Tokash wrote:Can't forget Stranglehold. Of course Stranglehold is actually fun, because it doesn't take itself seriously at all.

Stranglehold was a copy of Max Payne from 1998 with graphics that were subpar except for three or four characters.

Not a single one of my 360 games have I felt more ripped off from buying than Stranglehold.